Health insurance penalties for signing on too late

martingriff

Encouraged wrote: »

Thanks,

So if health insurance costs €500 per year for the everyday cretin who can't look after themselves, then 2% would be €10

Then if I were to go 30 years (from age 35 to 65) before I sign on, would that be:

€10 X 30 = €300

Not too bad at all. I'd just have to give them an extra €300 in 30 years. It's better than spending €15,000

So I save €15,000 - €300 = €14,700

Cretins are we please explain how you will stay healthy from diseases such as cancers or tumours that can hit anyone or a freak accident. Sure all above can be treated in public if you can wait I auppose

Encouraged

Oral Surgeon wrote: »

Or if you need health insurance in the meantime you save;

€15000- seriously long wait to see consultant= pain/ progression of disease..../ time off work/ and so many other issues!!

But I won't

Encouraged

bennyob wrote: »

Health/medical inflation generally is higher than the average inflation rate.

And I wonder why that is? It probably has something to do with the illusion of progress with modern medicine, that has become a cultural excess. I'll leave the over prescribing the the idiots on the medical cards. I want nothing to do with it.

Look at how much of total GDP those Americans spend on healthcare every year? And yet for a westernised country the life expectancy is pretty low.

Encouraged

Oral Surgeon wrote: »

I know of a healthy guy who needed immediate investigation and care. He jsut had some back pain but had he not had vhi, he would not have had a scan so quick and had his malignant cancer diagnosed... he'd be dead with any delays.....

And now he's on some unhelpful drug with nasty side effects. But they're getting money out of him. Way of the world.

Oral Surgeon

Encouraged wrote: »

But I won't

Oh ok, good argument- you win I guess!!! what would I know....!

Oral Surgeon

Encouraged wrote: »

And now he's on some unhelpful drug with nasty side effects. But they're getting money out of him. Way of the world.

Nope, never said that, he had surgery and is well now.....! Again you know best, carry on.....

Brian201888

joeguevara wrote: »

I have health insurance and pay the lowest fee to Layla. It is simply to get seen in the hospital and once you are in they will treat you.

My mate broke his neck and was on a trolley for 5 days without being treated simply because no health insuarance. If he had he would have had his operation immediately.

The crazy thing was I paid for insurance for my dog and I didn’t have any but I signed up when the penalties were coming in.

The situation you described regarding your mate wouldn't have benefited from health insurance really.

And your cheapest plan possible is a complete waste of money unfortunately.

The public hospital only plans are essentially pointless with the exception of what type of room you'll end up in.

joeguevara

Brian201888 wrote: »

The situation you described regarding your mate wouldn't have benefited from health insurance really.

And your cheapest plan possible is a complete waste of money unfortunately.

The public hospital only plans are essentially pointless with the exception of what type of room you'll end up in.

It is getting into the hospital that is difficult. Any plan can get you private which are the same consultants as public ones. Once you are in then you will get treated.

Peregrinus

Well First Off... wrote: »

As long as I save money over all, that's all I'm really worried about.

Impossible to say, because it depends on factors not yet known.

By not getting health insurance until you are (say) 65 you save on health insurance premiums each year between now and age 65.

As against that, you lose out in two ways:

First, you'll most likely have to pay some health costs between now and age 65 that would have been avoided if you had health insurance. (Or, you'll have to forego treatment that you would have got if you had insurance.)

Secondly, from age 65 on you'll be paying higher premiums each year than you would pay if you had enrolled at the age you are today.

Wil these two things offset the saving in premiums up to age 65? That depends on (a) how sick you get, and how often, between now and age 65, and (b) how long you live after age 65. And of course at this point you can't know the answer to either of those questions.

As far as the insurers are concerned, on average this all nets out. Some people in your position will save money by not enrolling until age 65 and some will lose, and the savings and losses will more or less balance out overall. But the insurers can't identify which particular people will save and which will lose (which is OK - for their purposes they don't need to; it's only the overall picture that matters).

There are a couple of further factors to be considered. If, God forbid, you do get a signfiicant illness before you are 65, and if it's chronic and is going to require assessment and treatment over a prolonged period or for ever, obviously at that point you'll want to take out health insurance. But you'll be hit by "existing conditions" exclusions, which means you'll get no cover for the condition you already have for a period of (I think typically) five years. So for those five years you'll be paying health insurance premiums and your own medical expenses in relation to your chronic condition.

(And, just saying, if you get a catastrophic condition which requires emergency treatment, you'll do fine as a public patient. But if you get a chronic condition requiring regular long-term assessment and treatment, that's when you really feal the difference between being a public patient and a private patient.)

The other factor is the non-financial factor of peace of mind. How much value you place on this is up to you. If you take out the insurance you know that, should you fall ill, you have cover, and this provides a continuing benefit to you even if you never fall ill. If you don't take out the insurance, you don't have this benefit. Which may be fine, if you never worry about falling ill. And I'm not saying you should worry abou this. The benefit of peace of mind is of more value to some people than to others, so you have to think about how you, personally, feel about it.

Encouraged

Peregrinus wrote: »

Impossible to say, because it depends on factors not yet known.

By not getting health insurance until you are (say) 65 you save on health insurance premiums each year between now and age 65.

As against that, you lose out in two ways:

First, you'll most likely have to pay some health costs between now and age 65 that would have been avoided if you had health insurance. (Or, you'll have to forego treatment that you would have got if you had insurance.)

Secondly, from age 65 on you'll be paying higher premiums each year than you would pay if you had enrolled at the age you are today.

Wil these two things offset the saving in premiums up to age 65? That depends on (a) how sick you get, and how often, between now and age 65, and (b) how long you live after age 65. And of course at this point you can't know the answer to either of those questions.

As far as the insurers are concerned, on average this all nets out. Some people in your position will save money by not enrolling until age 65 and some will lose, and the savings and losses will more or less balance out overall. But the insurers can't identify which particular people will save and which will lose (which is OK - for their purposes they don't need to; it's only the overall picture that matters).

There are a couple of further factors to be considered. If, God forbid, you do get a signfiicant illness before you are 65, and if it's chronic and is going to require assessment and treatment over a prolonged period or for ever, obviously at that point you'll want to take out health insurance. But you'll be hit by "existing conditions" exclusions, which means you'll get no cover for the condition you already have for a period of (I think typically) five years. So for those five years you'll be paying health insurance premiums and your own medical expenses in relation to your chronic condition.

(And, just saying, if you get a catastrophic condition which requires emergency treatment, you'll do fine as a public patient. But if you get a chronic condition requiring regular long-term assessment and treatment, that's when you really feal the difference between being a public patient and a private patient.)

The other factor is the non-financial factor of peace of mind. How much value you place on this is up to you. If you take out the insurance you know that, should you fall ill, you have cover, and this provides a continuing benefit to you even if you never fall ill. If you don't take out the insurance, you don't have this benefit. Which may be fine, if you never worry about falling ill. And I'm not saying you should worry abou this. The benefit of peace of mind is of more value to some people than to others, so you have to think about how you, personally, feel about it.

You should be an ambassador for health insurance with all the redundant waffle. Only one piece in there the OP needed to read.

AntiClimax

Peregrinus wrote: »

First, you'll most likely have to pay some health costs between now and age 65 that would have been avoided if you had health insurance. (Or, you'll have to forego treatment that you would have got if you had insurance.)

For Christ's sake, I thought we were past all that. Scare mongering doesn't seem to work with the OP. He obviously has a strong feeling that he will not not be getting sick between now and his 60s.

Am I the only one not pig headed enough to want to know his secret (secrets) for good health? Going without health insurance may actually be a very good way to motivate one to stay healthy. Think about it. What people forget, is that if you get cancer you're fcuked anyway.

Graham

AntiClimax wrote: »

Scare mongering doesn't seem to work with the OP. He obviously has a strong feeling that he will not not be getting sick between now and his 60s.

The OP isn't around any more.

I suspect trolling was reclassified as a medical condition and he's been sent off to join the waiting list for treatment.

Oral Surgeon

Encouraged wrote: »

You should be an ambassador for health insurance with all the redundant waffle. Only one piece in there the OP needed to read.

I'm a great driver and don't plan on having a crash anytime soon and if I do I can afford to fix my car etc.... Why should I bother with car insurance??
BTW- I know that it is a legal requirement.... just saying.....

Encouraged

Oral Surgeon wrote: »

I'm a great driver and don't plan on having a crash anytime soon and if I do I can afford to fix my car etc.... Why should I bother with car insurance??
BTW- I know that it is a legal requirement.... just saying.....

But you are aware of the collusion of the insurance cartel?

The reason drivers are being ripped off is because we're forced to get car insurance. At least that doesn't exist with health insurance.

Oral Surgeon

Encouraged wrote: »

But you are aware of the collusion of the insurance cartel?

The reason drivers are being ripped off is because we're forced to get car insurance. At least that doesn't exist with health insurance.

Yes, I don't live in a cave...

I just pay it and get on with my life....

I'm out....