Moderna Promises US Its COVID Vaccine Will Remain Free for All, Even the Uninsured (go.com) 90
"Moderna will keep its COVID vaccine on the market at no cost to consumers," reports ABC News, "even after the federal government stops paying for it, the company announced Wednesday."
"Everyone in the United States will have access to Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine regardless of their ability to pay," the company said in a statement.
Last month, the vaccine maker was slammed for reportedly considering a dramatic price increase for the shot, which it had developed with the help of the federal government. The proposal was also bad timing: The Biden administration was moving toward ending its designation of a public health emergency on May 11, which meant that federal funding for vaccines would soon dry up and uninsured Americans would have to pay out of pocket for their boosters....
Now, Moderna will be the sole manufacturer of COVID vaccines offering its shot for free to the uninsured. Under federal regulation, insurance companies are already required to foot the bill for COVID vaccines.
Last month, the vaccine maker was slammed for reportedly considering a dramatic price increase for the shot, which it had developed with the help of the federal government. The proposal was also bad timing: The Biden administration was moving toward ending its designation of a public health emergency on May 11, which meant that federal funding for vaccines would soon dry up and uninsured Americans would have to pay out of pocket for their boosters....
Now, Moderna will be the sole manufacturer of COVID vaccines offering its shot for free to the uninsured. Under federal regulation, insurance companies are already required to foot the bill for COVID vaccines.
Good Work (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, Moderna will be the sole manufacturer of COVID vaccines offering its shot for free to the uninsured. Under federal regulation, insurance companies are already required to foot the bill for COVID vaccines.
Yeah, but a lot of people are too poor to get free insurance, but make too little to afford to pay for it. I was just getting enough money up to start paying for health insurance when I got fired for seeking stolen wages... Then I had to spend that money before I was eligible to get it for free. I was without any health coverage for about three years as a result.
er (Score:4, Informative)
I mean, not poor enough to get free insurance. Which, by the way, isn't even available in every state [kff.org].
Re:Good Work?? (Score:2)
Now, Moderna will be the sole manufacturer of COVID vaccines offering its shot for free to the uninsured. Under federal regulation, insurance companies are already required to foot the bill for COVID vaccines.
Yeah, but a lot of people are too poor to get free insurance, but make too little to afford to pay for it. I was just getting enough money up to start paying for health insurance when I got fired for seeking stolen wages... Then I had to spend that money before I was eligible to get it for free. I was without any health coverage for about three years as a result.
Your whole story sounds confusing.
The word "free" confuses you apparently. "free" implies/suggests/means (at least in the USA) "no cost to you".
Obamacare and it's ilk are designed to increase what you pay (reduce your subsidy) as your income increases, ultimately reaching a "no subsidy" point.
In theory some American taxpayers have so little income that the rare Obamacare policy might be "free" to them since the subsidy pays the entire cost.
Now...if you tried to obtain your "free health insurance" from an
Re: (Score:3)
Medicaid existed before the ACA and still exists. They aren't on the markets.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
That is messed up. I think the US cannot be counted as a first-world country as long as it does not have universal health insurance.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly have never counted it as first world
Re: (Score:2)
It does: there's Medicaid and Medicare. You just can't get them unless you're poor and/or old enough.
Re: (Score:2)
the US cannot be counted as a first-world country as long as it does not have universal health insurance.
It does: there's Medicaid and Medicare. You just can't get them unless you're poor and/or old enough.
So it's as universal as the "UBI" experiments that we occasionally see reported?
Re: (Score:2)
That does obviously not count. You know here (somewhere in Europe) I have coverage and I cannot even get rid of it regardless of what I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but a lot of people are too poor to get free insurance, but make too little to afford to pay for it.
Which makes having to pay for it yourself incredibly dumb and costly to everyone. They just get sick, sometimes for life, can’t work, and go to the ER which jacks the costs up for everyone. Or perhaps they just die, over something than can turn a profit at $20/shot whereas paying for it up front saves society a ton of money and boosts efficiency of care and quality of life for everyone.
Re:Good Work (Score:4, Informative)
I'm guessing you're in a state that refused Medicaid expansion. In states that took Medicaid expansion anyone with no income should be eligible for Medicaid under Medicaid expansion's MAGI criteria (modified adjusted gross income), which do not include an asset test. There are corner cases though, like if you're dual-eligible for Medicaid and Medicare you can't use MAGI and probably have to spend down assets.
It's all unnecessarily complicated, but what makes it worse is even in Medicaid expansion states many people simply don't know that they even *might* be eligible. I know one guy who lost his job and ended up in a minimum wage job with insurance. He mentioned to me that he was concerned about losing his house if he got sick (he was in his 50s); he had no idea that he almost certainly qualified for Medicaid without having to sell his house. Medicare expansion covers up to 138% of the federal poverty line; that means a single person household can make $18754/year and still qualify.
Of course if you're in a non-expansion state you're just SOL if you make any money or have any assets. You might not qualify if you have no income and no assets. In most non-expansion states you need to be the guardian of a minor.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you're in a state that refused Medicaid expansion.
Nope, I'm infamously in California. I have lived in Texas, but I left because of the weather. (I was well-paid, well-laid, and well-fed, but I just could not stand the heat, so I got TF out of there.) But with the price of the mandatory insurance, there's a significant salary range where you really can't afford to have it, and you also really can't afford not to have it. For most of my time with my prior employer, I made little enough that I only paid a partial penalty for not having health insurance, since
Wait, uninsured Americans? (Score:2)
Why are there still uninsured Americans? Did republicans convince people not to sign up for Obamacare, which is free for low income?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The goal of Republicans is to keep most people poor and uneducated. It makes it easier to manipulate them when it comes time to vote. If you're poor you won't have time to vote because you're working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. If you're uneducated, you'll believe whatever lie [theguardian.com] is tossed your way.
Re:Wait, uninsured Americans? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're poor you won't have time to vote because you're working multiple jobs just to make ends meet.
Bullshit! If you're poor, it's because you won't work. America for all it's faults, has always rewarded hard work.
Hard work, and not taking vacations. And not getting sick on work time. And not asking for better pay and conditions. All that gets rewarded; by not being fired 'without cause'.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the market. A lot of people in software development and/or IT are getting slaughtered right now. If you're in services or manufacturing, there's a lot of demand BUT not as much wage growth as you'd need to want to be in those sectors.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh? Then why are the hardest working people also the poorest?
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit! If you're poor, it's because you won't work. America for all it's faults, has always rewarded hard work.
Now that's some deluded dogshit. The number of Americans unemployed is tiny compared to the number living below the poverty line.
I suppose you think the many millions of people working in the service industry helping you are earning a living wage happily building a fat 401k as well right?
I actually hope you're secretly a politician pandering to a rich republican voter base, and not actually stupid enough to believe what you wrote.
Re: (Score:1)
If you're poor you won't have time to vote because you're working multiple jobs just to make ends meet.
Bullshit! If you're poor, it's because you won't work. America for all it's faults, has always rewarded hard work.
My sarcasm filter is broken...are you sarcastic or serious? I nearly had a stroke when I read that statement.
Hard work only earned me a pink slip at two different jobs and minimal reward at another. I regret leaving that one job that rewarded hard work for what I thought was a better opportunity at another employer.
Re: (Score:3)
Democrats' strategy to keep themselves in power is by making the poor reliant on them for hanouts.
Their is a virtually bottomless pit of evidence that shows "handouts" help people get out of the rut they are in and cause them to reduce their reliance on handouts over time. When you combine the evidence that social support works with your comment what you actually said was:
"Democrats' strategy to keep themselves in power is by supporting and working in the interests of people voting for them."
That's what you meant, even if you don't understand it.
Re: (Score:2)
The goal of Republicans is to keep most people poor and uneducated. It makes it easier to manipulate them when it comes time to vote. If you're poor you won't have time to vote because you're working multiple jobs just to make ends meet. If you're uneducated, you'll believe whatever lie [theguardian.com] is tossed your way.
Always nice to see there's still at least a few people left in this country who can see and identify the truth when presented with it.
Re:Wait, uninsured Americans? (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on the state. There are still a number of states that have opted out of the ACA Medicare expansion funding (basically they are turning down Federal provided funds because "Obamacare bad") and that creates coverage gaps
The Coverage Gap: Uninsured Poor Adults in States that Do Not Expand Medicaid [kff.org]
It's all very silly and stupid and our health insurance system is silly and stupid and this whole thing should be a non-issue but America baby, we stick with capitalist frameworks when even capitalism is telling us "hey buddy, this doesnt work here"
Re: Wait, uninsured Americans? (Score:3)
What? Free for low income? Where did you get that idea?
The ACA has never offered free insurance for low income purchasers. They do however subsidize it so it's cheaper. It's possible it might have been free in some states for NO income buyers, but I've never heard of anyone getting free insurance through the ACA if they have an income. On the other hand, each state handles it differently, so maybe I'm just not informed.
In California, health insurance gets to around $1/month if you have no income. But not fr
Re: (Score:2)
In California, health insurance gets to around $1/month if you have no income. But not free.
What? Who told you that? It's based on your income and your assets, but if you have no income and no meaningful assets then it is indeed free. The problem is finding a provider who will accept it.
Re: (Score:2)
In California, health insurance gets to around $1/month if you have no income. But not free.
What? Who told you that? It's based on your income and your assets, but if you have no income and no meaningful assets then it is indeed free. The problem is finding a provider who will accept it.
No, the problem is that healthcare providers are able to decide what insurance they accept. They should be required to accept all forms of insurance. The insurance should be allowed to pass through a higher percentage of costs for non-emergency out-of-network care because they haven't negotiated a deal, but it should be absolutely illegal for an insurance company to outright refuse to pay for care or for a healthcare provider to refuse to send the bill to an insurance company.
The other problem is that if
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is finding a provider who will accept it.
No, the problem is that healthcare providers are able to decide what insurance they accept
They're the same picture.
Agreed on banning deductibles though
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is finding a provider who will accept it.
No, the problem is that healthcare providers are able to decide what insurance they accept
They're the same picture.
True, but the way you said it frames the problem like the insurance is broken, whereas I think it is important to frames the problem as healthcare companies not wanting to bother with the hassle unless they are compelled to do so, coupled with government failing to adequately regulate the industry.
Re: (Score:3)
They're both broken. The whole idea of having a for-profit insurance company involved in health care is disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
They're both broken. The whole idea of having a for-profit insurance company involved in health care is disgusting.
The whole idea of having for-profit businesses involved in healthcare is disgusting.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is finding a provider who will accept it.
That's for certain. I live next to a large hospital, and that's surrounded by a bunch of smaller medical-related businesses... sort of a small medical ecosystem. There are like three or four dentists in walking distance from my house. Not one of them accepted the free government-sponsored health insurance. I ended up just paying out of pocket because I wanted to choose my own dentist.
If I was truly poor instead of just between contract gigs, I'd have had to travel quite a ways and had my teeth fixed at
Re: (Score:2)
In California, health insurance gets to around $1/month if you have no income. But not free.
What? Who told you that? It's based on your income and your assets, but if you have no income and no meaningful assets then it is indeed free. The problem is finding a provider who will accept it.
Now your dodgy story is starting to make sense.
American medical service providers are not legally obligated to accept every insurance plan. Many American doctors are reluctant to accept Medicare patients due to the extremely low reimbursement rate paid by the US Federal government. Medicare is the poorly formed American version of single-payer medical insurance.
Re: Wait, uninsured Americans? (Score:2)
Someone with zero income living in California who pays $1/month in insurance through Medi-Cal.
Re: Wait, uninsured Americans? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
What? Free for low income? Where did you get that idea?
The ACA has never offered free insurance for low income purchasers. They do however subsidize it so it's cheaper. It's possible it might have been free in some states for NO income buyers, but I've never heard of anyone getting free insurance through the ACA if they have an income. On the other hand, each state handles it differently, so maybe I'm just not informed.
Basically, some (Red/Republican-controlled) states have refused to accept federal funds for expanded Medicaid coverage (because ACA bad) and that creates an income/coverage gap where people can make too much money to qualify for regular Medicaid, but not enough for ACA subsidies.
Status of State Medicaid Expansion Decisions: Interactive Map [kff.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone that poor should still be on Medicaid.
Re: Wait, uninsured Americans? (Score:2)
Re:Wait, uninsured Americans? (Score:5, Insightful)
Democrats have created a system whereby a person at the lower echelons of the earning scale is better off just not working
Democrats and Republicans created it together. However, Republicans did the bulk of the work. They're the ones who keep down the minimum wage, for example. They're also the ones who shot down single payer, so that we got Romneycare 2.0, which we now call Obamacare. Why is the ACA bad? Because it writes the insurance companies right into the law, and also protects their profits. It does cap their profits, but that creates its own abuses — it motivates insurance companies to act to keep treatment costs high, because the more the treatment costs the more profit they can collect. This in turn harms not only everyone who pays for health insurance (which is everyone who isn't rich enough to get their own health care and get an exception) but also everyone who makes too much to get insurance at a discount, everyone who lives in a red state that refuses to take federal money to give people free health care, and also everyone who wants to pay out of their own pocket.
The ACA has been a boon to poor people who live in not-totally-shit states, and to insurance companies and their investors, and it's hurt everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats and Republicans created it together.
That thing that he hallucinated? You should know better.
Re: (Score:3)
You're better off working overall, but you're still getting screwed on health care until you make really quite a lot of money. Then you can in theory get pretty decent care, so long as you're willing to travel (or live in one of the big med cities.)
Re:Wait, uninsured Americans? (Score:4, Insightful)
Democrats have created a system whereby a person at the lower echelons of the earning scale is better off just not working and collecting all of the federal and state benefits.
s/Democrats/wealthy elite/g
I would argue that the only reason people don't want to work is because it isn't worth putting in that much effort for the pay that they get, and the main reason for that is because Republicans have repeatedly prevented increases to the minimum wage.
By contrast, the various programs for helping the indigent have actually kept up with inflation, and as a result, are now a better deal. So there isn't a shortage of people willing to work — just a shortage of people who are willing to work for less than or not significantly more than you can get for not working.
Want to fix that problem? Start paying your workers a reasonable living wage. It's as easy as that. There clearly is no shortage of people willing to work for $100 per hour. There clearly is a big shortage of people willing to work for $7.25 per hour. Somewhere between those two extremes is a tipping point above which you can find enough workers. Find the tipping point for a given job class, and consistently pay above that tipping point.
So whenever you hear a business owner whining about being unable to find workers because nobody is willing to work, remember that the business isn't paying their workers adequately, and take your business somewhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats have created a system whereby a person at the lower echelons of the earning scale is better off just not working and collecting all of the federal and state benefits.
That's complete bullshit and you know it.
Re: (Score:3)
Ironically if the American social safety welfare system was anywhere close to as all-emcompassing and generous as conservatives imagine it to be these issues wouldn't be nearly as prevelant.
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats have created a system whereby a person at the lower echelons of the earning scale is better off just not working and collecting all of the federal and state benefits.
No they haven't. They've created a system whereby the lower echelons of the earning scale have enough space to improve their lives. If you think the "handouts" they get are in any way giving them a comfortable life they are pleased with then you're utterly braindamaged.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot remember the number but a mom and pop store qualifies. In some way this makes sense as businesses that small do not have a dedicated accountant much less people who can manage all the healthcare/insurance tasks.
There are businesses that offer complete outsourced HR, including payroll, 401k, health, dental and other insurance, etc..
Re: (Score:2)
There are businesses that offer complete outsourced HR, including payroll, 401k, health, dental and other insurance, etc..
And how does it change the fact that under Obamacare, small businesses are exempt from covering their employees' health insurance?
Re: (Score:2)
And how does it change the fact that under Obamacare, small businesses are exempt from covering their employees' health insurance?
It doesn't change the fact that those small businesses are exempt.
What it does do is refute the justification for that exemption that you posited. You justified the exemption on the suggestion that those small companies don't have people who could manage the benefits, and my point is that they don't need such people in order to provide the benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
What it does do is refute the justification for that exemption that you posited.
So posting that factually small businesses have exemptions to Obamacare has triggered you then.
You justified the exemption on the suggestion that those small companies don't have people who could manage the benefits, and my point is that they don't need such people in order to provide the benefits.
No I did not. I stated facts on why small employers can get exemptions. You interpreted it as "justification". I am not responsible for your imagination.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Someone else who posts things then denies posting them. Do I need to quote your own words back to you? I guess I do:
In some way this makes sense as businesses that small do not have a dedicated accountant much less people who can manage all the healthcare/insurance tasks.
That's what people call a justification.
I have never been triggered by the exemption. You just keep imagining this. Or perhaps you have to imagine it in order to justify your pathetic attempt to run away from the fact that I showed that what you posted wasn't relevant to small businesses getting an exemption.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait, uninsured Americans? (Score:4, Informative)
Lots of people that aren't low income still can't afford it.
I think that case applies in (mainly) two situations. (1) Live in a (Red) state that refuses to accept federal ACA funds for Expanded Medicaid coverage and make too much money for regular Medicaid and too little for ACA subsidies - ie: fall into the income/coverage gap that part of the ACA was designed to fix; (2) Make too much money to qualify for ACA subsidies. #2 has two parts.
(2a) Before the COVID pandemic there was a severe/hard income cutoff for ACA subsidies, around $48,500 in 2021. That was pretty harsh. For example, I experimented with this for a single person in Virginia: earn $1 less than that cutoff and my premium would have been $52/month, earn $1 more than that cutoff and my premium was $715/month. (I make more than the cutoff...)
(2b) In 2021, one of the provisions of the American Rescue Plan of 2021 (Biden admin) eliminated the ACA cliff/cutoff through 2025 (links below) allowing the subsidies to continue to phase out as income goes up. My current premium w/ACA subsidy in 2023 is $370/month ($672 premium - $302 subsidy), though I choose to pay the full premium monthly and receive the subsidy back at tax time.
Obamacare’s ‘subsidy cliff’ eliminated through 2025 [healthinsurance.org]
Changes to ACA: (American Rescue Plan Act of 2021: Healthcare [wikipedia.org])
Re: (Score:3)
Actually ACA is not free. ACA was designed to cover everyone by one of two mechanisms: (1) expanding Medicaid to cover everyone up to the federal poverty line, and (2) providing sliding-scale subsidies for people with income above the poverty line but too low to afford market prices for insurance. So the *new* stuff introduced in ACA is for people who can't afford insurance, but can pay *something*.
The problem is that Medicaid is a state administered program, and states can't be forced to expand that pr
Re: (Score:3)
The sad and frustrating part is now Republicans have backed themselves into a corner where they have zero policy or plans for healthcare to fall back on. The ACA is the conservative plan for healthcare, there is no other option more right than that than just just going full private market which would just be absolutely disastrous (thus no repeal when they could have).
If this was a sane world the argument would be between universal multi-payer (Germany, Dutch, Swiss model) versus single payer (Canada, Fance
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it's "conservative", but ACA was certainly the most politically expedient approach to increasing health care access. It didn't put any companies out of business, in fact it guaranteed larger customer bases for everyone, in return for forgoing certain cost reducing measures that would kick a small minority of expensive people from the risk pool.
That's the next frontier in health care legislation: allowing companies to increase profits by shedding marginally profitable customers or extractin
Re:Wait, uninsured Americans? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's conservative both in concept (primarily driven by private insurers, guarantees their profits even if capped, attempts to create a "competitive marketplace") and by history (it really being a nationwide version of "Romneycare" even is MA is very blue) and by it's standing in the different types of healthcare systems available globally of which is by far still to the "right" of what almost every other developed nation does.
I am not disagreeing it was politically expedient or it shouldnt have been done, it was overall an improvement over what was happening without it for sure but really it was Obama's way of trying to get something done with a consensus but also finding out that the Republicans were going to oppose whatever was prosoposed no matter what the plan actually was.
Now their obstinance has left them with zero direction to go other than just being obstructionist because every other solution to healthcare (public option, multi-payer, single payer, etc) is considered "socialist" in their voter bases eyes because that's what they've been telling them for over a decade.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few people who reject free health insurance because well, "it's free". They likely are die-hard republican voters who have been ingrained by the media that accepting Obamacare is the devil's work (forgetting it's really RomneyCare when it started).
The same talking heads tell them to blame everyone else for their present situatio
Thank (Score:2)
Bernie Sanders for calling out Moderna on their bullshit. https://thehill.com/policy/hea... [thehill.com]
Access (Score:3)
Healing and medicine for the sick and care for those who can't for themselves. No less.
You'll pay for it, because you will. Every person with a body.
Oh boy, this is gonna be fun (Score:1)
Just wait 'til the tinfoil hat anti-vaxxers get a hold on that one.
Re:Oh boy, this is gonna be fun (Score:5, Interesting)
Since it is free: "Of course it is free; that's how the Luminati will get everyone to get a vaccine. If it was worth something, they would have charged for it. I'm not falling for that."
If it had a cost: "Of course, they would charge for it. It's how Bill Gates is going to get richer off the backs of the people. I'm not supporting his money grab."
Re: (Score:2)
My body my choice...
I agree, but this isn't about abortion.
Re: (Score:2)
I have stopped caring. They can die from preventable sickness as the cave-men they are.
Re: (Score:2)
I do care. I try to convince them that they're right, just to make sure.
Vaccine pays for itself anyway (Score:4, Funny)
The big cell carriers pay kickbacks to Moderna and Pfizer, since the vaccine lets them put up fewer cell phone towers - those Bill Gates microchips in the vaccine effectively act like 5G range extenders!
Re: (Score:2)
The big cell carriers pay kickbacks to Moderna and Pfizer, since the vaccine lets them put up fewer cell phone towers - those Bill Gates microchips in the vaccine effectively act like 5G range extenders!
This is quite clever. Vaccine induced spike antennas appearing in hearts and brains magnify 5G signals throughout the human body while surrounding inflammation acts as a dielectric resonator.
https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccin... [doi.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The big cell carriers pay kickbacks to Moderna and Pfizer, since the vaccine lets them put up fewer cell phone towers - those Bill Gates microchips in the vaccine effectively act like 5G range extenders!
Sad but Funny
Re:Vaccine pays for itself anyway (Score:4, Funny)
whoa whoa whoa hold up (Score:2)
If insurance is paying for it, its not "free to consumers".
Now Moderna has to raise the price (Score:2)