973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jun 28, 2012 10:48:46 GMT -5
I still don't understand what happens to the people who have no private insurance but do not pay the tax? Are they insured or not? I thought I read that they are going to set up a system to help people who can't afford it by themselves. I think it was a subsidy but I can't remember exactly how. If it is anything like Massachusetts heartily care it should have a two pronged approach. In MA if you didn't have health insurance and would have had to pay the fine you could appeal it. The people would look over your financials and look at their list of all health insurance companies plans and see exactly how much it would cost you to get coverage. Once they did that they did one of three things. 1. get you subsidized health insurance if you qualified 2. fine you if your financial determined that you could afford it 3. Give you an exemption if you didn't qualify for subsidized health insurance but your financials determined that you really couldn't afford to pay for it yourself. From my memory 99% of people fell into the first or third catagories.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jun 28, 2012 10:49:27 GMT -5
Thanks, Shane. I'm still not clear. What happens to the people who do not, cannot or will not pay anything? Are they insured or not?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 10:50:03 GMT -5
I don't see it as that different from car insurance. I am required to carry car insurance but as long as I don't hit anyone/thing then there really isn't a penalty if I DON'T carry it, but once I do hit someone then all hell is going to break loose. The difference is that you have a choice in whether or not to own and operate a car, again, no choice here. If you want to liken it to car insurance, then they would have to require everyone to have car insurance whether you own a car or not. The requirement for car insurance is predicated on owning a car. The requirement for health insurance is being alive.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jun 28, 2012 10:51:29 GMT -5
Thanks, beachbum. That's a bit more clear. If you are fined because you didn't pay and don't pay the fine, are you insured? If you are given an exemption, are you insured?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 10:52:48 GMT -5
You are paying for schools - no matter how many or how few of your (nonexistant) kids attend. Indirectly. You are being taxed on owning property. Yes, some of that money is being used to pay for schools, but there is not a school tax everyone pays simply for existing but you can get out of it if you are paying for your kid to go to private school. Whereas the healthcare tax you pay simply for existing, unless you pay for private insurance.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jun 28, 2012 10:53:27 GMT -5
The difference is that you have a choice in whether or not to own and operate a car, again, no choice here. If you want to liken it to car insurance, then they would have to require everyone to have car insurance whether you own a car or not. The requirement for car insurance is predicated on owning a car. The requirement for health insurance is being alive. No the reason you need car insurance is because you car could be in an accident and we don't want to have to pay it for you. You do have a body and it does have the possiblility to get sick or hurt and we still don't want to have to pay for you. ;D Green Eyed Lady see my post above. I am way too lazy to repost it.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 10:54:51 GMT -5
Thanks, beachbum. That's a bit more clear. If you are fined because you didn't pay and don't pay the fine, are you insured? If you are given an exemption, are you insured? No. If you pay the healthcare TAX you are paying it because you don't have insurance. Paying it does not give you insurance. It's just a penalty for not doing what they want you to do.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jun 28, 2012 10:56:56 GMT -5
Thanks, beachbum. That's a bit more clear. If you are fined because you didn't pay and don't pay the fine, are you insured? If you are given an exemption, are you insured? I would guess if you don't pay the fine you could have a rough time since it would be paid to the IRS and they are pretty good at getting what they say someone owes. ;D As far as the second if they refuse, they get the tax but no insurance. If they don't qualify for help but can't afford it they are just as naked as they are today. I think the gov is just hoping that there will be way less naked people in the system then. I know in MA it dropped the number of people without health insurance dramatically. HTH
|
|
shanendoah
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 19:44:48 GMT -5
Posts: 10,096
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0c3563
|
Post by shanendoah on Jun 28, 2012 10:57:27 GMT -5
Green eyed lady- They are still insured because we will have government subsidized health care. They will have access to it. They will be charged a tax penalty on their taxes. If they are really that poor, than that reduces their refund or maybe causes them to have to pay a small bit more in taxes. But they still get to go to the doctor and be treated.
Justme: Then I guess you could choose not to have health- oh wait, you can't. You could choose to not ever go to a doctor or hospital, but actually, if you fall unconscious somewhere, other people are required to call for medical services for you. We ALL use healthcare services. All of us. And so, it makes sense, that all of us pay for healthcare services.
But my guess is that this law effects you not one tiny bit. I'll bet you work for a company that provides insurance. The people who this really effects- those whose company's don't provide insurance, for the most part are really excited to finally have access to affordable healthcare.
|
|
wvugurl26
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:25:30 GMT -5
Posts: 21,698
|
Post by wvugurl26 on Jun 28, 2012 11:01:12 GMT -5
People will still be uninsured and we will still be paying for it. They like businesses, will just pay the fine and go on.
The Supreme Court decided it was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. It was allowed to stand as a tax.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Jun 28, 2012 11:01:32 GMT -5
You are paying for schools - no matter how many or how few of your (nonexistant) kids attend. Indirectly. You are being taxed on owning property. Yes, some of that money is being used to pay for schools, but there is not a school tax everyone pays simply for existing but you can get out of it if you are paying for your kid to go to private school. Whereas the healthcare tax you pay simply for existing, unless you pay for private insurance. Not quite. I rent, yet pay a buttload of school tax (and it is denoted as school tax). When Combined, it probably amounts to a significant sum. Right now, I pay a school Tac on my salary, my electric bill, cable bill. This year, my car registration is going to be over $200, and about 60% of that goes to schools. When combined I probably pay just under $2000/year for a line item called school tax. FWIW, I have no kids.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 11:01:35 GMT -5
It could very well effect me. It's cheaper for a company to pay the fine for not providing me health insurance than to pay for my health insurance. There have been several polls done, and it's staggering the amount of companies that said they would consider dropping health insurance.
PS - I never said healthcare didn't need reform. I just think this is the wrong way to do it. Mainly, the government has no money so they're just adding a lot more money to our debt which is already reaching precarious levels.
|
|
Sharon
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:48:11 GMT -5
Posts: 11,145
|
Post by Sharon on Jun 28, 2012 11:02:48 GMT -5
This will also affect people who are currently insured under a company policy but whose company now decides to drop coverage. The penalty to the companies for doing such a thing is considerably less than the cost of covering their employees insurance costs. I suspect that we will begin to see this happening. Business will decide to let their employees buy their coverage through the exchanges.
It is interesting in the SCOTUS did say that states could opt out of expanding their Medicaid coverage and not lose federal funding. The expansion of Medicaid was seen as the way to pick up many of the people who are now uninsured.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jun 28, 2012 11:05:22 GMT -5
This is why I (and many others) can't decide if I'm "for" or "against". Not even the simplest of questions can be answered because this law is so vague and unclear.
My concern is for those people who are currently falling through the cracks. The 60 year old single person who can't afford to pay health insurance but isn't old enough or poor enough to qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. It appears they will STILL fall through the cracks. What has been gained?
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 11:05:31 GMT -5
Indirectly. You are being taxed on owning property. Yes, some of that money is being used to pay for schools, but there is not a school tax everyone pays simply for existing but you can get out of it if you are paying for your kid to go to private school. Whereas the healthcare tax you pay simply for existing, unless you pay for private insurance. Not quite. I rent, yet pay a buttload of school tax (and it is denoted as school tax). When Combined, it probably amounts to a significant sum. Right now, I pay a school Tac on my salary, my electric bill, cable bill. This year, my car registration is going to be over $200, and about 60% of that goes to schools. When combined I probably pay just under $2000/year for a line item called school tax. FWIW, I have no kids. Hmmm...that's news to me. On all of the bills you mentioned that I have, none have a line for school tax so I had no idea some states did that. (Though I have to note that it's set up so the states have more power than the federal government to do those sorts of things and as such it's the federal government doing this that I have an objection to and I believe the school taxes are all determined per state?)
|
|
ontrack
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 21, 2011 9:44:36 GMT -5
Posts: 967
|
Post by ontrack on Jun 28, 2012 11:07:28 GMT -5
It could very well effect me. It's cheaper for a company to pay the fine for not providing me health insurance than to pay for my health insurance. There have been several polls done, and it's staggering the amount of companies that said they would consider dropping health insurance. This doesn't make any sense. If your company is providing health care now (when they don't have to), they won't drop coverage because the fine is less than the cost of insuring their employees.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 28, 2012 11:09:47 GMT -5
"This doesn't make any sense. If your company is providing health care now (when they don't have to), they won't drop coverage because the fine is less than the cost of insuring their employees." I work in an office with 10 people. The company doesn't have to provide us with health insurance now so why would they drop the coverage just because of this law.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,720
|
Post by raeoflyte on Jun 28, 2012 11:11:03 GMT -5
Don't large companies now provide insurance to attract quality employees? And because even the big wigs need affordable insurance?
I'm very un-educated in this topic, but I don't imagine too many companies are actually going to drop insurance coverage for their employees without looking at the long term effects.
|
|
kindthatjingles
Familiar Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:06:06 GMT -5
Posts: 622
|
Post by kindthatjingles on Jun 28, 2012 11:12:26 GMT -5
Basically the government now has the power to tax you if you do something they don't like. Right now the government doesn't like it if you don't have health insurance, so they tax you. What will they not like next? I think it sets a bad precedent. I'm now hoping for a full repeal of it after the elections this year. Since Romney helped craft the original bill, I am unsure if he was elected how that would help. Who are you going to appeal a Supreme Court ruling too?
|
|
deantrip
Established Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 405
|
Post by deantrip on Jun 28, 2012 11:12:38 GMT -5
My big thing is they say that this is going to lower the insurance costs for all, due to a larger # of people being in the system, I'm not buying it as the insurance companies still need to break even and make money, and a large # of people who will now be in the system are currently not due to pre-existing conditions and expensive ailments, so a large portion of the new people in the system will most likely be using more money than they put in. It also makes me extremely angry, that I am being told that I must purchase something due to the simple reason that I was born. I have no choice, I have no say in the matter. People will compare this to the sin taxes and drivers licenses as you need to have those, but smoking, drinking, driving are all privileges, breathing is not a privilege, but a necessity.
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 14,720
|
Post by raeoflyte on Jun 28, 2012 11:14:47 GMT -5
This is why I (and many others) can't decide if I'm "for" or "against". Not even the simplest of questions can be answered because this law is so vague and unclear. My concern is for those people who are currently falling through the cracks. The 60 year old single person who can't afford to pay health insurance but isn't old enough or poor enough to qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. It appears they will STILL fall through the cracks. What has been gained? They are much more likely to be able to afford insurance since they will be eligible to get into a group plan with everyone else who doesn't have employer benefits. Individual polices cost hundreds if not thousands more than group policies in most cases.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 11:17:22 GMT -5
This is why I (and many others) can't decide if I'm "for" or "against". Not even the simplest of questions can be answered because this law is so vague and unclear. My concern is for those people who are currently falling through the cracks. The 60 year old single person who can't afford to pay health insurance but isn't old enough or poor enough to qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. It appears they will STILL fall through the cracks. What has been gained? That woman will most likely qualify for substantial subsidies to help her purchase health insurance.
|
|
Abby Normal
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 12:31:49 GMT -5
Posts: 3,501
|
Post by Abby Normal on Jun 28, 2012 11:18:15 GMT -5
Don't large companies now provide insurance to attract quality employees? And because even the big wigs need affordable insurance? I'm very un-educated in this topic, but I don't imagine too many companies are actually going to drop insurance coverage for their employees without looking at the long term effects. I believe the concern is with some of the other aspects of the HCR. Since insurance companies can't deny based on pre existing conditiions or high risk issues- their rates will go up for everyone (individual policies and employers). The employers will reach a breaking point where it's no longer cost effective to have health insurance and they'll pay the fine instead. Our first renewal after HRC passed jumped 20% (even though our own useage was down) in anticipation of this. If the cost of insurance keeps going up as much as it has in the last couple years, employers could just pay the fine as it could be substantially cheaper.
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jun 28, 2012 11:20:20 GMT -5
This is why I (and many others) can't decide if I'm "for" or "against". Not even the simplest of questions can be answered because this law is so vague and unclear. My concern is for those people who are currently falling through the cracks. The 60 year old single person who can't afford to pay health insurance but isn't old enough or poor enough to qualify for Medicare or Medicaid. It appears they will STILL fall through the cracks. What has been gained? That woman will most likely qualify for substantial subsidies to help her purchase health insurance. That is not the way it happened in MA. In MA the vast majority who didn't sign up for a subsidized health insurance plan made too much to qualify for it. When the state looked at their financials they also couldn't afford to pay the premiums. So the end result was most people got a waiver from the tax/fine not health insurance coverage.
|
|
deantrip
Established Member
Joined: Feb 27, 2012 19:05:42 GMT -5
Posts: 405
|
Post by deantrip on Jun 28, 2012 11:24:05 GMT -5
"That is not the way it happened in MA. In MA the vast majority who didn't sign up for a subsidized health insurance plan made too much to qualify for it. When the state looked at their financials they also couldn't afford to pay the premiums. So the end result was most people got a waiver from the tax/fine not health insurance coverage. "
So nothing really changes and we all end up paying more in taxes, that's about par for the course with Washington D.C.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jun 28, 2012 11:25:10 GMT -5
"That is not the way it happened in MA. In MA the vast majority who didn't sign up for a subsidized health insurance plan made too much to qualify for it. When the state looked at their financials they also couldn't afford to pay the premiums. So the end result was most people got a waiver from the tax/fine not health insurance coverage. " So nothing really changes and we all end up paying more in taxes, that's about par for the course with Washington D.C. That's pretty much what I see. I'm hearing that possibly "more" people will have access to health care. I'm betting that's not much of a condolence to the people who still wont' fit in that "more" category.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 11:26:46 GMT -5
It's hard to say what will or won't happen. I read several articles with polls that said around 30% of small companies that currently offer health insurance most likely wouldn't if the law went into effect. With them decreasing their costs so much ($2k fine vs $10k in premiums) they could offer to pay more to attract employees that way. There's also the "follow suit" option of one large company dropping insurance, and then others doing it as well since they are competing for employees against a company that doesn't have health insurance. No one knows exactly how companies will react, but you can't deny that it's a possibility.
You obviously haven't been following Romney during the election season. For one thing he's mentioned that it's completely different if a state wants to do a healthcare law like this vs the federal government. He's also said several times he's against Obamacare. He had a press conference after the ruling reiterating that he is wholly against the law and will work to repeal it. (Just because the Supreme Court said it's ok doesn't mean that Congress still can't make it null and void.)
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 11:29:26 GMT -5
That woman will most likely qualify for substantial subsidies to help her purchase health insurance. That is not the way it happened in MA. In MA the vast majority who didn't sign up for a subsidized health insurance plan made too much to qualify for it. When the state looked at their financials they also couldn't afford to pay the premiums. So the end result was most people got a waiver from the tax/fine not health insurance coverage. For one thing, it looks like the MA law had subsidies up to 300% poverty level, while the federal law will subsidize up to 400% of poverty level. It won't cover everyone in every circumstance, but it will help more people than are being helped now.
|
|
Rocky Mtn Saver
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 9:40:57 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by Rocky Mtn Saver on Jun 28, 2012 11:32:09 GMT -5
You obviously haven't been following Romney during the election season. For one thing he's mentioned that it's completely different if a state wants to do a healthcare law like this vs the federal government. Just out of curiosity, what's the reasoning that it's acceptable for a state to make people get health insurance but not okay for the feds to do the same?
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 28, 2012 11:39:17 GMT -5
If companies do end up dropping people and insurance companies are flooded with people (a lot of whom are probably young and have no health issues) wouldn't the free market make insurance companies drop their rates to stay in competition with one another. I understand how the companies not being able to deny anyone could raise the rates; however, there are tons of people that are healthy and rarely use their insurance. Honestly, I don't know I am just throwing it out there. The free market typically tends to bring rates down though I know health insurance can be a different animal - one of which I don't know much about other than I have always made certain I had it
|
|