Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:49:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 13:23:40 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. I know lonewolf has brought this up, but if you didn't have a car would you still purchase car insurance? I doubt it. No. But are there people who are going to stop having a health?
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 28, 2012 13:24:17 GMT -5
Oh, and all the this is a tax just for existing folks; I would be totally fine with approaching this problem the other way. If you ever collapse in public or get rushed into an emergency room, they would first look through your wallet. If they find an insurance card you get treated, if they find enough cash, or cards with enough available credit, to pay for treatment you get treated. If not they you in the alley out back and let you die. You'd be free to be penny wise and pound foolish, and I'd be free to not have to pay for your stupidity. We'd both win.
Since that's not an option, suck it up and buy insurance.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jun 28, 2012 13:26:18 GMT -5
I believe the basis of the law is more about allowing those who need & want health insurance to have access to it rather than punishing those who don't. I don't think it is a perfect law but you have to start somewhere... Then why the individual mandate??
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:49:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 13:28:24 GMT -5
To pay for it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:49:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 13:29:28 GMT -5
I know lonewolf has brought this up, but if you didn't have a car would you still purchase car insurance? I doubt it. No. But are there people who are going to stop having a health? Yes. Dead people. ;D
|
|
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 13:30:29 GMT -5
I'll add that the only people being taxed are the people who choose not to have insurance coverage. And yes, it will be people who make that CHOICE. Because, just like with MA, there will be hardship deferments.
So, the ONLY people paying a tax will be the people who WILLFULLY CHOOSE not to insure their health. This is a great option, considering people who WILLFULLY CHOOSE not to insure their cars are subject to fines, imprisonment, and paying not only for their car or their medical care based on an accident they cause, but also must pay for any damage done to other cars and healthcare. And if they don't pay, they can be sent to jail for ignoring a court order.
|
|
rovo
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,628
|
Post by rovo on Jun 28, 2012 13:30:39 GMT -5
I believe the basis of the law is more about allowing those who need & want health insurance to have access to it rather than punishing those who don't. I don't think it is a perfect law but you have to start somewhere... Then why the individual mandate?? Because somebody has to pay for the subsidized insurance.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:49:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 13:31:31 GMT -5
Okay...lonewolf was trying to get this question answered and I'll word it a little differently to see if we get an answer: If I choose to not get health insurance and I also choose not to pay the tax penalty since it seems the enforcement for paying it is non-existent, what is stopping me from using the services everyone else is paying for? And how is that different from what we have now?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:49:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 13:33:37 GMT -5
I'll add that the only people being taxed are the people who choose not to have insurance coverage. And yes, it will be people who make that CHOICE. Because, just like with MA, there will be hardship deferments. So, the ONLY people paying a tax will be the people who WILLFULLY CHOOSE not to insure their health. This is a great option, considering people who WILLFULLY CHOOSE not to insure their cars are subject to fines, imprisonment, and paying not only for their car or their medical care based on an accident they cause, but also must pay for any damage done to other cars and healthcare. And if they don't pay, they can be sent to jail for ignoring a court order. But according to posters that have posted here before, and since left, a monthly insurance bill is $900. Why would I pay $10,800/year when I could pay $695/year and still be "covered"? Edit: If people were smart...they generally aren't...it would be much cheaper to "pay" the tax than it would to actually get health insurance. What if everyone did this? What would the implications be?
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 28, 2012 13:36:25 GMT -5
But according to posters that have posted here before, and since left, a monthly insurance bill is $900. Why would I pay $10,800/year when I could pay $695/year and still be "covered"? You won't be covered. You'd still get a bill for any and all medical treatment that you receive. In addition to paying the tax. Paying the tax doesn't give you health insurance. You'd still be without insurance, and you'd be out whatever money you spent paying the penalty. In a year where you're healthy, that might be a better deal. Then the next year you get in a car accident, wrack up nearly a quarter million in healthcare bills, and can kiss your retirement goodbye. But you know, you're like free and stuff... and you stuck it to the man.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 28, 2012 13:36:41 GMT -5
DF is going to drop it as its cheaper to pay the fine as opposed to medical for his employees. Especially the fat one. That was 1400 a month for him and his fat wife. Cheaper now for him not to cover them. Just crazy.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 13:36:49 GMT -5
That'd we'd be exactly where we are, but the government would have a bit more in their coffers.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,510
|
Post by chiver78 on Jun 28, 2012 13:38:11 GMT -5
DF is going to drop it as its cheaper to pay the fine as opposed to medical for his employees. Especially the fat one. That was 1400 a month for him and his fat wife. Cheaper now for him not to cover them. Just crazy. so why was he offering it in the first place? there wasn't a penalty NOT to before.
|
|
movingforward
Junior Associate
Joined: Sept 15, 2011 12:48:31 GMT -5
Posts: 8,358
|
Post by movingforward on Jun 28, 2012 13:38:44 GMT -5
DF is going to drop it as its cheaper to pay the fine as opposed to medical for his employees. Especially the fat one. That was 1400 a month for him and his fat wife. Cheaper now for him not to cover them. Just crazy. He doesn't have to provide them with insurance now but he does. I still don't get why this changes anything. If he wants to be cheap he can pull insurance at any time right now and not pay any fine. ETA: Chiver beat me to it
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,510
|
Post by chiver78 on Jun 28, 2012 13:39:57 GMT -5
great minds think alike, almost40.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 13:40:03 GMT -5
Oh, and all the this is a tax just for existing folks; I would be totally fine with approaching this problem the other way. If you ever collapse in public or get rushed into an emergency room, they would first look through your wallet. If they find an insurance card you get treated, if they find enough cash, or cards with enough available credit, to pay for treatment you get treated. If not they you in the alley out back and let you die. You'd be free to be penny wise and pound foolish, and I'd be free to not have to pay for your stupidity. We'd both win. Since that's not an option, suck it up and buy insurance. The only option isn't between your example and Obamacare mandate. The status quo doesn't do that, being against Obamacare doesn't mean you're condeming people to death.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:49:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 13:43:32 GMT -5
Okay...lonewolf was trying to get this question answered and I'll word it a little differently to see if we get an answer: If I choose to not get health insurance and I also choose not to pay the tax penalty since it seems the enforcement for paying it is non-existent, what is stopping me from using the services everyone else is paying for? And how is that different from what we have now? You still get life saving measures in an emergency. So, our ERs will still be a major cost sink. If you wanted other services, you can pay cash or they can refuse to provide them. If you choose not to pay the tax, then you are committing tax evasion. You might get away with it. You might end up like Al Capone.
|
|
nalto
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:31:54 GMT -5
Posts: 777
|
Post by nalto on Jun 28, 2012 13:43:58 GMT -5
I think what needs to be made clear is that the "mandate" was deemed unconstitutional, but the "tax" was not.
So the mandate is dropped, it is, and always has been (because Obama isn't stupid) a tax. Kudos to Roberts for actually doing his job. To be honest, I think he's the only one who DID his job, put his personal opinions aside and determined whether or not it's constitutional. I'm no fan of the bill, I think that there are other ways to fix the issues, but whatever.
Now, it boils down to the issues of a) how do people feel about being lied to from the get-go about this NOT being a tax and b) do they still want the bill after realizing it's a tax?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:49:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 13:43:59 GMT -5
But according to posters that have posted here before, and since left, a monthly insurance bill is $900. Why would I pay $10,800/year when I could pay $695/year and still be "covered"? You won't be covered. You'd still get a bill for any and all medical treatment that you receive. In addition to paying the tax. Paying the tax doesn't give you health insurance. You'd still be without insurance, and you'd be out whatever money you spent paying the penalty. In a year where you're healthy, that might be a better deal. Then the next year you get in a car accident, wrack up nearly a quarter million in healthcare bills, and can kiss your retirement goodbye. But you know, you're like free and stuff... and you stuck it to the man. My car insurance would cover that.....but whatever.
|
|
rovo
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:20:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,628
|
Post by rovo on Jun 28, 2012 13:44:01 GMT -5
DF is going to drop it as its cheaper to pay the fine as opposed to medical for his employees. Especially the fat one. That was 1400 a month for him and his fat wife. Cheaper now for him not to cover them. Just crazy. He doesn't have to provide them with insurance now but he does. I still don't get why this changes anything. If he wants to be cheap he can pull insurance at any time right now and not pay any fine. ETA: Chiver beat me to it It is my understanding that if a business offers health insurance to their employees and if this insurance is better than a published standard, then the company is also fined for offering the better insurance. Also, if a company drops their employee health insurance and then compensates the employee partially for the difference, then they will be "net" ahead of the game even with the fine. The law is stacked to stop employers from offering insurance and thus causing everyone to obtain their own insurance. This is a prelude to a single payer system.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 13:44:36 GMT -5
DF is going to drop it as its cheaper to pay the fine as opposed to medical for his employees. Especially the fat one. That was 1400 a month for him and his fat wife. Cheaper now for him not to cover them. Just crazy. so why was he offering it in the first place? there wasn't a penalty NOT to before. I would venture a guess that business owners offer insurance now because it's prohibitably expensive for some individuals to get coverage individually, and even more expensive for normal people to get coverage individually vs. group through an employer. While you're not penalized by the government, you're seen as a bad guy for not providing insurance because they can't otherwise get/afford it and you can't raise wages enough to make it so. (And might not attract decent employees because of it) But with the new exchanges and government subsidises low wage workers can now get "affordable" health insurance without having to go through work and work won't be seen as a bad guy for not providing it because the workers get money from the government and buy it from the exchange.
|
|
Poptart
Established Member
Joined: Sept 8, 2011 18:23:48 GMT -5
Posts: 433
|
Post by Poptart on Jun 28, 2012 13:44:37 GMT -5
Zib, so why has he provided insurance for them up until now?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Jun 28, 2012 13:45:36 GMT -5
They are never going to fine people and put them in jail for not having health insurance. They don't even bother for those who drive without car insurance. Get real, people. No, but now DF has a reason to drop coverage. He felt bad before wanting to do it but now it's good for business. He will offer employee a raise but nowhere near what he would have had to before and tell him to buy his own coverage with the raise. Wonder what it will cost the employee? Well, it's good incentive for him and his wife to lose weight. The other ones are on Medicare or their wives plans so it was just this one guy costing the company lots of money. Now he won't.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 28, 2012 13:45:44 GMT -5
The status quo doesn't do that No, the status quo lets you choose to go without insurance, forces the hospital to treat you when you need it, then the local, state, and federal government has to reimburse the hospital for your stupid choice if you can't pay, and since those government agencies only raise revenue by taking it from the rest of us in the form of taxes, we're all stuck paying for your stupid choice. As one of those people paying for the stupid choices of others, I'd much rather have you be "forced" to just buy a damn insurance policy and be done with it. If that's somehow unfair to you, then I don't want to be forced to pay for the consequences of your stupid choices. So, if we repeal Obamacare I'd like to replace it with a system where a hospital can tell you to go suck an egg if you need care and have chosen not to get coverage. Either extreme seems to me to be about the fairest way that we can start changing our existing system.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 0:49:16 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2012 13:46:17 GMT -5
Now, it boils down to the issues of a) how do people feel about being lied to from the get-go about this NOT being a tax and b) do they still want the bill after realizing it's a tax? Are you joking? People in this country love being lied to. Knowing the truth is very scary for some people. That's why they elect on "Hope and Change!"
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Jun 28, 2012 13:46:23 GMT -5
That's one part I can't figure out. Why are we punishing companies for providing good healthcare to their employees?
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jun 28, 2012 13:47:56 GMT -5
My car insurance would cover that.....but whatever. Wait, so you're whining about being forced to buy health insurance, but you have car insurance? What the hell dude. Stick to your principles. Don't let the man push you around like that. This is a free country dammit!
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,510
|
Post by chiver78 on Jun 28, 2012 13:48:41 GMT -5
That's one part I can't figure out. Why are we punishing companies for providing good healthcare to their employees? can someone quote the specifics of this one from the bill? please and thank you.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,393
|
Post by thyme4change on Jun 28, 2012 13:48:48 GMT -5
Well, up until 26 young people have the OPTION to remain on their parent's insurance. It isn't required. I don't think a company could write a plan that says they only cover people who are older than 26.
The reason for this clause is that they found out such a huge portion of uninsured people are young adults. Usually people who are bouncing around, healthy and not needing much care, but working jobs like waiting tables or whatever, trying to figure out how to get started. Yes, us YMers mandate that children become perfect exactly on their 18th birthday, know what they are going to do, and become wholly self-sufficient. But the reality, the statistics, and the real world says that just isn't what is happening, and a group of people that are in total cheap to insure are taking chances by going without. Giving parents an option to help out those kids by keeping them covered is not a REQUIREMENT that every single 25 year old person leaches off their parents.
|
|
nalto
Familiar Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:31:54 GMT -5
Posts: 777
|
Post by nalto on Jun 28, 2012 13:48:51 GMT -5
That's one part I can't figure out. Why are we punishing companies for providing good healthcare to their employees? Because it seems to be that the Obama administration doesn't care for employers. At least those are what all of his moves have made it seem like.
|
|