Obamacare passes muster

[moosetracker]

Well, OK.. On further thought, there may be a way they can wrestle the tax out of you.. But, not with the threat of jail or by holding you up with a gun.

 

This is only speculation, nothing I read that says they will or the wont do this, but I suspect if you are due a tax refund, say $2000 dollars without the no Insurance tax, and your no Insurance tax was $1000 dollars.. My guess would be you will only see a $1000 tax refund.. In other words, I would imagine you will not be able to indicate somewhere on your tax forms that you choose not to pay the no Insurance tax so you do not want it to be deducted from your refund.

[Papadaddy]

IMHO, the SCOTUS decision is a travesty of justice.

 

And for those who are throwing around the term "dependent care until age 26"...that's not true. One doesn't need to be a "dependent" in the IRS definition of the word. You can be living 1000 miles away, married with your own family, and have your own full time job...and still be allowed to mooch off your parent's employer's plan. I personally disagree with that. If the person is a full time student, or disabled, or "special needs", or pre-existing condition, ok. But at what point should we be expecting able-bodied adults to be able to see to their own needs? Many employers are already dropping their health insurance benefit to keep from going out of business.

 

Have I actually read the law? Yes. And trust me, this huge, expensive government controlled behemoth is not the answer.

[johnponz]

Much much better than we had before.

 

Employers are not dropping their health plans in droves...I know this because I work in HR. The benefit package is a major recruitment tool, and if employers are going to remain competitive then they are going to offer health coverage. As far as the age 26 requirement, this actually lowered the insurance cost because most 26 year olds are healthy. By allowing them to stay on the plan the high risk members are mitigated by lower risk members (that is how insurance works).(This message has been edited by johnponz)

[Papadaddy]

Explain to me how addition of more people to an employer's plan "mitigates" the risk of the older population, when the youngsters get added at no cost? In my own plan, Blue Cross/Blue Shield Federal (for which MY share is $200 every two weeks), we can only choose, "self only" or "self and family". So I pay the same for my wife and I as the guy with a wife and 10 kids (who can now stay on his policy longer).

[johnponz]

You are talking about the employee cost. The employer is charged per participant, but most do not charge the employees the same way because the administrative cost is too high to do it that way, among other reasons.(This message has been edited by johnponz)

[Lisabob]

It is funny, I would think that folks involved with the BSA would be happy that insurance coverage for the kids is extended past the age of 18, and that children can't be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions. Think of the outdoor stuff we do with kids - don't you want them to have access to insurance when at all possible???

 

As the parent of a healthy and physically adventurous almost-18 year old, I am very thankful that he can be on my insurance for several more years (and even more thankful that I have insurance for him to be on). Otherwise, I'm not sure I'd be ok with him going backpacking for a week with his Venturing Crew (he left this morning - have fun, guys & gals!). I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable letting him go rock climbing next week with the Crew. Nor many of the other active outdoor things they do. Insurance doesn't remove risk of injury, of course, but at least I know he can get decent medical care if he gets hurt.

 

We can debate whether age 26 is too long and who should bear that cost and all. Those are fair questions. Personally, I think this allows many employers who rely on younger workers to pass the cost of their labor force onto other employers, and that's not right. If more entry-level jobs came with benefits, we'd probably never have needed to discuss this at all because the kids would've flown the nest, gotten a job, and had their own benefits by then.

 

But this is not the same world that my parents entered into as young adults, where a person who finished high school or college could realistically expect to find a full time job with benefits that included health insurance. Now, even many of the smartest and hardest-working college students I teach graduate into a bleak landscape of part-time jobs with no chance of benefits. They take what they can get to get by, and hope nothing bad happens in the meantime.

 

So I'd rather see us do SOMETHING, even imperfectly, than do NOTHING and collectively cross our fingers that none of the kids would need the insurance that they can't get on their own.

 

 

 

 

[BS-87]

I skipped a couple steps in the gunpoint argument because I thought we'd gone over this libertarian staple in the past.

 

In order to refuse to pay the tax, you must refuse to pay income tax, or pay an amount much less than what's due.

 

If you do not pay your taxes, your wages will be garnished or you will acquire a lien.

 

So in order to avoid those penalties, you must deal in cash only for work.

 

Doing this whilst an IRS target is on your back will cause you to commit tax fraud.

 

Fraud will get you summoned to court, and so if you refuse you will have a warrant issued for your arrest.

 

If, when the time comes for your arrest, you refuse to be arrested because the whole issue is stupid, you will be tased, maced, and/or held at gunpoint.

 

 

 

Don't think people go to jail over taxes? Ask Irwin Schiff.

[johnponz]

Comparing broccoli to health insurance is silly, and is a clear case of the old apples and oranges fallacy. If someone does not get health insurance and gets sick, they get treatment and those of us with health insurance end up paying probably through our taxes. Now I am not a supreme court Justice, nor am I a lawyer, but that would have been my opinion if I got to write one. Since these people without insurance cost those of us with through our taxes, it makes sense to tax those who do not purchase insurance so they can pay for their own health care before they need it. Either pay up front for insurance or pay through your taxes.

 

The broccoli comparison is silly because it does not matter to me one way or the other if you eat broccoli or spinach. Either way I do not pay for it.

 

[Brewmeister]

 

Employers are not dropping their health plans in droves...I know this because I work in HR.

 

Not YET.

 

A McKinley Quarterly study published last year found that 30% of employers planned to drop health insurance once ACA was fully implemented. That number rose to 60% among firms who were very familiar with the laws provisions.

 

Obamacare is a path to single payer; that has always been its intention.

 

 

[Tokala]

Right or wrong, I'm glad to see someone making an effort to improve the health care/insurance system in the US. Kind of difficult to judge it's conditions or merits until some time has passed.

 

I wonder if people had the same comments when social security and medicare/medicaid was started? I'm not old enough to have been around for those.

[moosetracker]

Ahhh... Well yes, if you choose now not to pay your normal income tax, the government will come after you.. If you want to resist arrest, and shoot it out with the coppers, well, yes you are right, they may shoot back.. But, that is different then choosing not to pay the additional tax for not having medical, being jailed or held up at gunpoint by the IRS until you cough up the money..

 

It's simple! Quit your job, go live in a cave like a hermit and eat berries, and squirrel and things.. Better yet, don't resist arrest.. Go to jail.. Free room, board, medical and no taxes to pay!..

 

Thing is this is not the first thing government (Federal, State and City) has regulated us to do. It will not be the last thing..

 

Mitt Romney was for the same insurance when he was Gov. of MA.. If he got into office, he may tweak it here or there.. May even find a way to get it to be the States responsibility rather then Federal.. But, remove it entirely.. No way.. And he can talk tough all he wants, if he thinks he can make sweeping changes without congress approval, then he really doesn't know what the job of President is all about. Most likely he does know, and he just thinks those who will vote for him are stupid.. It is sort of like the High School class president with the campaign speech.. 'Vote for me, and I will have the cafeteria feed us nothing but ice cream, candy bars and soda for lunch. I will also make sure everyone gets released from school at noon.'

 

Obama (for good or bad) couldn't get much of what he promised due to the opposition of the Congress. People hate Congress more then Obama.. Even if Romney get president, the whole congress will also do a flip and he will have the same battles Obama did to get anything passed or changed.. Our government has been paralyzed for years way before Obama, with this type of political battle..

[johnponz]

There's that word again "ObamaCare I really do not know why people insist on calling the Affordable Healthcare Act,"ObamaCare."

 

As to that survey, I am aware of those numbers, but that survey was taken almost immediately after the Act passed. As we get closer to 2014, those numbers have dropped, and when you go to benefit conferences, people are not talking about dropping their coverage. People are more worried about being able to attract talent to difficult to fill positions, and guess what, the employers that keep their health insurance benefit will be better able to attract that talent (isn't that the free market)?

 

We just reviewed our health plan with our broker to consider making changes in the upcoming year. I asked our broker how many employers he worked with were talking about dropping their coverage. He said hardly any. Most are talking about enhancing their coverage to better compete. Although the employee portion of the cost will tend to increase.

 

We will see as full implementation gets closer, but my professional opinion is that employers will not be dropping their insurance.

 

[scoutingagain]

"So I pay the same for my wife and I as the guy with a wife and 10 kids (who can now stay on his policy longer). "

 

I highly doubt it. I suggest you look closely at you insurance plan because I've never seen one where this is true. In fact many health insurers were considering extending coverage to children longer even if Obama/Romneycare had been overturned because they got more $$ to cover basically healthy young adults. I pay more for my plan that covers my college age son, along with my wife than I would if just my wife and I. The level of misinformation believed by some is dissapointing to say the least.

 

The irony of having Mitt Romney, who signed into law Romneycare in Mass. with basically the same mandate and who had argued for the need and legality of it in interviews and in editorials now campaign on repealing the law is too rich. How is he supposed to maintain a shred of crediblity on any issue?

 

SA

 

 

 

[johnponz]

Scoutingagain,

 

In your average employer plan it is true if you look only at the employee contributions. One cost for Employee only coverage and another for family (Employee plus any number of dependents). Some plans have Employee plus one dependent as well.

 

The employer does have to pay by participant though. It is easy to see how a consumer might believe it cost the same. It is just a matter for education.

 

[Horizon]

We got what we deserve.

 

I spend half a day a month dealing with insurance company paperwork due to a special needs member of my family. There is nothing simple, and there is no way to predict what will be covered, partially covered, or fully funded. I am on an excellent plan, but it is still a nightmate.

 

I try to get appointments with specialists, and it takes me MONTHS to get on a calendar.

 

Now, I lived in the UK and was covered by their system. It was fine. I was in the military and covered there. It was fine.

 

The private hospitals, the private physicians, and the insurance companies of America have slowly allowed our system to become such a problem through either their sins of omission or commission that they have no right (in a general sense, not Constitutional sense) to complain.

 

The current system does not work. The Republicans could have done a few things to help, like making health insurance and all health costs fully deductible regardless of income or level of deductions - thereby breaking the stranglehold of the company provided insurance racket.

 

Someone could have proposed combining Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare and the Federal Employee health program into one system - and then put a price on buying into it.

 

But instead everyone screamed and moaned, until enough lobbyists got together and created this stew of a solutions that most people still do not understand.