Obama Care Could Be Deadly

[quote name='Spokker']Whether the company or the employee pays for health care, it has the same effect on the labor market. This is similar to payroll taxes. It doesn't matter if the employer or the employee pays it. That the worker pays half of the payroll taxes and the company pays half is immaterial to the effect it has on the supply and demand of labor. Mandated benefits work in a similar way, but can have less severe effects than payroll taxes if certain conditions are met. Of course, this assumes mandated benefits in lieu of payroll taxes.

It would probably be better to simply get the $8,000 added to your salary for you to spend as you please, either on health insurance, something else or some combination or the two, but workers like the idea of "benefits." You should probably be indifferent, however, between a job that pays $60k with $8k worth of benefits and a job that pays $68k with no benefits.
[/QUOTE]

Before this law was passed, there was a signifcant difference between receiving health insurance through an employer that offered a group plan, or receiving extra pay to purchase your own plan - HIPAA. This law restricts pre-existing exclusions for group plan participants.


[quote name='Spokker']

Not necessarily. The penalty might increase the cost of hiring, which would reduce the the amount of labor demanded. Many jobs don't "deserve," for lack of a better word, health benefits. These are often part-time, menial jobs. There may be less of them, which would hurt the poorest, lowest skilled workers. The only way to mitigate this is if health care costs go down overall. However, extending any amount of health care in jobs that previously offered zero benefits will still raise the cost of labor. So a restaurant may start offering health insurance to all employees if they are required to do so but may also get rid of a few employees to pay for it. Any increased costs will be passed on to the consumer, which may have effects throughout the industry. If consumers decide they do not want to pay, restaurants will close, resulting in lost jobs anyway. Or employment may stay the same while wages go down, unless wages are already at the minimum wage.

I don't think it'll have much effect on salaried professionals, who probably won't lose their plans for the reason you stated, to retain talent.[/QUOTE]

So, what should be done with the people who don't "deserve" health insurance? They certainly can't afford to pay for it themselves. Maybe we should expand Medicaid? The new law already does that - should it go further? How will we pay for it?
 
[quote name='camoor']Your respect is misplaced. Capitalism is ruthlessly efficient, anyone who has a heart would be axed for the guy who can bring in more profits. [/QUOTE]Ordinary, everyday people do the same thing, that is, put a value on human life. We can estimate what that value is through revealed preference. A highway widening project, for example, will allow higher speeds. But this will lead to more fatal accidents. By comparing the value of the time saved to the increase in fatal accidents, we can come up with an approximate figure for how much society values a statistical life.

The solution is to pay working folks a living wage instead of the unsustainable situation we're in now where we continue to widening gap between the superrich and the poor.
Click to expand...
The manager doesn't want to pay a living wage. How will you compel her to do it?

[quote name='chiwii']
So, what should be done with the people who don't "deserve" health insurance? They certainly can't afford to pay for it themselves. Maybe we should expand Medicaid? The new law already does that - should it go further? How will we pay for it?[/QUOTE]If we desire for them to have health benefits, the government will pay if the business owner will not or cannot (unless we are going to penalize businesses for layoffs), and this will likely be paid for by either tax increases, borrowing or a combination of both.

If the overall cost of health care goes down, then great. It all depends on what the net effect is. The mandate is supposed to increase the risk pool, which is expected to lower premiums. Then there are all these other things that would be expected to increase costs. At the end of the day, do we come out even, better off, worse off? That's the big question.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Spokker']Ordinary, everyday people do the same thing, that is, put a value on human life. We can estimate what that value is through revealed preference. A highway widening project, for example, will allow higher speeds. But this will lead to more fatal accidents. By comparing the value of the time saved to the increase in fatal accidents, we can come up with an approximate figure for how much society values a statistical life.[/QUOTE]

I'm not going to continue to argue with someone whose evidence was lifted off of Fight Club.

[quote name='Spokker']The manager doesn't want to pay a living wage. How will you compel her to do it?[/QUOTE]

This bill seems like a good start.
 
[quote name='Clak']Peele could have saved himself time if he'd just written "People in this country are stupid". Look as this forum alone, proof and evidence be dammed, it means nothing to most people. It isn't even an issue of addiction like he claims, it's just simply that people get scared of things and when they do, they ignore evidence. Evidence may show that getting a prostate exam would do no good for a man, but then he reads or sees something on TV about it, gets sacred, and he's in the office the next day getting the exam.[/QUOTE]

I don't think it's a matter of just being stupid, but rather a lack of internal and external support systems and coping skills coupled with a lack of a realistic view of what medicine can and cannot offer.

We may use prostate cancer screening as the prototype. The average person often tells me: "don't we want to find something early so that we can do something about it." This is a rational point of view. Unfortunately, our screening tests (digital rectal exam and prostate specific antigen) are rather limited and we run into the issue of whether certain conditions are best left untreated. Many males will develop prostate cancer in their lifetime; for most of these males, this diagnosis would likely lead to nothing more than potentially a curiosity at autopsy. Many cases of prostate cancer are very slow growing and don't cause problems in life. Sure, we may detect such cases and then treat them... success is very easy to achieve since we are often doing what amounts to squashing a harmless gnat with a hammer. In the process, men may develop impotence, incontinence, and other side effects. However, both the the patient and the doctor are happy because they defeated cancer (albeit in many cases an inconsequential cancer). On the flip side, we have men who present in their 40s or 50s with a PSA of 800, anemia, and widely metastatic prostate cancer... they were unfortunate enough to have a very aggressive form of prostate cancer that is fast growing and for which no routine screening will be beneficial either due to the fast growth.... so the conundrum with prostate cancer is that we can often treat the slow growing and likely inconsequential lesions and cannot really do anything significant against the aggressive forms (aside from a crapload of ketoconazole and various other methods of androgen deprivation).

There are many other such examples in medicine and, in general, our attempts to screen for disease have been either failures or less effective than we thought... the one exception is colon cancer screening... so get your stool cards, sigmoidoscopies, or colonoscopies done after 50 assuming normal baseline risk ;)

With regard to the coping skills equation, many people now present with conditions such as chronic fatigue syndrome, restless leg syndrome, fibromyalgia, irritable bowel syndrome, etc... all of which are mainly manifestations of how stimuli are processed by the CNS, rather than peripheral lesions. People often have secondary gain from playing the sick role or simply need some issue to blame for their deficiencies. Medical practitioners are happy to oblige as this justifies their existence and gives them something to bill for... :D
 
[quote name='camoor']I'm not going to continue to argue with someone whose evidence was lifted off of Fight Club.[/quote]My source was the book Labor Economics by George Borjas. The conclusion reached by the study was that states "took actions that indicated their willingness to accept one additional fatality because it would save around $1.5 million (in 1997 dollars) in travel costs."

It was a speed limit thing. Higher speed limits equal higher fatality rates, which is known and states were warned about this. We as a society basically say, okay, we are willing to accept this additional carnage on the road in exchange for the ability to go faster. It may be a funny thing to ask, but what is the optimal amount of road deaths? It's not zero. That would mean no driving :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='camoor']
This bill seems like a good start.[/QUOTE]The goal should be to prevent adverse incentives and a bloated bureaucracy. If our desire is to help the poor, it makes no sense to stifle business. Not every business is equally capable of providing a mandated insurance benefit, or a mandated living wage, or whatever. They are going to respond by continuing to reduce their total cost of labor. And if they can't do that, they'll go out of business.

Get away from the idea of living wage and toward the idea of basic income described here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html

As always, Mr. Friedman’s policy prescriptions were shaped by his desire to minimize adverse economic incentives, a feature that architects of earlier welfare programs had largely ignored. Those programs, each administered by a separate bureaucracy, typically reduced a family’s benefits by some fraction of each increment in earned income. Rates of 50 percent were common, so a family participating in four separate programs might see its total benefits fall by $2 for each extra dollar it earned. Under the circumstances, no formal training in economics was necessary to see that working didn’t pay. In contrast, someone who worked additional hours under Mr. Friedman’s plan would always take home additional after-tax income.
Click to expand...
Getting rid of traditional welfare programs, food stamps, Healthy Families, First 5, transit fare subsidies, affordable housing, minimum wage, etc., and replacing them for a basic income is far more efficient.

The Earned Income Tax Credit is similar to Friedman's proposal, the difference being that you only get the EITC if you work and your payment is much larger if you have at least one child. I would expand this program, which is already administered by the IRS, and cut all the other bloated, wasteful programs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3d7YKAeLWc

Sure, giving someone thousands of dollars for doing nothing is going to perverse incentives, but the argument is that it is the least harmful and most efficient out of all of the welfare schemes if our desire is to help the poor.
 
[quote name='camoor']I'm not going to continue to argue with someone whose evidence was lifted off of Fight Club.



This bill seems like a good start.[/QUOTE]

Spokker is a shitty caricature of himself.

I wonder what he does for a living, I would guess he has a side job posting on websites (those jobs exist) but too many people seem to do it for fun.
 
[quote name='Spokker']My source was the book Labor Economics by George Borjas. The conclusion reached by the study was that states "took actions that indicated their willingness to accept one additional fatality because it would save around $1.5 million (in 1997 dollars) in travel costs."

It was a speed limit thing. Higher speed limits equal higher fatality rates, which is known and states were warned about this. We as a society basically say, okay, we are willing to accept this additional carnage on the road in exchange for the ability to go faster. It may be a funny thing to ask, but what is the optimal amount of road deaths? It's not zero. That would mean no driving :)[/QUOTE]

I read some about Borjas. Seems like he is a Cuban immigrant who is anti-immigration. Nice consistency there.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Spokker is a shitty caricature of himself.

I wonder what he does for a living, I would guess he has a side job posting on websites (those jobs exist) but too many people seem to do it for fun.[/QUOTE]

Yeah but at least he is being real. Spokker is not pretending to be a Christian or a humanitarian, he is openly admitting that he believes poor people who get sick deserve to die.

Spokker - I would imagine that you think of yourself as a good moral person, right? I would be intensely curious to know why. Beyond 'capitalism is a good unto itself' there doesn't seem to be much to your personal moral philosophy.
 
[quote name='camoor']he is openly admitting that he believes poor people who get sick deserve to die.[/QUOTE]I'm advocating for a basic income :bouncy:
 
[quote name='Spokker']I'm advocating for a basic income :bouncy:[/QUOTE]
Are you trolling us? How is this even remotely libertarian or effectively different from those programs you think should be eliminated when basic income would require far more funding that those programs currently "enjoy" now? Or is your real point about a flat tax?
 
Just pretend I copied and pasted everything Milton Friedman has ever written or said about the subject. I'm sure that, when his proposals are taken to the logical conclusion, he wants poor people to die of AIDS.
 
[quote name='Spokker']Just pretend I copied and pasted everything Milton Friedman has ever written or said about the subject. I'm sure that, when his proposals are taken to the logical conclusion, he wants poor people to die of AIDS.[/QUOTE]
That's not an answer.
 
I am a little confused by this thing. I have read that the cost for young people will rise 20-30% in the next five years because of the basic economics of the thing. Then I understand that there is an exception that if the "bronze plan" exceeds 8% of your income then it makes individuals and families exempt. Now to further complicate the issue if you don't fall under (or over) the 8% exemption (or other excemptions like religion) then you can always opt to pay the penalty which up until 2016 is under 2.5% of your income and with that difference and depending on what your income then the penalty will always be cheaper and the smart choice for a healthy individual. The penalty as I understand it is not very enforceable right now but maybe someone can clear that up for me.
To further complicate it my understanding is the IRS will be looking at your mandate requirements based on household members as well. Divide total income by household members.
Back to the penalty since in most cases the penalty will be much cheaper than that is the best option and since included in this act is the preexisting conditions thing then if I fall ill I can then go out and get insurance use it then drop it. Barring any accidents this is the best route. Car insurance, home insurance, and other insurance might lessen the risk of an accident costs.
I have some numbers to crunch.
 
I should also mention that the bronze plan is a 60/40 split. Therefore making it even more useless to the average young healthy person and not enough reward to outweigh the costs of the plan and the split.That will have to be involved in my number crunching as well.
It all just looks like us young people are getting the short end again. I am being penalized for being a productive individual and for not being a rich or a poor person. For not having a family. I don't make enough to afford all this easily and lose 2.5% more of my income at the minimum. All this with the rising costs of everything just does not seem fair to me. I know the system can be gamed by those of us not lucky enough to be on Obama's exemption donor list, exempt because we are too poor or the other exemptions but even when I crunch the numbers it still comes out where one way or the other I get screwed and have to be creative , get headaches, and go through hoops to get screwed a little less.

So maybe someone here that knows about the IRS penalty can help me in finding out if what I heard is true that if I don't pay the penalty to the IRS there isn't really anything they can do about it.
 
[quote name='VeggieTales']I should also mention that the bronze plan is a 60/40 split. Therefore making it even more useless to the average young healthy person and not enough reward to outweigh the costs of the plan and the split.That will have to be involved in my number crunching as well.
It all just looks like us young people are getting the short end again. I am being penalized for being a productive individual and for not being a rich or a poor person. For not having a family. I don't make enough to afford all this easily and lose 2.5% more of my income at the minimum. All this with the rising costs of everything just does not seem fair to me. I know the system can be gamed by those of us not lucky enough to be on Obama's exemption donor list, exempt because we are too poor or the other exemptions but even when I crunch the numbers it still comes out where one way or the other I get screwed and have to be creative , get headaches, and go through hoops to get screwed a little less.

So maybe someone here that knows about the IRS penalty can help me in finding out if what I heard is true that if I don't pay the penalty to the IRS there isn't really anything they can do about it.[/QUOTE]

You're young. If it sucks so hard then go somewhere else. I heard Somalia doesn't make you buy a healthplan - why don't you try your luck over there?
 
[quote name='camoor']You're young. If it sucks so hard then go somewhere else. I heard Somalia doesn't make you buy a healthplan - why don't you try your luck over there?[/QUOTE]

Was that really called for? You must be one of those hardcore privledged Americans in the top percentage that go around and tell people "if you don't like it leave".

Thanks for the response but next time if it will be more of the same from you I am telling you and letting you know now: No thanks.
 
[quote name='VeggieTales']

So maybe someone here that knows about the IRS penalty can help me in finding out if what I heard is true that if I don't pay the penalty to the IRS there isn't really anything they can do about it.[/QUOTE]

Welcome to CAG!

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone here is a tax accountant or tax attorney, and, if anyone is, they probably won't be giving out free advice.
 
[quote name='chiwii']Welcome to CAG!

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone here is a tax accountant or tax attorney, and, if anyone is, they probably won't be giving out free advice.[/QUOTE]

I think you mean welcome back. ;)
 
[quote name='chiwii']Welcome to CAG!

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone here is a tax accountant or tax attorney, and, if anyone is, they probably won't be giving out free advice.[/QUOTE]

Thank You!

I understand that I won't be getting any free expert advice and I might be naive in hoping for reasonable discussion on the matter. ;)
I thought it would be good for me and the people here to discuss how to lessen the negative affects of this act on us (people in our age group and income level).
 
[quote name='VeggieTales']Was that really called for? You must be one of those hardcore privledged Americans in the top percentage that go around and tell people "if you don't like it leave".

Thanks for the response but next time if it will be more of the same from you I am telling you and letting you know now: No thanks.[/QUOTE]

Meh. I'm tired of this incessant self-centered self-obsessed whining from the youth. I don't know where this 'young people get the short-stick again' stuff comes from, last time I checked age discrimination wasn't hurting the kids.

You think you have it so bad - talk to an elderly person who has to decide between eating and medication.

Is it such a shocker that with insurance you may pay into it more at first but eventually reap the benefits? That's why I said if you're not willing to pay into it now, then just save us all the trouble of a debate and move to a place that shares your values.
 
[quote name='camoor']Meh. I'm tired of this incessant self-centered self-obsessed whining from the youth. I don't know where this 'young people get the short-stick again' stuff comes from, last time I checked age discrimination wasn't hurting the kids.

You think you have it so bad - talk to an elderly person who has to decide between eating and medication.

Is it such a shocker that with insurance you may pay into it more at first but eventually reap the benefits? That's why I said if you're not willing to pay into it now, then just save us all the trouble of a debate and move to a place that shares your values.[/QUOTE]

How was I being self-centered and self-obsessed? I said short end because I do believe that we have things a little harder than those before us. Yes that is an over generalization and I do understand that not everyone has it the same.

I didn't say I have it so bad. Is there something in the healthcare act that makes medication cheaper for the elderly? That's great. As I understand it they will have to pay three times as much as I do or a 3 to 1 ratio for health insurance in this act. How does that make sense when with this act they will be paying all their life for minimum coverage at a 60/40 split? The math does not make it even close to a good investment.
I have crunched it somewhat and did the risk assessment over a long period of time (ten years:twenty years) and if a major medical problem arises I lose money by having the healthcare insurance the entire time vs not having it and having to pay out-of-pocket or getting the medical when I need it because I can do that (barring accidents which is included in out-of-pocket or other insurance). If I also include the money I save by not having healthcare vs paying the penalty and invest that I come out further ahead by not having it. and getting it when I need it.
I do get that this is more of a charity tax of 2.5% for those less fortunate and I am all for helping those as God forbid I might be in those shoes one day but I don't trust the government with my charity money and I already give to my church. My church will be getting less charity now so I can pay the charity tax to the government. Oh well to bad for them. The government has done such a good job with social security and their health plans in the past.
I live in the United States and again I don't appreciate you telling me to leave because you don't like what I have to say. Now if I did leave it would not be to Somalia but would be more along the lines of somewhere like Japan where at least there is quality healthcare and I get more for my money from it. So I will not get healthcare now and I will pay the charity tax and will save money in the long run. Than if I absolutely have to I can at that time, due to the preexisting condition ban being lifted. I don't have to leave the country to avoid healthcare insurance just the charity tax.

Right now I think I will stay but in the future I will seriously look at if leaving is more beneficial and it probably will be but that decision will be mine not yours, thank you very much.
 
[quote name='camoor']Meh. I'm tired of this incessant self-centered self-obsessed whining from the youth. I don't know where this 'young people get the short-stick again' stuff comes from, last time I checked age discrimination wasn't hurting the kids.[/QUOTE]

I meant to brush on this in the baby boomers thread. The whole 'eff the boomers' meme was making the rounds on conservative blogs/twitter a while back. The idea is to get people thinking 'eff the boomers' AND 'their liberal programs like social security and medicaid.'

Prime a group of people who don't know any better and then when they're ready/willing/able you can get them to vote [for reps who will vote] away those programs.

Think tanks, etc.
 
[quote name='VeggieTales']How was I being self-centered and self-obsessed? I said short end because I do believe that we have things a little harder than those before us. Yes that is an over generalization and I do understand that not everyone has it the same.

I didn't say I have it so bad. Is there something in the healthcare act that makes medication cheaper for the elderly? That's great. As I understand it they will have to pay three times as much as I do or a 3 to 1 ratio for health insurance in this act. How does that make sense when with this act they will be paying all their life for minimum coverage at a 60/40 split? The math does not make it even close to a good investment.[/QUOTE]
I have an even better idea: CITE YOUR SOURCES.

I have crunched it somewhat and did the risk assessment over a long period of time (ten years:twenty years) and if a major medical problem arises I lose money by having the healthcare insurance the entire time vs not having it and having to pay out-of-pocket or getting the medical when I need it because I can do that (barring accidents which is included in out-of-pocket or other insurance). If I also include the money I save by not having healthcare vs paying the penalty and invest that I come out further ahead by not having it. and getting it when I need it.
Click to expand...
This makes absolutely no sense when there are no true cost caps, you can't predict how much a premium will cost you, or even what kind of plan you'll be able to afford. This is made even more moot when most companies don't have year-round open enrollment for insurance unless you get married or need to add someone to the policy; not when you need insurance.

I do get that this is more of a charity tax of 2.5% for those less fortunate and I am all for helping those as God forbid I might be in those shoes one day but I don't trust the government with my charity money and I already give to my church. My church will be getting less charity now so I can pay the charity tax to the government. Oh well to bad for them. The government has done such a good job with social security and their health plans in the past.
Click to expand...
Taxes are not a charity. Comparing it to dropping a few bucks in the collection plate is dumb as shit.

I live in the United States and again I don't appreciate you telling me to leave because you don't like what I have to say. Now if I did leave it would not be to Somalia but would be more along the lines of somewhere like Japan where at least there is quality healthcare and I get more for my money from it. So I will not get healthcare now and I will pay the charity tax and will save money in the long run. Than if I absolutely have to I can at that time, due to the preexisting condition ban being lifted. I don't have to leave the country to avoid healthcare insurance just the charity tax.

Right now I think I will stay but in the future I will seriously look at if leaving is more beneficial and it probably will be but that decision will be mine not yours, thank you very much.
Click to expand...
HAHAHHA...yeah ok. Go to Japan. I bet you'll be paying more taxes there than here.

edit: Btw, I find it highly suspect that you decided to register on a videogame forum to discuss politics. Not only that, but you decided to make your first in the political subforum. It's an all too familiar pattern of recently banned trolls.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='VeggieTales']How was I being self-centered and self-obsessed? I said short end because I do believe that we have things a little harder than those before us. Yes that is an over generalization and I do understand that not everyone has it the same.

I didn't say I have it so bad. Is there something in the healthcare act that makes medication cheaper for the elderly? That's great. As I understand it they will have to pay three times as much as I do or a 3 to 1 ratio for health insurance in this act. How does that make sense when with this act they will be paying all their life for minimum coverage at a 60/40 split? The math does not make it even close to a good investment.
I have crunched it somewhat and did the risk assessment over a long period of time (ten years:twenty years) and if a major medical problem arises I lose money by having the healthcare insurance the entire time vs not having it and having to pay out-of-pocket or getting the medical when I need it because I can do that (barring accidents which is included in out-of-pocket or other insurance). If I also include the money I save by not having healthcare vs paying the penalty and invest that I come out further ahead by not having it. and getting it when I need it.
[/QUOTE]

What 60/40 split are you talking about? Co-insurance? What's the maximum out-of-pocket, the deductible, and the monthly premium?

How did you perform a risk assessment on yourself? How much do you think a major medical problem would cost you?
 
[quote name='VeggieTales']How was I being self-centered and self-obsessed? I said short end because I do believe that we have things a little harder than those before us.
...
I live in the United States and again I don't appreciate you telling me to leave because you don't like what I have to say. Now if I did leave it would not be to Somalia but would be more along the lines of somewhere like Japan where at least there is quality healthcare and I get more for my money from it. So I will not get healthcare now and I will pay the charity tax and will save money in the long run. Than if I absolutely have to I can at that time, due to the preexisting condition ban being lifted. I don't have to leave the country to avoid healthcare insurance just the charity tax.[/QUOTE]

Hey if you had said you have things a little harder and you're looking for help to figure out how to pay healthcare I would have bit my tongue

But you said 'young people are getting the short end again' which implies there is some sort of conspiracy to exploit young folks. If you removed your blinders you'd see that it's shitty for everyone.

I think your plan to avoid having health insurance sucks. If you get hit by a bus then you won't have time to get insurance and will have to pay the hospital out of pocket. Even if you do get a slower moving condition, good luck getting your foot in the door with a preexisting condition. You really think profit-obsessed insurance companies won't come up with all sorts of nasty tricks and backdoor legislation loopholes to reject leeches like you?

[quote name='cochesecochese']I meant to brush on this in the baby boomers thread. The whole 'eff the boomers' meme was making the rounds on conservative blogs/twitter a while back. The idea is to get people thinking 'eff the boomers' AND 'their liberal programs like social security and medicaid.'[/QUOTE]

Reverse psychology - interesting.

[quote name='dohdough']HAHAHHA...yeah ok. Go to Japan. I bet you'll be paying more taxes there than here.[/QUOTE]

I'm surprised the guy likes Japan - it's a nation of conformists and he is definitely not a team player. Not to mention that if he can't afford to make ends meet and pay for health insurance here in America, then he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of making a decent wage in Japan. I guess noone told him that Japan doesn't need anymore dishwashers right now.
 
[quote name='chiwii']What 60/40 split are you talking about? Co-insurance? What's the maximum out-of-pocket, the deductible, and the monthly premium?

How did you perform a risk assessment on yourself? How much do you think a major medical problem would cost you?[/QUOTE]

The 60/40 bronze plan premium is estimated to be between $4500-5000 a year in 2016 and the deductible would be about $4000. The 60 40 is a cost split for healthcare costs 40 would be my share. This plan is considered the catastrophic plan. If I am still making $40k a year in 2016 and beyond I would be exempt because of the 8% cap. If I am making more and I plan to be I will save about $4-5k a year by paying the penalty instead. Barring of course the things I already mentioned.

I found an answer to the "what happens if I don't pay the penalty" question. The way I understand it is the IRS will be prohibited from making criminal charges or property seizure. They cannot put a lien or levy. They can however add an additional penalty equal to that of the penalty not paid but they would have to take me to court or "sue me" to get it and do so. Right now they have nothing in place for handling this. Rest assured this is not a direction I plan on going anyway.

The way I see it right now is I can go without insurance for at least the next ten years.
 
[quote name='camoor']Hey if you had said you have things a little harder and you're looking for help to figure out how to pay healthcare I would have bit my tongue

But you said 'young people are getting the short end again' which implies there is some sort of conspiracy to exploit young folks. If you removed your blinders you'd see that it's shitty for everyone.

I think your plan to avoid having health insurance sucks. If you get hit by a bus then you won't have time to get insurance and will have to pay the hospital out of pocket. Even if you do get a slower moving condition, good luck getting your foot in the door with a preexisting condition. You really think profit-obsessed insurance companies won't come up with all sorts of nasty tricks and backdoor legislation loopholes to reject leeches like you?



Reverse psychology - interesting.



I'm surprised the guy likes Japan - it's a nation of conformists and he is definitely not a team player. Not to mention that if he can't afford to make ends meet and pay for health insurance here in America, then he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of making a decent wage in Japan. I guess noone told him that Japan doesn't need anymore dishwashers right now.[/QUOTE]

I don't have blinders on.

If I get hit by a bus I will probably die. If not the medical costs and more will be covered by the bus. I am also putting in place emergency contingency plans. Also don't forget the Government and my 2.5% contribution to keep that contingency plan going.
For your response to a slow-moving condition, I thought it was law now to cover pre-existing conditions. It didn't have to be law as insurance companies already agreed to do this but it was made law anyway. So you think that the insurance companies are going to brush off this law? Then why is it being touted as being one of the gold centerpieces of this act?

I am a leech? What is your definition and conditions to be a leech and how do I fit in that? If I am a leech how hard are you on and what do you call those people who are lazy and able to work and do more but don't and will be exempt from paying for the insurance and the penalty and get free medical insurance? You call me names and say I have blinders on? You are a harsh person and I can only assume that you are blessed in your life and always have been.

As far as Japan they don't need dishwashers? I didn't know that. Your comment again is telling. Dishwashers are below you as it would appear most people are and should leave your country.

I do not know why you are continuously attacking me, making assumptions about me, and telling me to leave your country. I don't know who you are or who you think you are but unless it improves you and I are finished.
 
"enforceable" in so much that it will get automatically deducted from your return or added to your bill if you need to pay in at the end of the year. Then again, that starts in what, 2014? Planners aren't even looking at it yet for the most part. It's rare to find someone that is young enough to worry about that is also wealthy enough to be subject to any hardship (ha!) by the penalty that also fits into the "I don't want insurance" category that is ALSO not otherwise insured. That's a miniscule amount of the population. While the radio nutjobs will tell you that "everyone" is going to be subject to this, that "everyone" is maybe less than 0.01% of the population. In actual numbers, maybe, MAYBE 35,000 people. Welcome to representative democracy.
 
[quote name='VeggieTales']
For your response to a slow-moving condition, I thought it was law now to cover pre-existing conditions. It didn't have to be law as insurance companies already agreed to do this but it was made law anyway. So you think that the insurance companies are going to brush off this law? Then why is it being touted as being one of the gold centerpieces of this act?

[/QUOTE]

Insurance companies already "agreed" to stop rejecting applications from those with pre-existing conditions? What's your source for that?

I don't think anyone knows exactly how the insurance companies plan to keep people from scamming the system, but an obvious option is an open enrollment period.
 
[quote name='VeggieTales']I am a little confused by this thing.[/QUOTE]

You signed up for CAG just for banter in the VS forum? Wow. I'm very impressed and sure you're not somebody's alt or anything.
 
[quote name='nasum']"enforceable" in so much that it will get automatically deducted from your return or added to your bill if you need to pay in at the end of the year. Then again, that starts in what, 2014? Planners aren't even looking at it yet for the most part. It's rare to find someone that is young enough to worry about that is also wealthy enough to be subject to any hardship (ha!) by the penalty that also fits into the "I don't want insurance" category that is ALSO not otherwise insured. That's a miniscule amount of the population. While the radio nutjobs will tell you that "everyone" is going to be subject to this, that "everyone" is maybe less than 0.01% of the population. In actual numbers, maybe, MAYBE 35,000 people. Welcome to representative democracy.[/QUOTE]

How is everyone .01%? I thought this act is mandated for every man woman and child legally in the Unites States. That every person is SUBJECT to this act. You are saying that this is not true?

I was under idea that this was something that affected EVERYONE in the United States. Silly me.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']You signed up for CAG just for banter in the VS forum? Wow. I'm very impressed and sure you're not somebody's alt or anything.[/QUOTE]

I did sign up to discuss how to make this new act work the best with the most affordable outcome and benefits. Banter? Not really. To be attacked? Not really. Looks like I made the mistake of thinking that people here were in my age group and cared and talked about ways to make things "cheaper" or workable. It looks so far as though I may have been totally wrong and the age group might be way under what I estimated and discussion of any level above grade school or high school non-existent. On top of that the thread exists but the level of knowledge on the matter seems non-existent as well. I am no expert but it looks like compared to the bulk of those that have responded I am a genius on the matter. that is sad as I am not even close to it.
 
[quote name='VeggieTales']How is everyone .01%? I thought this act is mandated for every man woman and child legally in the Unites States. That every person is SUBJECT to this act. You are saying that this is not true?

I was under idea that this was something that affected EVERYONE in the United States. Silly me.[/QUOTE]

I thought I was pretty clear in stating that the pool of people that fall under WXYZ and will now be forced to have insurance against their wishes.

There's what, 40 million uninsured? Of those 40 million, what is the sample pool that has a valid complaint about being forced to buy insurance or pay a penalty? Of that sample pool, how many are healthy, wealthy and young? That's the group that has a valid beef. That group is absurdly small. Some knucklehead living in the hills of Kentucky may not be happy about it, but they're getting a benefit and if they opt to not buy the insurance, the likelihood of their penalty/tax being substantial is infinitesimal as that person's income isn't terribly high to begin with.

To put a face on it, the Facebook guy would be someone with a valid beef. Then again, why on earth wouldn't he already have a very high end health insurance plan before this law? That's the person that your nutjobs are pointing at saying that they'll be penalized because of the law. Facebook guy won't be penalized because he already has insurance.
 
[quote name='nasum']I thought I was pretty clear in stating that the pool of people that fall under WXYZ and will now be forced to have insurance against their wishes.

There's what, 40 million uninsured? Of those 40 million, what is the sample pool that has a valid complaint about being forced to buy insurance or pay a penalty? Of that sample pool, how many are healthy, wealthy and young? That's the group that has a valid beef. That group is absurdly small. Some knucklehead living in the hills of Kentucky may not be happy about it, but they're getting a benefit and if they opt to not buy the insurance, the likelihood of their penalty/tax being substantial is infinitesimal as that person's income isn't terribly high to begin with.

To put a face on it, the Facebook guy would be someone with a valid beef. Then again, why on earth wouldn't he already have a very high end health insurance plan before this law? That's the person that your nutjobs are pointing at saying that they'll be penalized because of the law. Facebook guy won't be penalized because he already has insurance.[/QUOTE]

Kentucky and "your nutjobs"? I really have no idea what you are going on about. This plan does affect everyone legally in the United States. Each person will have to look at and plan within the new rules, costs and penalties for what works best for them and their life. If that is a problem with you maybe I should assume that you have never taken care of your own finances or major life decisions.

It appears that you are wanting to discuss something different. What that is I am not really sure of. Kentucky, radio, facebook, "your nutjobs", some strange reference to .01%, and that everyone is not subjected to this healthcare act.

Have you always had medical insurance? Have you paid that yourself? Are you looking at the new plans, costs, penalty, benefits and any adverse affects and determing how that will affect your life? It will and you should be. Unless of course you don't handle the planning yourself or you will be getting the free ride and it doesn't affect you in anyway except you now have free medical insurance.
 
Wow. You need everything to be *that* literal do you?

If you have health insurance now through your employer, you are not subject to the penalty. It simply doesn't matter. It is a non-issue. Capice?
Why would someone currently insured through their employer fret over the penalty?

I have not always had medical insurance that I paid for by myself. It's often difficult to get a decent job with benefits when you're 7 years old.
I am not looking at new plans because I have very good insurance through work.

p.s.
There is NO free insurance. You either purchase it through the exchanges, purchase it through your employer or you do not purchase it and you pay the penalty. Two of those options have a person paying for insurance, one of them has person paying for not having insurance.
 
[quote name='nasum']Wow. You need everything to be *that* literal do you?

If you have health insurance now through your employer, you are not subject to the penalty. It simply doesn't matter. It is a non-issue. Capice?
Why would someone currently insured through their employer fret over the penalty?

I have not always had medical insurance that I paid for by myself. It's often difficult to get a decent job with benefits when you're 7 years old.
I am not looking at new plans because I have very good insurance through work.

p.s.
There is NO free insurance. You either purchase it through the exchanges, purchase it through your employer or you do not purchase it and you pay the penalty. Two of those options have a person paying for insurance, one of them has person paying for not having insurance.[/QUOTE]

For everything before the p.s.
What are you talking about? It is becoming quite clear to me even you really have no idea what it is you are talking about. While I may be slightly wrong or off you really have no idea whatsoever.

As far as the "free insurance" you are the one being literal but I can take some blame for that. While you are correct there is no free insurance there is insurance that is free to the person getting it or the beneficiary. It isn't free as someone pays for it. So I should have said "except now you have medical insurance you don't pay for or is free to you". With that you do understand that people receive medical insurance free of cost to them correct? That more people will receive healthcare insurance they do not pay for due to this act?
 
spokker and chiwii, you guys have a good one. The rest of you maybe someday you all will grow, mature and become a part of the real world. Something I and the rest of us can only hope for.

I am out of here it is not the place for me and it was my mistake for coming here as I told the other dude.

You all have fun in your playpen.
 
retard takes his name from a retarded cartoon and proves that he's a retard.

No insurance = penalty
Insurance = no penalty

Not a difficult construct.

If I have insurance through my employer (you seemed to have missed that part, that's not free either as it is deducted from my wage) I pay no penalty because I have insurance. There's nothing to worry about. The penalty is a non-issue.

You originally asked how the IRS is going to go about collecting the penalty. I explained rather succinctly that the pool of people that will end up paying said penalty is extraordinarily small. Therefore, the argument that "everyone" will have to pay higher taxes or penalties is a cannard. Your inability to follow reason isn't my problem.

You're using everyone with a different flavour. Sure, everyone is subject to the speed limit. But for those that drive the limit or less, it's inconsequential. The speeders are the ones that need to worry about it. So that % of speeders are the ones to which the penalty is applicable. Not *everyone*. Seriously man, if you can't follow that...

Maybe as a member of the developmentally disabled, YOU sir will actually get that free insurance you're so worried about other people receiving. Have fun with Trig (Palin, not math, that'd be rough for you and I take no joy in the struggles of my fellow man).
 
[quote name='nasum']retard takes his name from a retarded cartoon and proves that he's a retard.

No insurance = penalty
Insurance = no penalty

Not a difficult construct.

[/QUOTE]
Not for any normal person to comprehend. My 16 year old cousin could understand that, so this dumbass has a comprehension level below that of a 16 year old, congrats.
 
I just can't for the life of me understand why people can't separate health care which is a medical procedure and coverage which is insurance and sets up a multiple payment system. One involves a doctor while the other involves a billing clerk with a GED...
 
Yeah - a lot of folks have them confused. Like all those folks who seem to continue to call this bill "Heath Care Reform" when the vast, vast majority of it is about coverage reform...
 
The thing is, they know they have to try and repeal as quickly as possible, because once it takes effect and people start taking advantage of it, public opinion will change. Medicare was unpopular too, and yet just ask anyone covered by it today if they'd rather do without it. All the furor over this will die down once it really takes effect, then the republicans will move onto the next boogeyman.
 
Myke is right there.

The Daily Show painted this perfect about a year ago.

http://veracitystew.com/2010/03/16/...ton-politics-to-professional-wrestling-video/

tl;dr -
Washington Politics is like Professional Wrestling. They pretend there are "good guys" and "bad guys" - and they put on the show for us - but at the end of the day both "sides" are out drinking, celebrating and planning together... all while we cheer on our favorites. In reality, there is no "both sides".

It's no surprise that research has shown a correlation between the lesser-informed folks on the political spectrum favor sports like NASCAR and Pro Wrestling. voter turnout and what sports they favor. (*edited*)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Soodmeg']At what point is enough enough. They have had about 700 debates about this and lost everyone of them. That went to the supreme court and they lost there too.[/QUOTE]

Losing is what losers do. You don't want the Republicans to stop doing what they are best at, do you?
 
I admit, I'm rather shocked that Pro Wrestling is left and NHL is right... I would think they're more or less correct vertically but they should be swapped horizontally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top