Penalty For Uninsured Not Signing Up For Obamacare To More Than Triple

a reply to: raymundoko

Right which is why you keep responding. My defensiveness.

You see you just did what everyone who knows they're losing an internet argument does ... you try to imply that I'm just not "smart enough" to understand your incredibly complex and intricate argument.

When actually all that happened was that you tried to make a poor comparison and got called on it. If you didn't read anything that I wrote then why are we having a conversation based on your RESPONSE to my post that is, if you were just minding your own business sharing your story responding to OP?

Let me run through it again for you ... I made this post

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:36 PM

Yes. Health insurance costs never went up before the PPACA.

[quoted material]

[link] Health Premiums Up 50 Percent From 2003 to 2010 - Report

etc.

Then you made THIS post

posted on Nov, 14 2014 @ 01:49 PM a reply to: Gryphon66

50% over 8 years is a big difference from 40% in 2 years...especially since ACA was supposed to REDUCE premiums...

Which is, even without the "a reply to: Gryphon66" tag, obviously just a poor response to my post ... not the OP.

Now, frankly I don't care what you're trying to spin this into, but come on.

The IRS has no credibility any longer since it was so eager to illegally target political groups without a shred of authority to do so, so the idea that they can garnish bank accounts is absurd. But just to be safe, I already closed mine. I also will never sign up for an illegal law that has no constitutional authority, and also won't file income tax returns any longer, since to do either, would be aiding and abetting felonies.

I don't pay protection money to scumbags like president Obama, who is just a Chicago style failure, who can't ever hope to succeed in anything legitimately, so he has only relied on Mafia help, and methods to accomplish his goals. Not to mention that every single item that his healthcare system sold itself to America as containing, were all 100% falsely advertised, which makes the entire thing illegal and false. Even if every item except one was true, that would still make the so called law falsely advertised, and so that alone would be enough to reject it.

There is no healthcare law.
There is no legal authority for it.
No one is signing up for it.
You can't sign up for it because it doesn't exist.
It is just a figment of someone's delusions of grandeur.
It is only Obama's imaginary friend. (He has no real friends).

I am laughing at this entire charade.
Opting in to this non-existent "healthcare" fraud, is admitting that you really are sick, you're sick... you're sick (Airplane 2).

a reply to: Gryphon66

and this is the problem....the full text of the ACA is excruciatingly long, and as per one of it's architects, written in such a tortured way, that your average citizen would have no hope of making sense of it. i have a WAY above average literacy and comprehension level, not to mention a much higher than average I.Q., and i cant really make heads or tales of it....i like reading, but goddamnit, there's just too much, and it's written in such a way as to make it frustrating to read.

that said, i have not read the entirety of the text, and i'm sure nobody here has read it either.....so we don't know everything that's in it....a disadvantage we all seem to share with the entirety of congress....

so given that none of us have read it, how could we possibly make an informed decision one way or the other whether or not we would like to see it left alone, repealed, or revised/modified/retooled?

all we really have at our disposal are knee-jerk, emotion-based responses, and those are rarely ever advisable...

personally, my first instinct would be to get rid of it outright. after the emotion subsides though, i realize that's not really a valid option, because then people with pre-existing conditions would be screwed....which begs the question of "how many other beneficial provisions are stirred into this s**t stew?"....so then revision/modification/retooling seems like a good way to go, but then, since i haven't read it, what could i suggest for change? well, the first things that come to mind are the individual mandate, the bundling in of useless services(all it really does is pad/jack up the bill), to conform to ACA qualifications, and the marketplaces....which begs the question of "how many other awful things are in here that we DON'T know about?"

so none of the people can make any kind of informed suggestions, because we haven't, and really literally can't read the damned thing, and then we also can't trust the people in the district to do right by us, because they've demonstrated on so many occasions that they're only capable of looking out for themselves, and their friends, and don't give a fig about the rest of us.....so, as you can see, we're in quite the pickle....

a reply to: Daedalus

The best summary/cheat sheet I've found is at the Kaiser Foundation website: here.

I agree that every law passed should be readable by someone with a high school education.

I agree that we can't trust politicians.

a reply to: Gryphon66

wow, even that is a hell of a huge read...and, while detailed, it's not quite detailed enough. like, for instance, it doesn't include a list of exactly what "essential healthcare services" consists of...would be nice to see what "they" think is essential..i mean, we already know they consider contraceptives to be essential, which they absolutely are not....so how much MORE bulls**t is padding the list?

as an aside...am i the only one who thinks the whole "contraceptives are essential" thing is somewhat "racist"/class-ist, and reeks just a bit of population control?

i mean, the only people who, realistically speaking, would have a hard time affording contraceptives, is(duh) poor people...now what segment of our population constitutes the highest percentage of the poor in this country? i'm pretty sure it's black people....so, what it looks like they're doing is trying to make it easier for black people to have less kids...

maybe i'm reading too much into it, but it just struck me as odd, so i thought i'd toss that out there..


it's gonna take me a while to go over this whole sheet of info, and do secondary research, and finish crafting the OP for this thread i'm gonna be starting....i hope the thread is still active by the time i'm done...

btw, anyone here know if, when determining if someone meets the guidlines to be considered "in poverty", as per the FPG, do they look at the individual's income, or the full household income? i ask, because i'm trying to figure out if i would be considered to be in poverty(if i am, i could probably mooch a little medicaid, so i can get these teeth dealt with before the infections kill me), because, right now, i'm pulling in WAY under 10k a year...but i live with my parents, so if they only look at whole household income, i'd be screwed, despite the fact that my parents can't afford to help me out with ANY medical expenses...i'm not interested in welfare, food stamps, or any of that....i just need some teeth pulled...and maybe some kind of denture, or implants, so i can eat properly, and not suffer from near constant infections...

what really worries me.... if there are shortfalls in the newest, governmet "Revenue Stream" (aka: ACA/Øbamaare) ~
~others will be required to make good the lack of Revenue which Øbamacare/ACA was designed to be

Because of the non-payment of policies & refusal to pay the Penalty by all the millions of non-sign-ups all across the nation
the Occupant in the Oval Office could very well decide to increase the Medicare Premiums that the upwards of 45 Million persons on Social Security now pay
for three (3) years now my Premium for Medicare Coverage (part B, I think) has remained at + $104.oo per month

I almost guarantee that the Øbama thugs in the administration will throw out propaganda which demonizes those without ACA/Øbamacare (mandated) coverage and are also refusing to step up to pay the extortion price of the Penalty imposed by (in effect) the SCOTUS ....

ah ha !! .... the neighbor v neighbor division that is at the 'core-belief' of most every program & system & policy of the Øbama cabal of Czars of his socialist administration... is coming to the surface !

What better way to divide the nation even more... And to take the focused hatred of his ineptitude in office (39% approval rating)
away from him and focus the anger of 45 Million pensioners on those 'homeland residents' who are deliberately not supporting Øbamacare/ACA or the excessive costs it is presenting to the average former middle-class which can not afford the misnamed Affordable Care Act-Law
As Their Medicare Premiums Rise~~ and Their Retirement/Disability Check Shrinks even further

Ranger, I have a question for you. You stated "And neither is the gov gonna arbitrarily take $$$ outta my bank". How are you going to stop them, if they decide to enforce this law?
The only way I can see this happening is you work for cash only, and do not have a account. You also do not pay any taxes. Either way if the IRS wants their penalty money they can take it from you. All they need is your Social Security Number.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
The IRS has no credibility any longer since it was so eager to illegally target political groups without a shred of authority to do so, so the idea that they can garnish bank accounts is absurd.

The problem with that is the IRS doesn't need credibility. It's a government agency. Like the FBI. They don't care what people think of them.

www.nytimes.com... nes&nlid=49939149&_r=0

OBAMACARE COVERAGE TO INCREASE BY UP TO 20% IN 2015
So your choices are ... A one-time "penalty" of nearly $400 for not enrolling, or getting stuck with a policy you "hope" your doctor and nearest hospital will accept, which increases by up to 1/5 every year.

Nah. Think I'll stick with the $400 package of shaman, herbs and group prayer ...

originally posted by: MKMoniker
www.nytimes.com... nes&nlid=49939149&_r=0

OBAMACARE COVERAGE TO INCREASE BY UP TO 20% IN 2015
So your choices are ... A one-time "penalty" of nearly $400 for not enrolling, or getting stuck with a policy you "hope" your doctor and nearest hospital will accept, which increases by up to 1/5 every year.

Nah. Think I'll stick with the $400 package of shaman, herbs and group prayer ...

From your link at the NYT:

“Consumers should shop around,” said Marilyn B. Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs the federal insurance exchange serving three dozen states. “With new options available this year, they’re likely to find a better deal.” She asserted that the data showed that “the Affordable Care Act is working.”

Hmmm ... well that sounds good, huh? What else?

A new Gallup Poll suggests that seven in 10 Americans with insurance bought through the exchanges rate the coverage and the care as excellent or good, and most were planning to keep it.

70% of Americans like the insurance they were able to buy ... but, I thought everyone hated it? Guess not.

The data, released by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, indicates that price increases will be modest for many people willing to change plans. In a typical county, the price will rise 5 percent for the cheapest silver plan and 4 percent for the second cheapest.

So, 20% was, again, the worst possible scenario, average for average plans is 4.5%

Again, folks, it's insurance, on a market place. Insurers have gotten used to upping the premiums and deductibles every year. The only way to prevent that would be to add language to the law which caps or forbids increases, which of course, would raise another hue and cry about government intervention.

I have ten employees on a non-ACA exchange plan. My company pays 100% of the cost for the employee. What I've seen every year for the past decade is an increase in premium of between 10 and 50% and reduction of benefits for more money.

For profit businesses should not be controlling access to healthcare in any way shape form or fashion. It makes no sense, it encourages price gouging, fraud, and reduction of available services, etc.

a reply to: St Udio

How exactly is ACA a revenue stream for the Government, again?

Medicare is not related to the ACA; they're completely different programs. There is a provision for Medicaid enhancement at the State level.

If you're worried about your Social Security and your Medicare, President Obama is not who you need to worry about. Look at the other end of Pennsylvania Ave at the building with the big round dome on top.

I'm truly sorry you've bought into the hype about "Obama thugs" ... if you have insurance coverage (and you seem to have Medicare) you're not going to have to pay any penalties.

From my perspective, President Obama has supported unity and worked to keep the country together. It is the Republicans in Congress who made it their "number one priority" to defeat the President, thwart every program, make sure he's only elected once, and now, fight rather than govern. And they have been egged on by the right-wing media like Fox News, the racist Rush Limbaugh, GOP leader, and all the rest of the carnival.

What better way to divide the nation than for the Republicans to declare that it's not their job to create law, or sustain law, or act for the betterment of the country, but merely to fight their apparently mortal political enemy at our expense?

As I said, look to your Republican Congress to come after your Social Security and Medicare ... that's their policy plank, not a Democratic one.

I really hope you find some peace and escape some of this fear you're talking about. Maybe if you change the channel?

Best,

originally posted by: Ceeker63
Ranger, I have a question for you. You stated "And neither is the gov gonna arbitrarily take $$$ outta my bank". How are you going to stop them, if they decide to enforce this law?
The only way I can see this happening is you work for cash only, and do not have a account. You also do not pay any taxes. Either way if the IRS wants their penalty money they can take it from you. All they need is your Social Security Number.

you do know that if One were getting State Subsidized Medicare over the years... that the particular State providing your Medicare Coverage will/can attach a lien to your estate/death benefits, to collect the monies paid out for your behalf...
the ACA is going to go-down-that-road very soon... just because there are millions who are not 'participation' in the gov't revenue stream of buying outrageous policies or paying the fines/penalties due

so- yeah...the gov't will eventually drain your resources, there is no easy escape, for yourself or your heirs

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm not trying to spin anything. You don't know the definition of cherry picking.

I gave MY personal experience. You gave a response about a 50% increase over 8 years, I said that was different from MY situation because my increase was in 2 years. If anyone cherry picked it was you as you did not use data after the ACA went into effect. I get it though, you were saying premiums have gone up in the past, bit that has nothing to do with my simple post that MY increase over two years seemed a bit steep compared to the past.

Again, I'm only giving MY personal experience, and you are extremely offended by that.

Also, you posting the definition of cherry picking and still using it wrong was just plain hilarious.

edit: After reading your post above I see the problem. You're in hyper Obama defensive mode. Setting: Ultra Sensitive.

a reply to: Gryphon66

a reply to: St Udio

How exactly is ACA a revenue stream for the Government, again?

Medicare is not related to the ACA; they're completely different programs. There is a provision for Medicaid enhancement at the State level.

THE ACA/Øbamacare monster was created to create a steady stream of health industry campaign contributions to the originators of the 'wealth transfer' mechanism of mandated health-care coverage

the Government itself would pocket the planned for non-compliant people who refused to buy the trumped-up policies or refused to pay for the fines/penalties for not enrolling in Øbama care.

see the thread where the 'penalty' for not enrolling in a timely manner has increased from $97 yr to $350 yr...
i'm glad you were so beguiled to not have seen that coming in the first place at the start when Øbama deemed health reform as his signature legislation in the first term.
remember the advice to: "don't read the bill just pass it"


I am quite well aware the ACA-Medicare, even Medicare-Medicaid are all separate systems...but all under the same health-care tent...

I just fail to see just how you could not deduce that " wealth transfer " of Øbamacare/ACA was the desired end result of seizing & socializing the 17% part of the economy (health insurance industry & health care services/treatments) was presidential overreach to begin with





I do not have evidence before me at present...
but I suspect that the GAO or other agencies used the revenue models of future unsecured liabilities in relation to Øbamacare/ACA
participation or lack of participation fines-penalties to doctor the nations' balance sheet...

Also, that the start up costs of this Øbamacare transition of mandated health care would quickly be repaid from the people who found it impossible to afford a policy and would pay the $97 fine...millions of them, and at $97 each would be around $400 for a family of 4
times how many millions of families ?
~they even made sure the Øbamacare web portal was screwed up so delays had to be made this year... with the substantially higher fines for non participation rolled out by stealth the next year... this is all clearly a ruse- a game- a con... played out on the American people..
wait till the illegal aliens get full Amnesty any find out the free ride has terminated---

? will they burn their green cards & return home ?

a reply to: raymundoko

Ray, this is the last time I'm going to point out what happened.

You responded to my post not I to yours. Look back in the thread. Look at the post you're responding to now.

You referenced a statement, made by me, about the performance of an entire industry over 8 years and then compared that information to one single sample, i.e. "your own experience" and then implied that single sample somehow represented a failure of the ACA.

Look at my comment again. I gave information about what happened prior to the PPACA because I was TALKING ABOUT what happened prior to the ACA.

I'm not offended by your personal experience at all. I pointed out your faulty reasoning and fallacious logic. I referenced a standard fallacy expecting you to understand what it was and then had to give two sophomoric "official" definitions of it ... which you are still denying.

You're trying to ridicule me (which has nothing to do with any argument) and you keep trying to do it, almost like you're trying to goad me into a response. You don't offer any backup for anything claimed, and then try to poke fun at me when I do. You keep repeating the same trivial argument over and over again, and then, suggest that I am the one being defensive.

I'm starting to think you have a problem with reading comprehension, or honesty or both frankly. You're desperately failing in your attempt to ridicule me, you failed in your defense of your flawed comparison, and you seem obsessed with trying to make this about me or about you instead of the facts of the matter.

That's off-topic and irrelevant, and I have no more time to waste on you.

Best,

a reply to: Gryphon66

i gotta nitpick again, Gryph...sorry...

A new Gallup Poll suggests

it SUGGESTS...that means it's a projection(guess)...and it's based on whatever the sample size of the poll was. unless the sample size was somewhere around 300,000, and they were randomly sampled from EVERY state, then it makes not only the poll's results, but the resulting projection(guess), rather useless...

i could go poll 100 people in atlanta, and ask them what they think of coke, and then publish my results, and say that the poll suggests that 99% of americans prefer coke over pepsi...you and i both know that isn't true though...in any event, the sample size, and sample area are very important.


and later, you post a quote talking about increases "in a typical county"....there are too many factors to what might constitute "a typical county"....it sounds like more fluff language, to hide the fact that they're either guessing, or are completely full of s**t...

a reply to: St Udio

The healthcare industry was already making massive contributions to Congress, so following your logic, why would they (Congress) have given them (healthcare industry) such a cash-cow (which ACA definitely is for the insurance companies) if their intent was merely to keep the contributions rolling in?

Also you referred to it as a government revenue stream not a stream to the politicians. Are you saying now that ACA is not a government revenue stream?

Mandated healthcare coverage (the individual mandate) was an idea originated by conservatives and Republicans back to the late 80s and continued all through the 90s in every Republican healthcare reform plan put forth. IF there was any "wealth transfer" medium in operation here, it is transferring money from the taxpayers to the fatcat insurance companies, so if that's what you're referring to ...

The "revenue stream" from tax penalty payments is traditionally miniscule. I'm not sure why the government would have gone to such an elaborate ruse if a stream of pennies was what they sought.

Again, I was not in favor of the individual mandate, that's a Republican idea. I'm in favor of the government making an established plan, like say the Federal Employee Benefit Program or even Medicare available to all Americans on a sliding scale of premium based on their income level.

So, no I wouldn't say I've been beguiled by anything, and, the increase in penalties is not a new thing, it's in the law, so you don't have to be a prophet to "see that coming" exactly.

You lose me completely on ACA, Medicare, Medicaid all being under the tent. You are the one who made a claim about ACA affecting Medicare premiums, and I merely pointed out they're different programs, so your position really doesn't make much sense.

Ummm ... your last paragraph is unclear and muddled. The Government doesn't get the 17%, and the government isn't managing the plans itself so it's not socialistic by any definition; the only wealth-redistribution is the one generally supported by Republicans from the poor and middle-class to the rich, and .. although I'm aware that everything is "presidential overreach" these days ... the law was passed by Congress, not by the President.

a reply to: St Udio

ACTUALLY....

i do happen to know this about the legislation: while, yes, the IRS is designated as the party responsible for collecting "shared responsibilty payments" (lol, what a joke, also known as the ACA non-compliance tax), they are also nearly powerless to actually collect them....they cannot put a lien against your house or car, and they can't garnish your wages....they can ONLY deduct the money from your income tax return.

i dislike the ACA intensely, but let's keep our facts straight..

a reply to: Gryphon66

There you go with your hyper defensiveness, ultra sensitivity.

Again, I was making a statement about MY personal experience. I extrapolated no data and chose only that which I wanted to relay. I gave MY provable personal experience.

You posted the definition of cherry picking, and then went on to use it wrong. Now you are trying to use the "moral high ground" approach to back out of how silly you look. The next time you Google a definition of something, maybe you should read the definition first.

a reply to: St Udio

I just fail to see just how you could not deduce that " wealth transfer " of Øbamacare/ACA was the desired end result of seizing & socializing the 17% part of the economy (health insurance industry & health care services/treatments) was presidential overreach to begin with

nobody "seized", or "socialized" anything....all they(fed gov) did was stick their nose where it didn't belong, and exceed their authority, so they could "regulate" "healthcare"...yes, the president championed it, and he signed it, but the passage of this piece of s**t wasn't presidential overreach....it was federal overreach..

i dislike the ACA intensely, but let's keep our facts straight..