It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 9
54
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

No worries, Daedalus your "nitpicking" is at least logical and reasonable and isn't some silly personal attack trying to cover up bad reasoning ...

So ... you're suggesting that using polling data is not good evidence? Gallup is usually judged to be one of the least politically biased companies that do national polling, and their procedures are considered sound by statisticians, by and large ... but sure, any poll really only reflects the response of the people polled. If the sample size or composition is flawed, the results would be as well.

Scientific polls are used all the time in all kinds of situations, particularly to measure the public's reaction.

Again, talking about a typical county is only like taking an average or mean of a large group of data. True, it's not relating the formation to a specific place or specific increases but is merely trying to give an overview of what's going on around the country. The process of looking at statistical averages is a way to overcome the cherry-picking of data we've discussed.

That is, I could pick a place with a dramatically higher rate, and make a claim about the increase that would not be true, for most people in most places. If I pick a number in "the middle" (which is of course what an average is) it's still technically true I guess to call it "a guess" but it's a statistically valid guess nonetheless.

The source I was responding to, by the way, talked about the average county. I just followed up with a comment about their claim.

What do you consider a valid method of looking at hundreds or thousands of pieces of data if you're not going to analyze them in some way by some standard method? I've never seen you raise objections to scientific data analysis before ... why in this case to you think "they" are completely full of manure?
edit on 9Sat, 15 Nov 2014 09:25:42 -060014p0920141166 by Gryphon66 because: Small correction




posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
So. If you cannot afford healthcare with the many options available and you cannot afford the penalty for choosing not to have healthcare insurance AND you do not fit the exemption criteria, and you get sick or hurt and incur medical costs will you then pay for those medical costs out of your own pocket? Or will you then just go bankrupt or somehow otherwise get out of paying the potential thousands of dollars? Who pays for your medical expenses then?

Serious question.

Hardship exemptions from the fee for not having health coverage



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

These are some of the reasons that make a single-payer system the only one that makes sense.

The healthcare of the People should not be left victim to the whims of profit-seekers and corporatists.

IN my opinion.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Daedalus

No worries, Daedalus your "nitpicking" is at least logical and reasonable and isn't some silly personal attack trying to cover up bad reasoning ...


now, now...there's no need for that..



So ... you're suggesting that using polling data is not good evidence? Gallup is usually judged to be one of the least politically biased companies that do national polling, and their procedures are considered sound by statisticians, by and large ... but sure, any poll really only reflects the response of the people polled. If the sample size or composition is flawed, the results would be as well.


i'm not suggesting anything..i'm saying flat out "using poling data isn't good enough".....i don't care how highly they're regarded, a gallup poll isn't good enough, when it's something this important....you wanna figure out if coke or pepsi is more popular, ok, gallup away....it's still probably gonna be inaccurate, but it's and unimportant topic, who anyone with an I.Q. over "dishwasher", isn't gonna give a flying firetruck...



Scientific polls are used all the time in all kinds of situations, particularly to measure the public's reaction.


again, it's still only an estimation(guess) of public opinion, or reaction...and it's used to influence, shape, or manipulate public opinion.... "this highly regarded polling firm says 99% of americans prefer coke, they must be right.....sonofaBITCH!...i need a coke.."



Again, talking about a typical county is only like taking an average or mean of a large group of data. True, it's not relating the formation to a specific place or specific increases but is merely trying to give an overview of what's going on around the country. The process of looking at statistical averages is a way to overcome the cherry-picking of data we've discussed.


in cases like that, assuming the percentages they're talking about, are derived from real data, and not projections, i'd say publish the full spread...not just this "average county" bulls**t. at that point, all they're doing, is trying to minimize the result...to make it not seem so bad...people should be given as much fact and reality as possible...maybe it's not as politically correct, but at least it prepares people, so they can make a better-informed assessment, and/or decision "well, the increase could be as low as 4%, and as high as 20%, depending on where you are. click the link for a full break down of what's what"



That is, I could pick a place with a dramatically higher rate, and make a claim about the increase that would not be true, for most people in most places. If I pick a number in "the middle" (which is of course what an average is) it's still technically true I guess to call it "a guess" but it's a statistically valid guess nonetheless.


right, again, just give us the full spread....blowing smoke up people's asses with guesses, and estimates, and projections, doesn't do anyone any favors...well, except maybe the asshole doling out half-assed information...makes him and his team look better...



The source I was responding to, by the way, talked about the average county. I just followed up with a comment about their claim.


i know, that's why i said:


and later, you post a quote talking about increases "in a typical county"




What do you consider a valid method of looking at hundreds or thousands of pieces of data if you're not going to analyze them in some way by some standard method? I've never seen you raise objections to scientific data analysis before ... why in this case to you think "they" are completely full of manure?


thorough studies, real data, as few guesses as possible...for something this important, guesses just aren't good enough. i don't have a problem with scientific data analysis, and i never have....but that's not what this is...

yes, i understand that most of science starts off as guesses...a hypothesis is a mixture of conjecture and guessing....and that's the first step of the scientific method...but by the end of the method, you have a proven, repeatable result, so you can say with confidence: (queue science-y terms) " [such and such] equals [so and so]"

with just polls you have: "well we THINK 99% of americans prefer coke...but it's really just a guess, based on our limited sample size, in selected demographics, in selected locations, so we're really not sure about anything....but it sounds good, doesn't it?"



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

I don't disagree with your statements, per se. I think we lose a lot if we were to just give up on scientific polling because I think, used correctly, it can tell us something about how people feel and think about things.

Someone else linked the Times article I was commenting on. It was a strange hit piece/praise piece on the subject; I don't think the writer really knows how they feel about the PPACA.

I have believed for a long time that we should have a national referendum process, to let the people speak directly to legislation. I don't think TPTB would ever give us any real power, etc.

I'm not sure how we make a scientific measure of the attitudes, beliefs, or satisfaction ... if we can't use polls.

But, your point is well taken, analyzing polling data is a subset of scientific data analysis.

Perhaps our new Congress will find ways to get rid of the bad while retaining the good in the ACA. After all, many of us have always said that the law in its first form would merely be a "starting place."





edit on 10Sat, 15 Nov 2014 10:14:52 -060014p1020141166 by Gryphon66 because: added an -r



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
So. If you cannot afford healthcare with the many options available and you cannot afford the penalty for choosing not to have healthcare insurance AND you do not fit the exemption criteria, and you get sick or hurt and incur medical costs will you then pay for those medical costs out of your own pocket? Or will you then just go bankrupt or somehow otherwise get out of paying the potential thousands of dollars? Who pays for your medical expenses then?

Serious question.


my first instinct reply is "serious answer: Your Mom".

that, however, would be childish, unproductive, and deliberately antagonistic....i only include it here, in the hopes that someone derives some degree of joy from it, that's to say, i'm only including it because i think it's goddamn funny, and i'm sure someone else might appreciate it....this thread could use a touch of humor...

anyway, your question is kind of insane, but still valid (figure THAT out)

bottom line though, and this is my serious answer: there shouldn't be a federal mandate to the people, to purchase a product from a private company. if there wasn't, there wouldn't be any pressure to choose one of the "many" options, there wouldn't be a fine(tax) for the sin of choosing not to buy the product, there wouldn't be any need for an exemption, and there wouldn't be any need for this conversation....and if the cost of medical services wasn't so idiotically, and unnecessarily high, there wouldn't be a need for the kind of "health insurance" we see today...

it all boils down to unchecked greed...

this system is completely unaffordable, and unsustainable.....the only way to win, is not to play.
edit on 11-15-2014 by Daedalus because: Word: Write letters and s**t, yo..



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   
What gripes me about Obamacare is that it doesn't do enough for working people that are just scraping by. I'll sign up for it, what else can I do. But I have spent a lifetime of helping fund Medicaid, free healthcare for people who do no work, and paying into Medicare, which doesn't help me now. I feel that an expansion of Medicare would have been better. WTF, I pay into that already. a reply to: eXia7



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247

originally posted by: FalcoFan
a reply to: eXia7

obamacare is free healthcare for illegal aliens and the "gimme dats" (WE pay for it,though.)


No it's not. It's a handout to the corporations and the government by forcing you to buy a product or pay a fine.



Anyone that supports Corporations are People, and Money is Freedom of Speech are as much to blame for this boondockle

This is Corporate Fascism at its finest where Lobbyists use Big Government to steal from me to give to private for profit institutions.

www.opensecrets.org...

Top Lobbying Industries:


Pharma and Insurance sit at the top of the Lobbying Chain using customers cash to buy politicians


Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $2,983,826,387
Insurance $2,074,087,821



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: flyandi
First I thought they did this all on purpose for something "greater" - now I realize they just plain incompetent and have no freaking clue - they might be a few smarties out there but they get out weight by the idiots (which includes this President).


Also I love how all the supporters (can't believe that there are still some) now push the agenda that the whole ObamaCare is the Republican's fault .. HAHAHAAHAHAHA... I love it... you will see how this will be intensified in the next 2 years.

When do people realize that "Progressive" always fails ...





How does the responsibility lie at Democrats or even Republicans Fault?

Who wrote Obamacare? It was Insurance and Big Pharma which was then passed on to politicians to pass it in order to see what is in it. It was already bought and paid for by Lobbyists.

That is why it is never going away and the Repub Politicians know it as well.
They may change it to sweeten the deal more for Corporations.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
How are they planning to implement this? Garnish my wages? Press a gun to head? This honestly scares me, however I refuse to sign up and allow them to enact on my freedoms.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DJMSN

I thought the point I was making was understood. Forget the obvious: the lien process, garnishments and withholding of tax. I dont see it happening.

We'll see soon enough...



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

According to the replies Ive gotten in this thread...they are coming for you and me...even after all you explained about your situation.

I see the intent, but some posters are convinced you, me your husband a my wife should head for the hills because they are coming for us: rich, poor, barely making it and the not surviving.

I didnt get to be my age without some insight into how these "laws" and "agendas' eventually play out. And in the last 60 years? There have been tons of them...all with bleak outcomes for you, me and the average family...but turned out far different from their intent.

I dont see it happening. Good luck to you and yours and us all....



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Grovit

Let me understand you....

As in most of the 50 United States if not all of them...if youre pulled over in your state and the officer says "Drivers License, Registration and Proof of Insurance"...and you say "I have no license...but here's my registration...and I have no Insurance papers...but I GOT some!"....that will be acceptable and legal in your state? And you wont go to jail?

I see...well...you did say you didnt care.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Agreed. It would be so much simpler all around. But we know who doesn't like that.



posted on Nov, 15 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Daedalus

No one else stepped in to do a thing about the ridiculously rising costs that only profited some and gave free care to others. So now there is a mandate on what was well-intentioned to be more fair for all. And now the costs of medical care are coming down. Those paying more privately were all along. Those not paying a dime are now being taxed to get at least some back.

And to answer my question, which you didn't, those who are unfortunate enough not to be able to pay for healthcare or to get an exception for this relatively low tax (not all that hard according to the law as I read it if they are really in such dire straits), should they have a catastrophic or even not such a catastrophic medical bill to pay,who will pay it?

We all will, just as we all were before the ACA. And our costs would keep going up. Just as I have to pay more for my car insurance because some people out there don't pay for it at all.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
Current events tells me that they planned to increase the 'fine' from the beginning. They just couldn't tell the 'stupid public' in the beginning though.


They wont stop there: eventually you wont get a tax refund. That is the goal to begin with...



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 07:03 AM
link   
a reply to: This1000xThis

They actually were quite cheat that the fine would go up... That was never hidden.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Daedalus

No one else stepped in to do a thing about the ridiculously rising costs that only profited some and gave free care to others.


so the answer is legislation that forces people who can't afford it, to give free money to the insurance industry?

that makes a lot of sense -roll eyes-




So now there is a mandate on what was well-intentioned to be more fair for all. And now the costs of medical care are coming down. Those paying more privately were all along. Those not paying a dime are now being taxed to get at least some back.


only, it's not fair, and the cost of medical services ISN'T coming down....before the ACA, i visited the hospital....on my bill, one of the line items was an aspirn...it was listed as having a cost of 100 dollars(for a f**king asprin?!). post ACA(i'm talking last year), same hospital, same asprin, line item cost: 120 dollars....i could literally buy enough asprin to last me YEARS, for what they charged me for one....most of the line items on the bill were actually more expensive than they were pre-ACA...

all the ACA did was serve as a handout to the insurance industry...it enriched the medical-industrial complex, whilst giving very little back to the people...

the ones who couldn't afford the bill before, whom you blame for driving up the cost of medical services, are the same people who can't afford these ACA-mandated policies, OR the bulls**t "shared responsibility payment" extortion money...the only difference between now and then, is that now, the government is using money it's stolen from the rest of us, to give to them, instead of addressing the REAL problem, which is the greed of the insurance companies, the medical professionals, pharmaceutical companies, and medical device manufacturers.....corporations should not be able to decide who lives and who dies..



And to answer my question, which you didn't, those who are unfortunate enough not to be able to pay for healthcare or to get an exception for this relatively low tax (not all that hard according to the law as I read it if they are really in such dire straits), should they have a catastrophic or even not such a catastrophic medical bill to pay,who will pay it?


relatively low? justify it however you want....it's still wrong.

the ACTUAL cost of the services on the bill, is so low, that it should be absorb-able by the medical system, as a whole.



We all will, just as we all were before the ACA. And our costs would keep going up. Just as I have to pay more for my car insurance because some people out there don't pay for it at all.


a lot of the increases are actually due to the litigious nature of the american people....when you go to the hospital, they run a whole battery of tests, you don't actually need, because in the past, they've been sued, because they missed something that would have come up on some obscure test, that wasn't standard....so now you need to pay more, because they don't wanna get sued..

your reasoning is pretty flawed, and you're looking at this all wrong....
edit on 11-16-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

That should say quite clear, not cheat.



posted on Nov, 16 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   
All quite ironic,
since 'medical treatment' is one of the leading causes of death.




top topics



 
54
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join