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.
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
If they don't have the money to buy a policy, how will they have the money to pay the fine? Personally, I find this an UN-Constitutional and unconscionable power grab. I will not comply. This government has now lost all semblance of legitimacy in my eyes.
Originally posted by syrinx high priest
that's the idea
now they will buy a policy and be a part of the "law of large numbers"
Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by syrinx high priest
I find that hard to buy into. Are you sure a bill for 5k won't show up.
ETA: After a conversation here, it seems this is possible but you must have a really good insurance plan or maybe have spend quite a bit already that year.
It won't be like this under many plans.
edit on 9/19/2012 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by carewemust
reply to post by syrinx high priest
If you told your hospital that you couldn't pay the bill and they just "wrote it off" as you say, then in actuality, the cost for your wife's care was simply transferred to other paying patients, either directly, or through their insurance company. Ultimately, any time you do not pay part/most of your hospital bill, you're transferring your burden to others. The 47% that Mitt Romney talked about are big-time burden shifters.
The real problem that noone addresses is that the COST OF CARE is way WAY out of whack. I had a client last month who was in the hospital for 2 days due to a sudden seizure. The cost so far is $74,000 and this is NOT including the doctor(s) fees, but her health insurance has a $0 deductible, which means all bills will be paid by insurance...after the ins company negotiates a reduction of the charges.
How many of these "young healthy people" will it take to offset the $50k to $55k that this lady's insurance will ultimately pay out? Young healthy people only pay about $200 a month in health insurance premiums.
On another related note, since the IRS has ruled that they WILL NOT ENFORCE collection of the penalty-tax for not having health insurance, I don't think you'll see many people sweating over this. In Illinois, we're supposed to voluntarily pay state income taxes on all purchases made via the internet. Guess how that is working out for the state! Likewise, only those of ultra-high morality will voluntarily pay the IRS penalty-tax for not having the proper kind of health insurance, or no health insurance at all.
-Allen in Chicagoland
Originally posted by Ulyeney
The tax/penalty/fine for not having insurance will only apply if you make over $60k a year.
Originally posted by DarthMuerte
They won't get money from me. I will not comply.
Originally posted by jtma508
Everyone's getting their panties all knotte up again over political tripe. It's not a 'fine'. It works like it does here in Massachusetts --- you know, that plan that Romney set-up for us? It's a tax penalty. So, if you're making money and paying taxes it's added into your tax liability if you're not insured. The idea is that if you ARE working, making money and thereby required to pay taxes you should have insurance so the system doesn't have to carry you. If you aren't working there's no penalty (since you're not paying taxes anyway, right?) AND there are State programs to get you and children basic coverage. And again, this is the R O M N E Y plan up here in MA. There haven't been any riots up here and no significant moves to repeal it. Not even by that independent, walk-on-water, tea-partier, Scott Brown. So take a pill and chillax. You're being played --- again.
Originally posted by randomname
its a tax penalty. meaning you'll pay more in taxes.
but i'm sure any min. wage h&r block employee will be able to find 3000 loop holes around it.
Originally posted by Pervius
Smokers will be forced to pay 1.5 times as much as non-smokers...don't lie to get the cheaper tax...it's a $250,000 fine on you if they catch you lying.
It's in the Bill.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
It also invalidates your insurance. And yes, it should do all of that. If you want to poison yourself and cause yourself to be a walking health risk you need to pay for that, not me.
HEY! I think Hell just froze over.
Originally posted by wascurious
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by wascurious
It also invalidates your insurance. And yes, it should do all of that. If you want to poison yourself and cause yourself to be a walking health risk you need to pay for that, not me.
HEY! I think Hell just froze over.
No it is quite toasty down here where I am confused as to how it invalidates your insurance?
I sure as hell do not agree with your post in its entirety.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
You can not lie on your insurance form. Claiming to be a non smoker when you are a smoker is a blatant lie and can invalidate your insurance. And it should. You're being a scumbag and trying to push your expense onto someone else for actions you choose to engage in. There are things the insurance companies do to negate insuring people using this clause which is despicable (look up becoming pregnant or diagnosed with cancer flags your insurance for review). Hitting smokers who lie with this clause is sweet justice though.
ETA: Want to make sure it's clear I think what the insurance companies have done to pregnant women and people with cancer is revolting.edit on 23-9-2012 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)