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.

 

Obamacare Tax penalty to hit nearly 6 million uninsured people

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
They have a tax on everything now, including our lives. They tax our income, our purchases, our land, our energy, our communications, they even tax your estate after you die, and now they will tax us for just being alive!

If I thought I could live without money, I'd give it all back to Cesar and be done with it!
edit on 19-9-2012 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Added another point




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

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"

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.



the whole system works by using premiums of healthy people to pay claims for the sick people. the more people in it, the better it works

just having a policy means you only pay the negotiated rate, and the difference is "written off"

my wife had an ER visit.

total bill = $7,000
ins co paid = $2,200
my cost = $75

the hospital eats the balance

if I had no insurance, I have a $7,000 bill I have to pay

so which is more expensive, having the policy or not ?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
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)



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a statute is only given the force of law thru the consent of the governed. if they want to try and claim that it is a crime not to have insurance they will need to have an injured party. DO NOT CONSENT DO NOT COMPLY. its actually pretty simple. this is another example of the government growing to big for their britches.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Okay, I DO like obamacare because my issues I already had would be covered and that is vital. Very vital. OH GOD WHY IS THIS SO HARD? Can't they take the best of both; pro gay, pro women, anti war, pro poor, pro aid, pro stopping poking our noses into the worlds business, etc etc etc and put it into a third candidatial bro? or chick? We need a female for pres. Stuff would actually get done. Only a woman can do 908098089098098 things at once and do em perfectly.

Just a little humor there. xD Don't beat me. Don't beat me.

Oh and pro stop sending our jobs overseas and bring em back home and pro let businesses be owned by the workers and pro govt works FOR the people; not the people work for the govt. Those too.
May as well add anti raise the taxes on the poor and lower em on the rich. We definitely need an anti rich president.

No. Anti rich government. Just cuz the pres could be cool and understanding doesn't mean the other folk sitting in those seats behind him would be. THAT lies our biggest problem. I think elections are this: we're only voting on the next name we want to blame for everything the folk in the HoR, Senate, etc behind him do. Poor schmuck. I'll never be pres for that reason alone. Also, I'm not grey-haired yet. Don't wish to be either, thanks.



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
I am not a fan of the personal mandate, we can thank the insurance lobby for that one.

The tax/penalty/fine for not having insurance will only apply if you make over $60k a year. How many people do ya'll know that make that much money and DON'T have health insurance already?



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:44 PM
link   

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)


it's a HRA through United health care. which stinks because I used to work for empre bluecross/blushield. it's like working for coke and the having to drink pepsi


anyway, that's how it works. you are only repsonsible for your agreed to out of pocket (copay or deductible) and whatever the negotiated rate is for the provider

the provider writes off the drifference, but if you don't have insurance, no such luck

it's even more dramatic on an HMO plan. the provider eats more because if you go in-network, there is no deductible, only a copay. you should see what medicare looks like. the providers get almost nothing, which is why many are trying like heck to not take it anymore

the reason providers do ths is simple, they know the memebrs will go to thier facility to stay "in-network"

so they make it up on volume



posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
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



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

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


Kind of like my situation. I'm 25 now, when I was 17 I had to have my appendix removed. I was working at the time, paid cash, no insurance.

It was either have the surgery, or die. Guess which one I chose? lol.

Whats worse is they kept me in there 2 extra days for a high white blood cell count, so that just increased the bill when I could have been sent home and told to come back.

Bill came out to be 14k. So it has been real nice being 14k in debt before I even turned 18. I got my first cell phone when I was 20 and ended up having to pay a 400 dollar deposit just because I had bad credit thanks to my stay. Bad credit has pretty much plagued me since then with no end in sight.

Whats bad is 14k is a raindrop to some people's medical financial problems.
edit on 20-9-2012 by cconn487 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ulyeney

The tax/penalty/fine for not having insurance will only apply if you make over $60k a year.



I read the entire ObamaCare Bill and what you state is nowhere's in it. I suggest everyone read it.

Not only did they create a new mandatory tax but there's many other fines in there they can put on people.
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.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
They won't get money from me. I will not comply.


Do you work? They will take it out of your taxes. You can't get a return. You will pay, sorry.



posted on Sep, 21 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   

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.


Last I checked the people of MA voted for it. How do I know? I'm from MA. Romneycare and Obamacare are apples and oranges. Where's my vote on Obamacare? Btw how much is Romneycare costing MA, how much is federally funded? Add The federal dollars to the amount the state is already in the hole and you see the problem with a FEDERAL law of this nature.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:14 AM
link   

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.


You might be on to something in regard to income tax reference. This is about going after the single people whom the government owes money to. A way to limit the amount the US has to payout come April 15th.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

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.


They should be.
Why not?
If you want to poison yourself, why should people who do not have to shoulder your cost? What are you, socialist?



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:44 AM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 12:59 AM
link   
Get ready!

My thoughts. . . . . .




posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


OT: That is such a cute kitten.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:03 AM
link   

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.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:12 AM
link   

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.


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)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 01:21 AM
link   

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.


Oh lying would invalidate your insurance? Gotcha. Pretty hard to tell since you just said that it and never mentioned what that it was and I never said anything about the lying in the post you responded to. English is an amazing tool when put to good use. English is a tough language. Perhaps we should refrain from crossing paths until you finish your studies in it.


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)


Good! Good thing you did that! Now I want to make it clear that after the many exchanges between us, your opinion matters so very little I can barely express.

How about you just stick to facts and learning English and we leave our opinions elsewhere. Yours is all you have to offer and so far it does nothing for me.

So yeah, lying will invalidate your insurance. Just like it said in the post I responded to. You would have enjoyed that if you could have read it.
edit on 23-9-2012 by wascurious because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join