What's REALLY in the Affordable Care Act, aka "Obamacare"

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by camaro68ss

Originally posted by jibajaba
opt out - if it's still an option.

cant, you'll get fined and thrown in jail, no joke.

Thats what we call freedom right?

edit on 12-2-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

You won't get thrown in jail. Quit spreading lies!
Same with the gold package getting preferential treatment over bronze package.
Why are you spreading fear-mongering lies?

edit on 12-2-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

Stop spreading lies,

yes you will go to jail. What happens if you dont have heathcare? you get fined by the IRS. what happens if you cant pay the IRS, you go to jail.

Or the IRS just sells your hours to pay for your taxes and you live on the street.

Sorry the truth to you is fear mongering.

edit on 12-2-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

That's not true either. While the act does call for these taxes, it doe not in any way provide an avenue for the IRS to pursue collection. The fact remains that $187 a month for health insurance is a good price. Have you priced insurance lately? I bet you can't come up with comparable insurance for less than $400-500 a month.

you have no clue what your talking about, Read the bill and stop spitting out what CNN or MSNBC has to say. IRS will collect if your not insured
www.forbes.com...

your fairy tail $187 is a joke. The economic fundamentals of Obama care will not allow for optimal care for that price. Service WILL be rationed at that price. Whenever you fix prices, the laws of supply and demand kick in and ration supply. Economics 101 here.

reply to post by camaro68ss


It is very interesting that last week I was surrounded by a group of ladies in their late 70s while waiting for my doctors appointment and to my amazement and delight all these ladies knew exactly what Obamacare was the scam that will become and how worry all this beautiful and bright older ladies were about everything that has do with their own personal care.

Then you wonder why some people are so well informed about everything regardless of age and others are not.

Originally posted by camaro68ss


you have no clue what your talking about, Read the bill and stop spitting out what CNN or MSNBC has to say. IRS will collect if your not insured
www.forbes.com...

your fairy tail $187 is a joke. The economic fundamentals of Obama care will not allow for optimal care for that price. Service WILL be rationed at that price. Whenever you fix prices, the laws of supply and demand kick in and ration supply. Economics 101 here.

edit on 12-2-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

I don't think you actually read the article you just linked to. You might want to go back and read it, because it pretty much back up everything I just said.

"The ACA says the IRS should enforce the law by imposing a tax penalty—but then effectively blocks the agency from using most of the tools it normally uses to go after tax scofflaws."

"The ACA bars the IRS from bringing a criminal enforcement case against someone who refuses to pay the non-insurance penalty. And it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for it to enforce a tax lien."

That leaves only one tool—the IRS can subtract the penalty from any refund it owes a taxpayer. But that applies only if the IRS happens to owe somebody a refund."

"Only low-income households who receive refundable credits, such as the Earned Income Credit, always get refunds. But the ACA specifically exempts most of them from the tax because their income is so low."

"Notwithstanding the nutty Internet rumors that the IRS is hiring 20,000 revenue agents to collect the tax, most people who really want to game the system will probably get away with it."

All quotes from the article you claim supports your belief that I don't know what I am talking about while you go off fearmongering jail sentences and other ridiculous lies. But thanks for doing my research for me. I really didn't want to go find the proof. Appreciate it.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
reply to post by Circumstance

 

So the Silver plan is only $187 a month? Perfect! That's pretty cheap for health insurance.

this^

Those plans may seem bad to you, with your current healthcare, but they sure beat having no healthcare, and the people on the plans are the ones who previously didn't have healthcare.

Your line of thinking is the problem, you dont undersgand the concept that some of us are already sinking, and have no money to pay. Yet somehow you rationalize that it is a positive because at least now I will have insurance I cant use because I cant afford the copay. How is it better for anyone at or below the poverty line? The only people this helps are those eith more than enough money to buy healthcare already. Either they own stock in the companies this helps, or they get to fe all warm and snuggly at night knowing that everyone can get healthcare now, or both.

Either way, those it was supposed to help, are only left out in the cold once again, except now instead of being to poor to afford healthcare, now they are required to be even poorer as they either buy it and cant use it as they cannot afford the copay, or they are pushed further into poverty by being fined for not having it. Either way, they have less money, and either get fined or pay for a service they cant afford to use.

Nothing about this in anyway will help a single poor person have enough money to afford care, and does nothing to ensure that they will be able to afford the copay on their mandatory policy. It simply requires the poor to squeeze. Xblood from a stone, which is no more possible today, that it ever was.

Oh by the way

I have to lay off 4 people cuz of obamacare


now tell me... how is that not a tax?

reply to post by inverslyproportional


But that could be inaccurate also. Do you (or will you) not qualify for the subsidies which the ACA will provide? And with that help, if coverage is still not affordable, see my previous comments. They can't really do anything to you.

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy
reply to post by inverslyproportional

 

But that could be inaccurate also. Do you (or will you) not qualify for the subsidies which the ACA will provide? And with that help, if coverage is still not affordable, see my previous comments. They can't really do anything to you.

They can take my tax returns. Maybe that is the entire point though, maybe they are just looking for a way to push some of us poor people right over the edge. As this will will not in any way improve my families lives. It will only cause hardship.

My kids already have state insurance " hoosier healthwise" so they are covered. I am never sick, and have been to tue doctor less than 10 times since I was a kid. I have no need of insurance, as I dont visit enough to justify the costs associated with carrying it. By this point in time I would have spent tens of thousands of dollars on insurance, instead I saved that cost as I dont use the healthcare system, they dont heal people anyways, they cannot heal you. Only your own body can heal itself. They mostly slap a few hundred dollars worth of bandaid on the l atient, give them useless pills to make them feel better, and send them home so their body can heel itself.

reply to post by inverslyproportional


You hit one issue that is going to be exploited the most under Obamacare, is the scam call "preventive care" in which they use scaremongering with prevention programs to lure people into treatments that they do not need, they seem harmless and most of the time routine and free of cost until you show "signs" that are suspicious and more "test" need to be done, that is where the big pharma gets to profit the most, with invasive procedures and useless drugs.

More people are targeted under this scam that ever before in the nation sadly it only help a minimum of people while the rest are scammed into more drugs for prevention at the end the side effects are worst than what they are trying to prevent.

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


Forgot to add, also, just like for welfare etc.. they are very intrusive, requiring one to jump through many hoops and turn over all they financial paperwork. This is of cours e not including the outrageously good time standing in line all day waiting your turn, only to be told finally that yiur appkintment was changed to 2 days later. Followed by f he. " oh really you didnt get the message? We called an hour ago."

I w ok nt be participating in any of the above mentioned activities. I will be one of the people finding out what thay are gonna do about it, cause I wont play their games. What next? They gonna demand I buy a certain beverage? Or take a certain medication? Or wear certain brands of" certified" clothing?

The point is, this was not some grand and noble idea brought about by the majority vote of the people, with many positive and meaningful benefits, that even the opponents mof it will admit are worthwhile and good. No, it is a tragic imposition of meaningless cost and hardship for most thatbit effects. All mostly from what I have seen f really stems from some weird greed induced belief that somehow the poor using emergency rooms because they cant afford a doctor because they cant afford insurance, is breaking their already rich asses in insurance payments to make up for the poor.

Lets be real here, if there werent many wealthy and powerful people looking to pass their insurance costs off to the public interested in this measure, as well as many very powerful insurance interests. None of this would have ever happened. It is always about the money, follow the money. Where does it lead? Who stands to make the most? Who stands to save the most as employers begin to drop employee hours so they dont have to supply insurance, but now the law requires them to have it, even th ough they are now only part time employees, so fhey dont make enough to buy insurance, so they have to get another part time job. Where they used to work 40 hours a week they now work 60 and fhey must still pay for insurance, where they used to get it for free, on only 40 hours a week of work.

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by camaro68ss


you have no clue what your talking about, Read the bill and stop spitting out what CNN or MSNBC has to say. IRS will collect if your not insured
www.forbes.com...

your fairy tail $187 is a joke. The economic fundamentals of Obama care will not allow for optimal care for that price. Service WILL be rationed at that price. Whenever you fix prices, the laws of supply and demand kick in and ration supply. Economics 101 here.

edit on 12-2-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

I don't think you actually read the article you just linked to. You might want to go back and read it, because it pretty much back up everything I just said.

"The ACA says the IRS should enforce the law by imposing a tax penalty—but then effectively blocks the agency from using most of the tools it normally uses to go after tax scofflaws."

"The ACA bars the IRS from bringing a criminal enforcement case against someone who refuses to pay the non-insurance penalty. And it makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for it to enforce a tax lien."

That leaves only one tool—the IRS can subtract the penalty from any refund it owes a taxpayer. But that applies only if the IRS happens to owe somebody a refund."

"Only low-income households who receive refundable credits, such as the Earned Income Credit, always get refunds. But the ACA specifically exempts most of them from the tax because their income is so low."

"Notwithstanding the nutty Internet rumors that the IRS is hiring 20,000 revenue agents to collect the tax, most people who really want to game the system will probably get away with it."

All quotes from the article you claim supports your belief that I don't know what I am talking about while you go off fearmongering jail sentences and other ridiculous lies. But thanks for doing my research for me. I really didn't want to go find the proof. Appreciate it.

edit on 12-2-2013 by usernameconspiracy because: formatting

Is the IRS collecting your money at the end of this story or not? By not refunding you or federal tax deductions, yes!

In the end americans lose

Originally posted by DrNotforhire
So my business insurance went up 24% this year (about 22K company wide)

also I have to pay a tax on top of that this year, and then next year it doubles

Dont know about business side yet they havent gotten us anything for 2014 yet

its going to be a disaster

Yeah but you are the evil business owner who needs to be punished for exploiting the workers and you need to support those too lazy or stupid to take care of themselves. You should be greatful for the opportunity.

(sarcasm intended)

reply to post by NavyDoc


Oh yeah you are completely right, what was I thinking.. Im not paying my fair share.. Considering most of my money went into building this business (oh wait I didn't build it)

Crap.. I just want to go on welfare now

reply to post by camaro68ss


No. Go back and look. They WILL NOT have any avenue to do so. Most likely, if you are getting a return you are exempted anyway! Low income earners (those most likely to get a refund each year) are exempted! Unless you are in some magical tax bracket where you make good money but still get a refund some how, or you go out of the way to pay in more taxes than you should, the IRS will not try to collect on this tax. Why are you ignoring the facts?

If you won't accept the information, then fine. Go on and be gleefully ignorant of the truth. You posted the article and the article explains to you in easy to understand paragraphs exactly why your premise is completely wrong. You just chose to ignore the article except for a few key words that you strung together without using the rest of the sentence.

reply to post by usernameconspiracy


Low income earners are exempt but that is because under Obamacare they either are already under Medicaid or do not or would not qualify for Obamacare.

I believe that under Obamacare if you can not afford to buy insurance you will be under Medicaid anyway.

ObamaCare and the Low Income Earners

www.mutualinformation.org...

So in other words if you are poor you still will not have affordable health care and will fall under Medicaid, or will be in that group that will still be without health care.

It is also one of the most misleading analyses I’ve ever read because it picks and chooses which facts to include and which to ignore. He doesn't give you the full picture.

First of all, let’s take a look at the example he uses of a 35-year old with a MAGI of $27,925. Where, exactly, did he come up with a monthly premium of $187.33 for the Silver level plan? The exchanges have not been finalized as of yet – they are intended to create competition between the providers offering coverage (there is no public option) – so where did this monthly premium come from for a plan that will not go into effect until 2014? Heck, most states haven't even set up their exchanges and have chosen to rely on the federal government to do it for them.

Secondly, the author fails to mention that this same person with a MAGI of $27,925 will also qualify for other offsets – yes, the plans are set up to provide a premium assistance tax credit based on the FPL, but they also include cost-sharing assistance which will limit a person's maximum out-of-pocket costs, and for some it will also reduce other cost-sharing requirements (i.e., deductibles, coinsurance, co-payments).

Thirdly, he fails to mention that although these deductibles are high, they qualify as High Deductible Health Plans (HDHPs) which qualify as Health Savings Account (HSAs) plans. Depending on where you live, these types of plans are already the norm (I live in the Northeastern part of the US and my own plan for the last three years has included a $2,500 deductible and 60/40 coinsurance). This means that the same individual paying this supposed “$183+” in single monthly premiums on a post-tax basis, will be able to set aside into his/her HSA and save paying taxes on $2,050 (double for family) because HSA contributions are made on a pre-tax basis. So not only will the $2,050 (applicable to the Silver plan) be deducted and set aside on a tax-free basis, but this individual’s net annual income on which he/she pays federal and state income taxes will be reduced from $27,925 to $25,872.

The thing that really gets to me is that all of these critics stop short of realizing the true fallacy of ACA. It’s not about the insurance companies making more money and we can argue about this from today until tomorrow but it’s been shown that even though insurance companies will have more premium-paying individuals, the essential health benefits that they must provide under even the lowest Bronze plan will, by far, cost them more than any additional premium they may collect (and this is not taking into consideration the medical loss ratio (MLR)provisions of the law which state that out of every $1.00 in premiums collected, $0.80-$0.85 must be used to pay claims or the difference is returned to the consumer). The true fallacy of ACA is in that it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop the cost of medical inflation. In other words, medical costs can keep going up and up exponentially.

According to the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality, the average mean cost to visit an emergency room during 2009 was $1,265. Over the last ten years, medical inflation has averaged 3.84% a year which means that by 2014 the same $1,295 in 2009 will equate to $1,530 in 2014 source. Think about that – since the cost of medical care is increasing at unregulated rates, the ACA makes absolutely no difference to the healthcare industry because regardless of whomever is responsible for whatever portion of payment (i.e. insurance company versus individual consumer), the healthcare providers will end up being reimbursed the same amount.

In conclusion, we can and assuredly will continue arguing about ACA, but unless you yourself have read the original regulations, the myriad of revisions released since then plus the interim and final rules, all of which amass to thousands and thousands of pages, you can’t really speak from a fully-informed position as to whether or not ACA helps or harms us. I believe that the intent of the law was altruistic. It fell short in many ways, but it will also enhance the level of benefits available to millions of people (no more pre-existing condition limitations, no more maximum limits, no rescission of coverage, etc.).

Where its true failure lies, however, is in the fact that it did nothing to address the ever increasing cost of healthcare in this country and until a law is passed which tackles this issue, we will all continue to suffer.

Originally posted by timidgal
In conclusion, we can and assuredly will continue arguing about ACA, but unless you yourself have read the original regulations, the myriad of revisions released since then plus the interim and final rules, all of which amass to thousands and thousands of pages, you can’t really speak from a fully-informed position as to whether or not ACA helps or harms us. I believe that the intent of the law was altruistic. It fell short in many ways, but it will also enhance the level of benefits available to millions of people (no more pre-existing condition limitations, no more maximum limits, no rescission of coverage, etc.).

Where its true failure lies, however, is in the fact that it did nothing to address the ever increasing cost of healthcare in this country and until a law is passed which tackles this issue, we will all continue to suffer.

Agreed. It's far from perfect, and it does fail to curtail the ever increasing cost of health care, however, when looked at reasonably, it is a good start. I can't defend the ACA as a triumph of triumphs, but I can, and will, point out ridiculous comments about the IRS and being thrown in jail for not having insurance by people that have never bothered to actually find out the truth.

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by timidgal
In conclusion, we can and assuredly will continue arguing about ACA, but unless you yourself have read the original regulations, the myriad of revisions released since then plus the interim and final rules, all of which amass to thousands and thousands of pages, you can’t really speak from a fully-informed position as to whether or not ACA helps or harms us. I believe that the intent of the law was altruistic. It fell short in many ways, but it will also enhance the level of benefits available to millions of people (no more pre-existing condition limitations, no more maximum limits, no rescission of coverage, etc.).

Where its true failure lies, however, is in the fact that it did nothing to address the ever increasing cost of healthcare in this country and until a law is passed which tackles this issue, we will all continue to suffer.

Agreed. It's far from perfect, and it does fail to curtail the ever increasing cost of health care, however, when looked at reasonably, it is a good start. I can't defend the ACA as a triumph of triumphs, but I can, and will, point out ridiculous comments about the IRS and being thrown in jail for not having insurance by people that have never bothered to actually find out the truth.

As well you should, usernameconspiracy.

I don't always fault these posters because they are riled up over the issue and are usually quoting misinformation that they themselves have read. With that said, the only way to correct the misinformation is to point it out to them. The way I see it, we only have each other to learn from because TPTB sure aren't going to make it easy...

Originally posted by Circumstance
This is what I suspected all along. Even if one does purchase the mandated health care insurance, in many cases the individual would find the deductibles unaffordable. The deductibles and co-insurance payments are ridiculous:

The stated goal of the ACA is to set the stage for a single payer system by collapsing and overloading the private sector which sets up the government to rush in come to the "rescue" with the final solution.

He said his desired goal was a single payer system but that America would not go for that all at once. So he just uses the Rules for Radicals plan of overloading the current system with conflicting regulations and increased prices until the people beg for Uncle Sugar to save them.

In the end Americans will beg for socialized medicine and he's never even hidden the fact that is his goal - the media has sanitized the message for him a little but he has stated that was his end game.

reply to post by Golf66

I can't blame you for these beliefs because, yes, he did want a single payor system and was frustrated that he couldn't even get a public option through as part of the exchanges; however, I don't think that he's a stupid man (irrespective of the fact that all politicians are corrupt in some way - apples and oranges I suppose but thought I'd throw it in there) and the bottom line is that he can want a single payor system from today until the end of all time, but he knows that we do not have the money for it. Period.

reply to post by Ghost375
187.00 a month and you pay 40 percent of your bills and prescription..................what a bargain,sign me up.