Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by timidgal
 




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.


You mean like you? Your whole post is a bunch of cherry picking and strawmen. I would have to say that your post is one of the most dishonest ones I have read.



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.


Try the actuarial values that are in the Affordable Care Act. The author does state that they are estimates.



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).


Really? And what are those offsets?? You insist there are some yet show absolutely no proof of such. Funny, that you are quick to mention offsets but conveniently leave out that there also may be liabilities as well, which can be quite expensive.




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.


Complete strawman. Who care about HSA's?
HSA's are completely irrelevant IF THE PERSON CANNOT AFFORD IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Your reasoning is: Woohoo! This individual who can't afford their insurance can put money they don't have into a Health Savings Account to help pay for that high deductible they can't afford.
Do you realize how absurd your argument is?!

Oh, and that $183 is not post-tax; it is pre-tax. MAGI is Modified Adjusted Gross Income, which is based on your gross income before payroll and income tax. are deducted.

HSA's are terrible insurance plans. You may think they are unicorns and rainbows but that is the furthest thing from the truth. It makes me think that you feel HMO's were the Cadillac of all health care insurance plans.



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.


I actually agree with this point. I am an advocate for universal healthcare just like the rest of the western, industrialized world.
edit on 12-2-2013 by Circumstance because: (no reason given)
edit on 12-2-2013 by Circumstance because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by timidgal
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.


Have you been watching the debt clock? Listen to him speak - I don't think he gives one hoot what we can actually afford.

I am fairly certain he is out to bankrupt the country. At least he's giving it a good run...


edit on 12/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Oh look - our favorite obamabots have emerged right on cue -


Originally posted by Ghost375



Originally posted by xedocodex


I swear you guys are on the White House payroll...



Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

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.


Here's the rub - what do you get for your $187? In all of its 1500+ pages the act doesn't give much in the way of details. However, we are left with the comforting thought that it will be bureaucrats deciding what's covered and what's not.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
insurance companies just increased the revenue while cranking out less service nice!



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Circumstance
 

Such venom… I didn’t realize that you had some type of personal stake in this post other than an opinion unless, perhaps, you are the person who penned the article from which you cite? I don’t believe that I lowered myself to calling you or anyone else names; I merely provided the facts, and not dishonesty, after being in the benefits sector for over 25 years (working on the side of the insured and NOT the insurance carriers) and knowing of what I speak. I’m curious about something – when the original language of the PPACA was released at 4:00 PM on a Friday afternoon, did you spend that entire following weekend going through each of the 900+ pages of the law (nearly 1,300 pages if you include the various “summaries” released at the same time)? No? Well, I did because that was part of my job so I could go through your comments, line by line, and cite the provisions of the law to which I’m referring, but it’s obvious that this is a close-minded dialogue and I won’t waste any more of my time in trying to lend some education to this discussion.

I will, however, remark on one comment you made; that being about HSAs, and I do so to correct the misinformation your comments might impress upon other members who are reading this thread. The terms you used “unicorns” and “rainbows” truly made me chuckle because again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You obviously live in a section of the country that either a) has less expensive medical care or b) has less expensive insurance premiums than the section in which I and many others reside. I shared with you the fact that I myself have had an HSA-qualified plan for the last three years with a $2,500 deductible and 60/40 coinsurance. Perhaps you would be surprised to learn that where I live, the monthly premium cost for this employer-sponsored plan is $520. That’s $6,240 annually PLUS the $2,500 deductible PLUS my 40% coinsurance. Conversely, a plan with a $1,500 deductible and 80/20 coinsurance would cost in excess of $1,300 per month for single coverage (that equates to $15,600 in premiums alone). There’s no question that I’m going to have medical expenses, so if my choice is to either PREPARE for that event by taking advantage of a tax-sheltered HSA or just "winging it" when those medical bills come in and pray that I can scratch together the money to pay them, well call me a fool if you want for taking advantage of the tax advantages afforded me by the HSA, but I’m perfectly comfortable with my informed decision. So as you can see, your description of “unicorns” and “rainbows” has no place in this discussion –it is merely a matter of affordability for some of us. And by the way, without these HSAs, which allow for both an in-network and out-of-network choice of healthcare under ACA, the HMO, which would totally dictate from whom you are allowed to receive your healthcare, would reign supreme.

Lastly, an individual’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) has nothing to do with determining whether an employee contribution is taken on a pre or post-tax basis. That is either a matter of tax law (as in the case of an HSA, FSA, etc.) or whether your employer has had the forethought to set up a Section 125 POP plan (which would allow your insurance contributions to be deducted on a pre-tax basis). Either way, whatever amounts are deducted from an individual’s MAGI for insurance purposes would lower the overall salary that is subject to federal and state income tax. I don’t see how anyone can argue that having a lower net base from which your income taxes are calculated is in any way a bad thing.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by timidgal
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.


Have you been watching the debt clock? Listen to him speak - I don't think he gives one hoot what we can actually afford.

I am fairly certain he is out to bankrupt the country. At least he's giving it a good run...


edit on 12/2/2013 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)

Sigh...

I can't wait to hear your theory on why, exactly, he would be out to bankrupt the country. Honestly, I'm curious on what you think he has to benefit by doing so. I'm open-minded so bring on the reasons.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I would actually be far less up in arms about this whole thing if it still allowed catastrophic insurance, but it doesn't. I'm never sick and only need insurance for emergencies. If that is the plan that I want to keep, then that should be my choice.

Just enough to cover my hospital bills in an emergency, and let me deal with everything else out of pocket.

This is a reasonable position to my mind. It keep tax payers from having to cover my costs in an emergency or to hospital from having to write it off.

Sadly, this option is not going to be available to people who are over 30.

Now, I'm under 30, but only for a few more years. After that, I suppose I will either have to get lucky or turn into a tax dodger.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
point is - this thread (the affordable healthcare act debate) will continue on for years, everyone trying to figure it out, while everyday americans get poorer and poorer. and in the end (10-15 yrs later) everyone will realize it was the worst legislation ever passed and didn't solve a damn thing; and in fact, further complicated things

(insert emoticon)

i'll save my "i told you so"s for the afterlife (or not, for those that don't believe(insert 2nd emoticon))



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   

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)


I won't even be filing income taxes anymore because of this, if it is integrated into tax returns, I haven't yet done mine this year, so I haven't seen tax return documents yet.... I know this sounds crazy, but I just won't participate in something, especially after seeing how this thing won't even actually give any practical benefits..

All it looks like so far is a huge cost, and I will never pay for anything that doesn't actually give me something in return for the money.. Usually when you buy something, you receive something. but all you get with this is looking like you will pay money then just get more bills sent to you.. I won't pay money just to receive more documents that tell me to pay even more money, even though I haven;t actually received anything of value.. I mean, who would even consider participating in that kind of a sham?

Not me... If they want to throw me in jail for that then so be it.. I won't be forced by anyone to pay for a scam like this..
Paying for Obamacare makes about as much sense as sending money to some fake lottery email scam in Nigeria..
I don't see any difference in this as being any different than one of those 411 scams..

... I better stop ranting at this point or I might actually need some psychiatric care soon haha



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   

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:


Forgive me if I am wrong, But in a capitalistic system wouldn't we find ourselves being afford by hospitals an incentive to have our deductible paid by health care providers that are competing for business? After all, these providers would be forced to compete for people that have the mandated insurance due to the fact that the numbers of people would be so many?

For example... Using Joe Blow car repair instead of "Carstar" because his business pays your deductible as opposed to Carstar whom does not? After all, deductible monies have always conventionally gone to the provider of services and not the "insurer" anyway...



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   


I won't even be filing income taxes anymore because of this, if it is integrated into tax returns, I haven't yet done mine this year, so I haven't seen tax return documents yet.... I know this sounds crazy, but I just won't participate in something, especially after seeing how this thing won't even actually give any practical benefits..

All it looks like so far is a huge cost, and I will never pay for anything that doesn't actually give me something in return for the money.. Usually when you buy something, you receive something. but all you get with this is looking like you will pay money then just get more bills sent to you.. I won't pay money just to receive more documents that tell me to pay even more money, even though I haven;t actually received anything of value.. I mean, who would even consider participating in that kind of a sham?


Why not? You pay for a failed Soc. Security system don't you? You pay for a welfare system that has effectively been destroyed don't you?



Not me... If they want to throw me in jail for that then so be it.. I won't be forced by anyone to pay for a scam like this..


Sounds nice.... But I doubt it...
edit on 2/12/1313 by foodstamp because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Circumstance
 

I pay an annual deductible of ~3180 € private insurance for excellent coverage here.
Last year my insurance company even refunded premiums, so I actually got money back from them. (I'm still thinking about "opting out" though.)

You Americans should ask why you have to pay so much for such #ty quality.
edit on 12-2-2013 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 11:34 PM
link   
they are going to have a hard time enforcing this. I think its going to keep people from going to the ER, if they do not have insurance, but if they are going to enforce this like they are saying and acting they better build allot of prisons because there are more poor uninsured people in USA, then many people realize.. Zero jobs out there worth anything in 2013, that provide health benefits.


you have to be kidding me, there is some ulterior motive here just dunno what it is really..

If the government really cared about its citizens we would have health insurance like they have in the EU... Not thousands of pages slicing the pie in the sky for lobbyists insurance companies and the government...



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


"You won't get thrown in jail. Quit spreading lies!"


oh good to know, so i can just forget about this and no worries, and the huge stack of fines that build up that i will never pay wont land me in jail either huh?


face it, dont pay , you will end up in jail one way or the other. or no one would care about this Bs and not pay it ROFL.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ~widowmaker~
 


This whole stupid bill was about stripping wealth from american citizens. If you have some thing to lose - like a house, or land - you will lost it to the gov't.

You could, before this bill, not use any kind of health care at all - and just die..... This bill forces a tax, even if you never have seen a dr. in your life.

Thus, the gov't will eventually confiscate any property or land you have - if you don't pay the tax.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   
I just can not, for the life of me, understand how any ANY American in their right mind would ever support a bill, or support a politician that supports a bill, that makes said politician exempt. What ever happened to "what's good for the goose is good for the gander".

Have we really turned into such a nanny state/nation that we actually trust any politician; especially, ESPECIALLY when they write bills that are only for the serfs? Really?

Oh, yeah...and another thing. Those of you, here on ATS, that discuss the pros and cons of having your children immunized. Guess what? You can forget that 'discussion', as the trusted politicians will take care of that decisions for you. You will have your children vaccinated, whether you choose to or not. That is, if you want medical care in the future, for your family. You, serfs, must comply.

I behooves me to see such arrogance. Seriously.
edit on 13-2-2013 by SourGrapes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Circumstance
 


I got to experience Obama care first hand... The notion that pre-existing conditions are covered and cant be denied is absolutely false.

If a person has a medical issue and ends up going to a new job, he will continue to be covered under the new employers insurance provided 63 days have not passed since leaving one job and going to another. The moment you go outside of that time frame, the insurance companies can deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Obama Care is nothing but Pandoras Box.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Ghost375
 


Ghost is obviously one of the cyber army stooges recently unleashed by the usurpers.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   
I thought the Presidents platform was about

"Providing affordable health care to all Americans"

and some how it changed to

"We will make it mandatory for all Americans to buy Health Insurance"

These are two totally different concepts and I think the later was planned the whole time.
edit on 13-2-2013 by sdocpublishing because: grammar



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
I have a novel idea lol why don't we petition congress to try and
force a rename of the bill from the Affordable Care Act to the
American Criminal Healthcare Obama Order or otherwise known
as ACHOO





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join