Obamacare installs new scrutiny, fines for charitable hospitals that treat uninsured people

page: 1
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Obamacare installs new scrutiny, fines for charitable hospitals that treat uninsured people.


Charitable hospitals that treat uninsured Americans will be subjected to new levels of scrutiny of their nonprofit status and could face sizable new fines under Obamacare.

A new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which takes effect under Obamacare, sets new standards of review and installs new financial penalties for tax-exempt charitable hospitals, which devote a minimum amount of their expenses to treat uninsured poor people. Approximately 60 percent of American hospitals are currently nonprofit.

So 60% of hospitals provide either "pay what you can afford" care or free care.

Not anymore.


Failure to comply, or to prove this continuing need, could result in the loss of the hospital’s tax-exempt status.

So lets review.

People who are not below the poverty line but are struggling to survive, now have to buy healthcare. But what if they cant afford to make the health care companies richer? Then our all loving government will impose a financial penalty.

People will have to suffer through the lesser of two evils: be forced to buy something they cant afford or bribe the government to leave them alone.

Many will "choose" to bribe the government because it will be the cheapest option. But it will also mean that they still wont have health insurance.

What happens if they get injured or need help? Well, they'll die or suffer, because 60% of hospitals which used to be not for profit, will no longer help them.

This is a recipe for disaster.

edit on 29-9-2013 by gladtobehere because: wording
edit on Sun Sep 29 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: title edit to use source title....formerly No more charity care under Obama's health plan. "John Q" coming to a hospital near you.




posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


So let me get this straight, Obamacare is supposedly meant to help the less fortunate attain affordable health care, but hospitals that give free or affordable health care to the less fortunate will be punished?

I think I just went cross-eyed.
edit on 9/29/2013 by ProfessorChaos because: typo


+9 more 
posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 07:03 AM
link   
I want to say something in regard to charity care.

Last winter, in preparation for Obamacare, my full time job was cut to part time. So was my boyfriend's full time position. Both of us lost our insurance.

About two months after this happened to us, I started to get very sick with dizziness and feeling extremely tired, no matter what I did. Knowing I could not afford to go to the doctor, I just didn't go. I took extra vitamins, tried drinking energy drinks to get me through my shifts, but the dizziness continued. Then I started to have the worst stomach pain imaginable. Like boring acid burning in my stomach. Everyone tried to encourage me to go to the doctor, but I put it off and hoped it would just go away.

Finally one night, I couldn't ignore the situation any further. My heart started to beat harder, and I had trouble breathing. My boyfriend took me to the ER in the middle of the night because I was out of breath just walking from the bedroom to the living room.

I was pretty terrified. I had no insurance, I was freaking out and worried. After some blood work, I found out I was dangerously anemic and in need of a blood transfusion. They would not even let me get off of the bed to use the bathroom, stating I could have heart failure at any time. I was admitted and immediately given a transfusion. They ran a CT scan with dye. They ran all kinds of other tests on me, and endoscopy study.
When I cried and worried about all these tests, everyone, including the dr told me that my health was more important and that we would find out the cause of blood loss. Turns out, I had 3 bleeding ulcers.

What would I have done at the time had the hospital turned me away? Sure, they would have had to stabilize me with a blood transfusion, then send me home with no tests, if there was no charity. I thank God that I was not turned away. I was bleeding internally.

I'm just going to say it, Obama is evil, pure evil in his heart to come up with this. To try and stop hospitals from helping people.

I remember when Obama ran for president and he said he could never forget his dying mother on the phone arguing with insurance companies. Wow, he sure came a long way with that compassion. What a liar.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   
It amazes me that the average citizen can't see that Obamacare is an oxymoron.

In all honesty, with such imbeciles populating our country, we're doomed. There's no way to fix this that doesn't involve a tidal wave of blood and loss.

Elections can be, and often are, rigged.

Representatives do not represent those that they are elected to.

The vast majority of people are mindless zombies, wandering the Earth on preset paths, with their eyes and minds lost in handheld electronic gadgets, completely unaware of the world around them.

The media works overtime to maintain the status quo in an overtly obvious manner, yet are not held accountable for it.

The police forces are arming themselves with weapons of war.

I realize that I sound like a doom porn addict, but seriously, how long can this go on before the cup overflows and spills out all over the table?



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   
The pattern I have noticed with this abortion called obamacare, is that it was created to PUNISH Americans.. Both business and individuals.. It is totally geared for punishment, infringing on rights and liberties, and is one gigantic package of "Treason"

Don't cooperate with it in any way.. I already quit filing income taxes because of it.. Never filed this past season.. I'll be ready if they come a knocking..



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
ObamaCare Could Cause Nonprofit Hospitals To Lose Their Tax-Exempt Status: Here's How

Your OP is misleading. The law does NOT mean that no one can get free or low-cost care.

As it is NOW, non-profit hospitals are required to provide a certain amount of 'charitable care' per year in order to KEEP their non-profit status. Some of them have slid by with doing less than they are supposed to under the current law.

The IRS originally defined community benefit to mean spending 3% of operating revenue to take care of patients who couldn’t pay. Over time, being tax-exempt became a good deal. If you count all the sales, property, and income taxes that nonprofit hospitals avoid paying it would total $20 billion.
That's 20 billion that GOES TO THE GOVERNMENT IN TAXES, that they are now AVOIDING by being 'non-profit.'


Many hospitals already do not take care of enough uninsured patients. The GAO found that in California in 2005–which exemplified national trends–nonprofit hospitals only spent 3.5% of their expenses on average on uncompensated care for the uninsured. That means many were below the line. Ironically, for-profit hospitals spent 3.2%.

When 30 million more people get insurance from ObamaCare, those numbers will fall. And tax-exempt status could be threatened.


It's not the citizenry that will be left out in the cold; "to suffer and die". It's the HOSPITALS that will have to bone up and pay taxes, rather than building that shiny new wing tax-exempt. It actually helps people get better care.

The new plan requires everyone to have insurance, so there won't be as big a pool of 'uninsured/charity care' (John Q style) and people under a certain income will be covered/subsidized, DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH and what KIND of insurance their employer covers.

ObamaCare Explained as Simply As Possible

• American making less than $45,960 as individual or $94,200 as a family of 4 may be eligible for premium tax credits through the marketplace. Tax credits subsidize insurance premium costs.

• If you are able to get qualified health insurance through your employer you won’t be able to receive marketplace tax credits unless the employer doesn’t cover at least 60% of your premium cost, doesn’t provide quality insurance or provides insurance that exceeds 9.5% of your families income.

That last sentence is a 'double-negative', so let's rephrase it as a positive:
If your employer:
DOESN'T cover at least 60% of your premium;
DOESN'T provide quality insurance;
or provides insurance that EXCEEDS 9.5% of family income --

Then YOU ARE ABLE TO RECEIVE "MARKETPLACE" BENEFITS that you select from a pool of possibilities. (Free or Low cost insurance.)

Insurance companies HAVE to take new clients, regardless of their health status or any pre-existing conditions or history. NO ONE can be refused insurance. There will be NO "lifetime limits" on how much is paid out for your care - and they CAN'T "cancel your policy" because you 'cost them too much' or develop an illness or disease.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 08:30 AM
link   
This seems to be targeting hospitals that are claiming tax free status for helping the poor when in reality they are donating next to nothing for the poor.



A new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which takes effect under Obamacare, sets new standards of review and installs new financial penalties for tax-exempt charitable hospitals, which devote a minimum amount of their expenses to treat uninsured poor people. Approximately 60 percent of American hospitals are currently nonprofit.


If these hospitals are doing next to nothing for the poor then why should they keep their tax free status?



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   

ProfessorChaos
It amazes me that the average citizen can't see that Obamacare is an oxymoron.

In all honesty, with such imbeciles populating our country, we're doomed. There's no way to fix this that doesn't involve a tidal wave of blood and loss.

Elections can be, and often are, rigged.

Representatives do not represent those that they are elected to.

The vast majority of people are mindless zombies, wandering the Earth on preset paths, with their eyes and minds lost in handheld electronic gadgets, completely unaware of the world around them.

The media works overtime to maintain the status quo in an overtly obvious manner, yet are not held accountable for it.

The police forces are arming themselves with weapons of war.

I realize that I sound like a doom porn addict, but seriously, how long can this go on before the cup overflows and spills out all over the table?


I could not have stated it any better.As near as I can tell,Obamacare is nothing more than a new way for the corporations and the government to get their hands deeper into our pockets and split the spoils between themselves.I see no positives anywhere in this bill.It's a lose,lose situation for the people no matter how you cut the cake.

People are losing their jobs and having their hours cut so that smaller companies won't lose money to the provisions of this piece of crud bill.While the large companies have been exempted just as congress has.No wonder they have no interest in getting rid of this very bad bill.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


People are losing their jobs and having their hours cut so that smaller companies won't lose money to the provisions of this piece of crud bill.While the large companies have been exempted just as congress has.No wonder they have no interest in getting rid of this very bad bill.

From what I've read, this ^^ is utter bunk. Disinfo.

Fact check: Who's telling the truth about Obamacare? from USAToday, 9/27/13


REPEATED CLAIMS

We also heard some claims that we have debunked before
, including these:

Cruz repeated the false claim that members of Congress are exempt from the health care law.

As we have written numerous times, the law requires congressional members and their staffs to get insurance through the newly created exchanges, so they are not exempt. In fact, the law prevents them from getting insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, like other federal employees. However, the federal government, will continue to make contributions toward the premiums of lawmakers and their staffs — just as most large employers do for their employees.

Cruz said, "Obamacare has a philosophy: empower government over your life, put a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor." But, as we've said, the law doesn't create a government-run system. If anything, the law comes between you and your insurance company, forbidding them from capping your coverage or charging you more based on health status.


I highly recommend this article of Fact Checking. ^^ It's full of links to other articles as well.

Also, snopes has debunked the myth that Obama refused to answer and ignored the question about what his own family would do now.

PEOPLE! Please!!

Educate yourself on Obamacare, from various sources -- to prevent being misinformed and spreading nonsense rhetoric. The only "people" who will SUFFER are the giant corporations and the insurance companies and medical providers - so they'll STOP SCREWING US OVER.

It's REGULATION of the industry, NOT removal of health care.
edit on 9/29/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/29/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 09:22 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


Because this law is under the federal level, they can no supersede the states laws regarding this type of care, so is the states rights to keep the law unless they want to abide by the federal rule.

Many states depend on this type of mercy care for the people that are very poor so I don't see this law doing much for the states that will still be providing for mercy care.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Congress is, in effect, exempt.

The Federal Employee Health Benefits Program picks up a large portion (75%) of Congressional Staffer's premiums, which is not allowed under Obamacare, and yet it is allowed for Congress and their employees, which is the very definition of an exemption. As for the wording of the actual law, the Grassley amendment was re-worded by Chuck Schumer so that their plans do not have be purchased through exchanges, they merely have to be offered on the exchanges.

The executive branch and their staffers have their premiums subsidized by their employer, while the rest of America does not.

Schumer's alteration of the Grassley Amendment was a bribe to garner Congressional support for the bill.

The information that you've provided is incorrect and fallacious.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 


You are correct my husband falls under the government subsidized health care, I know how It works, I agree with you entirely, sometimes when you read certain information you wonder if is worth to refute it.

I applaud you for your post.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 

Rand Paul is set to introduce legislation to prevent government workers from being exempt.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its difficult to say whether people are spreading this misinformation because they have an agenda or are legitimately confused since articles like the one you responded to are misleading.



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


If Paul succeeds, it is still a small consolation to the American people, who will end up paying for it regardless.

As for your remark about people being confused or spreading misinformation on purpose, I think it is a mixed bag. I mean, it's not like the government has been overly forthcoming with the details of this monstrosity of a law, have they? After all, they passed the damned thing without even reading it.

In the case of wildtimes (the poster above), I would hope that his/her statements are due to confusion created by the MSM, rather than being the willful dissemination of misinformation.

edit on 9/29/2013 by ProfessorChaos because: typo



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 


In the case of wildtimes (the poster above), I would hope that his/her statements are due to confusion created by the MSM, rather than being the willful dissemination of misinformation.


Dude,

I took my time to try to corroborate or debunk the nonsense of the OP's TITLE. I also provided SEVERAL sources.

The hospitals are only in danger of losing non-profit status. It is YOU who is willfully ignoring the facts and spreading libelous misinformation. Fear-mongering and political trolling at its finest. Your avatar says it all about your attitude.

I'm no fan of the president, but claiming (as the OP did), that people with low incomes (or none) will no longer get medical attention, is a LIE. *eyeroll*



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


my god. Obama is the worst thing to happen to the US. How can people still support this bastard?

This is pure evil



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 



The executive branch and their staffers have their premiums subsidized by their employer, while the rest of America does not.


Incorrect libel and disinfo AGAIN.
I myself have had more than one employer who paid the ENTIRE medical insurance premium. And those that did not paid at least PART of it.

You are lying, and you are out of line. Show us some UNDISPUTED sources for your blatant hatred and labelling of this law as a "monstrosity." I'm fine with you not liking Obama...I, too, am disgusted with him, but you spreading this kind of nonsense is disingenuous.

There was SOME noise made that SOME members of Congress WANTED to exempt themselves, but it is not the law as of now. NOR are giant corporations exempt. STOP with the disinfo....
or PROVE that the info I posted is incorrect.

edit on 9/29/13 by wildtimes because: most of the post didn't show up???

edit on 9/29/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   
ANSWERS THE ABOVE QUOTE BY PROFESSORCHAOS:
Incorrect libel and disinfo AGAIN.
I myself have had more than one employer who paid the ENTIRE medical insurance premium. And those that did not paid at least PART of it.

EDIT: YOU ALSO IGNORED THE FACT that the government is GOING TO SUBSIDIZE Americans who can't AFFORD insurance/health care, and give tax breaks to those who are below a certain income level.

You are lying, and you are out of line. Show us some UNDISPUTED sources for your blatant hatred and labelling of this law as a "monstrosity." I'm fine with you not liking Obama...I, too, am disgusted with him, but you spreading this kind of nonsense is disingenuous.

There was SOME noise made that SOME members of Congress WANTED to exempt themselves, but it is not the law as of now. NOR are giant corporations exempt. STOP with the disinfo....
or PROVE that the info I posted is incorrect.

edit on 9/29/13 by wildtimes because: most of the post didn't show up???

I don't know why the part I posted after the quote didn't appear on my response. ???
edit on 9/29/13 by wildtimes because: Add that government is HELPING low income people get insurance and care!!!
edit on 9/29/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 11:11 AM
link   

gladtobehere
Obamacare installs new scrutiny, fines for charitable hospitals that treat uninsured people.


Charitable hospitals that treat uninsured Americans will be subjected to new levels of scrutiny of their nonprofit status and could face sizable new fines under Obamacare.

A new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which takes effect under Obamacare, sets new standards of review and installs new financial penalties for tax-exempt charitable hospitals, which devote a minimum amount of their expenses to treat uninsured poor people. Approximately 60 percent of American hospitals are currently nonprofit.

So 60% of hospitals provide either "pay what you can afford" care or free care.

Not anymore.


Failure to comply, or to prove this continuing need, could result in the loss of the hospital’s tax-exempt status.

So lets review.

People who are not below the poverty line but are struggling to survive, now have to buy healthcare. But what if they cant afford to make the health care companies richer? Then our all loving government will impose a financial penalty.

People will have to suffer through the lesser of two evils: be forced to buy something they cant afford or bribe the government to leave them alone.

Many will "choose" to bribe the government because it will be the cheapest option. But it will also mean that they still wont have health insurance.

What happens if they get injured or need help? Well, they'll die or suffer, because 60% of hospitals which used to be not for profit, will no longer help them.

This is a recipe for disaster.


Apparently, you have no concept of what a not-for-profit organization is and/or how it is expected to perform.

With respect to hospitals, the term "not-for-profit" has absolutely nothing to do with, nor does it imply in any fashion that the hospital in question offers "pay what you can afford" or "free care." Don't know where you got your information but that assumption is absurd.

While there are some purely charitable hospitals, most of those 60% of hospitals that operate on a not-for-profit basis collect tax dollars for indigent care from their respective counties and/or states which means it's the taxpayers who are actually footing the bill for those who are unable to pay. You act like the hospital just eats the expense and writes it off as charity when nothing could be further from the truth.

Any organization operating under the guise of not-for-profit should have stringent guidelines in place and they should be diligently scrutinized to insure compliance. Just like the new mandate that private insurers devote 80% of revenue to actual healthcare, these rules and/or guidelines are in place to insure that not-for-profits perform as designed, comply with tax laws and provide the best care for the buck.
edit on 29-9-2013 by Flatfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 29 2013 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by gladtobehere
 


The situation is that millions of people will not have the money to pay for any form of health insurance or pay the stupid fines. So what the government will eventually do is to wave all costs for those folks and those that pay will have the burden shifted to them. That is exactly as the way that the system works now to some degree.

However, those millions and millions that do not have insurance now, by choice or condition, will be allowed to flock to the medicos and hospitals, over-whelming it. It will be the biggest give away in the history of the US. Those that pay will quickly have their fees raised out of reason to carry the gigantic hordes of freeloaders.

Yes, some social systems have free medical help for all, but the American system, built on free-enterprise, is the best in the world which is what has made it also expensive. Given that level of health available to one and all will bring the system and perhaps the country to its knees.

I've not heard any mention that those that refuse to join into the program will not be given treatment. As now, they will be cared for at the payers expense when they walk into the emergency rooms. But more than likely, they will by then have a card that says, "Get Out of Hospital Free. The second line will read "Please vote demo again."






top topics



 
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join