Obamacare enforcement, does anyone actually believe this?

Look on the bright side: Illegals won't have to comply but will still get their fat tax returns using the Earned Income Credit and attaching a bunch of names of people they say they support without verification. Plus they still must be given medical care when they show up at the hospital. And many say we don't welcome people from other countries with opens arms....

reply to post by burdman30ott6


OF COURSE the IRS . . . a major control scheme all along . . . is complicit and will become more complicit in traitorous tyrannical goals, methods and efforts.

Claims to the contrary are merely bureaucratic double speak akin to a certain leader's well known pathological narcissism spawned pathological lying.

The whole program was designed as a

Draconian !CONTROL! scheme from the beginning.

The only "health" issues the originators are interested in are

the DEPOPULATION issues the program will facilitate.

ONWARD AND UPWARD--I.E. DOWNWARD--WITH THE UN AGENDA 21 DEPOPULATION PLANS.

. . . with the Mark of the Beast chip implant plans . . .

. . . with herding the serfs and slaves into whatever cattle chutes desired for whatever horrific results they decree.

AlienScience
reply to post by LittleBlackEagle

 

So your theory is that "most people" are going to go without health insurance and instead pay a fine that is a couple thousand dollars less than what the insurance will cost?

I'm not sure if you understand this or not, but you paying the fine is more beneficial to the ACA than you purchasing insurance. The ACA gets direct funding from you and you get zero benefits.

Good plan, let me know how that works out.

Is there any part of Obamacare that you don't like? Just asking.

Let's see, many people make minimum wage say $18K per year. Some of the cheapest quotes I've seen for this "affordable" care is about $400 a month and carries large deductibles.

Let's pretend in unicorns and say you are only paying $250 per month with $1K deductible. That's still $4K from $18K annual wage. This fiasco of a heath-kill plan is going to hurt the poor. Let's not even mention you can be "too poor" to even get coverage.

Great plan, but hey if you can't pay they can always send you to the debt prison so they kill two birds with one stone. If you're poor they get rid of you and if you're really poor you get to die.

AlienScience
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

Simple solution.

Follow the law.

Would you like us to explore that a bit deeper?

Slavery abolitionist, America circa 1850:
"We get put in jail if we try to help escaped slaves. What can we do."
Slavery supperter: "Simple solution, follow the law and stop assisting escaped slaves."

German Jewish citizen, circa 1933:
"I don't want to be beaten to death in my home."
SS: "Simple solution, follow the law and get on the train to be taken to the camp."

Rosa Parks, Dec. 1, 1955:
"I won't give up my seat on this bus."
Arresting police officer: "Simple solution, follow the law and move further to the back of the bus as the driver has demanded."

Gays have been fighting to change the laws, workers have often fought to change labor laws, women have fought to change sexist laws, the list of people fighting the ridiculous "just follow the law" excuse used in defense of assbrained laws is quite lengthy. For that reason, considering that this "law" is as assbrained as any law ever passed in this country, I wholeheartedly reject your "follow the law" cop out.

AlienScience
I'm not sure if you understand this or not, but you paying the fine is more beneficial to the ACA than you purchasing insurance. The ACA gets direct funding from you and you get zero benefits.

But wait, that will occur regardless for many, many people even if they do capitulate and purchase the minimum plan. Those plans still come with deductables in the thousands of dollars per year range. There will be a lot of purchasers who will have to make huge sacrifices to afford the monthly premium to ensure they are in compliance, who then see the deductable and realize "Holy hell, I can afford a trip to the doctor even less than before now!" and simply never go to a doctor at all. As it stands right now, a trip to the doctor, if paid out of pocket starts at around $200-$300 (could be less or more depending on the office, obviously). Now you're advocating a program where these poor bastards have to pay over that amount every month just for the opportunity to see a doctor at a $45 co-pay plus any deductable...

Let's say the bare minimum per month premium is $400. That's $4800 per year. At that rate the person could see their doctor, paying out of pocket on a walk-in basis, every month and still have money left over versus this abomination of a law. So what's missing? OH YEAH, there it is... the mouth missing it's food in that equation is the insurance giant that paid so much to Obama's campaign fund... can't allow a donor to be left out in the cold when laws can be passed to line those pockets now, can we?

In the immortal words of the Iron Sheik:
"Aarrgghhhhh Ptttthppp" *spits at Obamacare*

reply to post by Bassago

Is there any part of Obamacare that you don't like? Just asking.

I don't like that it isn't single payer.

But I like it 100% better than what we had and it is a huge step forward in this nations healthcare industry.

Let's see, many people make minimum wage say $18K per year. Some of the cheapest quotes I've seen for this "affordable" care is about $400 a month and carries large deductibles.

And if you are making 18k a year, your insurance is going to be mostly if not all paid for by subsidies.

So yeah, that's a win for that minimum wage worker. They now have healthcare insurance when before they didn't.

Great plan, but hey if you can't pay they can always send you to the debt prison so they kill two birds with one stone. If you're poor they get rid of you and if you're really poor you get to die.

No, if you can't pay you will get subsidies so to help you pay.

However, if you CHOOSE not to pay, you will be fined/taxed...if you CHOOSE not to pay that either, yes, you may go to jail. C'est la vie!

reply to post by burdman30ott6


I am perfectly fine with Civil Disobedience.

But that usually comes without the crying about going to jail. What Rosa Parks did was admirable because she did it knowing she was going to go to jail because of it, and she was fine with that.

Same with slave runners and any other example you can try to dig out.

What I'm not ok with is people crying about being punished for not following the law. If you want to make a statement and not get insurance and not pay the fine, great, but do it with some dignity and without crying about going to jail about it.

OR

If you don't want to go to jail, because that is what this whole thread is about....FOLLOW THE LAW.

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Well that is a wonderful factless and purely speculative hypothetical scenario you got there.

Should I make up a completely fictional story as well?

AlienScience

And if you are making 18k a year, your insurance is going to be mostly if not all paid for by subsidies.
So yeah, that's a win for that minimum wage worker. They now have healthcare insurance when before they didn't.

My daughter and my son in law both make minimum wage and are barely surviving as it is. Doesn't matter to them what subsidies they get, if the gov is taking more money out of their checks they are screwed.

No, if you can't pay you will get subsidies so to help you pay.

As I noted above getting "help to pay" is definitely not going to help them and I'd bet it won't help the tens of millions of others in the same boat.

Some folks can't see what happened. You are mandated to buy something that is NOT required to provide you a service. Insurance is, "just in case," not a health plan. And for a Major United States Conglomerate Insurance Company to make money for their shareholders they must pay out less then they take in, which means the must deny more claims then the accept.

When did mandated anything drive prices down? If I go to the city and demand the city write a law that makes everyone buy my widget or go to jail, the first thing I do when the law is passed is RAISE THE PRICE!!!

Food and Water, required for good health, are not tax deductible and not a government mandate, so good health is not the issue with this.

The poor and the rich were ALWAYS covered under the old system, now, the rich are.

As far as I know, there is no shortage of hospitals or doctors to date, which means there is no real issue with providing healthcare. And while the panic, "the system is in collapse" makes for a nice narrative there is no evidence the business of medicine is suddenly unprofitable.

The IRS as collection agent is a curious one. The agency does not provide the product, in fact, they have nothing to do with any products, so why are they the collection agent? Why do your fines go to the IRS at all? For example, if I fail to pay my rent, the court will order me to pay my rent to the landlord, NOT the government. In this case, paying the fine to the IRS is simply punitive, not collection to the appropriate location, and here in lies the problem. If the IRS was collecting to forward that money on to the appropriate plan it might make sense, but this is case where punishment benefits someone who has nothing to do with the service. And no, it does not go the the government to reimburse for the service, were that the case, it might make sense. If you used services and did not pay, and the IRS collected on behalf of the doctor, I can see what making some sense, not good sense, but some sense.

This was an insurance bailout. Were the government wanting to help people, altruism, they could have extended Medicare to include anyone earning under xxx by allowing them to pay 100 dollars a month. Instead, the government facilitates the taking of money from one company, you, and giving it to another, insurance companies.

Now. One person suggested a persona making 18k a year may pay 4k in premiums with a high deductible. Say his average 10 year medical bills total 2500 dollars. He's paid 40k in premiums to receive no payout, none. He's paid 40k because the IRS says they'll get it either way.

Consider that, really. Would you pay 40k for a product you can't use? The argument is "well, jerk-off, others who need care are getting it." Oh, so I am paying 40k over a ten year span so Ed can get medical care, but as a result, I don't eat well, or live in a decent place, or have any savings?

The next argument is healthcare is a social concern, one that affects all of us, you have to pay to keep us all healthy. Uh, the goal of insurance is to make money, not keep people healthy and the insurance company "covers" what THEY think works for you. So I am able to address a gallstone issue with about 40 bucks in herbs and cup of oil, but the insurance company will not pay for that, but they will cover a 25k surgery. The insurance company will gladly pay Merk for any meds at all, but will not pay for any herbs that do a better job. So it is NOT about healthcare.

Which brings me to my last point. The IRS will take you to jail of you are personally responsible for your own health. Really let that sink in, if you do not leave your health up to the government, the state will put you in jail. The medical community has no established domain over your personal health and you may not, under no circumstances, no matter who rich you are or who you are, live without giving the government control over your body. Think I'm wrong, the OP suggested the collection agent for the state, the IRS, will do what it has to assure compliance. Sit with that for a while.

reply to post by Bassago

My daughter and my son in law both make minimum wage and are barely surviving as it is. Doesn't matter to them what subsidies they get, if the gov is taking more money out of their checks they are screwed.

Then they should apply to the exchanges and see what subsidies they get. It's either that or pay the fine.

The fact is that they may not have to pay anything, so why get all butt hurt until you know the facts?

As I noted above getting "help to pay" is definitely not going to help them and I'd bet it won't help the tens of millions of others in the same boat.

If they are both working minimum wage at full time, they are making around 29,000 gross...netting much less than that. Based on California's numbers (each state is a little different, but not much).

At that rate, they have a MAXIMUM premium of $193 a month and a subsidy of up to $101 a month...so possibly little to no premium. Plus they would have zero deductible and only pay $3 for a doctors visit.

Yeah, sounds really crappy to me.

money.cnn.com...


Does it hurt for them to give it a chance and see what it has to offer?

AlienScience
Should I make up a completely fictional story as well?

You asking that is akin to one of my kids asking if they can have an ice cream bar seconds after they've quietly eaten all of them that were in the freezer. General knowledge dictates that it's wise to lock the barn door before the horses have been stolen, my friend.

Would you care to explain which part of that scenario strikes you as being fictitious? It is entirely based off of anecdotal evidence along with some statistical data. I mean you've got three quarters of America living paycheck to paycheck money.cnn.com... What good is an end of year tax rebate intended to recoup health plan costs to a family which can scarcely afford to make ends meet today? Can a rebate check sent out 6 or 7 months from now feed the family today? Can it keep the lights on today? Can it pay the co-pay for a doctor visit plus the deductable today? Can it do a goddamned thing today? If that strikes you as a "factless and purely speculative hypothetical scenario", then I feel compelled to invite you to join us all here, in the real world where people actually are struggling to make it long before those hundreds of dollars a month in premiums are even accounted for in the monthly dollar amount wrenched from each of our paychecks.

reply to post by AlienScience


The subsidies don`t cover the deductible, the maximum amount of subsidies can only cover 98% of the premiums, by law you will have to spend at least 2% of your annual income on premiums and the subsidies will cover a maximum of the other 98%.

The penalty tax for not being able to afford insurance will be a percentage of your annual income or a predetermined amount whichever is greater.

This isn`t an affordable care act this is a poverty tax scheme plain and simple.
Congress has been crying for years now that they want everyone to "pay their fair share" of taxes and this is how they are going to accomplish that.

AlienScience
Does it hurt for them to give it a chance and see what it has to offer?

Hey, pssst! Pay me a couple grand out of your wallet this year, please. I have no freaking clue what, if anything you'll get from me in return... but does it hurt for you to give it a chance and see what the deal has to offer?

I'm gonna need a doctor visit fto reattach my sides, soon.

reply to post by Happy1


That's already been proven on ATS to be false. Stop scaring people needlessly.

Here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Here, go read how fictitious and false your story was.

money.cnn.com...

So for people who are low income, they may pay $57 a month, have zero deductible and pay $3 per doctors visit...yeah...that really coincides with your fictional story.

Doom porn, that is what you are trying to sell. The Republicans are scared of the ACA for one reason and one reason only...they know people are going to love it.

If they thought it was going to be a disaster for the Democrats...hey, that's guaranteed election wins in the future. Do you think they would be trying so hard to stop a guaranteed disaster for the Democrats?

Their actions don't back up their rhetoric, they are scared of the ACA because they know that it is going to be a huge win for Americans. That won't stop them from searching out the few who have to pay a little more and can probably afford to in an attempt to say it is a disaster.

But once people, especially very low income people, can get healthcare for that dirt cheap ($57 a month, no deductible and a $3 co-pay)...there is no way in hell they are going to vote for a Republican that wants to repeal it.

So go ahead, find something in that article that backs up your fictional story.

burdman30ott6

AlienScience
Does it hurt for them to give it a chance and see what it has to offer?

Hey, pssst! Pay me a couple grand out of your wallet this year, please. I have no freaking clue what, if anything you'll get from me in return... but does it hurt for you to give it a chance and see what the deal has to offer?

I'm gonna need a doctor visit fto reattach my sides, soon.

What do you mean you don't know what you'll get in return. It's an insurance policy, read it and then understand what you are going to get.

And you seemed to have completely missed my point...it costs nothing to go onto the exchanges and find out what you qualify for and what type of insurance you can get.

You would have to be a raging moron not to go out and check. I have insurance, really really good insurance and I plan on going onto the exchanges just to see what is out there for me. I know I have no chance of a subsidy, but maybe I'll find a cheaper plan with comparable benefits.

Doesn't hurt to try...but I guess that is why some people are successful in life and others aren't.

AlienScience
So for people who are low income, they may pay $57 a month, have zero deductible and pay $3 per doctors visit...yeah...that really coincides with your fictional story.

Who in the hell is talking just about low income Americans? I'm talking about the middle class. Add in the "penalty" for doing a goddamned perfectly legal habit of using tobacco and according to this: kff.org... an average American family of 4 making $60,000 a year (very much part of that 76% living paycheck to paycheck) will enjoy a premium of $786 per month (of which $377 per month will be subsidized after the fact) and a$12,700 out of pocket max. That's real freaking pain right there. You can jam your fingers in your little ears and blab "fictitious fictitious" all you want, doesn't change the facts one bit.

I also notice that you conveniently avoided answering the tax subsidy question. How do you feed a family today with a rebate check you won't see until next year? Hmm? I'd love to know a way.

AlienScience
reply to post by burdman30ott6

 

Here, go read how fictitious and false your story was.

money.cnn.com...

So for people who are low income, they may pay $57 a month, have zero deductible and pay $3 per doctors visit...yeah...that really coincides with your fictional story.

(These figures are statewide averages and vary by region.)

so, there is no actual plan that you can buy for $57 a month with no deductible and $3 co-pay
money.cnn.com...

burdman30ott6

AlienScience
So for people who are low income, they may pay $57 a month, have zero deductible and pay $3 per doctors visit...yeah...that really coincides with your fictional story.

Who in the hell is talking just about low income Americans? I'm talking about the middle class. Add in the "penalty" for doing a goddamned perfectly legal habit of using tobacco and according to this: kff.org... an average American family of 4 making $60,000 a year (very much part of that 76% living paycheck to paycheck) will enjoy a premium of $786 per month (of which $377 per month will be subsidized after the fact) and a$12,700 out of pocket max. That's real freaking pain right there. You can jam your fingers in your little ears and blab "fictitious fictitious" all you want, doesn't change the facts one bit.

I also notice that you conveniently avoided answering the tax subsidy question. How do you feed a family today with a rebate check you won't see until next year? Hmm? I'd love to know a way.

edit on 2-10-2013 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)

Oh I see...moving goalposts...right.

So the middle class...most of the middle class already carries insurance. For most of them, the ACA will still make it cheaper and give them subsidies if they participate in the exchanges. Or they can stay on their employers plan if they work for a decent company.

How much a month do you think that family of 4 is paying right now in health premiums? Even if they are getting it from their employer, there is a good chance the are paying $400+ in premiums for a plan that will most likely cap them at an incredibly low amount if they get really sick. So with the subsidy, they aren't really any different plus they actually have insurance they can use instead of something they are scared to use.

You feed your family by budgeting and being smart with the money you have available. Priorities...health insurance should be up towards the top.