What Item Will Congress Tax Next For Failing to Purchase?

[BigPapaVol]

and thanks to Obamacare, you can wait until the day you walk into the doctor's office to purchase that insurance.

Absolutely. Why wouldn't you? Guaranteed is a huge issue. Cancel policies every other week.

 

[therealUT]

and thanks to Obamacare, you can wait until the day you walk into the doctor's office to purchase that insurance.

Absolutely. Why wouldn't you? Guaranteed is a huge issue. Cancel policies every other week.

The strategy would certainly be income dependent.

 

[BigPapaVol]

The strategy would certainly be income dependent.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't buy like many do car insurance. Buy for renewal (tax return) and cancel immediately thereafter. Who even cares if you show up to the doc's office uncovered?

 

[therealUT]

I'm not sure why you wouldn't buy like many do car insurance. Buy for renewal (tax return) and cancel immediately thereafter. Who even cares if you show up to the doc's office uncovered?

You are right; it is quite possible that the Federal Government will have nothing in place to check how long you had the policy. However, since they are going to require one to purchase healthcare through a Federally approved provider, I would imagine that they will have some sort of data-link with these providers in which to check the length of coverage and then either pro-rate the tax penalty or simply charge the entire tax-penalty, depending on the duration one went uninsured during a tax year.

Moreover, while insurance companies will not be able to charge separate premiums for medical histories, nothing in the bill stipulates that they cannot provide reduced rates for long-term customers. Private insurers might simply load coverage plans up front to keep individuals from only buying insurance when they need/want to go to the doctor.

 

[BigPapaVol]

You are right; it is quite possible that the Federal Government will have nothing in place to check how long you had the policy. However, since they are going to require one to purchase healthcare through a Federally approved provider, I would imagine that they will have some sort of data-link with these providers in which to check the length of coverage and then either pro-rate the tax penalty or simply charge the entire tax-penalty, depending on the duration one went uninsured during a tax year.

Moreover, while insurance companies will not be able to charge separate premiums for medical histories, nothing in the bill stipulates that they cannot provide reduced rates for long-term customers. Private insurers might simply load coverage plans up front to keep individuals from only buying insurance when they need/want to go to the doctor.

They have exactly that ability today, but still renew DLs daily for folks playing the cancellation game.

Look at the bureaucracy we've already added and haven't provided one lick of care. How awesome is this going to get?

As to your final piece, the profitability of the insurers doesn't change with longevity of coverage timeline, so they can't go there, unless they overprice early, which means everyone gets doubly screwed. Fantastic.

 

[therealUT]

They have exactly that ability today, but still renew DLs daily for folks playing the cancellation game.

Look at the bureaucracy we've already added and haven't provided one lick of care. How awesome is this going to get?

It will get extremely bloated and it will be incredibly inefficient.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I'm stunned that anyone in the world expects this to get better or cheaper.

 

[EvanStalcup1990]

Gona be a tax involving cars one way or another. Positive about it.

 

[therealUT]

As to your final piece, the profitability of the insurers doesn't change with longevity of coverage timeline, so they can't go there, unless they overprice early, which means everyone gets doubly screwed. Fantastic.

I think they will overprice early if the government fails to ensure that everyone is insured; everyone is screwed anyone you look at it.

 

[therealUT]

Gona be a tax involving cars one way or another. Positive about it.

Negative. Too many liberals in NYC and Boston that do not own any cars.

 

[dukes_of_maggard]

Thread making me sad

 

[lawgator1]

and thanks to Obamacare, you can wait until the day you walk into the doctor's office to purchase that insurance.

And in the meantime, you'd have paid the tax.

If you wouldn't have paid the tax, you sure as **** wouldn't have paid for the insurance.

Yet, under the current system, when you get sick you wait until its a crisis and show up at the hospital and they have to treat you by law, then the cost (which is by now much higher than had you been treated earlier) gets shifted to those that do pay for the insurance.


That, indeed, is what this is ALL about. Let's be honest. The current system had one inevitable result, and that is that the only way it could have been paid for moving forward is to end the requirement that the uninsured get care and we worry about the money later.

Palin and her death panels quips were right, but it was the GOP that wanted them on a de facto basis.

If you want to get rid of mandatory care laws, let's have a discussion about whether that's a good idea. But quit hiding behind the notion that asking everyone to pay for such a system is some sort of Draconian power grab that could ever have been avoided.

If you want proof, just harken back to Romney's words in adopting his own individual mandate and telling Obama to do it.

 

[BigPapaVol]

And in the meantime, you'd have paid the tax.

If you wouldn't have paid the tax, you sure as **** wouldn't have paid for the insurance.

Yet, under the current system, when you get sick you wait until its a crisis and show up at the hospital and they have to treat you by law, then the cost (which is by now much higher than had you been treated earlier) gets shifted to those that do pay for the insurance.


That, indeed, is what this is ALL about. Let's be honest. The current system had one inevitable result, and that is that the only way it could have been paid for moving forward is to end the requirement that the uninsured get care and we worry about the money later.

Palin and her death panels quips were right, but it was the GOP that wanted them on a de facto basis.

If you want to get rid of mandatory care laws, let's have a discussion about whether that's a good idea. But quit hiding behind the notion that asking everyone to pay for such a system is some sort of Draconian power grab that could ever have been avoided.

If you want proof, just harken back to Romney's words in adopting his own individual mandate and telling Obama to do it.

I'm pretty sure you don't know how taxes work.

No, your point about shifting who pays isn't what this is all about. It's about avoiding the double down on the cost by inserting another government bureaucracy into the process and quadrupling the size of the IRS, all the while letting the government get into the business of meting out care.

You can support this all you wish, but there is no arguing the fact that it's going to cost more, be less efficient, be less effective and limit options.

 

[82_VOL_83]

i don't think it will be a mandate, oh excuse me tax, on buying something, i think it will be a tax on what you already own. Remember cash for clunkers? Now it will be tax for clunkers. I think the next tax will be dropped on us by the epa in the form of you will input the vehicles that you own (or this will be automatically sent to the irs by the states) and you will pay a penalty based on the average fuel economy of that vehicle under a certain mph level. They could even go as far as to say that as it ages the fuel mileage gets worse and reduce your mph level even further. It would be a continually increasing tax. First year the mph threshold may be 20 mpg. In two years it could go to 23 mpg and so on. It's like what they did in knox county, tn with property taxes, they didn't raise the millage, they just raised your appraised value. This is very real and has been talked about in congress already.

fmp

 

[82_VOL_83]

I am referring more to things you get taxed on for not buying. Unfortunately, it was pretty much established long ago they could levy a tax on pretty much anything. This decision allows them to impose a "tax" for not buying something.

But it is, they want you to buy Diet Drinks, they tax you on sugar. They want you to buy electric cars or hybrids, they tax you on low mpg cars. That is what I was saying.

 

[82_VOL_83]

As I understand it, insurance is only required if you are going to be using public roads (which the vast majority of people will be doing, of course...) but for vehicles that will be exclusively driven on private roads Or land (ie ranches, farms, etc...) there is no state mandate to have those vehicles insured.

Next time you hear about someone dying in a head on tractor collision, let me know.

States already require it.
Frankly, I wish they'd increase the criminal penalties for those who drive uninsured.

since when is auto insurance required when you have no car?

Seriously? That's your distinction? That's just a terrible argument.

You can say in advance you don't want a car, don;t need one, won't be driving. If you don;t own one, you don't have to have insurance.

That is a far cry from saying you know you won't need health care this year. Good luck showing up at the doc and saying, turns out I was wrong, i will be needing that operation after all.

And you wonder why lawyers are the most hated species on the planet.....just after cockroaches. You asked a question, the poster answered it then you took it in a completely different direction. Bottom line car insurance is on the car, not the driver. You own the car, you insure it. I don't own a car but have a license and wreck your car (driving it with your express written consent of course), it is on you. And to your point, if you don't pay income taxes now, which 50% plus don't, and you don't buy insurance, you don't pay anything. The only way that they can get the "fine" is taking it from your taxes. There is nothing in the law that says that they can go after you to collect, nothing. So you don't have insurance, you get sick, you cry to mammy Nobama, you get on the gubment plan, you get your free operation, then you drop the plan. Really pretty simple even for a lawyer.

Also, Judge Roberts, by ruling that it was Constutional under the taxation powers of Congress, actually made it unconstitutional because the mandate originated in the Senate and not the House. Therefore, if the states want to challenge the tax because it was not originated in the House, the entire law will die. Judge Roberts simply did his job today and gave the AMREICAN PEOPLE a way out of this train wreck.

 

[rjd970]

I don't disagree this is all very troublesome, but what is the realistic alternative?

At every republican debate in the primary over this subject, not one candidate would categorically say get rid of medicare, nor would anyone fess up and say we start turning people away at the hospital. It's easy to shoot holes in this, I absolutely agree....but nobody else has really stepped up to the plate to offer a different course of action.

 

[BigPapaVol]

I don't disagree this is all very troublesome, but what is the realistic alternative?

At every republican debate in the primary over this subject, not one candidate would categorically say get rid of medicare, nor would anyone fess up and say we start turning people away at the hospital. It's easy to shoot holes in this, I absolutely agree....but nobody else has really stepped up to the plate to offer a different course of action.

the status quo was better than the fix.

Opening up insurance options nationally would be an enormous start. Right now, the idiotic laws on the books effectively give insurers mini monopolies. That won't address everything, but it's a very good start.

Guaranteed issue is a nasty problem and there are no easy fixes there. I'm all for the government sourcing pooled insurance for folks knocked out of other programs.

 

[82_VOL_83]

And in the meantime, you'd have paid the tax.

If you wouldn't have paid the tax, you sure as **** wouldn't have paid for the insurance.

Yet, under the current system, when you get sick you wait until its a crisis and show up at the hospital and they have to treat you by law, then the cost (which is by now much higher than had you been treated earlier) gets shifted to those that do pay for the insurance.


That, indeed, is what this is ALL about. Let's be honest. The current system had one inevitable result, and that is that the only way it could have been paid for moving forward is to end the requirement that the uninsured get care and we worry about the money later.

Palin and her death panels quips were right, but it was the GOP that wanted them on a de facto basis.

If you want to get rid of mandatory care laws, let's have a discussion about whether that's a good idea. But quit hiding behind the notion that asking everyone to pay for such a system is some sort of Draconian power grab that could ever have been avoided.

If you want proof, just harken back to Romney's words in adopting his own individual mandate and telling Obama to do it.

The difference in you as a socialist and me as a capitalist is that I don't BELIEVE nor do I want to ever give the Federal Government the right to tell me to buy anything. I don't believe in legislation to protect from stupidity. I don't approve of the seat belt law or the motorcycle helmet law. I wear a seatbelt and won't get on a motorcycle without a helmet. Because it is smart, not because the gubment tells me too. There are ways of making the free market work, taking over an entire sector by the federal government, ESPECIALLY THE ONE WE HAD BETWEEN 1/17/09 and 1/1/11 is not the way to do it. Those that are willing to allow the gubment to run their lives, are either stupid, lazy, or lawyers.

 

[82_VOL_83]

I'm pretty sure you don't know how taxes work.

No, your point about shifting who pays isn't what this is all about. It's about avoiding the double down on the cost by inserting another government bureaucracy into the process and quadrupling the size of the IRS, all the while letting the government get into the business of meting out care.

You can support this all you wish, but there is no arguing the fact that it's going to cost more, be less efficient, be less effective and limit options.

Well said!

 

[82_VOL_83]

I don't disagree this is all very troublesome, but what is the realistic alternative?

At every republican debate in the primary over this subject, not one candidate would categorically say get rid of medicare, nor would anyone fess up and say we start turning people away at the hospital. It's easy to shoot holes in this, I absolutely agree....but nobody else has really stepped up to the plate to offer a different course of action.

You need to listen to Paul Ryan a little more. No one is saying get rid of medicare, but the way it is now is not viable. Obamanationcare is medicare on steroids.

 

[rjd970]

the status quo was better than the fix.

Opening up insurance options nationally would be an enormous start. Right now, the idiotic laws on the books effectively give insurers mini monopolies. That won't address everything, but it's a very good start.

Guaranteed issue is a nasty problem and there are no easy fixes there. I'm all for the government sourcing pooled insurance for folks knocked out of other programs.

What happens when somebody shows up at the ER about to die, and they aren't insured? That is the question that will get asked, and realistically, nobody will have the balls to say either:

1. Let them die.
2. Outline a way to get money from somebody who will never be able to pay it back.

The first will never happen, and the second doesn't address the cost, which will still get passed on to those of us who pay into the system.

 

[rjd970]

Again, I am absolutely against this, as it will definitely screw me over. I'm just playing devils advocate to understand the flip side.

 

[BigPapaVol]

What happens when somebody shows up at the ER about to die, and they aren't insured? That is the question that will get asked, and realistically, nobody will have the balls to say either:

1. Let them die.
2. Outline a way to get money from somebody who will never be able to pay it back.

The first will never happen, and the second doesn't address the cost, which will still get passed on to those of us who pay into the system.

that cost is absorbed into the system, but it's going to get larger as the gov't rolls swell and as the gov't bureaucracy has to tax us to implement stupid crap like the tax hike and oversight.

 

[Pepe_Silvia]

Indeed. I was just throwing out a random comment for the bang on the table over-reaction crowd, such as the OP.

There has been no overreaction.

History proves that if you give the government a inch they will take a mile. Sooner or later the morons in government will run with this ruling and begin implementing ridiculous legislation.