What Item Will Congress Tax Next For Failing to Purchase?

[Rasputin_Vol]

if you own a car older than 5yrs you will be forced to pay a green tax on it

Highly likely...

 

[Lexvol]

Does anybody else here think a move away from employer-provided healthcare and towards a market of individual consumers wouldn't be such a bad thing?

That should definitely be part of the discussion.

 

[lawgator1]

McKinsey Quarterly: "Our survey found, however, that 45 to 50 percent of employers say they will definitely or probably pursue alternatives to ESI in the years after 2014. Those alternatives include dropping coverage, offering it through a defined-contribution model, or in effect offering it only to certain employees. More than 30 percent of employers overall, and 28 percent of large ones, say they will definitely or probably drop coverage after 2014."

Dean told Morning Joe, "The fact is it is very good for small business. There was a McKinsey study, which the Democrats don't like, but I do, and I think its true. Most small businesses are not going to be in the health insurance business anymore after this thing goes into effect."

NOT

BECAUSE

OF

THE

ACA.


The ACA may not prevent it from happening. But it will not make it more likely to occur. And if it does occur, the ACA puts in place some mechanisms whereby employees can search for alternatives. If it didn't, and those people went without insurance, then rates for those of us who do have insurance would have gone up again.

 

[YorkVol]

Your employer is no more likely to stop offering health insurance to you now than before. The ACA does not cause your employer to pay more than it was paying before the ACA. If your employer was going to drop it because of cost, that was going to happen anyway, regardless of the ACA.

Doesn't really answer the question.

Currently if I show up at the ER without health insurance, they treat me. I think that will continue.

Then they send a social worker and/or patient rep to see you to figure out if you have any income and can pay something. If not, they help you apply for medical assistance. They want to get paid...

So, I'm assuming this would still be the case under ACA, but I'm wondering if anyone has read enough of the details to know.

In my view the reason this is important is currently there is incentive to get health insurance. That incentive is the issue of pre-existing conditions. You want to be on a plan so you have coverage when something comes up that the insurance company may not cover in the first 90 day, or whatever period is written in your plan.

But, now that the insurance companies have to cover you for pre-existing conditions, haven't we removed the incentive to sign up? Guaranteed access means I don't need to pay ahead of time, I can just pay when I need it. Which means, less people will buy into the insurance policies as a routine and more will wait until they really need it.

 

[Thrasher865]

Which means, less people will buy into the insurance policies as a routine and more will wait until they really need it.

Okay, then they can pay the fines and have no insurance...

 

[Gramps]

Doesn't really answer the question.

Currently if I show up at the ER without health insurance, they treat me. I think that will continue.

Then they send a social worker and/or patient rep to see you to figure out if you have any income and can pay something. If not, they help you apply for medical assistance. They want to get paid...

So, I'm assuming this would still be the case under ACA, but I'm wondering if anyone has read enough of the details to know.

In my view the reason this is important is currently there is incentive to get health insurance. That incentive is the issue of pre-existing conditions. You want to be on a plan so you have coverage when something comes up that the insurance company may not cover in the first 90 day, or whatever period is written in your plan.

But, now that the insurance companies have to cover you for pre-existing conditions, haven't we removed the incentive to sign up? Guaranteed access means I don't need to pay ahead of time, I can just pay when I need it. Which means, less people will buy into the insurance policies as a routine and more will wait until they really need it

This is a two edged sword.

My wife and I had medical insurance for years. My wife was diagnosed with diabetes in the early 2000's. The insurance company dropped coverage. Try to buy coverage as a diabetic.*

I can understand an insurance company dropping someone if they lie on the application but it is wrong for a company to be allowed to drop coverage on someone that became sick after paying premiums for several years.

That is one problem that the ACA fixes."

 

[utvolpj]

NOT

BECAUSE

OF

THE

ACA.


The ACA may not prevent it from happening. But it will not make it more likely to occur. And if it does occur, the ACA puts in place some mechanisms whereby employees can search for alternatives. If it didn't, and those people went without insurance, then rates for those of us who do have insurance would have gone up again.

Prior to ACA, companies that provided HC for their employees did so as a benefit to their employees. It's a benefit because, HC is expensive and thus employees looked upon it as a benefit. These same companies post ACA will have the perfect excuse, as costs keep going up up up and up due to ACA, to drop that benefit given the employees now have bazaars and a mandate to cover their own insurance from the government, which they didn't previously have.

 

[vols4sure]

Prior to ACA, companies that provided HC for their employees did so as a benefit to their employees. It's a benefit because, HC is expensive and thus employees looked upon it as a benefit. These same companies post ACA will have the perfect excuse, as costs keep going up up up and up due to ACA, to drop that benefit given the employees now have bazaars and a mandate to cover their own insurance from the government, which they didn't previously have.

Don't bother. He has zero logical reasoning skills.

 

[YorkVol]

Okay, then they can pay the fines and have no insurance...

Which is the point of my question. I read the initial fine would be $95 bucks. I would think many people would be willing to risk not having insurance if that is the fine.

When do you have to pay the fine? Even when it grows to the final amount, is that paid at tax time? What if your income is low enough that you generally get a refund, will the fine just come off your refund? Again, this would seem to lower the incentive of actually paying for a plan ahead of time.

The details are important and could lead to the opposite of what is currently the intent.

 

[lawgator1]

So people are already coming in for their free "wellness" visits and bailing on the bills? Pretty sure that's opposite of what the admin is the claiming.

As for your more jobs ridiculousness, they sound about as shovel ready as all the other jobs this WH has created with the stimulus

No, they come in to the ER, when it is going to be 10 X more expensive to deal with their problem. Then they don't pay.

You and I do.

There will still be some cost-shifting,I'm sure. But less.

 

[lawgator1]

Prior to ACA, companies that provided HC for their employees did so as a benefit to their employees. It's a benefit because, HC is expensive and thus employees looked upon it as a benefit. These same companies post ACA will have the perfect excuse, as costs keep going up up up and up due to ACA, to drop that benefit given the employees now have bazaars and a mandate to cover their own insurance from the government, which they didn't previously have.

They could have, anyway. They don't need an excuse because costs are going up now at a ridiculous rate. The ACA will reduce the rate of increase. By your argument, we should never have done anything because it would create an excuse for employers to do what they can already do now.

I wonder what the rate of employers dropping insurance was after the individual mandate in Massachusetts (and because of it).

 

[Lexvol]

No, they come in to the ER, when it is going to be 10 X more expensive to deal with their problem. Then they don't pay.

You and I do.

There will still be some cost-shifting,I'm sure. But less.

The will try to do it with price controls rather than shifting. It will not work.

 

[YorkVol]

This is a two edged sword.

My wife and I had medical insurance for years. My wife was diagnosed with diabetes in the early 2000's. The insurance company dropped coverage. Try to buy coverage as a diabetic.

I can understand an insurance company dropping someone if they lie on the application but it is wrong for a company to be allowed to drop coverage on someone that became sick after paying premiums for several years.

That is one problem that the ACA fixes.

Yep, I'm glad that part is getting fixed. To me that was always the most unethical thing the health insurance companies did.

I have a friend who is self employed and pays cash for his medical expenses. His daughter was born premature and he paid the entire bill for her neonatal care out of pocket. I could easily see someone like him continue to pay cash until that catastrophic event, then sign up and get coverage, only to drop it later once the crisis passed. The fine would be less than the cost of annual insurance.

 

[Gramps]

Yep, I'm glad that part is getting fixed. To me that was always the most unethical thing the health insurance companies did.

I have a friend who is self employed and pays cash for his medical expenses. His daughter was born premature and he paid the entire bill for her neonatal care out of pocket. I could easily see someone like him continue to pay cash until that catastrophic event, then sign up and get coverage, only to drop it later once the crisis passed. The fine would be less than the cost of annual insurance.

yes i agree.
The ACA needs some serious tweaking.

it probably will not happen because of the division in Washington.

This is a time our reps need to consider what is best for America.

 

[YorkVol]

yes i agree.
The ACA needs some serious tweaking.

it probably will not happen because of the division in Washington.

This is a time our reps need to consider what is best for America.

The problem is most of them don't really know the details nor how it will be implemented.

Human nature would lead me to believe most will opt out until needed now that it is guaranteed. Some will buy in just to get the wellness care, but just judging by cigarette sales, most won't care about that part.

Sort of like if you and I were guaranteed seats on the 50 yard line, all we had to do was show up and pay before kick off, most likely neither of us would actually pay ahead of time.

 

[Gramps]

The problem is most of them don't really know the details nor how it will be implemented.

Human nature would lead me to believe most will opt out until needed now that it is guaranteed. Some will buy in just to get the wellness care, but just judging by cigarette sales, most won't care about that part.

Sort of like if you and I were guaranteed seats on the 50 yard line, all we had to do was show up and pay before kick off, most
likely neither of us would actually pay ahead of time.

Good point.

IIRC, the penalty for not being covered the 1st year is only $95.00. That is incentive for some to not purchase coverage and play the odds.

 

[lawgator1]

Good point.

IIRC, the penalty for not being covered the 1st year is only $95.00. That is incentive for some to not purchase coverage and play the odds.

The penalty/tax is not huge. Most people not buying it now will still opt not to buy it and just pay that small amount.

It is nonetheless a step in the right direction to stop the freeloading.

 

[Lexvol]

The penalty/tax is not huge. Most people not buying it now will still opt not to buy it and just pay that small amount.

It is nonetheless a step in the right direction to stop the freeloading.

In practice, how many of the uninsured are really going to pay the fine? Thinking that this is going to be any real incentive at all is like predicting the Vols are going to win the SEC this year.

It will allow the bloated IRS to expand and add new code to an already ridiculous tax system.

 

[utvolpj]

The penalty/tax is not huge. Most people not buying it now will still opt not to buy it and just pay that small amount.

So, basically, you're looking at penalties of approximately the following at the following income levels:

• Less than $9,500 income = $0
• $9,500 - $37,000 income = $695
• $50,000 income = $1,000
• $75,000 income = $1,600
• $100,000 income = $2,250
• $125,000 income = $2,900
• $150,000 income = $3,500
• $175,000 income = $4,100
• $200,000 income = $4,700
• Over $200,000 = The cost of a "bronze" health-insurance plan

"small amount" huh? These are per person

with insurance companies knowing the threshold, where is their incentive to drop prices way below these penalty levels?

How Much Is The Obamacare Penalty Tax? - Business Insider

 

[lawgator1]

In practice, how many of the uninsured are really going to pay the fine? Thinking that this is going to be any real incentive at all is like predicting the Vols are going to win the SEC this year.

It will allow the bloated IRS to expand and add new code to an already ridiculous tax system.

I don't know what percentage will pay it the first few years. I imagine that, over time, it will go up as the penalty/tax is enforced.

"small amount" huh? These are per person

with insurance companies knowing the threshold, where is their incentive to drop prices way below these penalty levels?

How Much Is The Obamacare Penalty Tax? - Business Insider

First, that's the outer year you are talking about there. Its less in 2014 and 2015. Also, there are exemptions available in certain cases.

Second, it is still far less than the cost of health insurance.

Let's say no penalty/tax is implemented and people still go bare. They still show up in the ER as their primary care provider. It is still a lot more expensive for care to be delivered there than in a family doctor office.

The cost for the uninsured is shifted into the formula that the hospitals and doctors charge programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Under the ACA, at least some part of that will be paid for by the penalty/tax. Again, this is an idea that conservatives should absolutely love and endorse.

Come to think of it, a large number have (until, of course, it was Obama who passed it).

Let's face facts here, folks. The GOP has repeatedly, and strongly, endorsed this very program. Their opposition to it now is purely because it was Obama who got it done.

Obama will absolutely smack Romney over the nose with his own quotes over and over if they try to make this a major campaign issue.

 

[utvolpj]

First, that's the outer year you are talking about there. Its less in 2014 and 2015. Also, there are exemptions available in certain cases.

outer year? No, that's what it will be going forward and will be around many more years than the 2 you choose to key on. Quit lying and work with the final goal

Second, it is still far less than the cost of health insurance.

you have no idea if that's true or not (most likely not). If the insurance company knows you will have to pay a $12k penalty/tax if you go without then what is their incentive to only charge you $7k? The govt is now a competitor of the insurance company and they just disclosed their entire pricing structure. You think they will give up their evil profit dollars willingly?

Let's face facts here, folks. The GOP has repeatedly, and strongly, endorsed this very program. Their opposition to it now is purely because it was Obama who got it done.

Obama will absolutely smack Romney over the nose with his own quotes over and over if they try to make this a major campaign issue.

Obama will smack Romney around with the largest tax increase in US history?

FYI, I don't give a damn about the GOP either.

 

[YorkVol]

"small amount" huh? These are per person

with insurance companies knowing the threshold, where is their incentive to drop prices way below these penalty levels?

How Much Is The Obamacare Penalty Tax? - Business Insider

Thanks, these are good details. Now the next big question is what is the result of the fine? Are you then enrolled in the government's plan, or do you have to pay another fee for that?

And when do you have to pay the fine? Immediately or next April 15th?

 

[YorkVol]

I don't know what percentage will pay it the first few years. I imagine that, over time, it will go up as the penalty/tax is enforced.






First, that's the outer year you are talking about there. Its less in 2014 and 2015. Also, there are exemptions available in certain cases.

Second, it is still far less than the cost of health insurance.

Let's say no penalty/tax is implemented and people still go bare. They still show up in the ER as their primary care provider. It is still a lot more expensive for care to be delivered there than in a family doctor office.

The cost for the uninsured is shifted into the formula that the hospitals and doctors charge programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Under the ACA, at least some part of that will be paid for by the penalty/tax. Again, this is an idea that conservatives should absolutely love and endorse.

Come to think of it, a large number have (until, of course, it was Obama who passed it).

Let's face facts here, folks. The GOP has repeatedly, and strongly, endorsed this very program. Their opposition to it now is purely because it was Obama who got it done.

Obama will absolutely smack Romney over the nose with his own quotes over and over if they try to make this a major campaign issue.

In my department the average worker makes $13.85/hour. The monthly cost for our health insurance for family coverage is $550 and about $200 for an individual. At $13.85/hour, they are making $28,800 per year and pay either $6600 per year to cover their family, or most often, $1200 per year to cover themselves and take SCHIP for their kids.

Except for the ones who need coverage due to on-going medical issues, I could easily see everyone of them dropping coverage and just paying the $695 tax.

 

[utvolpj]

Thanks, these are good details. Now the next big question is what is the result of the fine? Are you then enrolled in the government's plan, or do you have to pay another fee for that?

not sure but I have a feeling you would be signed up on a govt plan. Seems to be their goal anyway and we'll all end up there eventually when this system becomes unsustainable

And when do you have to pay the fine? Immediately or next April 15th?

I believe it is paid when you file

 

[lawgator1]

outer year? No, that's what it will be going forward and will be around many more years than the 2 you choose to key on. Quit lying and work with the final goal

you have no idea if that's true or not (most likely not). If the insurance company knows you will have to pay a $12k penalty/tax if you go without then what is their incentive to only charge you $7k? The govt is now a competitor of the insurance company and they just disclosed their entire pricing structure. You think they will give up their evil profit dollars willingly?



Obama will smack Romney around with the largest tax increase in US history?

FYI, I don't give a damn about the GOP either.

First, its a percentage of income. So if income goes up, it goes up. If you are right and at some point health insurance is cheaper than the tax, hallelujah!!

That will mean costs have come way down. It will mean income is way up. God, I hope you are right (for once, since so far you've been absolutely wrong about everything).

As to your last comment, the gigantic thing you ignore is that those of us who have health insurance are already paying a massive, inefficient tax in the form of higher premiums to cover the cost of care to the uninsured.

In 2008 (the last year I could find), the average family paid over $1,000 more in their premium to cover the costs of health care to the uninsured. I imagine 4 years later that has gone up, significantly, as costs have risen and the number of uninsured went up, too.


The ACA does not eliminate all of that, but it addresses at least some of it, and provides a framework to address it long term.

It is a great step forward in addressing health insurance and in reducing and hopefully one day eliminating incredibly inefficient freeloading on the health care system.

Just ask Mitt Romney.