What Item Will Congress Tax Next For Failing to Purchase?

"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

There is no incentive, the cost of health insurance is about to skyrocket. We are being told by our agent to expect a 30% or more increase within the next 2 years.

Right now we pay 100% for the employee a 30% increase will make us stop that and our people will have to start kicking in. Nice little chunk of change everyone will see missing from their paychecks.
 
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

Which is why I could see a bank of insurance agents sitting in the ER waiting to get people to sign up when they are in the greatest need.


I believe it is paid when you file

Which would mean most would wait until April.

..
 
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.

I think you are proving my point. Why would any healthy unmarried working adult pay for insurance under the ACA? "Freeloading" may go down, but the number of people paying into any sort of health care insurance will go down as well.
 
I think you are proving my point. Why would any healthy unmarried working adult pay for insurance under the ACA? "Freeloading" may go down, but the number of people paying into any sort of health care insurance will go down as well.

That part of the ACA is constructed much like the model in Switzerland and Massachusetts (link? Romney has bank accounts in both places!) among other places, but so far everywhere it's been implemented has seen a rate of free riders around 1%.
 

the bank of insurance agents raises an interesting issue. given the challenges that some hospitals are facing with respect to assignments of benefits (some states and attorneys argue they are contracts of adhesion), I have a hard time believing that insurance agents will be permitted to loiter and solicit business in hospitals.

I'm also curious to see how guaranteed issue will work in practice. With the broken leg example, will insurers differentiate a pre-existing condition from an injury that's been treated? In other words, if you break your leg, then sign up for insurance you are enrolling with a PEC. Under the guaranteed issue provision of ACA, the insurance company has to insure you. But, if you break your leg, then receive treatment and then apply for insurance in order to bill the insurance company for a a condition that's already been treated, it seems you no longer have a PEC. Rather, it seems that the Patient is asking the insurance company to pay for a condition that has already been treated, I.e. that no longer exists. I suppose the insurance would have to pay for the cast removal and any physical therapy.
 
That part of the ACA is constructed much like the model in Switzerland and Massachusetts (link? Romney has bank accounts in both places!) among other places, but so far everywhere it's been implemented has seen a rate of free riders around 1%.

If the system requires the bulk of the country to pay regular payments and if a significant portion only pays when they need it, you could conceivably see years of under funding.
 
the bank of insurance agents raises an interesting issue. given the challenges that some hospitals are facing with respect to assignments of benefits (some states and attorneys argue they are contracts of adhesion), I have a hard time believing that insurance agents will be permitted to loiter and solicit business in hospitals.

I'm also curious to see how guaranteed issue will work in practice. With the broken leg example, will insurers differentiate a pre-existing condition from an injury that's been treated? In other words, if you break your leg, then sign up for insurance you are enrolling with a PEC. Under the guaranteed issue provision of ACA, the insurance company has to insure you. But, if you break your leg, then receive treatment and then apply for insurance in order to bill the insurance company for a a condition that's already been treated, it seems you no longer have a PEC. Rather, it seems that the Patient is asking the insurance company to pay for a condition that has already been treated, I.e. that no longer exists. I suppose the insurance would have to pay for the cast removal and any physical therapy.

Interesting and informative. The devil will be in the details, certainly. If the time of treatment becomes that critical, then that would be incentive to pay in to a plan before something happens.
 
I think you are proving my point. Why would any healthy unmarried working adult pay for insurance under the ACA? "Freeloading" may go down, but the number of people paying into any sort of health care insurance will go down as well.


Paying the tax does not give you benefits equal to insurance.
 
Now that Congress knows they can impose taxes on people for failing to buy something, what will the middle and upper class be "asked" to buy next?

Tofu?

Jindal: Obamacare ruling paves way for Michelle Obama Tofu Tax mandate

“Under this taxing authority now, you can tax inactivity to compel behavior, you can tax inactivity, what’s to stop this administration — we know the First Lady is very keen on us eating healthy — why not tax people for not eating tofu?”Gov. Bobby Jindal,, R-La., asked reporters on a conference call this morning. “This administration, they’ve put taxpayers as partial owners of GM, why not tax people for not going out and buying Chevy Volts? The reality is, this is a huge expansion of the federal government’s power.”
 
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.

The Beatles
 
The sad thing is some people will believe Jindal'ramblings.

People would have also been told at one time they were crazy if they believed the commerce clause could ever be used to limit how much wheat a farmer could grow on their own farm for personal consumption. Ask Mr. Filburn how crazy they actually were.

If you don't realize that the Supreme Court has now given Congress essentially unbridled power to tax inactivity, or if you don't believe Congress will at one time use this power to "penalize" you for not buying something you do not think you should have to buy, you are in major need of a history lesson.
 
People would have also been told at one time they were crazy if they believed the commerce clause could ever be used to limit how much wheat a farmer could grow on their own farm for personal consumption. Ask Mr. Filburn how crazy they actually were.

If you don't realize that the Supreme Court has now given Congress essentially unbridled power to tax inactivity, or if you don't believe Congress will at one time use this power to "penalize" you for not buying something you do not think you should have to buy, you are in major need of a history lesson.


Be sure to update me with the Tofu Tax is passed.
 
Be sure to update me with the Tofu Tax is passed.

The SCOTUS has cleared the way for us to be taxed for any number of things:

Some things that could be coming down the road.

1- Don't send your kids to college pay a tax
2- Buy a domestic made car or pay a tax
3- Junk food tax
4- Excessive energy use tax
 
The SCOTUS has cleared the way for us to be taxed for any number of things:

Some things that could be coming down the road.

1- Don't send your kids to college pay a tax
2- Buy a domestic made car or pay a tax
3- Junk food tax
4- Excessive energy use tax





I have seen this kind of poor logic before, usually from babies.


582799_10151898614245434_200851569_n.jpg
 
I do see a tax coming if your car does not get a certain MPG. Not going green will cost you and the epa will see to it. Corporations are already gettying fined we're next.
 
Colleges are not ethically or legally bound to provide an education to anyone. Car dealers not obliged to just give them away ...

You starting to see the difference ?


You're pretty naive (perhaps willingly so) if you think the Supreme Court's ruling on ObamaCare doesn't set a dangerous precedent for escalated federal power.
 
I do see a tax coming if your car does not get a certain MPG. Not going green will cost you and the epa will see to it. Corporations are already gettying fined we're next.

We've already seen state emissions tests effectively result in a penalty, anyway.
 

VN Store



Back
Top