ACA (a.k.a. Obamacare) Upheld

[Doc Savage Fan]

Dems are so sneaky.

I'm curious as to what you mean by that statement.

I meant to say "clever".

 

[chucky2]

I'm not sure where people get the idea that it's not possible to lower costs. It is possible to increase the supply of health care. The first step is to take on the AMA and to increase the number of doctors trained in the US. Also, allowing other professionals like nurses to do more would also help. The first thing that needs to happen though is for providers to receive a signal that people aren't willing to pay their prices. That can't happen when income is guaranteed.

That's fine, but it's not happening as far as I'm aware. If ACA mandates that, and actually has real teeth so that mandate is accomplished (unlike apperently the mandate with fake teeth that is the insurance requirement), then that's great, I'm all for it.

I just don't see that happening to any meaninful degree, and hence not enough for any money saving degree (Political points may be able to be scored though, which we know, is the only thing important to the Politicians).

Chuck

 

[Infohawk]

That's fine, but it's not happening as far as I'm aware. ...

Chuck

Right, but that's a fundamental problem with it.

 

[dank69]

I meant to say "clever".

I'm more curious if you mean it as a genuine compliment.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yeah, I don't think anyone should hang their hat on the idea that this will stay (assuming it really is) a toothless measure.

It's not toothless in it's current form. Criminal prosecution is the least of the IRS' remedies for failure to pay taxes, and is the least often used. They can attach your bank accounts and put liens on your property. These are civil remedies, and they generally work. The statute simply takes away the least used remedy. I could be wrong, but I don't think the law takes away all of the civil remedies, just some.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I'm more curious if you mean it as a genuine compliment.

Democrats are much more "clever" than Republicans at drafting legislation and playing politics in general imo.

You might find that as a compliment...however, personally I'm not sure what to make of it.

 

[chucky2]

It's not toothless in it's current form. Criminal prosecution is the least of the IRS' remedies for failure to pay taxes, and is the least often used. They can attach your bank accounts and put liens on your property. These are civil remedies, and they generally work. The statute simply takes away the least used remedy. I could be wrong, but I don't think the law takes away all of the civil remedies, just some.

So if the people who aren't subsidized don't buy insurance, they will have to pay the tax. Are you saying that if they aren't owed any money for the past years taxes, that the IRS is going to come after them for the fine amount if they elect not to pay?

 

[Ryan]

So if the people who aren't subsidized don't buy insurance, they will have to pay the tax. Are you saying that if they aren't owed any money for the past years taxes, that the IRS is going to come after them for the fine amount if they elect not to pay?

AFAIK, yes.

 

[jackstar7]

Democrats are much more "clever" than Republicans at drafting legislation and playing politics in general imo.

You might find that as a compliment...however, personally I'm not sure what to make of it.

Based on their inability to win just about any political fight, I'm not sure how you reach that estimation of the Democratic party...

 

[Mxylplyx]

We can't just give everyone everything they want in life and suffering is part of the human condition.

That is so damn easy to say when it is not you who is suffering. Poor people should have to suffer with shitty basic table, run down houses, hand me down clothes and furniture, and microwave food. They should not have to suffer in THIS country with untreated diabetes or cancer, and if you disagree you are simply an ass hole.

 

[woolfe9999]

So if the people who aren't subsidized don't buy insurance, they will have to pay the tax. Are you saying that if they aren't owed any money for the past years taxes, that the IRS is going to come after them for the fine amount if they elect not to pay?

Well first of all, I'm not sure that the ability to deduct from a refund is limited to the current year. They may in theory be able to carry it forward and collect it from any future refund.

As to the remainder of the question, the IRS has numerous ways of coming after your money short of criminal prosecution. My recollection is that this law does not take all of those away, but I could be wrong about that as it went through several iterations as people debated this penalty.

- wolf

 

[sactoking]

I think it is more about increasing competition, drastically.

They're supposed to increase competition, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to happen. We have a healthy market here in Nevada, meaning good competition and products from a variety of insurers. It is expected that the plans offered on our Exchange will be a subset of those plans already available in the open market (with changes to reflect the market reforms, changes that all plans will undergo).

If the exchange offering is a subset of the open market, meaning that the presence of the Exchange does not bring in new carriers, then it is at best competition neutral and at worst stifling competition (with respect to the plans available with exchange Federal subsidies).

It's not toothless in it's current form. Criminal prosecution is the least of the IRS' remedies for failure to pay taxes, and is the least often used. They can attach your bank accounts and put liens on your property. These are civil remedies, and they generally work. The statute simply takes away the least used remedy. I could be wrong, but I don't think the law takes away all of the civil remedies, just some.

Liens and levies on property and specifically prohibited. That, plus the criminal prosecution prohibition, has led people to wonder what actually will be done.

 

[michal1980]

umm not really...a free loader who obtains healthcare without insurance is charged 2-3X the amount of a person who has healthcare. Soooo if that free loader without insurance bales on the bill guess what....we get stuck with higher costs in the long run.

But before the ACA only the sick freeloader would get medical care, only when they really needed it

Now every freeloader will go, weather they need to or not.


All that happened, was that those uninsured people that went to the ER, got an insurance card and can no go to a Dr.

They still aren't paying for it, they are just going somewhere different for care.

 

[blankslate]

Most people want something for nothing.

Talk about a news breaking survey.

I bet you could find a survey where most people want to pay less in taxes.

While this is true.

If the positives outweigh the main negative that people see in this bill and according to the chart

sourced from this document

and the penalty isn't that severe, then people might come to accept the mandate

especially considering that according to this

• Most individuals will be required to get coverage, or to pay a fine if they don’t. However, there will be healthcare subsidies to help people buy coverage if their income is below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (about $88,000 a year for a family of 4). If affordable coverage is not available to an individual, they will not be penalized.

 

[Mxylplyx]

They're supposed to increase competition, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to happen. We have a healthy market here in Nevada, meaning good competition and products from a variety of insurers. It is expected that the plans offered on our Exchange will be a subset of those plans already available in the open market (with changes to reflect the market reforms, changes that all plans will undergo).

If the exchange offering is a subset of the open market, meaning that the presence of the Exchange does not bring in new carriers, then it is at best competition neutral and at worst stifling competition (with respect to the plans available with exchange Federal subsidies).



Liens and levies on property and specifically prohibited. That, plus the criminal prosecution prohibition, has led people to wonder what actually will be done.

One goal of the exchange is to make it easy to compare plans, and it might even give you a projected costs based on income that factors in tax credits.

 

[sactoking]

So if the people who aren't subsidized don't buy insurance, they will have to pay the tax. Are you saying that if they aren't owed any money for the past years taxes, that the IRS is going to come after them for the fine amount if they elect not to pay?

Just to clarify, if someone is eligible for a subsidy but elects not to buy insurance they will also be exposed to the penalty (subject to the 8% rule). Being eligible for a subsidy is not a indicator of exemption from the penalty.

Well first of all, I'm not sure that the ability to deduct from a refund is limited to the current year. They may in theory be able to carry it forward and collect it from any future refund.

As to the remainder of the question, the IRS has numerous ways of coming after your money short of criminal prosecution. My recollection is that this law does not take all of those away, but I could be wrong about that as it went through several iterations as people debated this penalty.

- wolf

From what I've seen, yes, the tax deficiency may be carried forward, perhaps indefinitely. It is unknown if it will accumulate interest while deficient, but my hunch is yes.

 

[chucky2]

Will be interesting then to see how the Gov expects to collect from people who aren't owned money by the Gov. If they can't do the things sactoking listed, then maybe they can just add that tax burden onto next years taxes that you owe. So maybe you'd escape for one year, but they'd get you the next.

 

[sactoking]

One goal of the exchange is to make it easy to compare plans, and it might even give you a projected costs based on income that factors in tax credits.

I agree, and that's good, but I don't really classify that as 'competition'; that's more consumer protection.

 

[chucky2]

"If affordable coverage is not available to an individual, they will not be penalized."

This also doesn't sound good. This to me sounds like a weasel out provision that's going to be abused. If this act works as was marketed, then there is no reason for this to even be there. I'm starting to get a worse feeling than I had yesterday on this...

 

[Infohawk]

If affordable coverage is not available to an individual, they will not be penalized.

Statements like that are essentially meaningless if they are not quantified. I can imagine the government defining "affordable" as $500 per month for a single person making $50,000 a year. In reality though, it would be quite a burden. Even if it is "affordable" something like that could be quite unpopular.

 

[michal1980]

I'm not sure where people get the idea that it's not possible to lower costs. It is possible to increase the supply of health care. The first step is to take on the AMA and to increase the number of doctors trained in the US. Also, allowing other professionals like nurses to do more would also help. The first thing that needs to happen though is for providers to receive a signal that people aren't willing to pay their prices. That can't happen when income is guaranteed.

Did this law do any of that?

No.

This law did not touch the supply of Dr's, but vastly increased there demand.

 

[Infohawk]

Did this law do any of that?

No.

This law did not touch the supply of Dr's, but vastly increased there demand.

Right, that's a problem...

 

[dank69]

Democrats are much more "clever" than Republicans at drafting legislation and playing politics in general imo.

You might find that as a compliment...however, personally I'm not sure what to make of it.

That is why I was asking. Your statement as written could be taken as compliment or backhanded insult. Given your posting history, I was finding it hard to believe that it was a genuine compliment, but almost also as hard to believe that after you realized that the Democrat legislation is actually good you would then still insult them for it.

On top of that, your explanation of your insult is equally perplexing for the reason jackstar pointed out. You truly are a fucking numbskull Doc.

They're supposed to increase competition, but I'm not sure how that's supposed to happen. We have a healthy market here in Nevada, meaning good competition and products from a variety of insurers. It is expected that the plans offered on our Exchange will be a subset of those plans already available in the open market (with changes to reflect the market reforms, changes that all plans will undergo).

If the exchange offering is a subset of the open market, meaning that the presence of the Exchange does not bring in new carriers, then it is at best competition neutral and at worst stifling competition (with respect to the plans available with exchange Federal subsidies).

...

I think most people get their insurance through employers and all they care about is what plan is cheapest for them. They don't compare benefits/dollar spent. So the competition right now is merely how to fuck the end user as much as possible from all directions. Once they have to appeal to the end user, the game changes dramatically.

 

[Ryan]

Right, that's a problem...

Do you not think the market will adjust?

 

[sactoking]

Will be interesting then to see how the Gov expects to collect from people who aren't owned money by the Gov. If they can't do the things sactoking listed, then maybe they can just add that tax burden onto next years taxes that you owe. So maybe you'd escape for one year, but they'd get you the next.

That is possible, but it has a flaw as well.

If someone were really determined to not have insurance or pay the penalty they could deliberately under-withhold from their paycheck and make manual quarterly payments. If you make manual quarterly payments you should be paying the lesser of your last year's tax liability or 90% of this year's estimated tax liability. Your 4th quarter payment is due Jan 31 and your annual return is due April 15. If you do it right you should always owe at least 10% in April.