here is what you will be fined (TAXED) for not having health insurance

[etrigan420]

Yea, cut off your leg with a hacksaw because you toe is infected, at least you tried to keep it from spreading

Whereas if you're a Republican you just ignore it and hope it goes away. Great analogy...

[there is not a "rolly eye" emoticon big enough.]

 

[yottabit]

Romney should have a field day with this tax--it is a tax BTW.

Yeah! By the way, what was the penalty for not having health insurance in Massachusetts?

Oh, hrmm... Well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GL6Sw_U1gk

 

[cybrsage]

Romney's plan exempts the poor from having to pay. Obama's does not (that I could find).

 

[sactoking]

Romney's plan exempts the poor from having to pay. Obama's does not (that I could find).

There is the 8% exemption.

 

[xj0hnx]

Whereas if you're a Republican you just ignore it and hope it goes away. Great analogy...

[there is not a "rolly eye" emoticon big enough.]

Whoosh is the sound of it passing between the empty space between your ears.

 

[xj0hnx]

Yeah! By the way, what was the penalty for not having health insurance in Massachusetts?http://

Massachusetts =/= The USA.

 

[cybrsage]

There is the 8% exemption.

But if the least-expensive plan on the individual exchange costs less than 8% of their MAGI after the federal subsidy is applied, they do not qualify for the exemption.

Romney's plan is far better in this regard...if you are poor, you are exempt. No if, ands, or buts about it.

 

[sactoking]

But if the least-expensive plan on the individual exchange costs less than 8% of their MAGI after the federal subsidy is applied, they do not qualify for the exemption.

Romney's plan is far better in this regard...if you are poor, you are exempt. No if, ands, or buts about it.

The Federal Poverty Level for a single person in the 48 contiguous states in 2012 is $11,170. The minimum income a single person can have and be exchange-eligible is ~$15,526; below that the person is Medicaid-eligible.

Under the Romney plan someone making $15,526 would be exempt from having insurance. Under the Obama plan someone making $15,526 would have to pay no more than $536 for a year's worth of insurance.

Medical bills don't discriminate; they don't care how much you make. A very good case could be made that it is more economically-desirable to society for the person making $15,526 to pay $536 for insurance than to have no insurance at all.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

I find this whole bill to really hit the lower middle to middle class more than anybody. The poor will be on medicaid. The people making 45K+ will probably have some form of employer based health care. They are exempt from the tax. Then you start adding on restrictions when it comes to FSAs(cap, what you can purchase with it). That hits the middle class trying to make up for their higher deductible plans due to increases in costs of covering more people. And if you need a medical device that costs more than 100 bucks? Another tax. These are taxes that the middle class will feel more than the poor or upper middle class or rich.

The FSA limits and restrictions really irritate me.

The whole plan of Obamacare isn't to get people to buy insurance or to lower the costs of insurance. It's to get people under government control. Why else would they ram through a bill that no one knows what's in it? Now that the details are coming out, it doesn't look like it is going to help anyone. It's pure totalitarianism.

 

[alkemyst]

The whole plan of Obamacare isn't to get people to buy insurance or to lower the costs of insurance. It's to get people under government control. Why else would they ram through a bill that no one knows what's in it? Now that the details are coming out, it doesn't look like it is going to help anyone. It's pure totalitarianism.

I think your signature is a lie if you feel this way.

We are all under government control more or less.

This is just requiring more to pull their own weight on our abused health care system.

 

[cybrsage]

Medical bills don't discriminate; they don't care how much you make. A very good case could be made that it is more economically-desirable to society for the person making $15,526 to pay $536 for insurance than to have no insurance at all.

I agree, but it is still a tax on the poor (everyone has to pay if they do not have insurance) whereas Romney exempted the poor. Its simplicity is very good too (in this item - cannot speak for other items).

I also agree it is better to have insurance than not, from a society view. The poor (using your above numbers) having to pay 3.5% of his pay for something he already got for free probably do not see it as a good thing.

 

[tydas]

The whole plan of Obamacare isn't to get people to buy insurance or to lower the costs of insurance. It's to get people under government control. Why else would they ram through a bill that no one knows what's in it? Now that the details are coming out, it doesn't look like it is going to help anyone. It's pure totalitarianism.

You know you can't be taken seriously throwing around a word like 'totalitarianism', right? I think many people have a lot more faith in this country to think we end up down that road, even if you consider the ACA bad policy...

 

[woolfe9999]

I know darn well that wasn't sufficient. I think you know darn well that a purposefully designed systematic and comprehensive process was not commissioned for this purpose. I think you aren't aware at all of the scope of what is needed anymore than a doctor would understand the specifics of revamping the legal system.

You keep arguing for this bill, because you aren't interested in improvement as much as justification. You are satisfied with arguing for inadequacy.

No, I'm not at all satisfied with "mediocrity." I just think this bill is better than the status quo. I'm also not convinced that the government should be fundamentally dictating how healthcare is actually delivered in this country. I'm more comfortable with their role in regulating insurance and ensuring access to a greater number of people. Short of a single payer system, where the government would have to directly regulate the cost end and hence they would have to dictate many healthcare decisions to control said costs, I think their role is best served by funding medical research and studies on how to improve the healthcare system. These studies can then be the basis for either future government action, or else serve as recommendations for the healthcare industry to consider adopting.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, I'm not at all satisfied with "mediocrity." I just think this bill is better than the status quo. I'm also not convinced that the government should be fundamentally dictating how healthcare is actually delivered in this country. I'm more comfortable with their role in regulating insurance and ensuring access to a greater number of people. Short of a single payer system, where the government would have to directly regulate the cost end and hence they would have to dictate many healthcare decisions to control said costs, I think their role is best served by funding medical research and studies on how to improve the healthcare system. These studies can then be the basis for either future government action, or else serve as recommendations for the healthcare industry to consider adopting.

There already are regulations galore and many look good on paper but create a headache. A real life is example was brought up at the last geriatric conference I attended. A patient was on a med in a long term care facility and was taken off a commonly prescribed but not working. The prescriber started getting loads of paperwork effectively demanding he put back on or Medicare would withhold all payment. It took weeks to have this resolved and a couple months to get payment and no it's not an uncommon kind of thing. No reason for that. A bureaucratic reform alone would be helpful. Other things as I have time.