Comment Re:Fuck Obamacare (Score 1) 723
OK, one more thing about the penalty, for further information, see pages 53651-53655 and 53659 of “Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage”
OK, one more thing about the penalty, for further information, see pages 53651-53655 and 53659 of “Shared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage”
No, you DO NOT unless you have children, or are elderly, or disabled.
And back to your original point:
But the government taxes you under the ACA even if you have no income. If you don't buy insurance, they assess the penalties until you start earning income. They are, literally, taxing you for breathing.
That is complete bullshit. The following groups are exempt from the penalty: Individuals with income below the income tax filing threshold; Individuals for whom the cost of getting health insurance (net of ACA subsidies) would exceed 8% of household income in 2014; Individuals in states that did not accept the ACA’s Medicaid expansion who would have qualified for Medicaid under the expansion; Members of Indian tribes; Members of certain religious faiths; Members of a health care sharing ministry; Individuals not legally in the U.S. (undocumented aliens); Incarcerated individuals.
If I can trust the rest of your story (which, frankly, I'm doubting at this point, since so much of your objection is pure fantasy with no basis at all in reality), then you qualify for all of the first 3 exemptions.
What about income levels for subsidies?
It's a good question. I seriously doubt that Schedule C gross counts, rather than AGI--but I cannot state it as a verified fact.
No, in fact, I did not.
Looking back, I see that it was indeed someone else who stated that the source I quoted showed that the majority of newly-insured were from Medicaid--when, as you acknowledge, that is simply not true.
Oh, was I not clear? The gains are not coming from the marketplace.
No, in fact, you said they were coming from Medicaid. Which is wrong. I pointed out that they're coming from Medicaid and employer-sponsored insurance.
Then I remembered that this particular subject is the President's legacy achievement, so it's probably less credible than usual.
Well, let's do compare that to the prior administration's legacy achievement, $3 trillion spent on restoring peace, freedom and democracy in Iraq.
The 7.1million number is bullshit, and it does include some medicaid enrollees.
No, it does not. Medicaid expansion is counted separately.
3) Okay, THREE things. how many of those people are in the demographic that the ACA needs to get insured to make the bookkeeping balance - if not enough of the "young invincibles" sign up, health insurance prices for NEXT year are going to be taking quite a jump....
Well, we hope that the sick previously-uninsurable signed up early because they would be highly motivated to do so, and that the surge was "young invincibles" because they would be the ones to procrastinate. But it will be a year before we'll really have any clear idea about the relative utilization of services between the newly- and previously-insured.
I expect the numbers are right, but the question is what all is included. This wouldn't be just the federal web site. They're almost certainly counting those who signed up through state exchanges. They're also going to count anyone who signed up on paper. All of that is fine, as this is a measure of the program, not of the web site.
Yes. That number is total marketplace plans, no matter which exchange, no matter online or paper.
But does it include those who signed up for expanded Medicare? Those are people who weren't insured before, and now are thanks to the new law, but it's not what most people think of when they say "Obamacare."
No, that number does not include the Medicaid expansion nor the increase in employer-sponsored plans from the employer mandate.
My daughter-in-law attempted to sign up for Obamacare. She is in school and makes no money. Between her and my stepson, they make maybe $4-$5k per year, about $10,000 of which goes to pay for school. Yes, I know that doesn't add up. Anyway, she tried to sign up for Obamacare, and the cheapest plan she could get would have cost her $143 a month. She can't afford that, so she didn't sign up. She asked about the penalty and they said since she didn't make much money, she doesn't have to pay the penalty. So what does that mean? It means Obamacare did nothing. Poor people still don't have insurance. They don't have to pay the penalty either. They just go to the emergency room like they used to. Nothing has changed except that the people who already HAD insurance now pay twice as much.
They should be eligible for Medicaid.
I'm sure if my stepson and daughter-in-law were to drop out of school have a kid and sit at home all day THEN Obamacare would kick in and pay for them. After all, that is what Obama really wants, is for people to sit at home and make babies, not waste their time on education.
Well, at least they're trying to better themselves, rather than growing up to be a fucking ignorant bitter racist troll like yourself.
You'll also happily pay a discounted $75 for the same $100 test that my insurance company negotiates to $7. Which test is marked up that much?
Ahem, try $49 vs $1,800. No, I did not make that one up...
2) If your doctor charges you $40, but you have a $50 copay if you use insurance, it is because your doctor is illegally charging you less money than the insurance company. He may be stealing from them, or giving you a break, but he is breaking the law.
That depends on what state you're in. (And I'm assuming, like you, that the doctor knows about your insurance.)
3) If you get in a car accident your car insurance will NOT pay for your medical - it pays the guy you hit medical, not yours. (Unless you paid extra for worthless insurance).
That depends on what state you're in. Also note that in a tort state (which is what you're describing) your insurance will only make a single payment for that guy's medical bills, negotiated or litigated sometime before the statute of limitations--it is an absolutely barbaric system.
The only point I see is someone that radically overestimates how much insurance everyone ELSE has while complaining about how much he personally is being told to buy.
I saw a twit who had no clue how much he's likely to have to spend on health care some day--accident, infection, heart disease, cancer, whatever. We're all likely to have an expensive illness at some point in our lives.
According to your source, the gains are not coming from the marketplace.
Correct. 9.3 million net newly-insured because of ACA, of which the marketplace is just one small part. Now, what was your point exactly???
That Rand study says that only 1.4 million people buying exchange plans were previously uninsured, and that the vast majority of the 9 million were new Medicaid recipients.
Uhm, no. The vast majority came from the sum of expansion of Medicaid (5.9 million) plus expansion of employer-sponsored insurance (8.2 million). The employer mandates and Medicaid expansion were always expected to have the greatest effect. The marketplace, intended for those with a job that pays too much for Medicaid but not covered by the employer mandate, got disproportionate attention in recent months because of the disastrous initial failure of the federal exchange. But the exchange was never the main driver of expanded access, forcing big companies to contribute to health care for more of their employees is the "main act" of this complicated thing.
If Obama had followed what is allowed by the Constitution he would not of had the problem he is currently having with it.
Exactly what problem would that be?
A rolling disk gathers no MOS.
