The problem here is the question has already been aske and answered on this very thread and you are just to lazy and whiney ass to even look for your self.

 

And what do you think is the crux of this bill? I cannot believe the amount of self inflicted ignorance on displayed on this thread. Really???? The whole objective is to insure those millions of uninsured Americans.

This is woeful ignorance.

 

Eventually I see this becoming as automotive liability insurance in many states - another individually required purchase from private companies. In that market, the competition is fierce and people swap insurance companies to move to whomever they perceive is giving them the best "deal" . . . I'm not sure our short-sighted society is ready to move to that kind of market for health care, and I'm not sure if that's the best course from a philosophical point of view.

Either way - I think a large portion of "average Joe" types are going to see their situation change radically from what it is now. Will they be healthier on the whole when all is said and done? If not, why did we make these kinds of changes? Check in about 2020 if this things survives intact.

 

WTF

disabled in Nov of last year....can't get medacade for a year....

 

+1

This is already playing out in Massachusetts. It is harder and harder to find employers who provide it. People must either buy it on their own, or pay the fine, or move out. The latter two choices are growing. People paying the fine, or contributing to the state's negative population growth by fleeing the mandate.

Where will they go now?

When we say, "People will just have to buy it themselves," we get back to the underlying truth that most people just don't have any idea what it really costs. They do think in terms of car insurance. Two or three thousand bucks. Five on the outside. And yet, people move from state to state to avoid compulsory car insurance, or as they do in Massachusetts, they break the law by registering their cars in New Hampshire or Rhode Island.

Again, with a health care mandate, there is nowhere to run.

How many people are going to be able to spend $19,000 to $21,000 per year (current cost) to provide basic coverage to themselves and two children?

In Massachusetts, if you want to live here legally and cannot get an employer to cover the cost, that is what it costs today. And it has been going up, at more than double the rate of inflation, for the past four years.

Again, to keep harping on it: this is being marketed as the AFFORABLE Care Act.

Affordable to whom? Only the people who will get it for free, for whatever reason.

In Massachusetts, the people on a free ride were supposed to be a tiny minority. One or two percent, tops. Well, guess what? The system is overrun by people scamming the system, and Massachusetts hospitals have recently filed a class action suit against the state, because the state is not reimbursing them for the walk-in claims that Romneycare was supposed to eliminate. Walk-in claims have skyrocketed, despite Romneycare, because no one can afford to pay $21,000 for BASIC insurance coverage!

 

BULLSHIT,,,,,,,,,,,, a concocted number that has no factual evidence,,''50 MILLION UNINSURED'',,those are , young people that rarely need healthcare insurance,,illegal aliens that the leftists need for votes, the pre-exsisting conditions people,, that CAN join a pool through the private sector, and are generally covered under an existing federal/state entitlement,,stop embarrassing yourself by continuously repeating leftist talking points.

 

I don't want to fight with you. As I wrote a few posts back, I am not disappointed that ACA was upheld.

But, you are making it sound as though, if Rixer and Tommyturtle can't get coverage through an employer, and if they don't feel like shelling out $16,000-or-so out of pocket for healthcare, they'll just be able to sign up for a free ride by filling out a form.

It sure isn't that easy in Massachusetts. Exemptions are very difficult to get here. Virtually impossible to get. Yet the system is overrun with people who are flooding emergency rooms and demanding treatment for free, just like they did before.

 

Hi.

No one is responding to my posts. I think they're too long. Whatever.

Aces, am I right here, or am I all wet, with my understanding that under Obamacare, a provision will kick in (after his reelection) under which employer contributions to health care premiums will be considered taxable income?

Because all these people are parroting the party line that the affordable care act is going to be candy-lollipops-all-free-today, and it's driving me batty.

 

I am trying to answer this question for myself. No luck. It is my understanding, on the basis of small-mid business trade literature.

But I've been bouncing back and forth between here and IRS.gov, and my sense is that even they don't know. Employer contributions are not taxable. Yet they are. Each article references three others, and they all conflict. One thing's reasonably certain: If you have a family, you're screwed, unless each independent has his/her own plan. And it seems that the employer cost for covering dependents who cannot work and provide their own coverage for statutory reasons (i.e., children) is considered a purchase of funds from a taxable wage. In other words, parents choose to insure their children, so they pay a tax.

Again, I could be wrong. It makes no sense. No sense whatsoever. It is a big huge fucking mess.

 

The ruling itself doesn't bother me much. What bothers me most is that Justice John Roberts seems to be another David Souter. It appears that another Bush got suckered by another liberal judge who pretended to believe in the Constitution long enough to get appointed to the Supreme Court.

The ruling itself isn't so bad. Finally, lower middle class and the working poor are going to be made to pay for their healthcare or pay a tax to the government. The 1%ers are toasting this decision. Finally, they aren't being burdoned with carrying everyone else. They have their healthcare and nothing changes for them.

The top 10% currently pay 90% of the income taxes. Obamacare will make most of the healthcare benefits which are now tax free into taxable income. Closing this loophole will make the tax code more fair. It will spread the burden of income taxes out to lower income people who've been getting a free ride up until now.

 

Of course, sweetheart

You mean like the part of the bill that requires insurance companies to spend 85% of what they take in on actual healthcare? That kind of limiting?






Apparently nobody on this thread knows what the bill actually does beyond the mandate, so I'm not really sure why any of you are discussing it at all.

Did you really just reply to yourself?

I'll answer your question.

No.

Employers have to report benefits provided to employees on their (the employer's) tax forms, but it seems like this should've been done already and it's just now formally required. There is nothing that suggests it's going to be taxable income.


And did you really just ask ace a question as if he knew what the fuck he was talking about in the least? Did that really just happen? Really?

 

I had to rub my eyes on that one too.

 

Have you ever seen a major federal mandate not go through many, extensive changes over the course of time that alter the conditions to the point that the final product doesnt even closely resemble the original law? Those limits may be in place now but they will never last. Lobbyists for the health care industry will see to that.

It was a nice gesture but at the end of the day we are still dealing with a massive, for profit industry second only to the oil industry that represents one in every seven dollars spent in America and controled by people who value profits over everything else. And if Darth Romney and the corperate empire get elected we can kiss the whole thing good bye and see it replaced by something far more beneficial to his corperate masters.

 

First of all, fuck you.

Do not misquote and misattribute posters on this board.

To repeat: fuck you, you worthless brainless spineless cowardly fuck.

Second, you are probably not correct about the taxation issue. The IRS regs conflict with each other, and there seem to be situations in which employer contributions to household dependencies are taxable.

I did not pretend to have the answers. I do not pretend to know. You do not know, either.

Fuck yourself.

 

So it seems to me that everyone who loves this new Bill is saying that for most people it won't even matter because they're insured by their employer, and for everyone who's not is a golden new dawn because they get healthcare, now!

And everyone who's wary of the bill points out that actually, swathes of people aren't covered by their employer (and that coverage percentage is likely to fall) and they also want to know where the money to cover the healthcare is actually going to come from.

Th first group don't really seem to be able to answer the second group.

 

Great points clarise. But remember, the individual mandate is economically necessary to eliminate the widespread practice of refusing insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. Also consider one of the achievements of the ACA--the subsidy provisions under Part I, Subpart A, Sec. 1401. Not to mention if your firm has 50 employees or less you would be EXEMPT from providing coverage.

 

ooh ooh. I have an answer!

There will be a subsidy that will be distributed on behalf of individuals directly to the insurance company of an individual's choice (so long as it is at least the second lowest in cost available to the individual).

*not_secure_link*www.csmonitor.com/...reform-bill-101-Who-gets-subsidized-insurance

 

This makes no sense. Why would EXPENSES be taxable? They are called benefits for a reason.

 

Yeah, but where does the money for the subsidy come from?

[Edit] And this article was written in 2010! That's hardly current - I'm willing to be things have changed inside the Bill in the last two years.

 

there have been no changes to the statute given the gridlock in Congress.

The subsidy comes from the federal government in the form of an income tax credit.