Expanding a bit on the auto insurance analogy; there are *criminal* penalties in most states for not having it. It’s also a hell of a lot cheaper (and also far more useful) than Obamacare’s pathetic offerings. Yet, a lot of people don’t buy it.
With Obamacare, the mandate, as the article says, is unenforceable except against refunds. Yet, the Obamacare planners are demented enough to be counting on higher compliance rates than with auto insurance.
I’m one of the uninsured, thanks to Obamacare. My policy was canceled because of Obamacare (and of course, contrary to the promises of the Liar-In-Chief) , and replacing it would have cost far more for far less actual coverage than I had. So, I’ll be finding out firsthand exactly what happens when you refuse to pay the penalty.
I’m right there with you. I had gold plated health care for a couple decades, and now I’ve got nothing.
My income is also pretty highly variable, and under Obamacare that is a big, big no no. Your income must not vary, or you will get in lots of trouble because Obamacare was written by statist morons who couldn’t conceive of people with variable incomes. We are all supposed to be in our convenient little boxes and stay there, because we’re just sheep to be counted, not real human beings.
Harry Reid says both of you are liars, and you are paid by the Koch brothers.
Oh yeah, Matula voted for Harry Reid…. Just saying….
Count me as another one hurt by Obamacare. I’m an adjunct professor at my university which means I’m part-time. Like many companies Obamacare’s requirement on providing heath-care for those working more than 30 hours means my university is cutting back on the hours I and other part-time faculty can teach.
These restrictions probably mean I’m going to have to look for a second job.
Bob Clark
Bob, it’s not surprising that they are cutting your hours. What is so hypocritical is that most universities have been preaching liberal ideas such as universal health care.
Your income must not vary, or you will get in lots of trouble
Healthcare.gov won’t even ask you about your income unless you apply for subsidies. You don’t get in “lots of trouble” if your income shoots up, you pay back the extra subsidy. The same thing happens if you pay estimated taxes: if your income is a lot higher than you estimated, you owe taxes in April.
The IRS is not a friend who says, ok, you paid too little, you need to give us a little more. And, by the way, here’s a little back from your overpayment.
The IRS is a behemoth. It is a centralized bureaucracy that intimidates and coerces through force. Woe to those who get on the wrong side of an IRS official (like a tea party group or Dinesh D’souza.) Thus it is extremely nerve-wracking to always wonder if you overpaid or paid too little.
FWIW, D’Souza was indicted for illegal campaign contributions by the FBI; the IRS had nothing to do with it.
the IRS had nothing to do with it.
You don’t know that. It’s an assertion. King Street Patriots had no reason to attract FBI attention and still don’t. But before they got FBI attention, they got IRS attention when they applied for 501c4 status. That IRS attention lead to 5 visits by the FBI. And you claim the IRS abuse was isolated to an office in Cincinnati, but King Street Patriots are in Houston.
You don’t know that. It’s an assertion.
So now whenever the FBI indicts someone for crimes that have nothing to do with tax law, we should suspect IRS involvement? You’re entering tin foil hat territory. Unless D’Souza tried to get a tax deduction for his illegal campaign contributions (a doubly stupid move, since contributions aren’t tax deductible), why would the IRS have any involvement?
FWIW, according to the DOJ the indictment “is the result of a routine review by the FBI of campaign filings with the FEC by various candidates after the 2012 election for United States Senator in New York.”
Some Republican Senators have questioned why the FBI looked at D’Souza, but even the likes of Ted Cruz haven’t raised your silly IRS theory.
And you claim the IRS abuse was isolated to an office in Cincinnati, but King Street Patriots are in Houston.
So? The IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division is in Cincinnati.
Sure it was just a routine review with routine punishment sought. Considering the way Obama treats Democrats who go against him, why would you think he would treat Republicans better? In light of Obama’s rhetoric directed at Republicans, these types of unequal enforcement of the law are not out of character.
But short of putting people in camps Jim doesn’t really care what Obama does to his domestic opposition and even then we have to wonder what excuses Him would come up with.
Sure it was just a routine review with routine punishment sought.
It looks like it was. The campaign that he was supporting refunded one of the checks he had his mistress give, so even they apparently knew there was something fishy going on. The refund triggered a routine review, which turned up more big checks given by people close to D’Souza, all around the same time.
Jim also claimed the review of 501c4 applications was random, and not even the IRS makes that lie.
And since no argument, beyond an ad hominem attack, I stand by my original point that Jim doesn’t know if the IRS wasn’t involved. The IRS was involved in getting the Houston FBI field office to investigate True the Vote.
Jim also claimed the review of 501c4 applications was random
No, I didn’t.
I stand by my original point that Jim doesn’t know if the IRS wasn’t involved
That’s true, in the same sense that it’s true that I don’t know whether the IRS is hiding Bigfoot.
Jim said, ; Healthcare.gov won’t even ask you about your income unless you apply for subsidies. You don’t get in “lots of trouble” if your income shoots up, you pay back the extra subsidy. The same thing happens if you pay estimated taxes: if your income is a lot higher than you estimated, you owe taxes in April.
Jim, the subsidies are based on the NEXT year’s expected adjusted gross income, so a person like me or Wodun, who have variable incomes (Very variable, in my case) is supposed to guess at what their next year’s AGI is unless we’re sure it’s over the subsidy amount (and how the heck would I know that in advance?) Looking back at my tax returns, I see swings of up to 80% year to year, and even larger quarter to quarter . I haven’t got a clue what my 2015 AGI will be due to severe income variability, and cap gains/losses being a significant percentage of my average AGI. I pay my estimated taxes quarterly, and they vary a lot – but for those, I’m basing it on what I earned in that quarter, not what I think I will earn. I have no idea at all what I’ll earn in, say, April 2014, yet, I’m supposed to estimate next year’s income in writing? No way. Oh, and what happens if I misestaimte by a lot? I pay it back (which is okay) and am at risk of penalties or triggering an audit (not okay) because, under the rules, I’m supposed to report EVERY time and ANY time my estimate is off? That’s preposterous, but those are the rules.
So, I”m opting out of the Obamacare circus of lies and red tape.
Fortunately, it’s an easy decision as the product itself is garbage; massively costly and of little value (enormous deductibles, for one thing). I’m far better off under this system by paying my yearly medical costs out of pocket (I get a vastly better choice of doctors and better service too, plus save a ton of money) and I’m protecting myself against the slight chance of devastating costs of a long-term major medical issue such as cancer by having an application for a real policy (not an obamacare one) filled out and ready to go on case of dire need. (Under ACA, they can’t deny me coverage, even if I’m in the emergency room). For anything less costly than that, I’m better off paying out of pocket.
So, if I get really sick, would I then be foisting my costs on the taxpayer? Yep. But, I have no qualms about it, because I didn’t lose my old insurance by my own choice. I’m now unabashedly in “screw the damn system” mode, because the system put in place tried to do it to me. It also makes me feel good that I’m doing my small part to help destroy Obamacare via depriving it of my money.
OOPS, in my above reply, I typed “Wodun” when I meant “George Turner” regarding variable income. My apologies to both.
I’m supposed to estimate next year’s income in writing?
Only if you want a subsidy. No subsidy, no red tape.
I’m protecting myself against the slight chance of devastating costs of a long-term major medical issue such as cancer by having an application for a real policy (not an obamacare one) filled out and ready to go on case of dire need.
What if you have a medical crisis in April, and you can’t get covered until the following January? You can run up a lot of bills in between.
Btw, what’s the difference between a “real policy” and an Obamacare one?
“Btw, what’s the difference between a “real policy” and an Obamacare one?”
Do you understand the word “insurance”?
“Btw, what’s the difference between a “real policy” and an Obamacare one?”
A real policy is one where you choose what coverage you want and who to buy it from, rather than government bureaucrats.
Jim, except for the stupidity of Obamacare, why couldn’t he get a policy by May for a crisis in April? The last time I applied for a policy, it took effect on the first or the 15th of the current or following month, whichever was soonest.
Now suppose his income is currently high and he doesn’t qualify for a subsidy, and then his income drops the following quarter, so he could qualify for a subsidy – but the Obama enrollment period ended on March 31. Is he screwed until the next enrollment period? If he finally gets the subsidy and then his income jumps back up, and he doesn’t get the paperwork done to pay back the subsidy, won’t Obamacare cancel his policy with his insurer, since he doesn’t realize they’re not kicking money over to the insurance company and he doesn’t realize what’s just happened? Remember, the Obamacare people can’t even figure out who has paid or not.
By the time it’s straightened out he’ll likely be facing prosecution for some kind of fraud for failing to guess how the rules will be interpreted by the random ex-felon put in charge of his case file.
why couldn’t he get a policy by May for a crisis in April?
What would motivate the insurer to sell him a policy under those circumstances?
They can’t deny people insurance but isn’t it interesting Jim is advocating for insurers to use bureaucracy to punish people who don’t conduct themselves the way Democrats want them to. Suddenly the law as written is to be ignored in favor of what Democrats view as ethical and actions outside the law are to be used to go after subversives. Not surprising considering his support for the actions of Obama’s IRS.
Also, that was probably the best mistaken identity in my favor to date.
Another thing, a variable income will cause problems. Jim says people just pay back any subsidy they didn’t qualify for after the fact. That can be a large sum of money. It means if a person was to get a raise or take on more work, they have to hold money specifically to pay a lump sum on their taxes. It could wipe out any gains they made with the increased income. And what if that money had already been spent on rent?
It creates a lot of uncertainty and increases complexity in the tax system. Which is great considering what Obama is dictating to the tax preparer industry.
They can’t deny people insurance
Why not? What would compel them to offer a policy outside the enrollment period?
Welcome to the world of socialized healthcare. “If you don’t do what we tell you, we deny you healthcare. If you’re too old, we deny you healthcare. If you’re really, really old, we starve you to death^H^H^H^H^Hsend you on the Liverpool Care Pathway.”
Don’t say no-one warned you.
The enrollment period is just for subsidies. You can still buy or change plans through the year. You really think Obamacare dictates you can only buy or change plans from October to December? And if you do, how do think people will respond to that? People regularly change plans due to health issues, income, and employment changes.
You have been crowing about how Obamacare means you can’t get turned down but now, you want insurers to turn people down. You are so full of it lol.
You really think Obamacare dictates you can only buy or change plans from October to December?
You can only buy insurance from the exchanges during the Open Enrollment Period (10/1/2013-3/31/2014, 11/15/2014-2/15/2015, etc.), unless you have a Qualifying Life Event, e.g. “moving to a new state, certain changes in your income, and changes in your family size”. Getting sick or injured is not a Qualifying Life Event.
I’m not sure about buying insurance outside the exchanges between open enrollment periods. I found one article that says that none of the insurers in Connecticut will be selling policies then. That suggests that it’s up to the insurers, and you can imagine why insurers might not want to sell policies to people (like Arizona CJ) who might only be applying because they just found out they’re going to be running up big medical bills.
You have been crowing about how Obamacare means you can’t get turned down but now, you want insurers to turn people down.
Before the ACA you could be turned down and have no recourse — you’d be on the hook for any medical bills you incurred, until you got old enough for Medicare or poor enough for Medicaid. Now you can’t be turned down during the enrollment period, but if you decide to game the system you might lose your gamble and be on the hook for your medical bills until the beginning of the next year. That’s a huge improvement.
Another difference between mandated auto insurance and the Zero-care individual mandate: The auto insurance mandate is to cover liability in case you damage someone else while driving. The Zero care mandate is to cover you (which it really doesn’t considering the deductibles) for just breathing.
“Plus, even the $2,000 penalty will be impossible to collect. It can be collected only through seizing a family’s tax refund. It is easy enough to avoid having a refund if the family adjusts its withholding at the start of the year so it doesn’t overpay its taxes. ”
Welcome to your IRS colonoscopy .
Well you know the writers of OBAMA-cide had to be demented if they expected the young to sign up in droves but then let them stay on their parent’s insurance until age 26.
I mean,…..the discontinuity there is so yawning and gaping that to NOT see how that would depress enrollment is to be…..well……
a lefty
Insurers charge more for a policy that covers children than one that doesn’t. So it doesn’t really matter whether healthy young adults are covered as part of their parent’s policy or on their own, either way they’re paying premiums and improving the risk pool.
“Insurers charge more for a policy that covers children than one that doesn’t. So it doesn’t really matter whether healthy young adults are covered as part of their parent’s policy or on their own, either way they’re paying premiums and improving the risk pool.”
!) That’s not what Obama said they need, that’s not how the cost structure was built, that’ snot what the stats say – they say they need 40% signup and they are in the 20’s, and
2) You should know that the extra premium you pay to keep a 25 year old on your family (husband and wife) policy is nowhere’s near the price of a stand alone policy for that kid.
more dumb clucking from the Obama-cide bot.
“You should know that the extra premium you pay to keep a 25 year old on your family (husband and wife) policy is nowhere’s near the price of a stand alone policy for that kid.”
Not anymore.
Pre O’Care, the only 25 year olds who signed up for health insurance were the ones with health problems. Now the pool of 25 year olds who are signing up is large.
“Not anymore.”
You are, of course, wrong.
“Now the pool of 25 year olds who are signing up is large.”
Not nearly large enough. It’s “large” in the sense that 1000 is a large increase as compared to 1, but 1000 is not nearly large enough to make it all work.
Again: the Obama-cide plan hinged upon 40% of the newly insured (as opposed to people who lost their insurance or stay on their parent’s) signing up be the invincibles. Only 25% are invincibles; to many of them are not new.
And, yet, given that requirement, the bureaucrats allowed 26 year olds to stay on their parent’s plan. The two ideas are in direct conflict.
It’s madness.
Jim,
I have 4 kids. My premium for our whole family is no different than if I had 1. My oldest will graduate college this Spring. Because he can stay on my policy — unlike me he won’t be over 26 when he finishes college — he has no need to look for health insurance until he hits 27 or lands a job where it makes sense to get insurance. Where are the marginal premiums you speak of in this scenario?
You’re right, the extra premium kicks in for the first kid, and there’s no marginal cost for the rest. In effect, families with only one kid covered subsidize families with more than one, but all of them are contributing premiums.
Depends on whether the plan is bought on the individual market or offered through an employer. Some plans treat one kid as any number of kids but others tack on an extra premium for each kid.
My plan covers kids for dental care, even though I have none, so people with no kids are subsidizing those with them. And because this is universal in WA, I am subsidizing gold plans with my bronze plan premiums. Seems fair.
I figure the point of the individual mandate as written into the “law” was a payoff to insurers so they didn’t gripe until after the “law” went into effect.
“Law” in quotes because a real law doesn’t change on the whim of the executive.
Enjoy this video, 50 States of Obamacare Victims :
Americans for Prosperity has been running anti-Obamacare ads in states with competitive 2014 Senate races, featuring real Americans talking about how they’ve been harmed by the law, but to date every one of the stories has been debunked. If terrible Obamacare tragedies were so widespread you’d think AFP would have an easier time making ads that stand up to scrutiny.
“…………..ut to date every one of the stories has been debunked. ”
Getting your talking points from Harry Reid eh?
You’ve been told by several people on this site how Obamacare has screwed them, and your response was simply, You had it too good.
If that is your view on things, then these people are certainly lying, and need to be “debunked”.
I don’t deny that Obamacare has made things worse for some people. But then why is it so hard for AFP, with all its millions, to make a persuasive ad that stands up to scrutiny?
They ran an ad about Julie Boonstra from Michigan, a leukemia patient claiming that Obamacare made her insurance unaffordable. It turned out that it cut her premiums from $1,100/month to $571, and will save her a minimum of $1,200 a year. When informed of her good fortune, Boonstra said she didn’t believe it — she’d been so brainwashed by anti-Obamacare propaganda that she couldn’t accept that the law was helping her.
Did her deductible go up? Let me clue you in. No one had their premiums go down without seeing services cut or deductibles increased. Reductions in premiums come with a trade off. You can make the case that more money in your pocket in the form of a lower premium is a benefit but when the tradeoff is the potential for significantly higher out of pocket costs in the event you need to access medical care, you don’t have much of a case.
This lady might have been better off with a higher premium but lower deductible.
These are the tradeoffs Obama said he didn’t understand were so complicated after the rollout imploded.
Did her deductible go up?
It doesn’t matter — her new premiums plus her out-of-pocket maximum is $1,200 under her old premiums. If she has $0 in medical bills, she saves over $6k. If she has a million dollars in medical bills, she saves $1,200 plus her old deductible. She’s a winner no matter what happens — and AFP picked her to illustrate the horrors of Obamacare.
No one had their premiums go down without seeing services cut or deductibles increased.
Not true. I could have gotten a $1,000/mo plan with the same deductible and services as my 2013 $1,356 plan, or a $1,200/mo plan with a much lower deductible.
So her premiums were cut from $1,100 a month to $571, saving her $529 a month, which somehow only comes to $1,200 over the year, so I assume her life expectancy under Obamacare is 2 months and 8 days, when her savings total $1,200.
saving her $529 a month, which somehow only comes to $1,200 over the year
Her premium savings are $529 x 12 = $6,348. Her new plan has a $5,100 out-of-pocket maximum, so even if she hit the maximum she’d save $6,348 – $5,100 = $1,200. If the old plan had a deductible or co-pays, she’d save even more.
It does look like this lady got a good deal. She falls into the same group as you, people who got a better deal because other people got screwed. It would be nice if my premiums dropped equal to my deductible increase The insurance company would be paying me money every month.
But let’s see how it plays out a year from now. Premiums will continue to climb while wages stay flat. And the constant interference from HHS will drive up costs system wide.
“I don’t deny that Obamacare has made things worse for some people.”
It has to make things worse for some people, because the whole point is to shift the costs of healthcare onto those who don’t need it. It can’t work any other way. This is a design feature, not a flaw.
The stories haven’t been debunked, they’ve merely been denounced, just like the initial storyline that Monica Lewinsky was a serial stalker, complete with a huge press conference on the lawn of one of her college professor’s, with kleig lights and a PA system and everything.
If you have cancer under Obamacare, not only do you lose your insurance, a black van pulls up and you disappear, lest someone here of your dissatisfaction. We might as well re-open the asylums and TB colonies from the 1800’s where we sent inconvenient people to die.
The stories haven’t been debunked
Name an Obamacare story from an AFP ad that wasn’t debunked.
There is some wiggle room. Like an Obama disciple will say a reduction in a premium is good while the policy holder will say losing their doctor was bad. An Obama zealot will say forcing people to buy insurance is good while those being forced are not so happy. An Obama fanatic will say it is a good thing to provide insurance to the small number of people who didn’t have insurance while the multitudes who had their plans cancelled and were forced into more expensive plans don’t think it is such a good thing.
For Obama defenders, debunking means agreeing with the trustworthy Obama’s propaganda.
The basic premise of obamacare is that if you sweep everything under one rug and then stomp on the lumps a lot it’ll make it all go away. In reality there’s nothing in any part of obamacare that has the ability to keep costs under control. Not the cost of care and not the costs paid by end users. It just adds more nightmarish complexity to the system, increases tax/premium burdens on folks who can least afford it in the service of “higher standards of care” and pushes the whole system closer to the breaking point.
Expanding a bit on the auto insurance analogy; there are *criminal* penalties in most states for not having it. It’s also a hell of a lot cheaper (and also far more useful) than Obamacare’s pathetic offerings. Yet, a lot of people don’t buy it.
With Obamacare, the mandate, as the article says, is unenforceable except against refunds. Yet, the Obamacare planners are demented enough to be counting on higher compliance rates than with auto insurance.
I’m one of the uninsured, thanks to Obamacare. My policy was canceled because of Obamacare (and of course, contrary to the promises of the Liar-In-Chief) , and replacing it would have cost far more for far less actual coverage than I had. So, I’ll be finding out firsthand exactly what happens when you refuse to pay the penalty.
I’m right there with you. I had gold plated health care for a couple decades, and now I’ve got nothing.
My income is also pretty highly variable, and under Obamacare that is a big, big no no. Your income must not vary, or you will get in lots of trouble because Obamacare was written by statist morons who couldn’t conceive of people with variable incomes. We are all supposed to be in our convenient little boxes and stay there, because we’re just sheep to be counted, not real human beings.
Harry Reid says both of you are liars, and you are paid by the Koch brothers.
Oh yeah, Matula voted for Harry Reid…. Just saying….
Count me as another one hurt by Obamacare. I’m an adjunct professor at my university which means I’m part-time. Like many companies Obamacare’s requirement on providing heath-care for those working more than 30 hours means my university is cutting back on the hours I and other part-time faculty can teach.
These restrictions probably mean I’m going to have to look for a second job.
Bob Clark
Bob, it’s not surprising that they are cutting your hours. What is so hypocritical is that most universities have been preaching liberal ideas such as universal health care.
Your income must not vary, or you will get in lots of trouble
Healthcare.gov won’t even ask you about your income unless you apply for subsidies. You don’t get in “lots of trouble” if your income shoots up, you pay back the extra subsidy. The same thing happens if you pay estimated taxes: if your income is a lot higher than you estimated, you owe taxes in April.
The IRS is not a friend who says, ok, you paid too little, you need to give us a little more. And, by the way, here’s a little back from your overpayment.
The IRS is a behemoth. It is a centralized bureaucracy that intimidates and coerces through force. Woe to those who get on the wrong side of an IRS official (like a tea party group or Dinesh D’souza.) Thus it is extremely nerve-wracking to always wonder if you overpaid or paid too little.
FWIW, D’Souza was indicted for illegal campaign contributions by the FBI; the IRS had nothing to do with it.
the IRS had nothing to do with it.
You don’t know that. It’s an assertion. King Street Patriots had no reason to attract FBI attention and still don’t. But before they got FBI attention, they got IRS attention when they applied for 501c4 status. That IRS attention lead to 5 visits by the FBI. And you claim the IRS abuse was isolated to an office in Cincinnati, but King Street Patriots are in Houston.
You don’t know that. It’s an assertion.
So now whenever the FBI indicts someone for crimes that have nothing to do with tax law, we should suspect IRS involvement? You’re entering tin foil hat territory. Unless D’Souza tried to get a tax deduction for his illegal campaign contributions (a doubly stupid move, since contributions aren’t tax deductible), why would the IRS have any involvement?
FWIW, according to the DOJ the indictment “is the result of a routine review by the FBI of campaign filings with the FEC by various candidates after the 2012 election for United States Senator in New York.”
Some Republican Senators have questioned why the FBI looked at D’Souza, but even the likes of Ted Cruz haven’t raised your silly IRS theory.
And you claim the IRS abuse was isolated to an office in Cincinnati, but King Street Patriots are in Houston.
So? The IRS Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division is in Cincinnati.
Sure it was just a routine review with routine punishment sought. Considering the way Obama treats Democrats who go against him, why would you think he would treat Republicans better? In light of Obama’s rhetoric directed at Republicans, these types of unequal enforcement of the law are not out of character.
But short of putting people in camps Jim doesn’t really care what Obama does to his domestic opposition and even then we have to wonder what excuses Him would come up with.
Sure it was just a routine review with routine punishment sought.
It looks like it was. The campaign that he was supporting refunded one of the checks he had his mistress give, so even they apparently knew there was something fishy going on. The refund triggered a routine review, which turned up more big checks given by people close to D’Souza, all around the same time.
Jim also claimed the review of 501c4 applications was random, and not even the IRS makes that lie.
And since no argument, beyond an ad hominem attack, I stand by my original point that Jim doesn’t know if the IRS wasn’t involved. The IRS was involved in getting the Houston FBI field office to investigate True the Vote.
Jim also claimed the review of 501c4 applications was random
No, I didn’t.
I stand by my original point that Jim doesn’t know if the IRS wasn’t involved
That’s true, in the same sense that it’s true that I don’t know whether the IRS is hiding Bigfoot.
Jim said, ; Healthcare.gov won’t even ask you about your income unless you apply for subsidies. You don’t get in “lots of trouble” if your income shoots up, you pay back the extra subsidy. The same thing happens if you pay estimated taxes: if your income is a lot higher than you estimated, you owe taxes in April.
Jim, the subsidies are based on the NEXT year’s expected adjusted gross income, so a person like me or Wodun, who have variable incomes (Very variable, in my case) is supposed to guess at what their next year’s AGI is unless we’re sure it’s over the subsidy amount (and how the heck would I know that in advance?) Looking back at my tax returns, I see swings of up to 80% year to year, and even larger quarter to quarter . I haven’t got a clue what my 2015 AGI will be due to severe income variability, and cap gains/losses being a significant percentage of my average AGI. I pay my estimated taxes quarterly, and they vary a lot – but for those, I’m basing it on what I earned in that quarter, not what I think I will earn. I have no idea at all what I’ll earn in, say, April 2014, yet, I’m supposed to estimate next year’s income in writing? No way. Oh, and what happens if I misestaimte by a lot? I pay it back (which is okay) and am at risk of penalties or triggering an audit (not okay) because, under the rules, I’m supposed to report EVERY time and ANY time my estimate is off? That’s preposterous, but those are the rules.
So, I”m opting out of the Obamacare circus of lies and red tape.
Fortunately, it’s an easy decision as the product itself is garbage; massively costly and of little value (enormous deductibles, for one thing). I’m far better off under this system by paying my yearly medical costs out of pocket (I get a vastly better choice of doctors and better service too, plus save a ton of money) and I’m protecting myself against the slight chance of devastating costs of a long-term major medical issue such as cancer by having an application for a real policy (not an obamacare one) filled out and ready to go on case of dire need. (Under ACA, they can’t deny me coverage, even if I’m in the emergency room). For anything less costly than that, I’m better off paying out of pocket.
So, if I get really sick, would I then be foisting my costs on the taxpayer? Yep. But, I have no qualms about it, because I didn’t lose my old insurance by my own choice. I’m now unabashedly in “screw the damn system” mode, because the system put in place tried to do it to me. It also makes me feel good that I’m doing my small part to help destroy Obamacare via depriving it of my money.
OOPS, in my above reply, I typed “Wodun” when I meant “George Turner” regarding variable income. My apologies to both.
I’m supposed to estimate next year’s income in writing?
Only if you want a subsidy. No subsidy, no red tape.
I’m protecting myself against the slight chance of devastating costs of a long-term major medical issue such as cancer by having an application for a real policy (not an obamacare one) filled out and ready to go on case of dire need.
What if you have a medical crisis in April, and you can’t get covered until the following January? You can run up a lot of bills in between.
Btw, what’s the difference between a “real policy” and an Obamacare one?
“Btw, what’s the difference between a “real policy” and an Obamacare one?”
Do you understand the word “insurance”?
“Btw, what’s the difference between a “real policy” and an Obamacare one?”
A real policy is one where you choose what coverage you want and who to buy it from, rather than government bureaucrats.
Jim, except for the stupidity of Obamacare, why couldn’t he get a policy by May for a crisis in April? The last time I applied for a policy, it took effect on the first or the 15th of the current or following month, whichever was soonest.
Now suppose his income is currently high and he doesn’t qualify for a subsidy, and then his income drops the following quarter, so he could qualify for a subsidy – but the Obama enrollment period ended on March 31. Is he screwed until the next enrollment period? If he finally gets the subsidy and then his income jumps back up, and he doesn’t get the paperwork done to pay back the subsidy, won’t Obamacare cancel his policy with his insurer, since he doesn’t realize they’re not kicking money over to the insurance company and he doesn’t realize what’s just happened? Remember, the Obamacare people can’t even figure out who has paid or not.
By the time it’s straightened out he’ll likely be facing prosecution for some kind of fraud for failing to guess how the rules will be interpreted by the random ex-felon put in charge of his case file.
why couldn’t he get a policy by May for a crisis in April?
What would motivate the insurer to sell him a policy under those circumstances?
They can’t deny people insurance but isn’t it interesting Jim is advocating for insurers to use bureaucracy to punish people who don’t conduct themselves the way Democrats want them to. Suddenly the law as written is to be ignored in favor of what Democrats view as ethical and actions outside the law are to be used to go after subversives. Not surprising considering his support for the actions of Obama’s IRS.
Also, that was probably the best mistaken identity in my favor to date.
Another thing, a variable income will cause problems. Jim says people just pay back any subsidy they didn’t qualify for after the fact. That can be a large sum of money. It means if a person was to get a raise or take on more work, they have to hold money specifically to pay a lump sum on their taxes. It could wipe out any gains they made with the increased income. And what if that money had already been spent on rent?
It creates a lot of uncertainty and increases complexity in the tax system. Which is great considering what Obama is dictating to the tax preparer industry.
They can’t deny people insurance
Why not? What would compel them to offer a policy outside the enrollment period?
Welcome to the world of socialized healthcare. “If you don’t do what we tell you, we deny you healthcare. If you’re too old, we deny you healthcare. If you’re really, really old, we starve you to death^H^H^H^H^Hsend you on the Liverpool Care Pathway.”
Don’t say no-one warned you.
The enrollment period is just for subsidies. You can still buy or change plans through the year. You really think Obamacare dictates you can only buy or change plans from October to December? And if you do, how do think people will respond to that? People regularly change plans due to health issues, income, and employment changes.
You have been crowing about how Obamacare means you can’t get turned down but now, you want insurers to turn people down. You are so full of it lol.
You really think Obamacare dictates you can only buy or change plans from October to December?
You can only buy insurance from the exchanges during the Open Enrollment Period (10/1/2013-3/31/2014, 11/15/2014-2/15/2015, etc.), unless you have a Qualifying Life Event, e.g. “moving to a new state, certain changes in your income, and changes in your family size”. Getting sick or injured is not a Qualifying Life Event.
I’m not sure about buying insurance outside the exchanges between open enrollment periods. I found one article that says that none of the insurers in Connecticut will be selling policies then. That suggests that it’s up to the insurers, and you can imagine why insurers might not want to sell policies to people (like Arizona CJ) who might only be applying because they just found out they’re going to be running up big medical bills.
You have been crowing about how Obamacare means you can’t get turned down but now, you want insurers to turn people down.
Before the ACA you could be turned down and have no recourse — you’d be on the hook for any medical bills you incurred, until you got old enough for Medicare or poor enough for Medicaid. Now you can’t be turned down during the enrollment period, but if you decide to game the system you might lose your gamble and be on the hook for your medical bills until the beginning of the next year. That’s a huge improvement.
Another difference between mandated auto insurance and the Zero-care individual mandate: The auto insurance mandate is to cover liability in case you damage someone else while driving. The Zero care mandate is to cover you (which it really doesn’t considering the deductibles) for just breathing.
“Plus, even the $2,000 penalty will be impossible to collect. It can be collected only through seizing a family’s tax refund. It is easy enough to avoid having a refund if the family adjusts its withholding at the start of the year so it doesn’t overpay its taxes. ”
Welcome to your IRS colonoscopy .
Well you know the writers of OBAMA-cide had to be demented if they expected the young to sign up in droves but then let them stay on their parent’s insurance until age 26.
I mean,…..the discontinuity there is so yawning and gaping that to NOT see how that would depress enrollment is to be…..well……
a lefty
Insurers charge more for a policy that covers children than one that doesn’t. So it doesn’t really matter whether healthy young adults are covered as part of their parent’s policy or on their own, either way they’re paying premiums and improving the risk pool.
“Insurers charge more for a policy that covers children than one that doesn’t. So it doesn’t really matter whether healthy young adults are covered as part of their parent’s policy or on their own, either way they’re paying premiums and improving the risk pool.”
!) That’s not what Obama said they need, that’s not how the cost structure was built, that’ snot what the stats say – they say they need 40% signup and they are in the 20’s, and
2) You should know that the extra premium you pay to keep a 25 year old on your family (husband and wife) policy is nowhere’s near the price of a stand alone policy for that kid.
more dumb clucking from the Obama-cide bot.
“You should know that the extra premium you pay to keep a 25 year old on your family (husband and wife) policy is nowhere’s near the price of a stand alone policy for that kid.”
Not anymore.
Pre O’Care, the only 25 year olds who signed up for health insurance were the ones with health problems. Now the pool of 25 year olds who are signing up is large.
“Not anymore.”
You are, of course, wrong.
“Now the pool of 25 year olds who are signing up is large.”
Not nearly large enough. It’s “large” in the sense that 1000 is a large increase as compared to 1, but 1000 is not nearly large enough to make it all work.
Again: the Obama-cide plan hinged upon 40% of the newly insured (as opposed to people who lost their insurance or stay on their parent’s) signing up be the invincibles. Only 25% are invincibles; to many of them are not new.
And, yet, given that requirement, the bureaucrats allowed 26 year olds to stay on their parent’s plan. The two ideas are in direct conflict.
It’s madness.
Jim,
I have 4 kids. My premium for our whole family is no different than if I had 1. My oldest will graduate college this Spring. Because he can stay on my policy — unlike me he won’t be over 26 when he finishes college — he has no need to look for health insurance until he hits 27 or lands a job where it makes sense to get insurance. Where are the marginal premiums you speak of in this scenario?
You’re right, the extra premium kicks in for the first kid, and there’s no marginal cost for the rest. In effect, families with only one kid covered subsidize families with more than one, but all of them are contributing premiums.
Depends on whether the plan is bought on the individual market or offered through an employer. Some plans treat one kid as any number of kids but others tack on an extra premium for each kid.
My plan covers kids for dental care, even though I have none, so people with no kids are subsidizing those with them. And because this is universal in WA, I am subsidizing gold plans with my bronze plan premiums. Seems fair.
I figure the point of the individual mandate as written into the “law” was a payoff to insurers so they didn’t gripe until after the “law” went into effect.
“Law” in quotes because a real law doesn’t change on the whim of the executive.
Enjoy this video, 50 States of Obamacare Victims :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFDm0mGhcdg
Americans for Prosperity has been running anti-Obamacare ads in states with competitive 2014 Senate races, featuring real Americans talking about how they’ve been harmed by the law, but to date every one of the stories has been debunked. If terrible Obamacare tragedies were so widespread you’d think AFP would have an easier time making ads that stand up to scrutiny.
“…………..ut to date every one of the stories has been debunked. ”
Getting your talking points from Harry Reid eh?
You’ve been told by several people on this site how Obamacare has screwed them, and your response was simply, You had it too good.
If that is your view on things, then these people are certainly lying, and need to be “debunked”.
I don’t deny that Obamacare has made things worse for some people. But then why is it so hard for AFP, with all its millions, to make a persuasive ad that stands up to scrutiny?
They ran an ad about Julie Boonstra from Michigan, a leukemia patient claiming that Obamacare made her insurance unaffordable. It turned out that it cut her premiums from $1,100/month to $571, and will save her a minimum of $1,200 a year. When informed of her good fortune, Boonstra said she didn’t believe it — she’d been so brainwashed by anti-Obamacare propaganda that she couldn’t accept that the law was helping her.
Did her deductible go up? Let me clue you in. No one had their premiums go down without seeing services cut or deductibles increased. Reductions in premiums come with a trade off. You can make the case that more money in your pocket in the form of a lower premium is a benefit but when the tradeoff is the potential for significantly higher out of pocket costs in the event you need to access medical care, you don’t have much of a case.
This lady might have been better off with a higher premium but lower deductible.
These are the tradeoffs Obama said he didn’t understand were so complicated after the rollout imploded.
Did her deductible go up?
It doesn’t matter — her new premiums plus her out-of-pocket maximum is $1,200 under her old premiums. If she has $0 in medical bills, she saves over $6k. If she has a million dollars in medical bills, she saves $1,200 plus her old deductible. She’s a winner no matter what happens — and AFP picked her to illustrate the horrors of Obamacare.
No one had their premiums go down without seeing services cut or deductibles increased.
Not true. I could have gotten a $1,000/mo plan with the same deductible and services as my 2013 $1,356 plan, or a $1,200/mo plan with a much lower deductible.
So her premiums were cut from $1,100 a month to $571, saving her $529 a month, which somehow only comes to $1,200 over the year, so I assume her life expectancy under Obamacare is 2 months and 8 days, when her savings total $1,200.
saving her $529 a month, which somehow only comes to $1,200 over the year
Her premium savings are $529 x 12 = $6,348. Her new plan has a $5,100 out-of-pocket maximum, so even if she hit the maximum she’d save $6,348 – $5,100 = $1,200. If the old plan had a deductible or co-pays, she’d save even more.
It does look like this lady got a good deal. She falls into the same group as you, people who got a better deal because other people got screwed. It would be nice if my premiums dropped equal to my deductible increase The insurance company would be paying me money every month.
But let’s see how it plays out a year from now. Premiums will continue to climb while wages stay flat. And the constant interference from HHS will drive up costs system wide.
“I don’t deny that Obamacare has made things worse for some people.”
It has to make things worse for some people, because the whole point is to shift the costs of healthcare onto those who don’t need it. It can’t work any other way. This is a design feature, not a flaw.
The stories haven’t been debunked, they’ve merely been denounced, just like the initial storyline that Monica Lewinsky was a serial stalker, complete with a huge press conference on the lawn of one of her college professor’s, with kleig lights and a PA system and everything.
If you have cancer under Obamacare, not only do you lose your insurance, a black van pulls up and you disappear, lest someone here of your dissatisfaction. We might as well re-open the asylums and TB colonies from the 1800’s where we sent inconvenient people to die.
The stories haven’t been debunked
Name an Obamacare story from an AFP ad that wasn’t debunked.
There is some wiggle room. Like an Obama disciple will say a reduction in a premium is good while the policy holder will say losing their doctor was bad. An Obama zealot will say forcing people to buy insurance is good while those being forced are not so happy. An Obama fanatic will say it is a good thing to provide insurance to the small number of people who didn’t have insurance while the multitudes who had their plans cancelled and were forced into more expensive plans don’t think it is such a good thing.
For Obama defenders, debunking means agreeing with the trustworthy Obama’s propaganda.
The basic premise of obamacare is that if you sweep everything under one rug and then stomp on the lumps a lot it’ll make it all go away. In reality there’s nothing in any part of obamacare that has the ability to keep costs under control. Not the cost of care and not the costs paid by end users. It just adds more nightmarish complexity to the system, increases tax/premium burdens on folks who can least afford it in the service of “higher standards of care” and pushes the whole system closer to the breaking point.
….and they’ll “solve” it with single payer.