Even More Obamacare Follies

#26
#26
Isn't the penalty meant to be cover catastrophic events?

Maybe that was an under 30 thing. Im not sure.
 
#27
#27
also those with children will most likely purchase. I just can't take the chance

however this appears to be way more expensive than our current payment for insurance even after taking into account my company's contribution. Not sure how this is supposed to save me any money
 
#28
#28
utvolpj said:
also those with children will most likely purchase. I just can't take the chance

however this appears to be way more expensive than our current payment for insurance even after taking into account my company's contribution. Not sure how this is supposed to save me any money
Click to expand...

What I keep hearing is if your employer pays any portion of your insurance you will not be eligible for any of the tax credits.

So if your plan jumps 30-40% your on your own hook.
 
#29
#29
utvolpj said:
also those with children will most likely purchase. I just can't take the chance

however this appears to be way more expensive than our current payment for insurance even after taking into account my company's contribution. Not sure how this is supposed to save me any money
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm being paranoid today, but here is my other fear. If you already have adequate insurance you are supposed to be able to keep it with no issue, penalty etc. I think when we file taxes, we'll need to include a new form that reports our current insurance. But, who is to say that my insurance is adequate? What if I have a cheap catastrophic coverage plan plus a health savings account and pay cash for day to day medical expenses? Will the IRS be able to judge the adequacy of current plans and force people to get unneeded coverage? What is to keep the IRS from simply saying I don't have adequate coverage?
 
#30
#30
But we have the choice of dropping our companies insurance and picking up this, correct?

Besides, what makes the administration think that the people who don't pay titer medical bills right now are suddenly going to begin paying for insurance?
 
#31
#31
YorkVol said:
Maybe I'm being paranoid today, but here is my other fear. If you already have adequate insurance you are supposed to be able to keep it with no issue, penalty etc. I think when we file taxes, we'll need to include a new form that reports our current insurance. But, who is to say that my insurance is adequate? What if I have a cheap catastrophic coverage plan plus a health savings account and pay cash for day to day medical expenses? Will the IRS be able to judge the adequacy of current plans and force people to get unneeded coverage? What is to keep the IRS from simply saying I don't have adequate coverage?
Click to expand...

I believe the employer will be fined if they provide coverage that doesn't meet minimum standards. There are no more cheap, catastrophic plans being offered by employers. HSA's are also going to be cut in half so there goes your tax savings (but they won't call it a tax increase).

you will also be taxed if the coverage they provide is too expensive (the so-called Cadillac plans). They are basically dictating the exact level of care you deserve with this law. Sounds like something the govt should definitely have its hands in right?
 
#32
#32
utvolpj said:
I believe the employer will be fined if they provide coverage that doesn't meet minimum standards. There are no more cheap, catastrophic plans being offered by employers. HSA's are also going to be cut in half so there goes your tax savings (but they won't call it a tax increase).

you will also be taxed if the coverage they provide is too expensive (the so-called Cadillac plans). They are basically dictating the exact level of care you deserve with this law. Sounds like something the govt should definitely have its hands in right?
Click to expand...


Ensuring that people don't bypass the law by buying insurance for $1 million with a deductible of $999,999.99 makes perfect sense.

Imposing a tax if a person effectively insures at 100 percent of actual cost of care, but just for that one person such that there is effectively no pooled risk, also makes perfect sense.

You make it sound as though the Act creates a rather narrow corridor that a plan has to pass through, when in reality its much, much wider a spectrum.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#34
#34
lawgator1 said:
Ensuring that people don't bypass the law by buying insurance for $1 million with a deductible of $999,999.99 makes perfect sense.

Imposing a tax if a person effectively insures at 100 percent of actual cost of care, but just for that one person such that there is effectively no pooled risk, also makes perfect sense.

You make it sound as though the Act creates a rather narrow corridor that a plan has to pass through, when in reality its much, much wider a spectrum.
Click to expand...

none of this makes sense. As someone whose family is close to the cap I can only assume the increase in rates will push me over the top soon (provided my employer continues to offer it).

the simple fact is Obamacare is almost guaranteed to cost me more money. That's interesting since I am not "rich" as categorized by Obama but am the middle-class citizen who was told there would be no tax increases on my money. Shame on me for thinking he was a liar in 2008 right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#35
#35
YorkVol said:
I posted this question in the IRS in charge of ACA thread, but wouldn't that family have to pay those costs up front before they received their tax break? Even more reason to just pay the penalty.
Click to expand...

I believe they will apply and be granted the subsidy based on their current income, but then have to settle up any differences when they file their income tax. This will be another cluster frag. Imagine the guy that gets a $ 10k raise and loses a considerable amount of subsidy a month into his term and then has to write Uncle Sam a check for the difference on 4/15.
 
#37
#37
lawgator1 said:
As you've posted that, I am left to wonder whether it is worth explaining to you why it is that the substance of the article does not match its title ...


Why bother, is what I'm asking.
Click to expand...

the only thing that's incorrect is that the $20k is an average. That still doesn't make your point since it also means some will be even more expensive
 
#38
#38
lawgator1 said:
As you've posted that, I am left to wonder whether it is worth explaining to you why it is that the substance of the article does not match its title ...


Why bother, is what I'm asking.
Click to expand...

And I'm left wondering if the IRS mandating anything is worth explaining to you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#39
#39
lawgator1 said:
Ensuring that people don't bypass the law by buying insurance for $1 million with a deductible of $999,999.99 makes perfect sense.

Imposing a tax if a person effectively insures at 100 percent of actual cost of care, but just for that one person such that there is effectively no pooled risk, also makes perfect sense.

You make it sound as though the Act creates a rather narrow corridor that a plan has to pass through, when in reality its much, much wider a spectrum.
Click to expand...

What are you trying to say? None of this makes any sense.
 
#40
#40
Carl Pickens said:
I believe they will apply and be granted the subsidy based on their current income, but then have to settle up any differences when they file their income tax. This will be another cluster frag. Imagine the guy that gets a $ 10k raise and loses a considerable amount of subsidy a month into his term and then has to write Uncle Sam a check for the difference on 4/15.
Click to expand...

This question is who mails the check to the insurance company? If the IRS sends the individual the check for the credit, well we all have seen how the EIC gets spent. There will be hundreds of thousands who default on their policies.
 
#42
#42
hog88 said:
This question is who mails the check to the insurance company? If the IRS sends the individual the check for the credit, well we all have seen how the EIC gets spent. There will be hundreds of thousands who default on their policies.
Click to expand...

Tax credit means you get to deduct the amount off of your taxes when you file. No checks to the individual or the company from the IRS.
 
#43
#43
YorkVol said:
Tax credit means you get to deduct the amount off of your taxes when you file. No checks to the individual or the company from the IRS.
Click to expand...

That's not the way the EITC works, even if you do not pay any income taxes you still get the EIC money. I think this will work the same way.
 
#44
#44
hog88 said:
That's not the way the EITC works, even if you do not pay any income taxes you still get the EIC money. I think this will work the same way.
Click to expand...

Ok, I get what you are saying. Since there isn't any tax to reduce, they get money back. Same as when the refund is greater than the tax owed. My bad.
 
#45
#45
YorkVol said:
Ok, I get what you are saying. Since there isn't any tax to reduce, they get money back. Same as when the refund is greater than the tax owed. My bad.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Free money to the poor. So how many will send off that check to the insurance company or just let the policy lapse after year 1?
 
#49
#49
utvolpj said:
the only thing that's incorrect is that the $20k is an average. That still doesn't make your point since it also means some will be even more expensive
Click to expand...


Incorrect.

Its an assumption, used for illustration purposes, only. It is not a prediction or requirement, which is the way it is falsely being characterized here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#50
#50
lawgator1 said:
Incorrect.

Its an assumption, used for illustration purposes, only. It is not a prediction or requirement, which is the way it is falsely being characterized here.
Click to expand...

I used to think gsvol's love affair with Sarah Palin was pretty pathetic, but your constant defense of and apologizing for Obama makes gsvol seem reasonable and rational.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top