Samhain
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,939
- Reaction score
- 2,131
- Location
- Northern Ohio
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Well, its the greater of $95 or a 1% surtax on taxable income... that would be $1,000 to someone with $100K of taxable income. That is a little more compelling. ... and this is the "soft year". Each go up next year to $325 or a 2% surtax in 2015; and finally to $695 or 2.5% of taxable income thereafter.
The Individual Mandate And Health Insurance
Yes, its what happens when the Dems wuss out and implement a Republican idea rather than the right thing, Medicare Part E (aka, single payer)...
According to an article I've read the #'s of people signing up for plans must be higher. There were 40,000 people enrolling plans just in NY State, and 8,000 in KY, so I don't see how the nationwide total could be 49,000.
Kentucky GOP senators were wrong that state didn't want Obamacare | MSNBC
Oregan has enrolled exactly zero. Not sure how much better that is.
Here is a classic case of perception being reality.
Real or not real?
Zero is pretty bad. I'm fond of OR, lived in Eugene for 1.5 years.
At this point, I don't believe any of the #'s nor do I care. What counts is what happens in the longer term.
According to an article I've read the #'s of people signing up for plans must be higher. There were 40,000 people enrolling plans just in NY State, and 8,000 in KY, so I don't see how the nationwide total could be 49,000.
Kentucky GOP senators were wrong that state didn't want Obamacare | MSNBC
According to an article I've read the #'s of people signing up for plans must be higher. There were 40,000 people enrolling plans just in NY State, and 8,000 in KY, so I don't see how the nationwide total could be 49,000.
At this point, I don't believe any of the #'s nor do I care. What counts is what happens in the longer term.
Sort of. In the shorter term, you need those 7 million enrollees (2.7 million of which need to be those "young invincibles) purchasing health insurance through the exchange in order for the system not to collapse.... so Obamacare may not have a "longer term", unless it starts doing much, much better in the "shorter" term.
The Plan B for if the federal website isn't
ready by the end of the month, and based on "insider" reports it isn't, is to direct people to each insurer's own website for product information and purchasing. Not really sure why they didn't just do that in the first place....
Agreed. Then again, the Cons have made political suicide an art form. It seems the Dems should get a little fun for themselves.
In the long-run, single payer works and works quite well. If they could get it passed, it would have put the Dems in power for a generation. However, it never would have passed. Only this bastardized view of national healthcare was doable. In the short-run, it has already been a form of political suicide for the Dems. In the long-run, however, the tables will turn on the Cons and they know it (which is why they are fighting to the death right now.)
Here is a classic case of perception being reality.
Real or not real?
Zero is pretty bad. I'm fond of OR, lived in Eugene for 1.5 years.
History will be written by the victors.
Well, my guess would be that the disparity might have something to do with the Administrations' decision to count people who had created accounts, but not, you know, actually purchased insurance.
Or (and this is likely) they may be buffering the numbers with Medicaid enrollees.
Hmm...You have a choice to pay $95 this year via a fine from the IRS.. OR you have a choice to pay (i'll be nice and say..) $50 per month for insurance. (because lets face it..most people will not qualify for fully subsidized health insurance..the ones that can might as well be on Medicaid.) So....pay $95 or pay 600. What choice do you all think people are going to pick? I know which one I am going to pick...
Well, its the greater of $95 or a 1% surtax on taxable income... that would be $1,000 to someone with $100K of taxable income. That is a little more compelling. ... and this is the "soft year". Each go up next year to $325 or a 2% surtax in 2015; and finally to $695 or 2.5% of taxable income thereafter.
The Individual Mandate And Health Insurance
The fine is - what? 95 bucks? v a health insurance bill that is in many cases 50, 75, 100% higher? oh yeah - and the IRS has no way of enforcing the fine?
color me..... jaundiced with the notion that that is going to work terribly well.
If you don't get a tax refund, they have no way of collecting it. (And as anyone with any financial sense knows, you should never get a refund if you're doing it right.)
This will hurt people who actually think a tax refund is a good idea. And they will be none to happy when they find out their spending more on Obamacare in the long run than what their tax refund is.
This monster needs cash. And it needs it fro 22-year-old perfectly healthy people who would rather spend that cash on iPhones and beer.
No, the #'s are people who signed up for coverage.
IT may include Medicaid. In fact it probably does but that's not surprising. If someone is eligible for Medicaid, then it's a no-brainer for them. It's the cheapest option. If they're not eligible, then they have a decision to make. That takes time
If you prefer the old system where $116B is spent on the uninsured, with $42.7B absorbed by insurance companies in the form of premium pass-throughs to their holders (costing your family an estimated $1,017 per year) and the other $73.3B picked up by your government, costing the average tax payer another $2,000 (at least) per year.
Unpaid care hikes private insurance premiums by billions - amednews.com
So, you can pay the $3,000 or your can figure out a way for the user of the service to pay this amount. The Heritage Foundation plan seems as practical as any.
Well, my guess would be that the disparity might have something to do with the Administrations' decision to count people who had created accounts, but not, you know, actually purchased insurance.
Or (and this is likely) they may be buffering the numbers with Medicaid enrollees.
True, but as a practical matter, something like insurance is a complicated acquisition. You are not likely to buy the insurance on your first visit. I am in the market, I am enrolled and I am weighing the option of a silver plan vs. re-upping on my Kaiser small business plan, which will renew for one year at a 15% increase. The Kaiser silver plan appears to be more than 50% less from what I had been paying. I am trying to get comfortable that it truly is less and what I might lose moving from one to the other. So, I am a legit active buyer, but have not yet bought.
True, but as a practical matter, something like insurance is a complicated acquisition. You are not likely to buy the insurance on your first visit. I am in the market, I am enrolled and I am weighing the option of a silver plan vs. re-upping on my Kaiser small business plan, which will renew for one year at a 15% increase. The Kaiser silver plan appears to be more than 50% less from what I had been paying. I am trying to get comfortable that it truly is less and what I might lose moving from one to the other. So, I am a legit active buyer, but have not yet bought.
Perhaps you prefer the old system where $116B is spent on the uninsured, with $42.7B absorbed by insurance companies in the form of premium pass-throughs to their holders (costing your family an estimated $1,017 per year) and the other $73.3B picked up by your government, costing the average tax payer another $2,000 (at least) per year?
Unpaid care hikes private insurance premiums by billions - amednews.com
So, you can pay the $3,000 or your can figure out a way for the user of the service to pay this amount. The Heritage Foundation plan seems as practical as any.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?