Posted on 10/26/2016 9:11:36 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The architects of the Affordable Care Act thought they had a blunt instrument to force people — even young and healthy ones — to buy insurance through the law’s online marketplaces: a tax penalty for those who remain uninsured.
It has not worked all that well, and that is at least partly to blame for soaring premiums next year on some of the health law’s insurance exchanges.
The full weight of the penalty will not be felt until April, when those who have avoided buying insurance will face penalties of around $700 a person or more. But even then that might not be enough: For the young and healthy who are badly needed to make the exchanges work, it is sometimes cheaper to pay the Internal Revenue Service than an insurance company charging large premiums, with huge deductibles.
“In my experience, the penalty has not been large enough to motivate people to sign up for insurance,” said Christine Speidel, a tax lawyer at Vermont Legal Aid.
Some people do sign up, especially those with low incomes who receive the most generous subsidies, Ms. Speidel said. But others, she said, find that they cannot afford insurance, even with subsidies, so “they grudgingly take the penalty.”
The I.R.S. says that 8.1 million returns included penalty payments for people who went without insurance in 2014, the first year in which most people were required to have coverage. A preliminary report on the latest tax-filing season, tabulating data through April, said that 5.6 million returns included penalties averaging $442 a return for people uninsured in 2015.
With the health law’s fourth open-enrollment season beginning Tuesday, consumers are anxiously weighing their options.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The “replacement” is the free market.
Just so long as you owe them at the end of the year - they can't force you to pay it but they will steal it from your return if they owe you.
Thee law also says you are exempt if it is “too difficult” to obtain insurance.
>
If the Government was in charge of restaurants, then a hamburger would cost 50 bucks and taste worse than a Big-Mac. (if that is possible).
Same principle applies to health care.
We need more competition and free market solutions.
That being said, lots of people simply do not make enough money for health care and that is a big big problem.
>
Q: And WHY is H.C. so ‘expensive’??
Q: Why can many people NOT save enough for XYZ (college, home, H.C., etc.)?
A: GOVT
Seems (R)NC\GOP have a (massive) failure of message, arguing\debating from step 20.
Remove govt from that which is it NOT authorized *THEN* work on the ‘problem(s)’ that exist...at the appropriate level. IMO, those ‘issue(s)’ will be few and far between.
But, then they’d lose power, prestige and the message of “Vote for me...” every election. Can’t be having another Athens, TN anytime soon.
And thus the real purpose of the law...to increase taxes an average of 442 per PERSON per year. That’s over 161 BILLION dollars a year in taxes per year that did not previously exist.
> The “replacement” is the free market.
I agree (mostly).
Getting there takes A LOT of changes that need legislation. How will the Rs get there?
* Pharma patent reform?
* Tort reform?
* Nationwide/cross-state insurance sales?
* Simply repeal EVERY law/regulation that has anything to do with medical care/insurance. Do we let courts take care of things? Or also have tort reform and not hold medical professionals liable from either regulations or court. There are solutions. What do the Rs propose?
* Are they focusing on insurance or health care or EVERY business that will benefit from free market.
And “free market” alone won’t re-open rural hospitals or encourage doctors to move to rural areas or make doctors take medicare. Do the Rs say “FU” to people who have to drive 2+ hours to see a doctor? My dad often spends 6+ hours driving friends to/from a doctor for routine/minor issues. “FU” is going to need to be part of the solution for some people. Who are the Rs willing to say that to?
Do Rs want to increase medicare reimbursements? Or decrease costs for those doctors? (tort reform, reduce mandated paperwork, etc) Or allow nurses/non-doctors to do things that doctors have a monopoly on now? “Free market” says doctors should not have a monopoly on many things but there’s a big fight the Rs will have with the AMA.
And there’s lots of good the government can do (i.e. not free market). Give government-provided minimal medical training to people in poor neighborhoods or rural areas. And pay them to be a “medical-adviser” in the community. (see the adviser in 10 minutes before going to the hospital and taking 1/2 a day to find out it was a minor problem or wait until it’s major). Not really free market but can do a lot of good. There may be free market solutions like this. Hospitals may train/pay these people if we get rid of the AMA monopoly since it will reduce hospital visits/costs. Are Rs willing to get rid of monopolies and either pay or encourage hospitals to do this? What is the “minimal training” and what should these people be allowed to do? Minor prescriptions? Set simple fractures? Amputate legs? Pull teeth? And how can they be protected from law suits while be held responsible for abusing the system (taking money while making “medical mistakes” from negligence). Some regulation/costs can improve health care? Maybe this one is a stupid idea? Maybe there are smart ways the government can help.
So it’s not as simple as legislation that simply says “FREE MARKET RULES”. It at least has to say “FREE MARKET RULES. FU if that doesn’t work in your situation/community”. There’s also the minor problem of actually getting “free market” legislation passed. What’s the R’s plan?
Imagine having to pay a tax because you can’t afford health insurance that doesn’t really insure you
Trump has position papers published on his web site
At least as a candidate he lays out things he would try to do to get started on this mess
If you say he is not “ specific enough” then compare his plan point by point with Paul Ryan’s or Hillary’s plan and get back to us
And no this “ mess” did not start before obamacare
Ask tens of millions of Amerucans who used to have affordable health insurance or who used to have employer paid health insurance - aka the middle class
For everyone who was not served by the past there were specific market based solutions that could have been tried, with some improved govt backed programs
But no
Obamacare was designed by people hostile to individual liberty and hostile to the middle class - Jonathan Gruber is now saying the solution to the problem is a bigger more coercive tax penalty
The architects of the Affordable Care Act thought they had a blunt instrument to FORCE people — even young and healthy ones — to buy insurance...
Hillarycare, Obamacare, TOTALITARIANCARE.
DISMANTLE totalitarian collectives, foreign and domestic.
DEPOPULATE totalitarians from the body politic.
The most EVIL government in the history of the republic.
TREASON - continuous, in-your-face, pre-meditated, agenda-driven, agency-abetted, representative-enabled, court-sanctioned, media-complicit, NGO administered, ongoing...
Please, people, it isn’t a tax, tax penalty, or even a fee.
It’s an “Individual Shared Responsibility Payment”.
Rebuplicans had better ideas. I read them around the time of the Contract with America — tort reform, Medical Savings Accounts, waste reduction, more generics, fraud busting, competition, commonization, wellness.
We know who always scuttles this — attorneys and fed departments. BIG money to lose control of if we really fix this in our favor.
Nah, don’t waste your energy. Some of them are trolls planned by Hillary, paid by Soros, and coordinated by Scott Foval, the overseer.
Can you imagine your nation fining people for not buying insurance that will not cover them unless they’re on their death beds?
It’s like fining them for not paying for a family airplane. Sure, they’ll use one every now and then, but why not just buy a ticket at that time?
I have a daughter who works in New York City. She is single and unmarried; she makes a good salary and is in good health. She wants healthcare but her her status as a freelance designer precludes her receiving benefits from the companies she works for. If purchased through the state exchange, her health care cost would be $400 a month.
The fine is $700.
Do the math.
By the way, she is a liberal and will be voting for Hillary. She is somewhat conflicted by the fact that, because she is young and healthy, she is being required to fund the healthcare costs of other people. She, in her own time, will figure out what the real problem is.
Good one, lets just follow the actions of our POTUS, don't like the laws of the land that congress ( the peoples representatives) have passed? Use your pen and phone to not obey them, its fine the most powerful man in the world, the worlds enforcer of laws, ignores the ones he doesn't like, so should we.
I am prone to kidney stones and have done this successfully three times in the last 8 years. The stones will be gone by the time you finish the asparagus. I let the stone go too long the first time and it took two applications.
My mother-in-law told me about this and I resisted doing that silliness until I finally decided to give it a go. And it went.
Of course if you are diabetic this is a no go.
It wouldn’t have worked. I had a 6mm x10mm stone lodged in my ureter. Had to have lithotripsy. Not just once but twice because the stone was too big.
Next time try the Coke first. It does not preclude other options or even delay them and is likely to shrink the stone if nothing else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.