This is in spite of the fact that when the law was being considered Obama said it was NOT a tax but a penalty. Then again, we were told we could keep our plans and doctors too. I see a pattern here.
Health Insurance for Expediters; What do You See?
- Thread starter ATeam
- Start date
This is in spite of the fact that when the law was being considered Obama said it was NOT a tax but a penalty. Then again, we were told we could keep our plans and doctors too. I see a pattern here.
paullud
Veteran Expediter
I can't remember exactly what they did but the lawyers argued both sides of it being a fine and being a tax. They argued it was a fine to protect and hide the lie Obama told about not raising taxes on people earning less than $200k then the next day claimed it was a tax to keep Obamacare from getting overturned. They were warned about doing that by one of the justices. I believe that is why there is confusion over if our is a tax or fine but I believe you are correct and it was upheld as a tax. Kind of odd though I remember seeing constant slams on the first Bush and the "read my lips" flip but nothing on Obama.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
The Supreme Court called the mandate to buy health insurance a "tax" and based its ruling that upheld Obamacare on that. That is different than the administrative fine that is imposed on people who fail to buy the required insurance. Obamacare was uhpeld by the Court. The item we are discussing here is something different.
Whether it is a fine or a tax is of some interest. Of more interest to expediters is the practical effects. And the effects are that millions of people will likely choose to pay the fine instead of buy the required insurance because it is less expensive to pay the fine and they don't feel the need to have insurance.
Last edited:
" Kind of odd though I remember seeing constant slams on the first Bush and the "read my lips" flip but nothing on Obama."
Nothing "odd" about it. Pravda's and Obama's objectives are the same and Pravda will NOT do anything to interfere with that agenda.
ALL the media interest in the web site problems are nothing more than a smoke screen to keep people from focusing on the outrageous costs, forced coverage, and lack of overall coverage in the plans.
Obama Care was designed, from the start, to fail. THEN, when it does, the push for an even more oppressive national health system will start for real. After all, we gave the markets a chance, it did not work, a government take over now makes sense.
THAT is the end goal. Total control of a massive part of the economy and our lives.
Nothing "odd" about it. Pravda's and Obama's objectives are the same and Pravda will NOT do anything to interfere with that agenda.
ALL the media interest in the web site problems are nothing more than a smoke screen to keep people from focusing on the outrageous costs, forced coverage, and lack of overall coverage in the plans.
Obama Care was designed, from the start, to fail. THEN, when it does, the push for an even more oppressive national health system will start for real. After all, we gave the markets a chance, it did not work, a government take over now makes sense.
THAT is the end goal. Total control of a massive part of the economy and our lives.
What may be of interest to some and Joes article touched on it, is whether large insurance carriers outside of the exchanges offer a better deal to consumers. Many of these are large companies that chose not to participate in the exchanges.
The indication is that many will be better even if government subsidies are factored because they share a different risk pool.
Will be interesting to see what some find. Tougher to shop maybe, but a better deal could be had including folks at the very bottom of the income scale.
The indication is that many will be better even if government subsidies are factored because they share a different risk pool.
Will be interesting to see what some find. Tougher to shop maybe, but a better deal could be had including folks at the very bottom of the income scale.
The law labels the assessment a “penalty” (see Section 5000A) and avoids using the term “tax.” But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the five justices in the majority, said the penalty can be considered a tax that is within the power of Congress to impose.
Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123
That is a possibility, IF, they don't force ALL insurance companies to provide the unneeded care that Obama Care requires. I can see that happening. A free market is NOT what Obama Care is after. Neither is providing affordable health care for the less well to do. That is a myth.
The premise of companies outside of the exchanges can decide who they want to insure. The coverage would have to be the same or a policy holder would have to pay the non insured penalty.
For some, that may not be a bad trade off.
In those cases, the policy could be written to cover anything or not much.
If they can control who they insure, that risk pool will be much different with them being able to offer cheaper rates.
For some, that may not be a bad trade off.
In those cases, the policy could be written to cover anything or not much.
If they can control who they insure, that risk pool will be much different with them being able to offer cheaper rates.
IF the coverage is the same there may not be that be a difference in the overall cost. The biggest reason for the increase in premiums is the requirement for high cost coverage. Maternity coverage is VERY expensive. Add to that mandatory new born care and pediatric vision care, again, very expensive coverage and one can see where the increases are coming from.
The idea that the government has the authority to REQUIRE people to carry coverage that they do not need SHOULD scare the hell out of everyone. That is a dangerous precedence to be setting.
We SHOULD have the ability to pick and choose what we need and design a plan that fits the individual. That is what we had that Obama Care has outlawed the the result, besides curtailing the market and individual freedom, is MASSIVE increases in premiums.
I don't think you are following. Their risk pool would be different because they don't have to cover everyone. In the extreme, they would have to offer say maternity, but only insure people over 50. That would cost them little because there wouldn't be that many participating.
If someone is already sick, they can refuse to write a policy for that person. Under Obamacare, they have to accept them.
That is why they would be cheaper.
I follow, I just don't think it will be allowed. IF I understand it correctly, ALL policies HAVE to have maternity, new born etc. IF that is the case, the cost will remain high. I understand the smaller pool idea, I just don't believe that the government will allow it to function. I already know that those who lost their coverage due to Obama Care are starting from scratch. It's like we never had coverage and all conditions are in play. Before this, they were not.
Mine says nothing about maternity?
And now instead of discriminating because of pre conditions . They can discriminate because of age, weight, and gender.
And now instead of discriminating because of pre conditions . They can discriminate because of age, weight, and gender.
Then you may have to pay the tax. Approved health care coverage....
Read past page one, IF it is not there yet it will be there by Jan. 1 , 2015. That is we found one plan that, for the next year, is $404 per month but jumps to $808 on Jan 1, 2015.
They have ALWAYS taken age, weight, gender, conditions etc into account. The difference now is that now there are no "exemptions". Before, if you had continuous coverage conditions that came up were "grandfathered" in. Now, we are dumped into the "no coverage pool" and it is like we are applying for the first time.
A fine is not Constitutional, a Tax Penalty is.
FAQ: Understanding The Health Insurance Mandate And Penalties For Going Uninsured : NPR
As anything government, things could change. As the law is currently written, these large carriers that opted out, can still sell policies. Either ones that meet the minimum requirements or those that don't.
If and when they go to single payer system, that will be the end of them. But.....save while you can.
There we have it then. It is not a tax. It is a penalty that can be considered a tax. That consideration does not change the penalty into something else. The penalty remains a penalty.
IF it goes to a single payer system this government will confiscate their assets to help pay for it. That is why the new plans have almost no REAL coverage, high premiums, low payouts. That builds up the cash. THEN, the government will get rid of private insurance, pay off the execs, lay off the employees and rule the economy from that point on.
Likely can't get those out of exchange plans. There are few people of are age that don't have some sort of pre-existing condition, SO, we have been screwed.
Yet another government-sponsored reason for people to get out of trucking.