Daily Obamacare Thread: Good and Bad

[4consideration]

(This post is not meant with sarcasm, like my previous one.)

While we're talking about the tax penalties, especially the individual mandate, I really don't like how this part of Obamacare provides a financial incentive for domestic violence among the uninsured.

 

[Revoltingest]

What? What do you mean "what little they have?" Those Fat Cats making around 60,000 for a family of 4 are rolling in the dough!

Just because they can't afford insurance coverage doesn't mean they aren't irresponsible. They need to pay a Shared Responsibility Penalty of up to/around $1,200 for 2015 and $2,085 for 2016 (depending on if any, and who, in the family are covered.)

Otherwise they're just going to squander it on paying for actual health care services. The selfish ********! They should be fined.

Everybody knows if you have to choose between having health coverage you can actually afford to use, and paying directly to at least get some kinds of health care services for your family -- the responsible person chooses to buy coverage they can't use -- because, well...then they have coverage, even if they get no service -- and it helps the numbers look better for political purposes for more people to have "health coverage" than did before the ACA legislation.

And those people that did purchase health coverage, they can't afford to use for their family members because of high deductibles, can deal with the worry and stress of someone in their own family's health issue going unaddressed, by knowing that at least their government considers them responsible, so they don't have to get penalized by anything other than loss of sleep, ulcers, and other forms of stress related maladies from the realization they might have been able to purchase health care services if they could have used the money spent on premiums for coverage they can't use to pay for actual health care services.

(I can't find the sarcasm emoticon, so this is it.)

You must be wrong.
Obama & his allies said it will lower costs, & we'll all be better off.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As you can see from the data, health expenditures in the US have been increasing for decades. While there is no clear evidence the ACA has lowered total costs it would also be quite unfair to ascribe a 40-some year trend to the ACA which was only really implemented 2 years ago.



http://www.healthsystemtracker.org/interactive/health-spending-explorer/?display=U.S.%20%24%20Billions&service=All%20Types%20of%20Services&rangeType=range&years=1960%2C2014

 

[Mr Spinkles]

From the article: "While the Affordable Care Act’s tax increases are many, two are front and center this month: the individual and employer mandates. Both were supposed to increase coverage, but in reality they’re limiting career opportunities and taking more out of families’ and individuals’ wallets."

But, the ACA did increase coverage. Why does the author of this article, like so many ACA critics, find it necessary to imply otherwise; why do they have to claim that *everything* is wrong with the ACA? Can't you have an opinion, while still acknowledging certain facts which go against your case? I don't understand why the author can't say something like, "While the ACA has reduced the rate of uninsured, millions are still without coverage and it hasn't contained costs". One could agree or disagree with that opinion but at least it wouldn't be so blatantly at odds with the facts.

 

[Revoltingest]

A friend's daughter has to pay an extra $1200 in taxes because she was too poor to buy insurance at the beginning of the year.
She bought it later when she got a job though.
They have a low opinion of Obama.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As I understand in 2015 the tax penalty for not having insurance was a maximum of $975 per household, or 2% of income, whichever was greater. You are saying she paid $1,200 (ouch!) which implies her household income was $60,000. Is that correct?

Source: http://kff.org/infographic/the-requirement-to-buy-coverage-under-the-affordable-care-act/

 

[metis]

Medical inflation under the ACA has been at 5 & 1/2% whereas it was a bit over 9% from 1997-2007.

 

[Revoltingest]

Medical inflation under the ACA has been at 5 & 1/2% whereas it was a bit over 9% from 1997-2007.

I'll wager that your inflation figure doesn't include tax increases which are part of Obamacare.
This would skew the actual costs upward.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

A friend's daughter has to pay an extra $1200 in taxes because she was too poor to buy insurance at the beginning of the year.
She bought it later when she got a job though.
They have a low opinion of Obama.

As I understand in 2015 the tax penalty for not having insurance was a maximum of $975 per household, or 2% of income, whichever was greater. You are saying she paid $1,200 (ouch!) which implies her household income was $60,000. Is that correct?

Source: http://kff.org/infographic/the-requirement-to-buy-coverage-under-the-affordable-care-act/

Bump.

 

[Revoltingest]

As I understand in 2015 the tax penalty for not having insurance was a maximum of $975 per household, or 2% of income, whichever was greater. You are saying she paid $1,200 (ouch!) which implies her household income was $60,000. Is that correct?

Source: http://kff.org/infographic/the-requirement-to-buy-coverage-under-the-affordable-care-act/

I don't know her income, but it could very well be
that high, since she found the job early in the year.

If people are going to be unemployed, they should
plan to do this sometime later in the year. This will
avoid the Obamacare tax penalty.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I don't know her income, but it could very well be
that high, since she found the job early in the year.

If people are going to be unemployed, they should
plan to do this sometime later in the year. This will
avoid the Obamacare tax penalty.

But the penalty is pro-rated by the number of months without coverage. I don't see how you get to $1,200 (which must have been the maximum, 2% of income) unless she got the job early in the year, but didn't get health insurance until the end of the year. Is that right?

Also the maximum is actually 2% of income above a threshold of ~$10,000 for an individual, so her 2015 income must have been closer to $70,000 (all these details about the penalty are shown on the diagram at the Kaiser website I linked to). If she had health insurance at any time in 2015 then the penalty must have been pro-rated, which could imply that her income was significantly higher, depending on when she got insurance.

 

[Revoltingest]

But the penalty is pro-rated by the number of months without coverage. I don't see how you get to $1,200 (which must have been the maximum, 2% of income) unless she got the job early in the year, but didn't get health insurance until the end of the year. Is that right?

Again, I don't know her situation.
Taxes are always more complicated than most people think.
(I know mine are. I'm regularly surprised & having to take tax consequences into account when managing my affairs.)
But if one is employed at the beginning of the year, one can buy insurance, & plan for being able to pay for the rest of the year.
If one starts out unemployed & low on cash (as did she), then

Also the maximum is actually 2% of income above a threshold of ~$10,000 for an individual, so her 2015 income must have been closer to $70,000 (all these details about the penalty are shown on the diagram at the Kaiser website I linked to). If she had health insurance at any time in 2015 then the penalty must have been pro-rated, which could imply that her income was significantly higher, depending on when she got insurance.

Again, I can't speak to the details.
I know from experience that when I describe my tax issues & rates, people often tell me it's impossible.
But I've used the same CPA for decades, & he works for a good sized respected firm, so I've confidence
in the cromulence of their work. The tax code is well over 100,000 pages, & filled with special exceptions.
On top of that, there are other complexities based upon rulings & procedures. So I do things, & have
results which are unfamiliar to most.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Again, I don't know her situation.

Okay but then you shouldn't post about a situation you don't understand as a way to bash the ACA.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay but then you shouldn't post about a situation you don't understand as a way to bash the ACA.

Piffle!
I may post the experiences of my acquaintances without being able to analyze them.

Supplemental catty response.....
If you think taxes are so simple that all results should conform to a superficial understanding, then you should.....you know.

 

[metis]

So, what if anything should replace the ACA, or do we just jettison 20 million Americans who now have insurance under it? Does anyone really expect the Pubs to come up with anything to deal with this? Had they cooperated to begin with and not just join through the motions of pretending to cooperate, we probably could have a much more efficient plan in place. But no, they couldn't do that, as McConnell admitted that stopping Obama was their number-one priority.

My opinion is that anyone who says the ACA needs to be dismantled should be forced to specify in some detail what they would replace it with, if anything. IOW, they should either "put up or shut up"-- but they ain't gonna do either.

 

[4consideration]

My opinion is that anyone who says the ACA needs to be dismantled should be forced to specify in some detail what they would replace it with, if anything. IOW, they should either "put up or shut up"-- but they ain't gonna do either.

I think it is indicative of the kind of thinking that likes the ACA legislation to take a position that those that think differently should be forced. Isn't that the whole thrust of most people's dislike of the ACA, how much of it is based upon forcing people, businesses, and states to do things they are unable to do, or do not see to be in their best interest?

I'm not saying the people who have been given free health care object to it. It is understandable that group of people likes it.

I ain't gonna talk about the details of replacing that legislation in a thread that is specifically about the ACA. Too bad for those that don't like it. Anybody that wants to have that conversation is free to open a thread about it.

I will talk in detail about my objection to what I see as the ACA offering financial incentive for the uninsured to violently abuse their family, or household members -- if anyone is interested in that discussion. What I noticed when I was researching how one can qualify for not paying the penalty, when I looked at the application process, and the implications, I found to be very disgusting.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Piffle!
I may post the experiences of my acquaintances without being able to analyze them.

Supplemental catty response.....
If you think taxes are so simple that all results should conform to a superficial understanding, then you should.....you know.

I dont't and that's not the issue. The issue is you claim to know the dollar amount of penalty paid by your acquaintance, but you can't provide very basic information that is required to understand why that amount should have been paid. Namely, for how long did she go uninsured and for how long did she have a job, and what was her income. More troubling, your story that she was "too poor" to afford health insurance doesn't add up because based on the limited info you have provided, it sounds like she earned a substantial income for several months but did not get health insurance during that time as required by law. Instead she paid 2% which I think is fair given that's much less than what the insured pay and the uninsured get access to emergency care at society's expense and if we force insurers to take on people with "pre existing conditions" we can't have people who can afford insurance waiting until they get sick to buy insurance. But of course I can't really make a determination if it was fair or not, or if your story makes sense or not, given the lack of context.

 

[Revoltingest]

My opinion is that anyone who says the ACA needs to be dismantled should be forced to specify in some detail what they would replace it with, if anything.

How would you force them....thumb screws?

I dont't and that's not the issue.

It seems that you're making it an issue.
So I respond to it.

The issue is you claim to know the dollar amount of penalty paid by your acquaintance, but you can't provide very basic information that is required to understand why that amount should have been paid.

I know what I know, & claim no more than that.

Namely, for how long did she go uninsured and for how long did she have a job, and what was her income. More troubling, your story that she was "too poor" to afford health insurance doesn't add up because based on the limited info you have provided, it sounds like she earned a substantial income for several months but did not get health insurance during that time as required by law.

As I said, she had no income in the early part of the year, & thus couldn't sign up.
Lack of money is a common reason for people to not buy Obamacare insurance.

Instead she paid 2% which I think is fair given that's much less than what the insured pay and the uninsured get access to emergency care at society's expense and if we force insurers to take on people with "pre existing conditions" we can't have people who can afford insurance waiting until they get sick to buy insurance. But of course I can't really make a determination if it was fair or not, or if your story makes sense or not, given the lack of context.

You want info I don't have.
And I've no plans to call her for more.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It seems that you're making it an issue.
So I respond to it.

I'm making something an issue, but not that.

I know what I know, & claim no more than that.

Right but your post didn't provide any of that context - you just said she was poor for a time and suggested because of that, the mean ol' ACA made her pay a big penalty. Now it turns out you don't actually know enough to back up that claim. It sounds to me like the penalty was not because she didn't have insurance during the first part of the year, when she was poor, but because she didn't have it the rest of the year. But like you, I can't know without knowing at least a few basic facts about the situation.

Here's what we DO know about the penalty:

1. If you are uninsured for less than 3 months there is no penalty
2. It's pro-rated to the number of months uninsured
3. There's no penalty if it would have cost more than 8% of income
4. The max penalty is 2% of income (or $375, if that's greater)

That and the lack of information you can provide to back up your claim makes me suspect you are mistaken/misinformed/ignorant about the reason she paid a penalty.

As I said, she had no income in the early part of the year, & thus couldn't sign up.
Lack of money is a common reason for people to not buy Obamacare insurance.

The question is, is that why she paid a $1,200 penalty. At best, and contrary to your original post, we don't know. I suspect the answer is no given, for example:

If the lowest cost Bronze level Marketplace plan available to you in 2015 cost more than 8.05% of your household income, you qualify for a health coverage exemption. This means you don’t have to pay the fee for any months you were uncovered in 2015.

Source: https://www.healthcare.gov/exemptions-tool/#/results/2015/details/marketplace-affordability

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm making something an issue, but not that.

Right but your post didn't provide any of that context - you just said she was poor for a time and suggested because of that, the mean ol' ACA made her pay a big penalty. Now it turns out you don't actually know enough to back up that claim. It sounds to me like the penalty was not because she didn't have insurance during the first part of the year, when she was poor, but because she didn't have it the rest of the year. But like you, I can't know without knowing at least a few basic facts about the situation.

Here's what we DO know about the penalty:

1. If you are uninsured for less than 3 months there is no penalty
2. It's pro-rated to the number of months uninsured
3. There's no penalty if it would have cost more than 8% of income
4. The max penalty is 2% of income (or $375, if that's greater)

That and the lack of information you can provide to back up your claim makes me suspect you are mistaken/misinformed/ignorant about the reason she paid a penalty.

That's possible too.