Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:07 PM Sep 2012

The individual mandate: I and others warned that this was coming, too.

The ACA isn't what's going to destroy the finances of the working poor. It's the Individual Mandate. And this, too.

People were warned this was coming.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443437504577545770682810842.html

BY LOUISE RADNOFSKY

Around one in 10 employers in the U.S. plans to drop health coverage for workers in the next few years as the bulk of the federal health-care law begins, and more indicated they may do so over time, according to a study to be released Tuesday by consulting company Deloitte.

It is also safe to add that everyone responding to this will die of old age before Medicare for All is ever passed in America. That is, assuming it is ever passed in America.
The individual mandate: I and others warned that this was coming, too. (Original Post) Zalatix Sep 2012 OP
Wow - what a well researched and lengthy article. DURHAM D Sep 2012 #1
What a copout response. Are you saying it's wrong or not? Zalatix Sep 2012 #2
I don't know if it is wrong or not, neither do you, and neither does Louise. DURHAM D Sep 2012 #8
Oh I know it's not wrong. I'd bet my ass on that. Zalatix Sep 2012 #9
THERE IS NO MANDATE, PERIOD. southernyankeebelle Sep 2012 #57
THERE IS NO MOON. PERIOD. Zalatix Sep 2012 #80
if people can't afford it, they won't have to pay it. Voice for Peace Sep 2012 #105
Who's going to decide if we can or can't afford it? XemaSab Sep 2012 #126
There must be something in writing, whether in the ACA . . . freedom fighter jh Sep 2012 #152
me, I will decide. just give me all your bank information. Voice for Peace Sep 2012 #170
You going to put some money in there? XemaSab Sep 2012 #247
Darn and here I thought Newty Fruity was going to put families on the moon. Oh well. southernyankeebelle Sep 2012 #348
There may be no Mandate on YOUR planet, bvar22 Sep 2012 #341
Well maybe it is or not but it should be mandated. Buy what you can afford and the government southernyankeebelle Sep 2012 #347
No! I support a Democratic Party plan for HealthCare over your Republican approach. bvar22 Sep 2012 #358
I believe we are all having a conversation. southernyankeebelle Sep 2012 #359
What % would drop coverage in the next five years without the ACA? cthulu2016 Sep 2012 #3
Well, we do know that McDonald's and a few others got WAIVERS Zalatix Sep 2012 #6
You forgot ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2012 #15
McDonald's corporate has more than 50 employees. Just ONE of the mistakes in your argument. Zalatix Sep 2012 #20
I know the McDonald's corporation has more than 50 employees ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2012 #98
WTF... I didn't say I don't like OBAMACARE. Stop pushing that lie. Zalatix Sep 2012 #101
I didn't say I don't like wine ... I just don't like the grapes ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2012 #115
The Individual Mandate isn't the grape. It's the worm inside the grape. Zalatix Sep 2012 #122
The Individual Mandate Comes with the Territory On the Road Sep 2012 #208
Doesn't matter regardless if what is said downthread is true. Zalatix Sep 2012 #212
Howard Dean says they did it in Vermont. dkf Sep 2012 #238
So you're claiming we can't read? jeff47 Sep 2012 #276
"The individual mandate is one of the key features of the ACA." Uh, NO IT IS NOT. Zalatix Sep 2012 #282
Is it necessarily a bad thing to untie health insurance / employment? LiberalAndProud Sep 2012 #281
Employers started decreasing ins. for empees several years ago. They started charging employees Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #142
But, GIVING birth is cheaper? Fawke Em Sep 2012 #177
A forbes article in may had this to say Mojorabbit Sep 2012 #284
The ACA originally had provisions to try and pry people away from employer-based health insurance. BenzoDia Sep 2012 #4
There was talk of ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2012 #22
Pry them away? It's employers who want to get free of their healthcare obligation. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #125
Well, employers who offer insurance want to get a better deal with insurance companies by bringing a BenzoDia Sep 2012 #130
i'm not clear on what you mean. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #145
Employers get a better deal on insurance plans if they offer a larger number of people. BenzoDia Sep 2012 #157
no, that part i understand. it's the way you're using "opt out" i don't understand. it's not HiPointDem Sep 2012 #160
Oh, I see what you're asking. BenzoDia Sep 2012 #175
ok, now i get it. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #184
Stop it ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2012 #5
I'll stop when you can show how people earning just $20k a year won't get socked with an extra Zalatix Sep 2012 #7
Let em dump 'em ProSense Sep 2012 #10
I don't think humanity itself will live to see Single Payer in America. Zalatix Sep 2012 #12
You're conflating issues. n/t ProSense Sep 2012 #13
Not at all. Zalatix Sep 2012 #16
Wait ProSense Sep 2012 #21
Public option will never happen. Not unless we split up the country. Zalatix Sep 2012 #29
"Not unless we split up the country." ProSense Sep 2012 #38
What, you couldn't read what was posted? Zalatix Sep 2012 #56
You have no point. ProSense Sep 2012 #64
You're living in denial. Medicare for All isn't happening in America. You're living a fantasy. Zalatix Sep 2012 #69
Again, you have no point. n/t ProSense Sep 2012 #82
Again, you are living in denial. I have a perfect and error-free point, you just have no case here. Zalatix Sep 2012 #85
First of all you will only live for no more than 110 years RegieRocker Sep 2012 #219
Keep dreaming. Feel free to serve up crow if it EVER happens. Zalatix Sep 2012 #233
Most will die in the next few years RegieRocker Sep 2012 #269
There is another option here--single payer state by state eridani Sep 2012 #256
Finally, a voice of reason. Zalatix Sep 2012 #257
People that can't afford insurance will be provided federal subsidies. BenzoDia Sep 2012 #11
As I said, if you earn only $20K a year you will be ordered to pay over $80 a month for insurance. Zalatix Sep 2012 #14
It doesn't say that. n/t ProSense Sep 2012 #19
Yes it does. And since you denied it, I'll end this debate with a screencap. Zalatix Sep 2012 #23
Where does it say ProSense Sep 2012 #34
You yourself admit there is a tax penalty for non-compliance. Zalatix Sep 2012 #39
Nice try. You said: "you will be ordered to pay over $80 a month for insurance" ProSense Sep 2012 #42
Uh, yes you will. And there's a PENALTY for non-compliance to serve as enforcement. Zalatix Sep 2012 #70
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #171
Oh but haven't you heard? The IRS can't enforce that penalty with levies or criminal proceedings. Zalatix Sep 2012 #213
It says in 2014 the penalty is $95 per adult or 1% of family income, whichever is greater dflprincess Sep 2012 #114
Holy shit that's worse than I thought. Zalatix Sep 2012 #141
It's $95 per adult ProSense Sep 2012 #148
A family of 4 would not get the penalty. They get Medicaid. Zalatix Sep 2012 #151
Huh? ProSense Sep 2012 #159
The question is about one who's unemployed and one who's earning $20K Zalatix Sep 2012 #161
Wow, that's some argument. ProSense Sep 2012 #203
To call that response 'tangential' is to be charitable. Zalatix Sep 2012 #215
You are exempted from the mandate if you cannot afford it. BenzoDia Sep 2012 #24
$20k a month ain't low enough. Zalatix Sep 2012 #27
The law says "no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who donít pay the fine" BenzoDia Sep 2012 #45
"You can also apply for a waiver asking not to pay an assessment if you don't qualify automatically" ProSense Sep 2012 #48
If you're earning above the poverty level you won't succeed in applying for a waiver. Give it up. Zalatix Sep 2012 #53
Nonsense. n/t ProSense Sep 2012 #55
Well then shouldn't you? treestar Sep 2012 #26
See the chart above. $20k/month income = you get gouged $84 a month. Zalatix Sep 2012 #28
Nonsense. ProSense Sep 2012 #36
You're making up things I did not say. Zalatix Sep 2012 #43
Really? ProSense Sep 2012 #51
No, first you apologize for falsely accusing me of something I never said. Zalatix Sep 2012 #60
Apologize for disagreeing with you? ProSense Sep 2012 #63
What part of "You accused me of something I did not say" do you NOT understand? Zalatix Sep 2012 #73
I think your ProSense Sep 2012 #91
Again: What part of "You accused me of something I did not say" do you NOT understand? Zalatix Sep 2012 #94
I've made less than 20K as a self employed person treestar Sep 2012 #131
With that kind of skimpy coverage, you are guaranteed to go bankrupt if you have seious expenses eridani Sep 2012 #266
When they had no insurance at all, those bills were much higher treestar Sep 2012 #297
When they had no insurance, they could at least pay for routine care n/t eridani Oct 2012 #360
I make less than 20k a year, working full time darkangel218 Sep 2012 #352
Afford is subjective. As defined some will be able to afford it and others won't. TheKentuckian Sep 2012 #355
This message was self-deleted by its author JaneyVee Sep 2012 #46
The Republican WSJ article is WRONG. Since when do empers "care" about employee health coverage? Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #146
That person can take a penalty, instead. It won't be much. But 'm guessing the person will be GLAD Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #155
"They can get a job where an employer provides coverage"? and you call the WSJ Republican?? Zalatix Sep 2012 #166
Yes, the WSJ is Republican, and you posted the article. ProSense Sep 2012 #172
Republicans were the ones who first PUSHED THE MANDATE. Zalatix Sep 2012 #180
Everyone knows that. Common knowledge. Republicans also started the child credit, even for those Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #305
I think you need to enlightenment Sep 2012 #201
I think you need learn reality. We don't have single payer. We have an ins. system. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #310
A little over 30 days to the election, and DUers are posting Wall Street Journal articles Nye Bevan Sep 2012 #17
Given that the WJS has Romney strategists CitizenPatriot Sep 2012 #31
The ACA isn't the problem, it's the Mandate. That's a Mitt Romney idea, a Heritage Foundation idea. Zalatix Sep 2012 #35
It's also a Swiss idea. BenzoDia Sep 2012 #52
It's a sucky idea. I wish we were more like England or Canada. Zalatix Sep 2012 #187
You've yet to explain how it works without a mandate. jeff47 Sep 2012 #278
Standard GOP ... WSJ says it ... some Democrate sees it, and dispairs. JoePhilly Sep 2012 #93
Yup, quietly cede the country to the Koches or revolt, which is their plan... freshwest Sep 2012 #345
Using the Oregon Health Plan Exchange calculator - bhikkhu Sep 2012 #18
People earning $20k a year can't afford another $84-85 a month expense on their budget Zalatix Sep 2012 #25
Are we assuming a current health expenditure level of $0? cthulu2016 Sep 2012 #30
Yes. A lot of people spend $0 on health care right now because their budgets are already overburdene Zalatix Sep 2012 #33
More nonsense ProSense Sep 2012 #58
More denials on your part. Zalatix Sep 2012 #66
You're laughing? ProSense Sep 2012 #74
You will be ordered to pay over $80 a month. Failure to comply means a monetary PENALTY. Zalatix Sep 2012 #78
"Failure to comply means a monetary PENALTY" of $8/mo assessed at tax time. ProSense Sep 2012 #84
You're out of your league with basic mathematics. Zalatix Sep 2012 #87
Psst: ProSense Sep 2012 #90
Once again you fail basic mathematics. Zalatix Sep 2012 #95
What's the ProSense Sep 2012 #100
Ah, I see what your problem is. Zalatix Sep 2012 #107
"The tax penalty will only be $8 a month in 2014" ProSense Sep 2012 #116
The only way I can be wrong is if the tax penalty is not $695 in 2016. Otherwise... you lose. Zalatix Sep 2012 #119
It's $95 in 2014, and you're wrong long before 2016. n/t ProSense Sep 2012 #137
$695 or higher in 2016 is not wrong. Sorry, you're just off-base here. $695 in 2016! Zalatix Sep 2012 #143
Insurance is not care. At that level of payment for useless crap, the money-- eridani Sep 2012 #274
I raise a family of four on 28k a year bhikkhu Sep 2012 #71
That is impossible in America. Unless you are homeless. Zalatix Sep 2012 #75
Don't be callous and ridiculous! n/t ProSense Sep 2012 #77
Callous? You guys are the ones talking about slapping the working poor Zalatix Sep 2012 #79
No, that's your imagination. ProSense Sep 2012 #88
You still don't grasp reality here. Zalatix Sep 2012 #97
They don't have to, and ProSense Sep 2012 #109
You still don't comprehend. Zalatix Sep 2012 #123
How much is a person earning $20,000 paying now? n/t ProSense Sep 2012 #128
Nothing. Because they can't afford to. Zalatix Sep 2012 #133
So your argument is that ProSense Sep 2012 #135
"Should continue not having insurance"? More like, they have no choice but not to have it. Zalatix Sep 2012 #139
They ProSense Sep 2012 #153
It's not a choice. It's a mathematical certainty. Zalatix Sep 2012 #156
Would it ProSense Sep 2012 #167
You can now admit that you twisted what I said. Zalatix Sep 2012 #176
Comprehension: "As if" doesn't mean you said it. ProSense Sep 2012 #179
Backpedaling: "Uh, I didn't mean it that way" Zalatix Sep 2012 #181
No, single payer isn't free and baseless shit stirring isn't a valid argument. n/t ProSense Sep 2012 #182
Nobody said or implied single payer was free, and bullshit lies aren't valid arguments either. Zalatix Sep 2012 #185
What will it cost a person earning $20,000 ProSense Sep 2012 #188
A LOT less than it costs now. Zalatix Sep 2012 #190
Medicare is minimum $99 per month. ProSense Sep 2012 #198
No, that's not what Medicare for All would cost. Not even close. Your facts are way off. Zalatix Sep 2012 #211
What am I missing here, ProSense? I wish I only had to pay $80/month. freshwest Sep 2012 #271
Good post. Thanks. ProSense Sep 2012 #275
And what if an employer had to pay only $80 a month bhikkhu Sep 2012 #320
I wonder if this is the same $80 figure that this OP is about? I don't understand what is happening. freshwest Sep 2012 #344
I'm sure it varies depending on where you live, but it is very possible where I live bhikkhu Sep 2012 #81
Wait a second. Zalatix Sep 2012 #149
My income of $28k supports 4, the other example is for a single adult living alone bhikkhu Sep 2012 #163
You're not getting Medicare for all, so just stop harping on that... TreasonousBastard Sep 2012 #32
Prior to ACA, your 20k a year worker would have been on the hook for $3400. lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #37
Not true. And who are you fooling with the "don't pay the penalty... nothing happens"? LOL!!! Zalatix Sep 2012 #47
Fooling? Only the illiterate, I guess. lumberjack_jeff Sep 2012 #59
What the hell are you talking about? ProSense Sep 2012 #62
Wow, you didn't even read over what you posted. Zalatix Sep 2012 #83
Wrong. See post #65 BenzoDia Sep 2012 #89
And if your fantasyland rebuttal has any basis in reality, the consequences will be DIRE. Zalatix Sep 2012 #136
Nothing "fantasyland" about it. It's right there in the law and the Supreme Court ruling. BenzoDia Sep 2012 #140
Fantasyland or Dystopia, pick it. You're either wrong, or you'll wish you were. Zalatix Sep 2012 #144
How do they get a 70% discount if they still can't afford the $80 a month? hughee99 Sep 2012 #86
Companies were ALREADY planning on dropping employee plans. NashvilleLefty Sep 2012 #40
You will see Medicare for All here in America when America is dead and gone. Zalatix Sep 2012 #49
I disagree. But in the meantime we have the ACA. NashvilleLefty Sep 2012 #162
Since most working families ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2012 #41
Please provide one single piece of legislation that has been enacted ... 1StrongBlackMan Sep 2012 #44
It's a mixed bag...Many of us will have to suffer while others will see a relief... KoKo Sep 2012 #50
"it will be hell for those of us wanting to have access to the the health care we used to have" ProSense Sep 2012 #54
The Change Over from the Status Quo through 2014 when the rest kicks in KoKo Sep 2012 #356
They have been dropping coverage steadily for years. as we all know. robinlynne Sep 2012 #61
Hey everyone, OP is just fear whipping. In the Supreme Court's ruling... BenzoDia Sep 2012 #65
It's self-aggrandizing shit stirring. n/t ProSense Sep 2012 #68
All it takes is a stroke of a pen... derby378 Sep 2012 #72
All it takes is a stroke of a pen to change any law in effect. BenzoDia Sep 2012 #76
Hey everyone, BenzoDia just explained how ludicrous the Individual Mandate is! Zalatix Sep 2012 #92
Very few people gamed the Massachusett's, The Netherlands' or Switzerland's mandate BenzoDia Sep 2012 #102
Low income people in MA go bankrupt or die eridani Sep 2012 #277
No, I think you got pwn'd. n/t ProSense Sep 2012 #104
You think a lot of things, all of which have been wrong today. Zalatix Sep 2012 #108
The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal ProSense Sep 2012 #120
And as I said, if that fantasyland assessment is true, these consequences are unavoidable. Zalatix Sep 2012 #127
"Millions of people who are uninsured now won't pay for insurance in 2014." ProSense Sep 2012 #164
Why do you keep arguing that the penalty won't go up to $695 in 2016? Zalatix Sep 2012 #174
16 million more will qualify for Medicaid ProSense Sep 2012 #178
Why don't you believe that the tax penalty will go up to $695 in 2016? Zalatix Sep 2012 #186
What does it ProSense Sep 2012 #191
There will be those who cheat society, but I think most of us will contribute to a fair system. Hoyt Sep 2012 #293
Of course any move toward a public health insurance program will lead to..... Swede Atlanta Sep 2012 #67
Individual states can get waivers and do their own thing, like Single Payer, as Vermont is doing. nt patrice Sep 2012 #96
So... move out of places like Texas? Zalatix Sep 2012 #99
You could move here ProSense Sep 2012 #103
Sorry, but I don't want to be your neighbor. Zalatix Sep 2012 #112
Oregon's nice, and has its own very good ACA-compliant system in the works bhikkhu Sep 2012 #204
No, quit your bitching and take some responsibility for what happens in your state. Even a moderate patrice Sep 2012 #113
Quit your bitching at me! Unless you think I can INDOCTRINATE the whole state by myself. Zalatix Sep 2012 #117
Yep. Don't bother. Whatever you do is nothing anyway. There is no effect that you can have that is patrice Sep 2012 #121
Contrary to popular belief, one person cannot change the world. It takes the help of millions. Zalatix Sep 2012 #124
And you have no clue about how you might become more than one? No wonder you are patrice Sep 2012 #129
Okay so what have you done to change the world, and how successful have you been? Zalatix Sep 2012 #134
I have done more than I can tell, some small things, some not so small things, ever since patrice Sep 2012 #158
And with all that effort, have you been able to get Medicare for All passed? Zalatix Sep 2012 #183
Nevermind. You are either too ignorant or too incapable of understanding. Carry on with your whine. patrice Sep 2012 #196
You're just too confused and irrational to do anything but bitch aimlessly at me. Zalatix Sep 2012 #220
If you think it's only about success as you define it, you are an authoritarian, apparently without patrice Sep 2012 #169
You throw around some big words without knowing their meaning. Zalatix Sep 2012 #193
That's the problem with ideologically driven results jberryhill Sep 2012 #209
And for those who choose not to pay for insurance or pay the tax penalty, there is no step forward. Zalatix Sep 2012 #216
Bullshit jberryhill Sep 2012 #287
Then by all means wake me up when Medicare for All happens. LOL. Zalatix Sep 2012 #298
Clinton had a good line on Jon Stewart's program jberryhill Sep 2012 #210
Yes. jeff47 Sep 2012 #279
You way over estimate your own perspicacity not only in thinking no one else expected that effect patrice Sep 2012 #106
Wow. I said "I and others". How did that come out to me thinking no one else saw this? Zalatix Sep 2012 #111
I am merely pointing out that to those, whom you may think it is news, it isn't. nt patrice Sep 2012 #118
AAAAHHHH! The Individual Mandate gonna git us!!! porphyrian Sep 2012 #110
Speaking of fail, from your own cite: Zalatix Sep 2012 #132
OH NO! President Obama changed his mind about something since he became... porphyrian Sep 2012 #296
That has nothing to do with the mandate. It has to do with perceived increase costs for the ACA... Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #138
The reality is employers have been dropping health insurance as a benefit for years Samantha Sep 2012 #147
Exactly... Sekhmets Daughter Sep 2012 #154
It's fascinating ProSense Sep 2012 #150
Many employers, at least small business owners, were going to end ecstatic Sep 2012 #165
And the costs are the result of a FOR PROFIT insurance system. Control the profit = begin to patrice Sep 2012 #173
Fear mongering. Loudestlib Sep 2012 #168
You won't be saying that when the working poor get socked hard in 2014. Zalatix Sep 2012 #189
"Socked hard" because they still can't afford insurance? ProSense Sep 2012 #194
Oh yeah, you still believe they'll only have to pay a $8/month tax penalty for non-compliance Zalatix Sep 2012 #199
Let's set aside the fact that you don't seem to know the ACA. Loudestlib Sep 2012 #235
Speaking of not knowing the ACA, you just called the ACA a REPUBLICAN PLAN!!! Zalatix Sep 2012 #251
it's my understanding that employers that dont offer health insurance will be required to pay a fine notadmblnd Sep 2012 #192
They'll save money by paying the tax penalty instead of paying for health care benefits Zalatix Sep 2012 #195
Bullshit. You're just guessing. Period. Lex Sep 2012 #202
And fooling a lot of people. ProSense Sep 2012 #205
You fail basic math. Period. I'm not guessing, I am absolutely CERTAIN. Zalatix Sep 2012 #206
Stop ProSense Sep 2012 #207
No guesswork here, you still don't read your own cites. Zalatix Sep 2012 #217
You cite nothing. Lex Sep 2012 #222
Why should I, when ProSense's own cites contradict him? Zalatix Sep 2012 #224
Leave me out of the clownish argument. n/t ProSense Sep 2012 #226
You leave this clownish argument and it will stop being clownish. Zalatix Sep 2012 #228
This message was self-deleted by its author Lex Sep 2012 #230
Evidently, you're in denial and ProSense Sep 2012 #225
No denial here, your facts are flat out wrong and you're trying to force feed me nonsense Zalatix Sep 2012 #227
Here: ProSense Sep 2012 #231
How Small Business Owners Get Health Insurance: they PAY for it, like everyone else. Zalatix Sep 2012 #234
Your comments are now hilarious ProSense Sep 2012 #239
Your comments are now silly hour. Zalatix Sep 2012 #242
Wrong. Sorry. You are guessing at this. AGAIN. Lex Sep 2012 #221
No, the problem is that you don't know what you're talking about. Zalatix Sep 2012 #223
that's right, there will be no enforcement of the tax penalty notadmblnd Sep 2012 #237
I said, someone upthread CLAIMED there will be no enforcement. That is, of course, wrong. Zalatix Sep 2012 #244
No, I never mentioned it. notadmblnd Sep 2012 #346
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #197
Absurd! n/t ProSense Sep 2012 #200
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #218
That has nothing to do with the ACA. ProSense Sep 2012 #232
It certainly has something to do with the individual mandate. Zalatix Sep 2012 #248
Nothing, absolutely nothing. n/t ProSense Sep 2012 #250
Denial isn't a river in Egypt, ya know. Zalatix Sep 2012 #252
You're quoting the ProSense Sep 2012 #254
Are you okay? Zalatix Sep 2012 #255
LOL! It's irrelevant to the IRS' actions as they relate to ACA. ProSense Sep 2012 #259
Yeah, you're tired. Zalatix Sep 2012 #261
No, I think you're spinning. ProSense Sep 2012 #263
There's no spin here, you just don't understand human nature. Zalatix Sep 2012 #301
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #292
Claiming that the IRS is powerless to collect money.... bvar22 Oct 2012 #370
I'm not sure which is more absurd - if they're wrong, or if they're right. Zalatix Sep 2012 #236
Well THAT'S interesting. Le Taz Hot Sep 2012 #290
All this woe-is-me talk about the individual mandate. Let's take a look at the #1 rated healthcare 4lbs Sep 2012 #214
Math, math, math! The population of France is 65 million. America? 300 million. Zalatix Sep 2012 #240
You need to stop ProSense Sep 2012 #243
So which part are you confused about here? Zalatix Sep 2012 #246
Sure, ProSense Sep 2012 #249
Do you know what I said when I said "The tax on the top earners is also a damned good idea"? Zalatix Sep 2012 #253
And it's still apple to apples. ProSense Sep 2012 #258
It'll cost less than in France, and less than $84 a month. Zalatix Sep 2012 #262
Will it be less than the 2014 penalty of $8 ProSense Sep 2012 #268
Dear God, you don't even do math right. Zalatix Sep 2012 #270
No it doesn't. ProSense Sep 2012 #272
Yeah, your math is not strong here, ProSense. Zalatix Sep 2012 #300
This was fun ProSense Sep 2012 #304
People will game the system to death. Enjoy! Zalatix Sep 2012 #317
I think whatever "savings" there are from "large numbers" occurs well before 65 million insured. Hoyt Sep 2012 #295
The OP won't stop his fearmongering no matter what. DevonRex Sep 2012 #264
France also subsidizes low income people, and the government DICTATES health care prices eridani Sep 2012 #280
+1 leftstreet Sep 2012 #331
True. I support all that. But the OP's main whine is about the individual mandate. 4lbs Sep 2012 #336
No, the OP was about a mandate to enrich private insurance companies eridani Oct 2012 #361
Employers have steadily been dropping healthcare ANYWAY, because costs have been rising. pnwmom Sep 2012 #229
If a LOT of employers stop providing plans, I can't help but think the gateley Sep 2012 #241
Healthcare... deathrind Sep 2012 #245
Employers dropping coverage is what will GET us true universal health care SoCalDem Sep 2012 #260
Good sakibsust Sep 2012 #265
You may not give a shit if this hurts Obama's election chances DevonRex Sep 2012 #267
Seriously? I need a list of banned sites that I should not cite. Zalatix Sep 2012 #273
I disagree with the OP but cali Sep 2012 #289
DURec KG Sep 2012 #283
"People were warned this was coming."...Ok, confess...you wear skinny jeans. renie408 Sep 2012 #285
Factless? Emo? Oh I see, you lack for a coherent argument so instead you have to throw a tantrum. Zalatix Sep 2012 #286
LOL...you are the only person throwing a tantrum. renie408 Sep 2012 #288
There you go, throwing another damned hissyfit. Zalatix Sep 2012 #299
I think you forgot "nahney nahney boo boo" renie408 Sep 2012 #343
I sure did. And then you went and did it instead! Zalatix Sep 2012 #351
Employers have used any and no excuse to cut pay and benefits quaker bill Sep 2012 #291
The ONLY reason why I and many of my friends voted for Obama was because he was against the coldwaterintheface Sep 2012 #294
I wouldn't say that's cause to be less excited to vote this year. Zalatix Sep 2012 #302
"Obama was railroaded into the Individual Mandate." ProSense Sep 2012 #306
You do remember that Obama OPPOSED the Individual Mandate during his campaign, right? Zalatix Sep 2012 #308
After your comments ProSense Sep 2012 #311
"Guessing". You do not understand what that word actually means. Zalatix Sep 2012 #313
Wow, you're linking to a wingnut site? Really? ProSense Sep 2012 #323
Bah, I thought it said CBS news. The rest of your argument was refuted in #316. Zalatix Sep 2012 #327
And your BS was smacked down in #325. ProSense Sep 2012 #328
You seem to like to confuse spin doctoring with "smacking down". Zalatix Sep 2012 #335
Railroaded my Ass, he did not even fight coldwaterintheface Sep 2012 #349
Another Thank God It Passed! Safetykitten Sep 2012 #303
I'll let this guy explain why The Mandate is a BAD idea for America. bvar22 Sep 2012 #307
Why would anyone argue? Here's what he said ProSense Sep 2012 #312
Wow, you woke up as confused as you were last night. Zalatix Sep 2012 #316
Bullshit! ProSense Sep 2012 #325
Candidate Obama was very clear that he opposed The Mandate during Campaign 2008. bvar22 Sep 2012 #319
He might have sank Hillary over just that issue. Zalatix Sep 2012 #321
Here's the part ProSense Sep 2012 #326
I KNOW what he said, and how he said it. bvar22 Sep 2012 #338
That's absolutely correct. He ridiculed her for supporting the Mandate. And rightly. nt Poll_Blind Sep 2012 #333
Right wing bullshit from the wsj and a jury voted 5-1 keep it. Warren Stupidity Sep 2012 #309
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #322
He has won on one point. I will look for sources in the future that are not the WSJ. Zalatix Sep 2012 #342
Sources don't matter if they are accurate. The content and character of your posts is what matters. rDigital Oct 2012 #372
Nobody cares about your "warnings". MjolnirTime Sep 2012 #314
Big whoop, you don't HAVE TO CARE!!! The consequences will happen regardless. Zalatix Sep 2012 #318
Yes, ProSense Sep 2012 #330
Denial is sometimes a comforting thing. I won't deny you that comfort. Zalatix Sep 2012 #334
Here ProSense Sep 2012 #337
That post, and your statement here about Medicaid is obsolete. bvar22 Sep 2012 #339
Actually, ProSense Sep 2012 #353
You're declaring victory for something that hasn't happened. bvar22 Oct 2012 #362
His imagination is stronger than your reality. Zalatix Oct 2012 #363
My (her) knowledge of the facts is stronger than your guessing. ProSense Oct 2012 #365
There you go again, declaring victory after blowing off all your toes! Zalatix Oct 2012 #368
Wrong ProSense Oct 2012 #364
Do you know what the word "MANDATE" means? bvar22 Oct 2012 #366
Do you know ProSense Oct 2012 #367
Nobody needs the MSM to explain THIS: bvar22 Oct 2012 #369
Not this shit again. Iggo Sep 2012 #315
Here is the problem, stated simply. Savannahmann Sep 2012 #324
Yup. The wolf will hunt an unprotected lamb, it's as simple as that. Zalatix Sep 2012 #329
Left wing concern post from right-wing Murdoch paper. gulliver Sep 2012 #332
Why are you posting WSJ propaganda? Odin2005 Sep 2012 #340
I and others warned that this was coming, too: another panic post. randome Sep 2012 #350
This will just make universal health care more probable. Lint Head Sep 2012 #354
It's no use. 2ndAmForComputers Sep 2012 #357
stop the presses! arely staircase Oct 2012 #371
I for one look forward to your gloating thread Capt. Obvious Oct 2012 #373
 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
2. What a copout response. Are you saying it's wrong or not?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:13 PM
Sep 2012

Ah, I don't expect a direct answer to that.

DURHAM D

(32,464 posts)
8. I don't know if it is wrong or not, neither do you, and neither does Louise.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:26 PM
Sep 2012

I understand what you are doing.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
9. Oh I know it's not wrong. I'd bet my ass on that.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:29 PM
Sep 2012

And you don't know what I'm doing. I'm advocating for all the working poor folks who are going to be unable to meet their basic living expenses because they'll be FORCED to pay for health insurance on pain of a nasty tax penalty.

Those people are going to be hurt by the individual mandate, which was a Heritage Foundation idea to begin with.

freedom fighter jh

(1,782 posts)
152. There must be something in writing, whether in the ACA . . .
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:44 PM
Sep 2012

. . . or in regulations written to implement it, indicating who has to pay the whole thing and who gets help. A lot of DU people seem to know a lot about the ACA. Can anyone say something about this?

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
341. There may be no Mandate on YOUR planet,
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 12:01 PM
Sep 2012

but here in the United States on Planet Earth,
there is indeed a Mandate to Buy Health Insurance.
It is THE LAW.

 

southernyankeebelle

(11,304 posts)
347. Well maybe it is or not but it should be mandated. Buy what you can afford and the government
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:54 PM
Sep 2012

should makeup what you can't.

bvar22

(39,909 posts)
358. No! I support a Democratic Party plan for HealthCare over your Republican approach.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 07:06 PM
Sep 2012

The Traditional Democratic Party Approach:
A Publicly Owned, Government Administered National Health Insurance Plan.
Everybody IN at birth.


Republican Plan:
Everybody forced to buy Health Insurance from For Profit Corporations
on a State by State basis with government panels deciding who can afford what in 50 different states.
No sale.


I have been on DU since early 2000,
and your post insisting there is no Mandate is one of the most absurd, completely wrong posts I have ever read on this board.

 

southernyankeebelle

(11,304 posts)
359. I believe we are all having a conversation.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 07:26 PM
Sep 2012

So I'm suppose to think because you have been on DU since 2000 that your opinion is more than anyoneelses?

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
3. What % would drop coverage in the next five years without the ACA?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:15 PM
Sep 2012

I do not know the answer to that question.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
6. Well, we do know that McDonald's and a few others got WAIVERS
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:23 PM
Sep 2012

after threatening to drop their employees if they didn't get the waivers.

(McDonald's is listed further down in this article)

http://www.lvrj.com/business/businesses-get-waivers-to-opt-out-of-health-care-mandate-122412389.html

Nearly 20 businesses with Las Vegas ties have obtained waivers exempting them from an insurance-coverage mandate in the 2010 Affordable Care Act.

It's hard to determine how many locals fall under the waived plans, though, because few local operations would discuss the exemptions.

Waivers are temporary and are granted a year at a time to businesses, labor groups and government agencies that say they can't offer employees affordable insurance based on the reform law's mandates.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm

Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.

Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.

The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.

All these workers are getting SCREWED by the Individual Mandate. Badly.
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
15. You forgot ...
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:33 PM
Sep 2012

to mention that Papa John's owner said ObamaCare would add 14 cents to the cost of its pizza.

OH wait ... 90+ % of the businesses of the companies that you mention are franchises which typically do not provide health insurance coverage for their, largely Part-time, staff.

And, even if they did ... they would be exempt under Obamacare because they employ far less than the 50 full-time employee number.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
20. McDonald's corporate has more than 50 employees. Just ONE of the mistakes in your argument.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:37 PM
Sep 2012

And Papa John's has no relevance here.

If McDonald's didn't have employees they wouldn't be asking for a waiver.

There are consultants out there ADVISING companies to drop their coverage.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304811304577367833267990666.html

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
98. I know the McDonald's corporation has more than 50 employees ...
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:52 PM
Sep 2012

But the number of McDonald's Corporate employees is dwarfed by the number of employees that work under the franchises. And if it dropped every single one of its corporate employees ... that number would be dwarfed, to the point of irrelevance, by the number of people benefitted by Obamacare.


There are consultants out there ADVISING companies to drop their coverage.


And Deloitte is one of them ... and that was the point of my post regarding their study.

But my larger point is ... WE GET IT! YOU DON'T LIKE OBAMACARE ... BUT, AS IS OFTEN THE CASE, SOMETHING IS BETTER THAN NOTHING; INCLUDING WHAT WE HAD.
 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
101. WTF... I didn't say I don't like OBAMACARE. Stop pushing that lie.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:56 PM
Sep 2012

I said, I don't like the Individual Mandate. That is NOT the entire ACA. Know the difference.

Let me explain to you how this plays out.

You have lots of McDonald's franchise employees who will never see employer coverage. They are, as of 2014, being told to pay for health insurance, which will EASILY hit the ceiling of $80 a month if they are working full time minimum wage, which comes out to ~$20K in California.

Seeing this big extra $80 a month hit on their budget, they won't pay for insurance.

So they'll be assessed a $695 a month tax penalty come 2016.

But some dreamy folks on here insist the IRS can't enforce that.

The good part of the ACA says that no pre existing conditions can be denied. Guess what that means? That means people who have no insurance will try to GET insurance for a short while when they get sick. And they will be able to because pre-existing conditions aren't cause for denial.

I'm sure you know what that leads to.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
122. The Individual Mandate isn't the grape. It's the worm inside the grape.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:11 PM
Sep 2012

The Individual Mandate was first proposed by the HERITAGE FOUNDATION...

President Obama built his CAMPAIGN upon opposing the Mandate.

Please, learn your history.

On the Road

(20,783 posts)
208. The Individual Mandate Comes with the Territory
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:42 PM
Sep 2012

Without an individual mandate, you can't really require coverage of preexisting conditions.

This is something Romney, for example, appears not to understand.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
212. Doesn't matter regardless if what is said downthread is true.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:48 PM
Sep 2012

It is claimed that the IRS cannot enforce the tax penalty for non-compliance.

You know what that means.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
276. So you're claiming we can't read?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:40 AM
Sep 2012
I said, I don't like the Individual Mandate. That is NOT the entire ACA

The individual mandate is one of the key features of the ACA. To dislike it means you dislike the ACA.

The good part of the ACA says that no pre existing conditions can be denied. Guess what that means? That means people who have no insurance will try to GET insurance for a short while when they get sick. And they will be able to because pre-existing conditions aren't cause for denial.

Why would ANYONE buy insurance without the mandate?

They'd also just wait until they got sick to buy it. Even if they've got Mitt Romney's wealth.
 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
282. "The individual mandate is one of the key features of the ACA." Uh, NO IT IS NOT.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 02:23 AM
Sep 2012

There are many more important and critical parts of the ACA - like the law against discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions. Among many others.

Why would ANYONE buy insurance without the mandate?

Why would they buy it WITH the mandate? Many people - like those earning 20K a year - don't have the money to buy insurance, but they're being told to buy it. What do you expect them to do, bounce checks? Eat cat food?

Nope, they'll do neither. Even with the mandate they won't buy insurance. They won't even pay the tax penalty if the fantasy story posted downthread about the IRS being unable to enforce it ever comes true.

They'd also just wait until they got sick to buy it. Even if they've got Mitt Romney's wealth.

You must not have read the law, did you? The new law allows exactly that. If you don't pay for health insurance you can go buy it after you get sick. Sorry but that is the new law. What's worse? You've got pro-Mandate people downthread saying that you don't even have to pay the tax penalty if you decline to pay for insurance. According to their fantasy world, the IRS can't enforce the penalty.

Sorry to break that to you...

LiberalAndProud

(12,799 posts)
281. Is it necessarily a bad thing to untie health insurance / employment?
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 02:07 AM
Sep 2012

I haven't studied this, but my intuition tells me that breaking that symbiosis is a necessary step in the evolution of our health care policy. Employer-provided healthcare insurance isn't my concept of ideal. Am I wrong?

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
142. Employers started decreasing ins. for empees several years ago. They started charging employees
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:35 PM
Sep 2012

for part of the premium, decreasing the quality of the coverage, or both.

It's because of the increasing costs of providing health care to employees. It's a huge expense. Now, with birth control coverage, the expense will grow (I guesstimated that would cost my former employer's ins. carrier about $12,000 a year in claims...every year...without fail...a guaranteed claim amount, except the amount would cont. to go up). That will add to premiums, of course.

I warned about the birth control thing. It will be a huge cost. It was not part of the ACA.

Mojorabbit

(16,020 posts)
284. A forbes article in may had this to say
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 02:34 AM
Sep 2012

"The Ways and Means report, prepared for chairman Dave Camp (R., Mich.), surveyed companies in the Fortune 100, receiving 71 timely responses. The survey asked Fortune 100 CEOs how many full-time and part-time employees they had, and how much they spend on health insurance for those workers, among other questions. Based on this data, the Ways and Means staff calculated that these 71 companies could save $28.6 billion in 2014, and $422.4 billion between 2014 and 2023, if they paid Obamacare’s fines and dumped all of their workers onto the subsidized exchanges.

In addition, the survey found that 84 percent of respondents believe that “future health costs will increase at rates that are greater than those they’ve experienced over the past five years.” They expect insurance costs to grow at 7.6 percent, on average, over the next five years, compared to 5.9 percent for the previous period."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/05/01/fortune-100-survey-employers-could-save-422-billion-by-dropping-health-coverage/

That being said. Employers have been dumping insurance coverage for workers for years. I saw a chart a while back and it was an alarming decrease.

BenzoDia

(1,010 posts)
4. The ACA originally had provisions to try and pry people away from employer-based health insurance.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:18 PM
Sep 2012

In fact, the idea was that employers just give their end of the premiums to the employee, and the employees go and get their own insurance. If I'm not mistaken, Obama traded that away to Boehner during last year's debt ceiling negotiations.

Anyways, if the employee is having trouble affording their premiums, they'll get subsidies from the government. And ideally, they'll be purchasing insurance from the same insurance pools. This is possible in part due to the individual responsibility clause.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
22. There was talk of ...
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:40 PM
Sep 2012

"employers just giving their end of the premiums to the employee, and the employees go and get their own insurance."

And it probably was traded away by Obama during last year's debt ceiling negotiations.

But that was like trading away "the player to be named later", because there is no mechanism that would allow/require employers give their cost savings of no longer having to pay for healthcare coverage to their employees.

BenzoDia

(1,010 posts)
130. Well, employers who offer insurance want to get a better deal with insurance companies by bringing a
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:20 PM
Sep 2012

a larger pool of people to the negotiation table.

Letting people opt out weakens those employer's hand.

 

HiPointDem

(20,729 posts)
160. no, that part i understand. it's the way you're using "opt out" i don't understand. it's not
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:53 PM
Sep 2012

individuals opting out, it's employers.

BenzoDia

(1,010 posts)
175. Oh, I see what you're asking.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:07 PM
Sep 2012

I don't have time to find more substantial info, but check this link and click on the third bar after 2014:

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

Workers meeting certain requirements who cannot afford the coverage provided by their employer may take whatever funds their employer might have contributed to their insurance and use these resources to help purchase a more affordable plan in the new Affordable Insurance Exchanges. These new competitive marketplaces will allow individuals and small businesses to buy qualified health benefit plans.


This ties back into my original comment that one of the goals of the ACA is to get people away from employer-based coverage.
 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
5. Stop it ...
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:19 PM
Sep 2012

Just stop!

Did you miss (or just ignore) the frequently reported fact that the Deloitte study was produced to support the strategies that it is charging its clients?

Did you miss (or just ignore) the frequently reported fact that the Deloitte study only surveyed its current clients ... and then when called on its sample bias, extended the study to Chamber of Commerce members?

Did you miss (or just ignore) the frequently reported fact that the Deloitte study was a marketing piece/strategy that was conducted much like "push polling"? ... And when called on that, Deloitte admitted it?

So please post this B.S. elsewhere ... might I suggest freerepublic, the blaze or the fox network?

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
7. I'll stop when you can show how people earning just $20k a year won't get socked with an extra
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:26 PM
Sep 2012

$80 or more per month in MANDATORY expenses to pay for health insurance.

No, I will never stop. Not until I am DEAD.

Deloitte is irrelevant. McDonald's and other companies have been cited by numerous publications as bullying their way into WAIVERS out of the ACA. It is sheer logic to deduce that many companies that DIDN'T get the waivers, just dumped their health care benefits altogether.

Arguing that is like arguing over whether a wolf ponders eating a lamb.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
12. I don't think humanity itself will live to see Single Payer in America.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:31 PM
Sep 2012

The only way that's happening in America is for America itself to collapse and be re-organized... with the Republican-dominated states being part of another country.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
16. Not at all.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:34 PM
Sep 2012

You said: "It's the fastest way to the government taking over health care altogether."

I said, quite plainly and relevantly: "There will be no single payer in America. Period."

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
21. Wait
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:39 PM
Sep 2012
You said: "It's the fastest way to the government taking over health care altogether."

I said, quite plainly and relevantly: "There will be no single payer in America. Period."

...where does it say that government-run is single payer? The exchanges qualify, as does a public option.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
29. Public option will never happen. Not unless we split up the country.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:47 PM
Sep 2012

I'm quite sure the Kaiser Foundation figures count in exchanges.

It may be less if you are in a state that opts to expand Medicaid. Which means it sucks to live in Texas.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
38. "Not unless we split up the country."
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:56 PM
Sep 2012

Since that's fucking unrealistic. What's your point?

Just throwing shit out there?

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
56. What, you couldn't read what was posted?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:10 PM
Sep 2012

What part of "there will never be Medicare for All in America" did you not understand?

You will not live to see it. I will not live to see it. None of our children will live to see it. America will not live to see it.

Have I made my point clear enough? It's not happening. It's not happening. Medicare for All is NEVER happening in THIS United States of America.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
85. Again, you are living in denial. I have a perfect and error-free point, you just have no case here.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:35 PM
Sep 2012
 

RegieRocker

(4,226 posts)
219. First of all you will only live for no more than 110 years
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:55 PM
Sep 2012

many things come and go. You make a statement that is ludicrous. This country was formed and went through many changes before you even existed. It will go through many more after you're gone. So..... Your statement that it will never happen is mental folly.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
233. Keep dreaming. Feel free to serve up crow if it EVER happens.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 12:09 AM
Sep 2012

I'm not saying I won't be pushing for it, but I am realistic: the last time we tried to put up even the pale Public Option, we had hundreds of thousands of men out in a zombie horde ragefest, some packing assault rifles.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
256. There is another option here--single payer state by state
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 12:49 AM
Sep 2012

There is no reason why VT, CA, OR, WA etc should wait for MS and WV to act.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
14. As I said, if you earn only $20K a year you will be ordered to pay over $80 a month for insurance.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:32 PM
Sep 2012

Plug it in right here, the numbers don't lie.

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
23. Yes it does. And since you denied it, I'll end this debate with a screencap.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:41 PM
Sep 2012

[img][/img]

$1,019 divided by 12 months equals ~$84 a month.

So, yes, it does say that.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
34. Where does it say
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:51 PM
Sep 2012

"you will be ordered to pay over $80 a month for insurance"?

You can opt out. Pay the less $95 annual penalty. What does a person earning $20,000 with an employer's plan pay now?

You better believe some can't afford it, and those who choose to are like paying a lot more than $80.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
39. You yourself admit there is a tax penalty for non-compliance.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:57 PM
Sep 2012

A mandate to pay upon pain of a monetary penalty is the definition of compulsion. It may not mean that you'll be killed by a drone strike if you don't pay, but it is still force. And those tax penalties per person are UGLY, especially after 2016. Unlike their wages, those penalties grow with the cost of living, too!

It is still a Mandate that Obama was RAILROADED into. The Mandate is still the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation and originally a law that Mitt Romney passed. It is a Republican idea through and through.

Somehow I suspect you believe criticizing the Mandate is the same as criticizing the entire ACA? It is not.

Response to Zalatix (Reply #70)

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
213. Oh but haven't you heard? The IRS can't enforce that penalty with levies or criminal proceedings.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:50 PM
Sep 2012

I know, it's absurd bordering on silly hour, but someone claims this to be true downthread.

dflprincess

(27,883 posts)
114. It says in 2014 the penalty is $95 per adult or 1% of family income, whichever is greater
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:04 PM
Sep 2012

1% of $20,000 is $200. In 2015 the penalty goes to 2% (or $400 on a $20,000) and 2.5% in 2016 ($500).

The maximum penalty starts at $285 but by 2016 it's $2,085.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
148. It's $95 per adult
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:40 PM
Sep 2012

the 1 percent is for a family income. The individual charge is $95.

A family earning $20,000 would not pay a penalty.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
161. The question is about one who's unemployed and one who's earning $20K
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:53 PM
Sep 2012

My girlfriend (now wife) and I were JUST THAT scenario in the late 1990s before fortune smiled upon us.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
203. Wow, that's some argument.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:37 PM
Sep 2012

I made $20,000 in the 1990s.

That's like seeing Russia from your house.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
215. To call that response 'tangential' is to be charitable.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:51 PM
Sep 2012

What it really is, is something I can't say for fear of a jury action.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
48. "You can also apply for a waiver asking not to pay an assessment if you don't qualify automatically"
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:04 PM
Sep 2012

That's from the statement at at the link provided.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You're taking estimates and calculators that don't factor in variables to make ridiculous statements.

On top of that, you're stuck on a $20,000 and pretending that anyone earning that amount now is able to afford health care.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
53. If you're earning above the poverty level you won't succeed in applying for a waiver. Give it up.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:09 PM
Sep 2012

You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. There'll be NO WAIVERS for anyone earning $20K a year. Period. Will not happen. Mark my words on that. It's a red herring.

And you totally did not read me at all if you think I'm saying people earning that little money are able to afford health care now. They can't. They can't afford the Individual Mandate premium limits, they can't afford health insurance under today's rules, and they can't afford the ER. They can't afford any of those extra expenses.

treestar

(82,366 posts)
26. Well then shouldn't you?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:43 PM
Sep 2012

What if you get sick? And there are subsidies so it's not supposed to work out to more than you can pay.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
28. See the chart above. $20k/month income = you get gouged $84 a month.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:46 PM
Sep 2012

If you don't pay, you get a tax penalty.

If you get sick it doesn't matter either way, a person earning only $20k a month can't afford health care premiums or a medical bill. Neither is affordable. Both will put you under... unless you live in a place with no lights and eating cat food.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
36. Nonsense.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:54 PM
Sep 2012

You're spreading all types of misinformation in the name of single payer, as if anyone with an income wouldn't have to pay for coverage even under single payer. Medicare for all? Do you really think that it's going to be less than subsidized coverage?

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
43. You're making up things I did not say.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:00 PM
Sep 2012

I never said single payer would be totally free.

It would, however, cost FAR LESS than private or even statewide health insurance.

First of all, Single Payer, aka Medicare for All, would be nationwide. That's an insurance pool of roughly 300 million. That means the premium will be smaller because the costs would be smaller. The insurance rule of large numbers applies.

Second of all, Medicare for All runs with lower overhead. Less than 5%, versus 20% for private companies. Fewer CEOs to pay and all that.

Third of all, Medicare for All will never happen. No universal single payer is going to happen unless America is split in two, with the baggers going their separate ways.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
51. Really?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:07 PM
Sep 2012

"It would, however, cost FAR LESS than private or even statewide health insurance."

How much would a person earning $20,000 have to pay?

You have no idea!

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
60. No, first you apologize for falsely accusing me of something I never said.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:15 PM
Sep 2012

Show me where I ever said that "anyone with an income wouldn't have to pay for coverage even under single payer."

Put the quoted text where I said ANYTHING like that right here:


.


Then you said: "Do you really think that it's going to be less than subsidized coverage?"

You did not ask exactly how much a person would pay for Medicare for All. You asked me if I think it's going to be less.

I gave you a solid explanation for why it would be less. You either accept that the insurance law of large numbers is valid or not. You either accept that Medicare has a lower overhead than private insurance or not. But I did in fact give you solid points on why M4A would cost less than what we have now.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
63. Apologize for disagreeing with you?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:18 PM
Sep 2012

For having a discussion with you?

You sound like Mitt.

Your argument is flawed. Face it.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
73. What part of "You accused me of something I did not say" do you NOT understand?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:25 PM
Sep 2012

You want to be brazenly dishonest about what I said then that's on you, but don't go whining about how you're being "Mitt Romney'd".

You lied about me, and I am challenging you on that lie. Persistently, because I do not appreciate someone making up falsehoods about my comments.

Show me where I ever said that "anyone with an income wouldn't have to pay for coverage even under single payer." You cannot, and you know it.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
94. Again: What part of "You accused me of something I did not say" do you NOT understand?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:46 PM
Sep 2012

You want to be brazenly dishonest about what I said then that's on you, but don't go whining about how you're being "Mitt Romney'd".

You lied about me, and I am challenging you on that lie. Persistently, because I do not appreciate someone making up falsehoods about my comments.

Show me where I ever said that "anyone with an income wouldn't have to pay for coverage even under single payer." You cannot, and you know it.

I'm going to keep repeating this no matter how many people dislike me because of it. Because I am right and you are flat out wrong.

My credibility is undamaged.

treestar

(82,366 posts)
131. I've made less than 20K as a self employed person
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:22 PM
Sep 2012

And my insurance is more than that. $400 a quarter. And I pay it now without government subsidy. It has a high deductible and pays for nothing so far, well, thank God I've never been sick enough yet for it to pay, but I have the peace of mine that if something horrid happens, it is there.



eridani

(51,907 posts)
266. With that kind of skimpy coverage, you are guaranteed to go bankrupt if you have seious expenses
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:06 AM
Sep 2012

It is actual sick people in your situation who account for most of the ongoing medical bankruptcies in MA--80% of whom have insurance.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/massachusetts/2012/09/09/medical-debt-massachusetts-persists-despite-health-law/QztpbflGjmUfVcf8J8tjbI/story.html


Architects of the pioneering 2006 Massachusetts health law, which required most residents to have insurance, expected it would reduce families’ medical debt. But the most recent data suggest the scope of medical debt has remained largely unchanged.

Temporary lapses in insurance coverage and increasingly common plans with high deductibles and copayments have contributed to medical debt, leaving some people struggling to pay bills for hospitals, doctors, and ambulance companies. Rising health costs and the recession also probably played a role.

treestar

(82,366 posts)
297. When they had no insurance at all, those bills were much higher
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 08:34 AM
Sep 2012

I'm all for single payer or Medicare for all if we can get it. So far the right wingers have enough power they can stop it.

 

darkangel218

(13,985 posts)
352. I make less than 20k a year, working full time
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 02:37 PM
Sep 2012

And my hmo montly premium is $160!!!! And that's with no pre existing condition. I can only imagine what premiums those who have chronic ailments pay, if they have any coverage at all!

Stop bringing silly arguments against the best thing that ever happpend to our country! It's sickening!

TheKentuckian

(24,076 posts)
355. Afford is subjective. As defined some will be able to afford it and others won't.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:27 PM
Sep 2012

It will vary according to actual individual expenses and cost of living in a given area.

I've made under 20k and could afford it and have made over when it would be tight.

I also wonder why one person making 20k is thought to be able to afford it, while another under the exact same circumstances but who has parents that will carry them cannot. Why would that eligibility not also be income based?

Response to Zalatix (Reply #7)

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
146. The Republican WSJ article is WRONG. Since when do empers "care" about employee health coverage?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:38 PM
Sep 2012

Don't you get it? It's a scare tactic.

Employers have NEVER based business decisions, like the cost of health care, on whether their employees can easily get it elsewhere and be taken care of. Employers don't care about that. It's strictly a MONEY decision.

They've been dropping ins. and changing it for several years now. Has your head been in the sand?

If this comes to pass - and I suspect it will, because it has in the past already - it will have nothing to do with the mandate. That does not affect an employer's decision about health care one bit.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
155. That person can take a penalty, instead. It won't be much. But 'm guessing the person will be GLAD
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:49 PM
Sep 2012

I'm guessing the person earning $20,000 in a medium-COLA area will be happy to be able to have coverage for that amount. It's much better than not having any health care at all, which is currently the case.

How much do you think one hospital stay for a diabetes-related complication will cost him? More than $80, I bet. If he gets an annual exam (those are FREE under the ACA), he will be able to get treatment for his condition and avoid a complication.

This is a very, very good thing.

You wouldn't be so upset if you spent the time to research and learn about this more, and apply it to specific situations, so you can see the good effects. And ask a few people if they want coverage for $80 a month.

They will have several options: they can get a job where an employer provides coverage; they can scrape together the $ to pay the premium of $80/month (they'll get FREE annual exams, free mammagrams, etc.); they can pay the penalty. But as adults, we ALL must pay at least something for our own health care. It's like food, gas for your car, rent.

They are so lucky to have a subsidy to pay part of their health care. Most people won't get that. Like me.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
166. "They can get a job where an employer provides coverage"? and you call the WSJ Republican??
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:59 PM
Sep 2012

I'm not sure if you're up on current events as of late, but a job is rare to begin with. A job where you get benefits? Really? Surely you jest. If you had done even a minute's worth of research on this economy you'd know that.

It doesn't matter if today's health insurance is more expensive than it will be in 2014. It doesn't matter what it costs to go to the hospital for a diabetes-related complication. The working poor are in over their heads with paying for insurance, financially speaking they're dead long before there's a hospital stay involved.

The working poor will have to bounce checks to pay for this.

What will happen is that they'll be unable to pay for insurance and they'll be unable to pay the added tax penalty. And according to some here, the IRS can't even enforce the tax penalty. So guess what? Nothing changes for millions of people. They will still just go to the ER.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
172. Yes, the WSJ is Republican, and you posted the article.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:04 PM
Sep 2012

And yes, Republicans are freaking out over the mandate. In fact, this whole argument reeks of centrist fear mongering, an attempt to claim the ACA is a bad thing that's going to ruin the status quo.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
180. Republicans were the ones who first PUSHED THE MANDATE.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:13 PM
Sep 2012

Learn your history!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/the-individual-mandates-c_b_1386716.html

The Individual Mandate's Conservative Origins

Stuart M. Butler, who at the time was Heritage's Director of Domestic Policy Strategies, wrote the second chapter of a position paper with the title "A National Health System for America." (Heritage has a PDF version of this document you can download from their website.) The document was over 100 pages long, and envisioned a "consumer-oriented, market-based, comprehensive American health system" that would become "the model for the entire industrialized world." It was a strictly conservative plan, as evidenced by the inclusion of the idea of replacing Medicare with a voucher system (the same thing Paul Ryan is now championing, in other words).


Opposition to the mandate was a part of (then) Presidential candidate Obama's campaign!

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/candidate-obama-opposed-health-care-mandate/

Barack Obama strongly opposed the idea of forcing people to buy health insurance (the so-called individual mandate at the center of this week’s Supreme Court case) when it was proposed by Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary.

Oh but I'm sure you're going to deny this and call all these sources Republican, too.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
305. Everyone knows that. Common knowledge. Republicans also started the child credit, even for those
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 09:46 AM
Sep 2012

even for those who don't pay any taxes at all. They get back $ from the IRS, as an entitlement benefit, even though they paid nothing in. Reagan and the Republicans did that.

Look, my sister is on Medicaid in a nursing home, having had a major stroke at a young age, coming on the heels of complications from undiagnosed diabetes, after not having access to health care previously. I was very poor, when I was younger. I get the money thing. But getting SUBSIDIZED HEALTH CARE is a wonderful thing. I'm perplexed why you would want to take that away from people, who right now have NO MEDICAL CARE AT ALL.

I mentioned get another job where the employer provides insurance, because that IS an option. It's not an option many will be able to do, but it is nonetheless an option for some.

But letting these people go without any health care at all because YOU don't like it is not an option.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
310. I think you need learn reality. We don't have single payer. We have an ins. system.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 09:53 AM
Sep 2012

Letting people who have no health care at all right now go without subsidized health care because YOU don't like it, is not an option. We have to deal with reality.

I have people in my family who could've used subsidized health care. There was a time when I would have welcomed it. Thank goodness I was young and was able to go without health care without running into too much trouble. It's too late for me and my relatives, now. But there are millions who will welcome this benefit. It IS a benefit. It's a very good thing.

And there's nothing wrong with having people who can afford it contribute towards their health care. If you earn $20k a year in a medium-COLA area, with no children, it'll be rough, but you can manage $80/month. I know this because I lived it (of course I got paid a lot less than $20k, since it was many years ago). It's a cost of living, like food, car gas, rent. And like food, it is susidized, if you can't afford it.

We need everyone in the medical care wagon. Why? Because they are already in it. EVERYONE is in the medical care wagon, whether they want to be or not. If anyone has ever been to a doctor or will ever go to a doctor or care provider, that person is in the medical care wagon. They need care (or in our system, that means coverage).

Having this coverage will prevent them from losing everything because of one hospital stay or one long illness, which happens.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
17. A little over 30 days to the election, and DUers are posting Wall Street Journal articles
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:34 PM
Sep 2012

slamming Obama's signature achievement?

I'm not alerting, but I'm not sure that this is appropriate at this time.

CitizenPatriot

(3,783 posts)
31. Given that the WJS has Romney strategists
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:49 PM
Sep 2012

undisclosed writing articles for it, I would have to agree that it's not the best source.

I'd also say that 80 dollars a month (re Kaiser) for health insurance is a lot less than what I pay now, via an employee package, and a hell of a lot less than I would pay for one doctor's visit without health insurance.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
35. The ACA isn't the problem, it's the Mandate. That's a Mitt Romney idea, a Heritage Foundation idea.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:52 PM
Sep 2012

I'm not sure how slamming a Heritage Foundation idea is attacking Obama.

Obama was railroaded into the Mandate.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
278. You've yet to explain how it works without a mandate.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:45 AM
Sep 2012

Since the rest of the bill means there's no reason to buy insurance until you are sick.

And, btw, single-payer is also a mandate.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
93. Standard GOP ... WSJ says it ... some Democrate sees it, and dispairs.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:45 PM
Sep 2012

The WSJ goal is to get Dems to stay home.

And some knowingly, or unknowingly, push the WSJ nonsense into the Dem internet sites.

The GOP needs to get their base angry enough to vote, and get our Dem voters discouraged enough to stay home.

Been going on for months now.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
345. Yup, quietly cede the country to the Koches or revolt, which is their plan...
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:11 PM
Sep 2012

All the easier for them to take over faster. The revolution is in process, and belongs to the rich.

Apply liberally where needed:

bhikkhu

(10,694 posts)
18. Using the Oregon Health Plan Exchange calculator -
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:35 PM
Sep 2012

the worst case is for a middle-aged single man living alone, who would be liable for $85 a month. I think if I made $20k a year and lived alone I'd be ok with that. If there are any dependents, the amount drops to zero at that income level.

I checked for my co-workers back when the supreme court first upheld the law, as there was plenty of hoopla. Nobody with dependents actually wound up with a payment, while one person whose family had two incomes - so making $35k combined and no kids at home - wound up with a $200 a month payment. Which also seems reasonable...

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
25. People earning $20k a year can't afford another $84-85 a month expense on their budget
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:43 PM
Sep 2012

What do you think they are, Mitt Romney?

And $200 a month for 35K? That's highway robbery.

I guess you could do that if you lived on CAT FOOD...

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts)
30. Are we assuming a current health expenditure level of $0?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:48 PM
Sep 2012

If all the money is considered to be in addition to current expenditures, does that mean that nobody in that group would be saving any money whatsoever due to being covered?

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
33. Yes. A lot of people spend $0 on health care right now because their budgets are already overburdene
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:51 PM
Sep 2012

Now we're asking them to add $80+ when they already have basic living expenses that they can't pay.

It's going to come as a huge shock to everyone when people simply don't pay and just keep going to the ER.

A huge shock. But I warned you about companies dropping coverage and no one listened... I'm warning about this one, too, and I expect a bunch of naysaying.

Shit just keeps going wrong and either no one believes it will, or they don't care.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
58. More nonsense
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:13 PM
Sep 2012
Yes. A lot of people spend $0 on health care right now because their budgets are already overburdene

Now we're asking them to add $80+ when they already have basic living expenses that they can't pay.

No one is asking anyone to spend anything they don't want to. If they don't have health care now and don't want it in the future, they don't have to take it. They do not have to pay $80 per month.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
66. More denials on your part.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:21 PM
Sep 2012

Yes, the government is telling people to spend money that many do not want to. They will be assessed an increasingly UGLY tax penalty for non-compliance. $695 after 2016, that's pretty nasty to throw at a working poor person.

And that joke about the IRS not enforcing the $695 penalty...? LOL I can see it now... "Dear IRS, my taxes were normally $0 for $20k but you're telling me to pay a $695 penalty... I ain't paying." Yeah, you think that's going to fly???

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
74. You're laughing?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:26 PM
Sep 2012

"Yes, the government is telling people to spend money that many do not want to. They will be assessed an increasingly UGLY tax penalty for non-compliance. $695 after 2016, that's pretty nasty to throw at a working poor person. "

You know that ridiculous claim you made: "you will be ordered to pay over $80 a month for insurance"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1438975

Even after 2016, a person will only be liable for $58 per montn ($695/12). In 2014, it $8 per month. And even then, it's not taken out of their paycheck, but assessed at tax time.

You don't know what you're talking about. So stop laughing and learn something.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
78. You will be ordered to pay over $80 a month. Failure to comply means a monetary PENALTY.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:29 PM
Sep 2012

Zero error. Your argument is downright laughable.

Pay up. $80 a month. Or get slapped with a tax penalty. Period.

It is you who don't know what you're talking about. It is you who are in denial.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
84. "Failure to comply means a monetary PENALTY" of $8/mo assessed at tax time.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:35 PM
Sep 2012

You're out of your league spreading nonsense.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
87. You're out of your league with basic mathematics.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:36 PM
Sep 2012

By 2016 the penalty will rise to $695, which is far above $8 a month. Get a calculator and divide 695 by 12.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
90. Psst:
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:41 PM
Sep 2012

"By 2016 the penalty will rise to $695, which is far above $8 a month. Get a calculator and divide 695 by 12."

Read this again and see what you're missing:

You know that ridiculous claim you made: "you will be ordered to pay over $80 a month for insurance"?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1438975

Even after 2016, a person will only be liable for $58 per montn ($695/12). In 2014, it $8 per month. And even then, it's not taken out of their paycheck, but assessed at tax time.

You don't know what you're talking about. So stop laughing and learn something.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
95. Once again you fail basic mathematics.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:49 PM
Sep 2012

You will in fact be ordered to pay $80 a month or more for insurance.

That is a fact.

If you do not pay, you will be assessed a tax PENALTY of $695 a month as of 2016, for non-compliance.

That is also indisputable.


Your ridiculous denials prove that you clearly do not understand what you read.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
100. What's the
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:56 PM
Sep 2012
You will in fact be ordered to pay $80 a month or more for insurance.

That is a fact.


If you do not pay, you will be assessed a tax PENALTY of $695 a month as of 2016, for non-compliance.

That is also indisputable.


...penalty in 2014?

Do you think these nonsensical definitive statements amounting to obfuscation and a circular argument bolsters your flawed point?

No. They. Don't.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
107. Ah, I see what your problem is.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:59 PM
Sep 2012

You think the world ends in 2014. Which is better than the ones who believe it ends in 2012, of course.

The tax penalty will only be $8 a month in 2014, so you just want to deny that it'll RISE to just under $58 a month or $695 a year in 2016.

You just can't see as far as 2016, can you? 2016 is irrelevant in your world, isn't it?


Of course it is.

Allow me to repeat, since I am absolutely correct in what I say: If you do not pay, you will be assessed a tax PENALTY of $695 a month as of 2016, for non-compliance.

I would cite the passage in the law where it says this but you would just come up with some new type of denial.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
116. "The tax penalty will only be $8 a month in 2014"
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:05 PM
Sep 2012
Ah, I see what your problem is.

You think the world ends in 2014. Which is better than the ones who believe it ends in 2012, of course.

The tax penalty will only be $8 a month in 2014, so you just want to deny that it'll RISE to just under $58 a month or $695 a year in 2016.

Nope, but your argument just fell apart.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
274. Insurance is not care. At that level of payment for useless crap, the money--
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:26 AM
Sep 2012

--they would otherwise use for out of pocket medical expenses is gone.

bhikkhu

(10,694 posts)
71. I raise a family of four on 28k a year
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:23 PM
Sep 2012

not that its all smooth sailing or easy, but its not a big deal where I live, and we don't get food assistance or anything. If I were single, it would be a breeze, and in any case health insurance is well worth it. If you look at it like a tax that allows everyone to have health care, its a huge thing.

I think people get used to spending whatever money they do have. I wouldn't criticize anyone for spending their extra money on cable tv, or car payments, or dining out, or booze or cigarettes or golf or whatever, but I think it would be reasonable to look at whether a person could afford healthcare before those expenses, and go from there.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
75. That is impossible in America. Unless you are homeless.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:27 PM
Sep 2012

You cannot add rent, keeping the lights on, and basic nutrition, and come up with less than 28K.

28K and a family of 4 means no lights on in America.

It's about time we buried that fairy tale.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
79. Callous? You guys are the ones talking about slapping the working poor
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:30 PM
Sep 2012

with BIG additional living expenses, not me.

That word 'callous', it doesn't mean what you think it does.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
97. You still don't grasp reality here.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:51 PM
Sep 2012

Many of the people earning $20k a month now don't have insurance at all. They can't afford it.

They won't be able to afford an EXTRA $80 a month as of 2014. They won't be able to afford a $695 a year tax penalty as of 2016.

Your chart is utterly tangential to that.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
109. They don't have to, and
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:02 PM
Sep 2012

you know it, but to admit it after boxing yourself in, appears not a good thing.

I suspect that's why you've taken to insisting on the $80 in 2014 and the penalty in 2016.

"They won't be able to afford an EXTRA $80 a month as of 2014. They won't be able to afford a $695 a year tax penalty as of 2016. "

Can't admit that the penalty in 2014 is only $8 per month, but assessed as a one-time annual fee at tax time.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
123. You still don't comprehend.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:13 PM
Sep 2012

The Individual Mandate puts $80 a month of expenses on the backs of the working poor in 2014 when the tax penalty for noncompliance is $8 a month.

The Individual Mandate ALSO puts $80 a month of expenses on the backs of the working poor in 2016 when the tax penalty for noncompliance is $58 a month.

Please show where I am wrong.

You cannot.

You fail.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
135. So your argument is that
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:27 PM
Sep 2012

they should continue not having insurance because they can't afford it rather than be given a choice to pay $80 for coverage?

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
139. "Should continue not having insurance"? More like, they have no choice but not to have it.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:33 PM
Sep 2012

unless, of course, they choose to bounce checks to meet their newly-assigned obligations. Or resort to digging in the trash while cutting out their electricity, food budget and of course walking 20 miles to their minimum wage McDonald's job which, at a full time schedule, would put them past the poverty level, and in some places could get them close to 20K a year.

Oh, I'm sorry, you don't like the word obligation. Because on your planet the word "tax penalty for non-compliance" means, well, a ball of cotton candy floating in the sky.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
153. They
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:46 PM
Sep 2012

"More like, they have no choice but not to have it. unless, of course, they choose to bounce checks to meet their newly-assigned obligations. "

...have a choice. They can still remain uninsured, which is what you seem to be advocating: their right to remain uninsured.




 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
156. It's not a choice. It's a mathematical certainty.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:49 PM
Sep 2012

Pigs cannot fly, and the working poor cannot afford these new obligations.

BTW upthread, you accused me of saying that single payer would be totally free.

I am still demanding you show where I said that.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
167. Would it
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:00 PM
Sep 2012

"BTW upthread, you accused me of saying that single payer would be totally free."

be more than $80 a month?

BTW, here's what I said:

You're spreading all types of misinformation in the name of single payer, as if anyone with an income wouldn't have to pay for coverage even under single payer. Medicare for all? Do you really think that it's going to be less than subsidized coverage?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1439070


You can stop pretending that you were wronged.

And purchasing health care is a choice, now and when ACA is implemented. Your self-righteous denials don't change that.



 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
176. You can now admit that you twisted what I said.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:10 PM
Sep 2012
as if anyone with an income wouldn't have to pay for coverage even under single payer.

I never, ever said that. And my argument was not in favor of single payer, because single payer would never happen.

You will not ever show where I said that.

You made up lies about what I said.

Purchasing health care is not a choice when all you can do is bounce checks to pay for it. Your Right Wing "make the poor pay!" arguments don't change that.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
179. Comprehension: "As if" doesn't mean you said it.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:13 PM
Sep 2012

"I never, ever said that. And my argument was not in favor of single payer, because single payer would never happen. "

Right, you have no point.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
181. Backpedaling: "Uh, I didn't mean it that way"
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:15 PM
Sep 2012

I have a point - the problem is you don't understand what you're reading.

You still think 2016 will never come.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
190. A LOT less than it costs now.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:23 PM
Sep 2012

But I've already explained to you why. Look up the insurance law of large numbers, and then get back to me.

Also look up Medicare overhead versus private insurance overhead.

The clues are out there... and I've even given them to you!

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
198. Medicare is minimum $99 per month.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:32 PM
Sep 2012

That's more than $80.

"The clues are out there..."

You haven't found them.



freshwest

(53,661 posts)
271. What am I missing here, ProSense? I wish I only had to pay $80/month.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:18 AM
Sep 2012

Last edited Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Out of an income less than $20K/year. Am I missing something? Is it time to panic or not?

Isn't a single payer program literally an individual mandate? If everyone is paying, singly, paying, isn't that a mandate on individuals?

I would like to see a program such as Europe has, where it seems to be 'free' to go to the doctor. But it isn't free. They pay income taxes and they don't scream for blood to water the tree of liberty because of it. They accept it as part of the social contract.

Some pay a lot, others don't, but they pay taxes, and the government finances healthcare from income taxes, not premiums. But there is no free healthcare. Insurance is not healthcare. it's a way of financing it, which Europe does with income taxes.

Are those complaining about the price of premiums for insurance ready to pay higher taxes? Our for-profit system sucks, and always has.

Conyers introduced HR 676, which is 'Medicare for all,' and he even terms it as 'single payer.'

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021439126#post5

We don't have enough Democratic power to get it done right now, but might if we don't give in to the Randians and let them make everyone go after each other. But nothing's free. Never.


ProSense

(116,464 posts)
275. Good post. Thanks.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:34 AM
Sep 2012

You're right. People forget that no one cares if single payer cost a little more out of pocket, it's the accessibility, efficiency, portability and quality of the care that's important.

bhikkhu

(10,694 posts)
320. And what if an employer had to pay only $80 a month
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 10:18 AM
Sep 2012

and could get a tax credit for most of that?

I know my employer would sign up and get us all health insurance in a second; one of his worries is the same as mine - if one of us gets injured, we're both screwed without insurance.

Currently, the cost for a single individual to get employee-provided insurance where we live is about $300 a month, which neither employer nor employee is able to afford.

freshwest

(53,661 posts)
344. I wonder if this is the same $80 figure that this OP is about? I don't understand what is happening.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 12:55 PM
Sep 2012

But your scenario may be the reason why in my blue state, employers wanted the ACA enforced here, to save them money. It would be wonderful to have the insurance most employees have for $80 a month.

But single payer from income taxes paid as a nation, is why it is said many start-up companies like to locate in Europe. That, and their income tax-funded educational system where anyone who can make the grade can go to college, get ahead and eventually pay more taxes. Also their highly unionized work force makes for productivity and loyalty to their jobs, in theory. We used to be that way here. The USA seems to be operated now on the use 'em and lose 'em theory.

I know of employers like yours, who do want to keep their people able to work and even have wellness programs. The OP seems to be about people at McDonald's, who must be offering some perks to work there, or they wouldn't keep their work force for long. On my occasional forays through the Golden Arches for coffee, the same faces seem to be there year in and year out. But we also have a minimum wage of $9+ an hour.

I don't think I can adequately answer your query, but I think ProSense can. Did you see her chart in this thread? There are older threads by the OP writer about this subject that have a lot of rebuttals and charts. There are so many variables in these insurance plans and the way that people's lives are constructed, I can't begin to give the best answers on this. There is a website that may help:

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html

Good luck to everyone on this.

bhikkhu

(10,694 posts)
81. I'm sure it varies depending on where you live, but it is very possible where I live
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:31 PM
Sep 2012

we do pretty well so far, and it has been easier the past couple of years than 2008/09.

On edit - a rough monthly budget is: 1300 for mortgage and debt service, 600 for food, 200 for power, gas, water and garbage, 60 for cellphones and internet.

We're in the process of getting the whole debt redone under a new loan which will make things easier, but so far so good. There's very little room for extras, but we've been pretty good about finding things 2nd hand, and I can fix just about anything myself. One trick to living within your means is to really not want things very much. The kids have more trouble with that than me, but we do pretty well.

The one big thing is health insurance, which we don't have. Any bad luck on that front and we'd be pretty thoroughly screwed in a hurry, so I'm looking forward to finally getting health insurance as a "waiting to exhale" type of relief. We'll finally be secure in our home, and know that some little health problem won't cost us everything.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
149. Wait a second.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:42 PM
Sep 2012

$1300 for a mortgage is $15600 a year.
$600 for food is $7200 a year... that's a grand total of over $20K right there.
$200 for utilities is 2400 a year.

If you're making $20K a year and you've got 1 other person in the house you can cut the food budget down to $300 a month, so that's $3600 a year. That's $19,200 a year.

2 people still means $80 per month. PER ADULT. Oh, snap.

Like I said, the lights gotta go off.

bhikkhu

(10,694 posts)
163. My income of $28k supports 4, the other example is for a single adult living alone
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:55 PM
Sep 2012

The "worst case scenario" for a person earning 20K a year is $85 per year, according to my state's estimates (here again: http://www.orhix.org/calculator/index.php ).

By the same calculator, a person making $20k who supports a household of 2 pays nothing for health insurance. Two people doesn't mean $80 per month, two people means fully subsidized at that income level.

TreasonousBastard

(43,023 posts)
32. You're not getting Medicare for all, so just stop harping on that...
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:50 PM
Sep 2012

at a time when the Republican plan is to eliminate it entirely.

We barely got Obamacare and just one vote on the Supreme Court kept it as law of the land, and to be trashing it at this point in the election cycle is something only Republicans or morons would do.

 

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)
37. Prior to ACA, your 20k a year worker would have been on the hook for $3400.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:55 PM
Sep 2012

With ACA, he or she gets a 70% discount.
Further, if he or she *does* get sick, they get the opportunity to buy coverage at that time, without risk of being rejected for having a prexisting condition.
FURTHER, the "mandate" isn't. If you don't get coverage, and don't pay the penalty... nothing happens.

This hyperventilation is foolish.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
47. Not true. And who are you fooling with the "don't pay the penalty... nothing happens"? LOL!!!
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:03 PM
Sep 2012

Some workers would just not pay for insurance, because whether they're paying $3,400 a year or $1,000 a year, they just can't afford it regardless. Unless they plan on bouncing checks.

And... "don't pay the penalty... nothing happens"? Really? Do you know what you actually implied when you wrote this? You're implying that people could get away with saying "I'm paying my taxes but NOT this tax penalty." That's just... hilariously wrong.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
62. What the hell are you talking about?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:16 PM
Sep 2012

The poster was absolutely correct.

Some workers would just not pay for insurance, because whether they're paying $3,400 a year or $1,000 a year, they just can't afford it regardless. Unless they plan on bouncing checks.

And... "don't pay the penalty... nothing happens"? Really? Do you know what you actually implied when you wrote this? You're implying that people could get away with saying "I'm paying my taxes but NOT this tax penalty." That's just... hilariously wrong.

And they can still do that. If the $95 a year is too much, nothing happens. The penalty is assessed at tax time, and most low-income Americans get exemptions.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
83. Wow, you didn't even read over what you posted.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:34 PM
Sep 2012

"don't pay the penalty... nothing happens" is total nonsense. If you don't pay the tax penalty you will eventually get a visit from the IRS. You yourself admit, the penalty is assessed at tax time. You admit there is a penalty! Do you not even read what you write???

And you're not getting exemptions from the Mandate at $20k a year.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
136. And if your fantasyland rebuttal has any basis in reality, the consequences will be DIRE.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:29 PM
Sep 2012

The working poor will avoid paying the tax penalty AND avoid paying for insurance, and AFTER they get sick IF they decide to buy insurance, they'll do it for a few months just to get coverage to get to the hospital.

That will be utterly disastrous.

It will be even worse than what I outlined in my OP.

But in all likelihood you're flat out wrong.

BenzoDia

(1,010 posts)
140. Nothing "fantasyland" about it. It's right there in the law and the Supreme Court ruling.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:33 PM
Sep 2012

The US isn't unique in having an individual mandate. Other countries have it as well. A few people game the system, but most will not.

And you saying "in all likelihood" means you don't actually know. Therefore, you were unaware of this aspect of the law before you began your fear mongering here.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
144. Fantasyland or Dystopia, pick it. You're either wrong, or you'll wish you were.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:37 PM
Sep 2012

Other countries are not America. The system, as YOU describe it, will get gamed in America, to highly disastrous outcomes.

Remember I warned you.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
86. How do they get a 70% discount if they still can't afford the $80 a month?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:36 PM
Sep 2012

If they can't afford that, they then have to pay the tax for not having insurance, and then pay if something happens as well.

NashvilleLefty

(811 posts)
40. Companies were ALREADY planning on dropping employee plans.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:59 PM
Sep 2012

The costs were getting out of control. They were looking at cutting plans long before the ACA. Blaming it on the ACA is something the RW likes to do, and is totally disingenuous.

As far as the mandate is concerned, there is no way the ACA would ever work unless everyone is in, one way or the other.

I want single-payer, but our country simply won't go for it under present conditions. However, people are slowing waking up to the idea. After the ACA is fully implemented, it will be a major step towards single-payer, and people will warm to the idea even more.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
49. You will see Medicare for All here in America when America is dead and gone.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:05 PM
Sep 2012

As in, split in half. Permanently.

NashvilleLefty

(811 posts)
162. I disagree. But in the meantime we have the ACA.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:55 PM
Sep 2012

I'm upset we couldn't even get Public Option, but it's definitely better than it was.

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
41. Since most working families ...
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 08:59 PM
Sep 2012

earning under $20,000 don't pay/receive most if not all of any federal income tax back as a refund ... I wonder how the tax-penalty would figure in?

 

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)
44. Please provide one single piece of legislation that has been enacted ...
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:02 PM
Sep 2012

in the past 100 years that does not have "losers."

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
50. It's a mixed bag...Many of us will have to suffer while others will see a relief...
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:06 PM
Sep 2012

but it will be hell for those of us wanting to have access to the the health care we used to have and expected until it al sorts out.

It's going to cause misery and pain for some...while some will see it as a good thing.

Sad thing is that they designed this with compromises that would cause "pain" as an unintended consequence...and that so many will suffer in the transition...maybe die, or be caused stress that causes illness because of the way this is set up to transition.

Many of us will be the Collateral Damage for the good of the system in place that won't be known until many years down the road when the effects and unintended consequences show up in studies.

Whatever....it's supposed to be a GOOD THING...as long as you aren't caught up in the MIDDLE TRANSITION..though.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
54. "it will be hell for those of us wanting to have access to the the health care we used to have"
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:10 PM
Sep 2012

You "used to have" something good that ACA destroyed?

Really?

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
356. The Change Over from the Status Quo through 2014 when the rest kicks in
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 05:46 PM
Sep 2012

will be hard on a group of Americans being thrown off their "Employee based Health Insurance" where they are now forced to choose a plan. It requires some thought and not all will be able to deal with this huge change as well as one might be able to expect.

There are already problems with the Generic Drug Makers shifting programs and ability for "average Americans" to be able to comply with the new changes and the "generics" aren't giving the same satisfactions for delivery of standard prescribed drugs ...because everything is to save money...and the patient is caught in a catch all and older American's will have trouble dealing with it all.

That's just a taste of what "Radical Change" does. It helps some or many...but harms, hurts others caught in the transition.

But, given that we are a Nation that believes that Collateral Damage of any of our policies is just the "Price of Change" that will help the Majority (Voters) going forward... this is not unexpected.

I don't know how old you are...but, sometimes it seems you really don't have experience with "Life Changes" and how hard this is on a populace and what the ramifications can be.

Just saying....

BenzoDia

(1,010 posts)
65. Hey everyone, OP is just fear whipping. In the Supreme Court's ruling...
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:20 PM
Sep 2012
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/2012/11-393c3a2.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

"The Act provides that the penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner" as tax penalties, such as the penalty for claiming too large an income tax refund. The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies."

No one is being forced to buy anything.

derby378

(30,252 posts)
72. All it takes is a stroke of a pen...
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:24 PM
Sep 2012

...and the prohibition on those enforcement tools goes bye-bye.

BenzoDia

(1,010 posts)
76. All it takes is a stroke of a pen to change any law in effect.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:28 PM
Sep 2012

Not really a good argument if I'm understanding you correctly.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
92. Hey everyone, BenzoDia just explained how ludicrous the Individual Mandate is!
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:44 PM
Sep 2012

Let's assume we're really living in the dream world you just described. Here is what happens as a result:

People who are uninsured now won't pay for insurance in 2014, and if the IRS won't inflict levies or criminal action then they also won't pay the tax penalty, and when they get sick, they'll get insurance for a while since they can't be denied for a pre-existing condition, and they'll go to the hospital.

Millions of people will do exactly this. They will crush the system.

BenzoDia

(1,010 posts)
102. Very few people gamed the Massachusett's, The Netherlands' or Switzerland's mandate
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:56 PM
Sep 2012

Most people want insurance of some kind and most people will follow the rules.

eridani

(51,907 posts)
277. Low income people in MA go bankrupt or die
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:41 AM
Sep 2012
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/massachusetts/2012/09/09/medical-debt-massachusetts-persists-despite-health-law/QztpbflGjmUfVcf8J8tjbI/story.html

Architects of the pioneering 2006 Massachusetts health law, which required most residents to have insurance, expected it would reduce families’ medical debt. But the most recent data suggest the scope of medical debt has remained largely unchanged.

Temporary lapses in insurance coverage and increasingly common plans with high deductibles and copayments have contributed to medical debt, leaving some people struggling to pay bills for hospitals, doctors, and ambulance companies. Rising health costs and the recession also probably played a role
.

In the Netherlands, the government dictates health care prices, which is why my husband got a root canal there for $25 American in 1996.
 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
108. You think a lot of things, all of which have been wrong today.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:02 PM
Sep 2012

If the law says the IRS can't enforce the tax penalty, people will wait until they get sick to get insurance to go to the hospital.

You have no counter argument to that. That is reality here on Earth. It's going to happen, if BenzoDia is at all correct.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
120. The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:10 PM
Sep 2012

The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies."

Doesn't say anything about not assessing the fee. There will be people who opt out and pay the penalty.

Reading comprehension is good.



 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
127. And as I said, if that fantasyland assessment is true, these consequences are unavoidable.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:20 PM
Sep 2012

Millions of people who are uninsured now won't pay for insurance in 2014. This is basic human nature.

And if the IRS won't inflict levies or criminal action then they also won't pay the tax penalty. Again, basic human nature. The poor won't pay more than they're obliged to. They simply cannot, except by bouncing checks.

And when they get sick, IF they get insurance at all, they will get insurance for a while since they can't be denied for a pre-existing condition, and they'll go to the hospital.

Reading comprehension is indeed good, but you have not mastered it.

BTW you accused me of implying that Single Payer would be totally free. You dodged me when I asked you to show where I said that. Have you found where I said that yet? Do expect me to keep bringing up this question, since you did falsely accuse me.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
164. "Millions of people who are uninsured now won't pay for insurance in 2014."
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:55 PM
Sep 2012

That's just absurd. Millions of people will qualify for Medicaid, 16 million more people to be exact.

You're making a flawed argument nitpicking over a mandate that will amount to $8 for an individual or about $22 for a family, assessed as a one-time fee at tax time.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
174. Why do you keep arguing that the penalty won't go up to $695 in 2016?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:06 PM
Sep 2012

A single person doing 20K a year won't qualify for Medicaid. There's millions of them, too. You are still not able to process that basic fact.

And the penalty will skyrocket to $58 per person in 2016... unless you are arguing that 2016 will never come.

BTW upthread, you accused me of saying that single payer would be totally free.

I am still demanding you show where I said that.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
178. 16 million more will qualify for Medicaid
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:11 PM
Sep 2012

That's a fact.

The ACA is the best thing to happen to low income Americans in this country since Medicaid was enacted.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
186. Why don't you believe that the tax penalty will go up to $695 in 2016?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:20 PM
Sep 2012

And what does "16 million more will qualify for Medicaid" mean to those working poor who won't quality for Medicaid?

If you're a single person doing a measley 20K a year you don't get Medicaid under normal circumstances. Your argument lacks relevance.

ProSense

(116,464 posts)
191. What does it
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:24 PM
Sep 2012
And what does "16 million more will qualify for Medicaid" mean to those working poor who won't quality for Medicaid?

...mean to you? You apparently picked a group and decided to be its spokesperson, even deciding whether or not they will choose to pay $80 for coverage instead of remaining uninsured.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
293. There will be those who cheat society, but I think most of us will contribute to a fair system.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 06:32 AM
Sep 2012

Hope you will too.

 

Swede Atlanta

(3,596 posts)
67. Of course any move toward a public health insurance program will lead to.....
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:21 PM
Sep 2012

some employers reducing or eliminating their programs. Some employers will keep them over time but likely only for executives.

But that has two effects.....

(1) Employers will lose the tax deduction for these programs
(2) Employers will be under pressure to pay out at least some of those savings in the form of wages

Personally I am not opposed to the elimination of employer-provided health insurance provided insurance can be purchased by all at an affordable rate and employers don't just pocket the entire savings from the elimination of these programs.

It must be noted that U.S. employers are at a competitive disadvantage to other companies because of the burden they carry for health insurance. That is one reason, according to several studies, vacation time is so limited in this country. It must be noted, however, that employers in other countries do pay higher taxes per employee that help offset the cost of national insurance programs.

Don't get me wrong......I see significant issues on the horizon as many companies just screw their employees. Once "no insurance" is the norm then there is no competitive disadvantage for employees with gutting or eliminating these programs. And of course executives will always get their proverbial balls licked at everyone else's expense.

But at some point we have to eliminate the notion that your health insurance is tied to your job. It is what keeps many people in jobs they don't like or people working beyond when they would like to retire (such as my sister) because of health insurance.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
96. Individual states can get waivers and do their own thing, like Single Payer, as Vermont is doing. nt
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:49 PM
Sep 2012

bhikkhu

(10,694 posts)
204. Oregon's nice, and has its own very good ACA-compliant system in the works
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:37 PM
Sep 2012

Plus its a beautiful place to live, with an excellent state government!

patrice

(47,992 posts)
113. No, quit your bitching and take some responsibility for what happens in your state. Even a moderate
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:04 PM
Sep 2012

amount of effort can be something to build on and, then, at least instead of waiting for the best plan for you to spring fully clothed from the forehead of Zeus, you'll have earned the right to raise some authentic hell.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
117. Quit your bitching at me! Unless you think I can INDOCTRINATE the whole state by myself.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:06 PM
Sep 2012

And I live in California, which will be nicer to the working poor than, say, Texas.

Excuse me for worrying about those who live outside of comfy California.

And if building upon efforts actually worked, I'd have fixed things by now.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
121. Yep. Don't bother. Whatever you do is nothing anyway. There is no effect that you can have that is
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:11 PM
Sep 2012

worth any effort you put into it.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
124. Contrary to popular belief, one person cannot change the world. It takes the help of millions.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:15 PM
Sep 2012

I
cannot
build
that
ALONE.

President Obama couldn't even do it and he PUSHED for the Public Option!

I ain't President Obama.

Edited to add: not that I'll get a response, but what have you achieved?

patrice

(47,992 posts)
129. And you have no clue about how you might become more than one? No wonder you are
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:20 PM
Sep 2012

waiting for the old authoritarian power structure to deliver what you desire and bitching about it when it can't or gets it wrong.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
134. Okay so what have you done to change the world, and how successful have you been?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:27 PM
Sep 2012

You're sitting here bitching at me to do all the work to save the world, what have YOU done?

I've protested in the face of potentially getting my ass kicked and arrested in Oakland and other California locations, I've gotten out the voter registrations in both Obama campaigns, I've been donating like CRAZY...

What the hell do you want me to do? My magic wand is broken. How's yours doing?

patrice

(47,992 posts)
158. I have done more than I can tell, some small things, some not so small things, ever since
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:51 PM
Sep 2012

the early '70s, though I was aware before that as it happened that the National Forensic League topic for the first year that I debated in high school was about controlling the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

I don't feel like going into all of it, but it ranges from tracking the White Train from weapons plants near Amarillo, to organizing a parade, with Plowshares, down Kansas Avenue in Topeka, Ks., chartering and filling multiple busses to D.C., going to Iowa for Howard Dean, grassroots environmental publishing and activism in and around Tulsa, Ok., Social Justice Chair in a couple of parishes when I still used to go to church, actively with and working for our local Occupy . . . are a few of the things that I've done.

I let loose of the idea of success a long time ago. You do your best, WITH OTHERS because it's NOT just about you, to figure out the best stuff to do and you all do that stuff as well as you can do it, always looking for somekind of concrete effect, but, though we all want success, you learn not to want it too much, because you can get discouraged at not seeing it and, thus, miss the very worthy, and perhaps even MORE worthy, things that you are pushing forward. So most of the people I know who do this kind of stuff steer toward large goals, but FOCUS on shorter range concrete results and do the work for the love of doing it with others who love it too.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
183. And with all that effort, have you been able to get Medicare for All passed?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:18 PM
Sep 2012

If not, why are you putting all the burden of making it pass, on my shoulders?

BTW did Howard Dean win?

I've been working a lot over the years to make change happen. It hasn't always worked. Why? Because other people have free will and I can beat some of the walls of ignorance out there, but I can't beat them all. Apparently neither can you.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
196. Nevermind. You are either too ignorant or too incapable of understanding. Carry on with your whine.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:30 PM
Sep 2012

Bitch about how daddy hasn't delivered your pony and see how successful you get.

end of "conversation".

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
220. You're just too confused and irrational to do anything but bitch aimlessly at me.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:57 PM
Sep 2012

And I do mean AIMLESSLY.

Go find someone else to lecture.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
169. If you think it's only about success as you define it, you are an authoritarian, apparently without
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:00 PM
Sep 2012

power, so no wonder you're frustrated. You need authentic revolution, which is more about yourself than it is about others.

I think just about everything that is wrong right now can in one way or another be ascribed to authoritarian, top down, learned helplessness. Small things are not assumed to be valuable, so no one does them and great deficits of personal responsibility accrue until something really big breaks. And since it's something big, everyone looks once more to authority/daddy to fix it and kicks and screams when s/he doesn't get it what they think of as "right".

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
193. You throw around some big words without knowing their meaning.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:27 PM
Sep 2012

I define success as changing the status quo, particularly from a profits-over-people system to a people-over-profits system. If that's authoritarian in your confused universe then I've got no interest in trying to convince you otherwise.

You've achieved precious little, certainly not any more than me, so you're not one to lecture me on getting out and doing anything.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
209. That's the problem with ideologically driven results
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:44 PM
Sep 2012
I define success as changing the status quo, particularly from a profits-over-people system to a people-over-profits system.


In the context of defining "success" of a national healthcare or health insurance system, there is only one rational way to define success - does the system provide coverage to people who didn't or couldn't obtain it previously, and at lower net cost?

Any move in the right direction in that parameter space is a positive step, which the ACA is.
 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
216. And for those who choose not to pay for insurance or pay the tax penalty, there is no step forward.
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:52 PM
Sep 2012
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
210. Clinton had a good line on Jon Stewart's program
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 11:45 PM
Sep 2012

Paraphrasing from memory... "The problem with ideologically driven solutions is that you already know the solution, and you go forth in search of facts to support it; instead of looking at the facts and finding the solution from there."

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
279. Yes.
Sun Sep 30, 2012, 01:50 AM
Sep 2012

The crappy insurance provides a disincentive for living there. Whether that's important enough to you is up to you to decide.

patrice

(47,992 posts)
106. You way over estimate your own perspicacity not only in thinking no one else expected that effect
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 09:59 PM
Sep 2012

of the ACA & that includes amongst its engineers and proponents, but also in your predictions about what can happen in the next decade.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
111. Wow. I said "I and others". How did that come out to me thinking no one else saw this?
Sat Sep 29, 2012, 10:03 PM
Sep 2012