Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another scare tactic knowing full well the people are too stupid to investigate for themselves. It's only a penalty if you do NOT have insurance either through employer, private or the feds. If you have insurance, you have no penalty. For the people who choose to forego obtaining some type of insurance, there is a penalty and rightfully so. Seeing as how ER's can't turn you away legally, if you forego insurance that means the taxpayers and those of us who have insurance are footing the bill from a personal choice. Honestly, that penalty isn't high enough! Either make it higher or deny emergency services for those choosing the not obtain it, esp. those with the means to do so.
It's not a penalty...it's a TAX. Did you miss the memo?
By the way...did you know that Michelle Obama sat on the board of a Chicago hospital at the same time they were turning away people without insurance and passing them off to other hospitals?
You said you didn't want to subsidize people's irresponsible behavior.
Now that Obama has gutted the welfare work requirement, the number of welfare recipients have DOUBLED.
Now people can get welfare and count reading a book as "work".
Seems a bit irresponsible to me!
Oh, please. Obama hasn't gutted the welfare work requirement.
States have asked for waivers in order to explore other ways to get people on welfare back to work. The number of welfare recipients have increased because the economy crashed and has been slow to recover.
And the mandate to purchase insurance was a REPUBLICAN idea. Their health reform proposals were the first ones to propose the mandate. Evidently because they thought having insurance was RESPONSIBLE behavior.
It's not a penalty...it's a TAX. Did you miss the memo?
By the way...did you know that Michelle Obama sat on the board of a Chicago hospital at the same time they were turning away people without insurance and passing them off to other hospitals?
Fine if it's a tax it's a tax but it's an AVOIDABLE tax if you just do what the f$$@ your're supposed to do. In that instance it's more of a self-imposed tax than mandatory. Seeing as I won't be taxed on it but then again, I'll have insurance. If you opt to not get insurance then you should be taxed and taxed heavily since anything that happens to you falls on the backs of the taxpayers.
ER's if you knew anything about how they operate is once a person enters, if their treatment is deemed non-life threatening, they can pass them along to other hospitals (usually tax payer county/city hospitals). It's always been like that.
Oh, please. Obama hasn't gutted the welfare work requirement.
Actually he DID. And the PROOF is that the number has DOUBLED since he did that.
Quote:
States have asked for waivers in order to explore other ways to get people on welfare back to work.
There was NEVER a waiver needed to go ABOVE the minimum requirements. Any State that wanted to could have accomplished that without a waiver. The waiver made it possible to DECREASE the requirement.
Quote:
The number of welfare recipients have increased because the economy crashed and has been slow to recover.
Again...the economy has sucked since 2008.....why did the number of recipients DOUBLE since the welfare work requirement was scrapped by Obama?
Quote:
And the mandate to purchase insurance was a REPUBLICAN idea. Their health reform proposals were the first ones to propose the mandate. Evidently because they thought having insurance was RESPONSIBLE behavior.
Ummmmmm....did they ever decide to move ahead with that?
No? I wonder why? Probably because they figured out that the idea sucked.
I really don't understand why Romney's campaign engages on this issue.
The uncomfortable fact is that the mandate was a part of Republican healthcare reform plans in the 1990's, and that when Romney served as Governor of Massachusetts, that imposing a healthcare insurance mandate on the people of Massachusetts was one of his primary achievements.
Ok, so you understand. The mandate introduced in the 90's was a counter to HillaryCare and nobody expected it to pass, as it didn't. What Mitt did in MA. is at the, wait for it, wait for it, THE STATE LEVEL. This has been said many, many, many times and you people ignore it. He is against it on a national level, you know why? Let me clue you in again on something you should already know. At the STATE LEVEL you can get away from it by moving if you choose to. You CAN NOT get away from it on a national level. That's what state's rights are all about. About giving the citizens a CHOICE! You like choice right?
So it seems to me that nobody will be "forced" to buy insurance. In fact - as the article states - many will just opt to pay the penalty instead as it will be cheaper than taking out an insurance policy. Precisely why the insurance industry is complaining that the penalty is too low. Of course they think that - they would probably want the penalty to be $10,000.
If someone CAN afford to insure themselves but won't, then the Government would at least be getting $1,200 toward the cost of paying for Medicare for those people.
Well if a business opts to pay the penalty instead thats $2k (I think) then the person who loses insurance doesn't insure themselves they $1200 total to government coffers, $3200. Government does well. Do I have this right?
WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.
The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.
The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010, shortly after the law passed. The earlier estimate found 4 million people would be affected in 2016, when the penalty is fully in effectThe Associated Press: Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people
No surprise here kimosabe, the middle class Always gets the royal shaft.
Well if a business opts to pay the penalty instead thats $2k (I think) then the person who loses insurance doesn't insure themselves they $1200 total to government coffers, $3200. Government does well. Do I have this right?
You're right, businesses should be fined a lot more than that for not supplying health insurance, you can thank the Republicans for pushing for lower fines to business.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
