Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-28-2012, 01:59 PM
 
Location: Imaginary Figment
11,449 posts, read 14,435,702 times
Reputation: 4777

Advertisements

It's all very simple you see. According to the GOP zealots here most people make bad choices and are inherently lazy (except for them of course), in particular the unemployed or uninsured. They purchase flat screen TVs, cell phones, Ipods etc when they could be making responsible decisions with their money instead. Now that we have a mandate in place to hold these lazy do nothings accountable for their frivolous ways, the GOP have risen up to protect the downtrodden segment of America.

Go figure...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2012, 02:48 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,878,348 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
Maybe I don't know every loophole for providing insurance, but are you saying that pre-Obamacare, companies that were providing insurance when there was no penalty, are going to stop providing healthcare b/c there is a penalty?
That may or may not happen depending on how much their rates increase, many are already dropping coverage because of costs and they will opt to just pay the fine if they get out of control.

One of the the bigger issues is stifling business's that are not providing coverage, no point hiring a few new workers if it's going to trigger you having to pay health insurance. Business's approaching that threashold will have to make a choice of either not expanding, providing health care or pay the fine.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 02:55 PM
 
4,255 posts, read 3,471,843 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by Little-Acorn View Post
When your neighbor is struggling with the family budget, trying to figure out how much of what kind of foods to cut to pay for Billy's tuition next year or Sally's dress and shoes, it's now clear what she must do if she wants to minimize expenditures in other areas.

The penalty (sorry, it is now a "tax") for not signing up for Obamacare will be much lower than the premiums she'll have to pay if she does sign up. And Obamacare requires that, if she waits until someone is actually sick or injured before signing up, the insurance company must take the sick person despite what is now a "pre-existing condition".

So, what the struggling housewife should do, is clear: She should drop all health insurance. And simply pay the lower amount, the "tax" for not signing up.

Then, if and when somebody in her household gets sick, she should sign up then. The insurance company must take her and pay for the treatments for the sickness. She will pay their (higher) premiums until the sick person is cured. And then she can drop the insurance coverage, and go back to paying the "lower) "tax" instead.

Repeat as necessary.

Anybody see any holes in this idea? She can definitely feed her family better this way, than by remaining permanently signed up for insurance.

Why do any of us need to be signed up for insurance any more, before we actually need medical treatment?

Comment?

Great plan after 2014 , when the pre existing conditions kicks in for adults.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 02:56 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,582 posts, read 9,757,569 times
Reputation: 4172
Quote:
Originally Posted by geeoro View Post
Absolute Rubbish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If this so called struggling housewife is earning good money, has a partner, husband etc bringing in money and is doing ok then she\he will pay a tax IF she does NOT get one of the many new health care plans that will be available..... IF she deecides her chidrens heath isn't important or IF she wants everyone else to pay for her ER visits. IF the struggling husewife is earning a low salary and CANNOT afford health care.... the Govt will help her pay for heath care or not make her pay a tax if she really is in hardship. These stupid comments as on here about this law and how it works are just that STUPID.....
In other words, my comments on people dropping health insurance and only signing up when someone actually gets sick, are EVEN MORE APPLICABLE to the low-income person you described here.

Since the mandate's penalty only applied to people who have high enough incomes to pay Federal Income Tax, this low-income person you've described, will save even more money by not signing up until someone gets sick! Because she pays ZERO money, until she actually signs up!

Thanks for agreeing with me so wholeheartedly!

Quote:
In fact, President Obama said in his speech today he does NOT want people signing up for health care just before they get sick or are sick!
Oh, President Obama said he "does not want people" to do that?

Tell me, how will that stop them from doing it?

Screeching leftist fanatics such as yourself never WANT people to do things like I described. And then they go ahead and pass laws (as Obama has done here) making it the best thing for them to do, anyway.

FAIL
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 03:01 PM
 
10,092 posts, read 8,183,417 times
Reputation: 3411
If you can afford to buy insurance and you choose not to, you are a DEADBEAT, and you tick me off because you're the reason my premium prices are going up--unless you're independently wealthy, I'm the one who winds up paying for your care if you're in an accident or have a major illness. If you can't afford to buy insurance, you'll be able to get into one of the state pools for more affordable care.

This has to be one of the most all time dumb threads I've seen in a while. What responsible person wouldn't buy insurance if they had an affordable option? There's nothing conservative about making STUPID, IRRESPONSIBLE choices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 03:01 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10,582 posts, read 9,757,569 times
Reputation: 4172
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
Actually since the penalties will be taken from your tax refund just adjust your withholding so there is nothing to take. No refund, no money to collect for the fine.

There is no teeth to this law.
Until about next week, when the liberal fanatics amend it to put in new collection mechanisms, enforcement procedures, etc.

As Nancy Pelosi said, "We had to pass the bill to find out what was in it." That's because there were a lot of things not in it... YET.

Liberal fanatics always pass only a part of what they want at first. Then they start putting more and more into it, later.

Remember?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 03:07 PM
 
10,092 posts, read 8,183,417 times
Reputation: 3411
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good View Post
Maybe I don't know every loophole for providing insurance, but are you saying that pre-Obamacare, companies that were providing insurance when there was no penalty, are going to stop providing healthcare b/c there is a penalty?
That's just it, and you're exactly right. Most employers offer insurance now because they can attract better quality employees with it. There's no mandate for them to offer insurance now--why would they drop it just because they could pay a penalty cheaper than the cost of the premium? It doesn't even make sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 03:10 PM
 
4,255 posts, read 3,471,843 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1547 View Post
If you can afford to buy insurance and you choose not to, you are a DEADBEAT, and you tick me off because you're the reason my premium prices are going up--unless you're independently wealthy, I'm the one who winds up paying for your care if you're in an accident or have a major illness. If you can't afford to buy insurance, you'll be able to get into one of the state pools for more affordable care.

This has to be one of the most all time dumb threads I've seen in a while. What responsible person wouldn't buy insurance if they had an affordable option? There's nothing conservative about making STUPID, IRRESPONSIBLE choices.

Why should I have to buy ins if I dont want to ? You may insist you are paying for me but in reality over the last 30 yrs MY HC costs were less then what you probably pay for ins in 3 yrs. And yes I did pay all the bills.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
9,701 posts, read 5,091,426 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
That may or may not happen depending on how much their rates increase, many are already dropping coverage because of costs and they will opt to just pay the fine if they get out of control.

One of the the bigger issues is stifling business's that are not providing coverage, no point hiring a few new workers if it's going to trigger you having to pay health insurance. Business's approaching that threashold will have to make a choice of either not expanding, providing health care or pay the fine.
The employer w/ 49 employees who wasn't offering insurance is in a tough spot if they have room to grow, but there are always costs to doing business. Just b/c something cuts into a company's profits isn't enough reason for me to be against it. Mandating equal pay cost companies money too. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2012, 03:15 PM
 
10,092 posts, read 8,183,417 times
Reputation: 3411
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterboy7375 View Post
Why should I have to buy ins if I dont want to ? You may insist you are paying for me but in reality over the last 30 yrs MY HC costs were less then what you probably pay for ins in 3 yrs. And yes I did pay all the bills.
If you want to take risks that don't impact other people go for it, but that's not the case here. People like me are impacted by your poor choices, because if you're in a major accident, or if you get cancer, I'm going to be the one picking up your tab, unless you're able to swing hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars in care out of your personal investments. I'm sick of paying more for my insurance because of irresponsible people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top