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.
Why should they? Why should everyone else be robbed for their convenience?
The ignorance. SMH
The federal government supports the provision of employee health benefits through preferential tax provisions in the Internal Revenue Code. Health benefits are tax-exempt; the value of the benefit is excluded from the determination of the employee's taxable income.[1] The employer's health care contribution is a deductible business cost similar to wages and materials.
The employer health benefit exclusion affects payroll or FICA taxes. The value of the health benefit is excludable from both the employer and employee portions of the payroll tax.
The U.S. Department of Treasury estimates the tax expenditures for the employer health benefit exclusion and other employer-related health benefits to be $132.6 billion in 2006, making the exclusion the single largest tax expenditure in the federal budget.
Health insurance companies would be prohibited from denying coverage because of a pre-existing condition, or from charging higher premiums because of current or past health problems, gender or occupation. The rules also would ensure access to catastrophic coverage plans for young adults and others who could not afford coverage otherwise.
Is this true?
The point is people without insurance, who have not paid into the risk pool, can't be denied coverage. How do insurance companies deal with this?
This began with an opinion that ACA will not deny claims. That's not the same thing as allowing people with preexisting conditions to buy insurance.
People who have been fortunate enough to be employed by employers who provide subsidized group health insurance were generally not denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions. Some states required a waiting time and some not so much.
People with individual policies and serious diagnosis often found themselves, in most states, in a position of being denied the ability to renew their insurance or buy insurance from another carrier. Such people may have been paying premiums for decades and found themselves uninsured once the going got tough.
There is no question that the inclusion of people with pre-existing conditions into new pools is a factor of the cost, no different than it is today for employer sponsored group health insurance or Medicare/Medicaid, for that matter.
Why should they? Why should everyone else be robbed for their convenience?
Because those who get employer provided health insurance are getting the same kind of subsidies are thus using your illogic robbing and stealing from them.
So why shouldn't the uninsured get the same subsidies as those who get insurance through their employers are receiving?
An excellent explanation, but I would point out that private employers who are "dropping" coverage like Walgreens are not doing the same as Congress. Those employers are sending employees to private exchanges and not the public exchanges that open up on Tuesday. They are still providing employee insurance but they are doing it through a non-traditional way by having employees go to a third party broker and pick out the policy they want. The company then pays the fees in accordance with their employment policies and the requirements, if any, of the ACA.
This is true and an excellent add on to this thread.
The point of the ACA was to steal money from those who have it to provide services to those who don't, and for the politicians to claim they're the ones who provided it out of the kindness of their hearts.
Oh, and the other purpose was to give political hands more control over vast flows of money so it can be siphoned off to the political cronies.
NO OTHER PURPOSE FOR IT EXISTS. Especially NOT your nonsense above.
The point of the ACA was to steal money from those who have it to provide services to those who don't, and for the politicians to claim they're the ones who provided it out of the kindness of their hearts.
Oh, and the other purpose was to give political hands more control over vast flows of money so it can be siphoned off to the political cronies.
NO OTHER PURPOSE FOR IT EXISTS. Especially NOT your nonsense above.
Bingo.
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.
