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 02-18-2017, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,033 posts, read 26,001,767 times
Reputation: 15514

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WannaliveinGreenville View Post
ACA: It stunk. Bottom Line. Revamp it. Obliterate it and start over. There has to be a way without making people who can't afford it, in the first place, to be penalized almost $700 a person in the family.
I understand that there are people that might not be able to afford health care, but I don't have sympathy for people that ignored health care their entire lives and expect taxpayer to bail them out when they are sick. I don't see any way around the requirement to have everyone pay into the system, not just the elderly.


I don't see how they will address this issue for the 20M people already on the ACA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-18-2017, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Houston
5,993 posts, read 3,721,155 times
Reputation: 4160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
I understand that there are people that might not be able to afford health care, but I don't have sympathy for people that ignored health care their entire lives and expect taxpayer to bail them out when they are sick. I don't see any way around the requirement to have everyone pay into the system, not just the elderly.


I don't see how they will address this issue for the 20M people already on the ACA.
Oh they'll address it. It's going to be wonderful and the government is going to pay for it. You'll see. It's just right around the corner.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2017, 10:27 PM
 
Location: Free From The Oppressive State
30,207 posts, read 23,629,906 times
Reputation: 38558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Yes, congratulations, you are free to mooch your healthcare off the backs of other people again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Yes, they just walk into ER and have others pick up the bill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dothetwist View Post
Moochers.
You all don't give a whit when illegal aliens do it. You all want illegal aliens to stay, and more to come. Smells like hypocrisy up in here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2017, 05:22 AM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,268 posts, read 18,877,954 times
Reputation: 7982
Quote:
Originally Posted by WannaliveinGreenville View Post
One of the BEST things you have done Mr. President!


IRS no longer enforcing Obamacare Individual Mandate.


The Internal Revenue Service will no longer require tax filers to indicate whether they had health coverage or pay a penalty set under Obamacare.


IRS, citing Trump’s executive order, said it would no longer require taxpayers to declare their coverage status on their tax forms


[url=http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/irs-no-longer-enforcing-obamacare-individual-mandate-report-says]IRS no longer enforcing Obamacare individual mandate, report says | Las Vegas Review-Journal[/url]

FAKE THREAD TITLE


You wrote "No more IRS Penalty." False

Nothing has really changed. The IRS has never rejected returns that didn't have the health care info in the past as this story indicated although they were planning to, but taxpayers are still required to pay the mandate, if applicable. If you don't believe me, call the IRS.

Statement from the IRS:

[url]https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/individuals-and-families/individual-shared-responsibility-provision[/url]

"However, legislative provisions of the ACA law are still in force until changed by the Congress, and taxpayers remain required to follow the law and pay what they may owe‎. "
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2017, 05:35 AM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,268 posts, read 18,877,954 times
Reputation: 7982
Although I posted a statement from the IRS, which should be good enough, this article from Forbes explains that the EO cannot change the mandate without approval from Congress. All it does it cause confusion. Of course, I wouldn't expect a man who doesn't pay taxes to understand this.

"To be clear, the President's recent executive order didn't obliterate ACA: only Congress can make that change. When and how they are going to do that - and what it means for taxpayers - is currently up for debate. Until then, federal agencies like IRS are using discretion to determine how to roll out the provisions in the order so be prepared for some confusion and inconsistency."

[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2017/02/16/irs-softens-on-obamacare-reporting-requirements-after-trump-executive-order/#45ac2704533b[/url]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2017, 07:16 AM
 
Location: United States
12,390 posts, read 7,070,395 times
Reputation: 6134
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
Although I posted a statement from the IRS, which should be good enough, this article from Forbes explains that the EO cannot change the mandate without approval from Congress. All it does it cause confusion. Of course, I wouldn't expect a man who doesn't pay taxes to understand this.

"To be clear, the President's recent executive order didn't obliterate ACA: only Congress can make that change. When and how they are going to do that - and what it means for taxpayers - is currently up for debate. Until then, federal agencies like IRS are using discretion to determine how to roll out the provisions in the order so be prepared for some confusion and inconsistency."

Forbes Welcome
No, the EO does not change the law, but it prevents it from being enforced.

As I've said in another thread, this means that insurance companies can now start to offer policies that do not comply with the ACA, giving customers more options, and better rates. This will effectively kill off Obamacare.

This will force congress's hand, they will have to deal with this, Obamacare will implode.

All we need is a Republican in congress to introduce a bill that will give subsidies to non ACA policies, and the democrats will be in a no win situation. They either refuse to back the bill, and have to tell the voters they want them to lose their subsidies, or they back Trumpcare.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2017, 07:39 AM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,268 posts, read 18,877,954 times
Reputation: 7982
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
No, the EO does not change the law, but it prevents it from being enforced.
Not totally true. I won't argue with you, however. Only Congress can pass a law regarding the mandate.

How many links, including one from the IRS do I need to post? In any case, the thread subject said "No More Tax Penalty" which is false. That's why I posted links to the IRS. Maybe they're now putting out fake news?

[URL="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/319672-irs-takes-step-against-obamacare-mandate"]Here's[/URL] another article.

"It is unclear how much of an effect the decision will have. The mandate remains the law, and people are still supposed to pay a penalty for lacking coverage."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2017, 09:54 AM
 
79,908 posts, read 44,040,844 times
Reputation: 17199
Quote:
Originally Posted by stburr91 View Post
No, the EO does not change the law, but it prevents it from being enforced.
No it doesn't. Agencies generally grant a presidents wish but if they want to pursue this they most certainly can. EO's are lazy.

I condemned Obama's EO's many times. I was told that Trump had the energy to be president unlike Obama. Where is this energy to do things right?

Quote:
As I've said in another thread, this means that insurance companies can now start to offer policies that do not comply with the ACA, giving customers more options, and better rates. This will effectively kill off Obamacare.
No it does not mean that. Insurance companies must still follow the law. Obamacare is still the law.

Quote:
This will force congress's hand, they will have to deal with this, Obamacare will implode.
I've not seen them wanting to do anything. Trump isn't on Capitol Hill throwing them under the bus for dragging their feet. He's just pulling out his pen. That's not going to work.

Quote:
All we need is a Republican in congress to introduce a bill that will give subsidies to non ACA policies, and the democrats will be in a no win situation. They either refuse to back the bill, and have to tell the voters they want them to lose their subsidies, or they back Trumpcare.
You are now cheering on subsidies for the health insurance industry? Isn't that what Obama was condemned over?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2017, 02:20 PM
 
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,268 posts, read 18,877,954 times
Reputation: 7982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
I understand that there are people that might not be able to afford health care, but I don't have sympathy for people that ignored health care their entire lives and expect taxpayer to bail them out when they are sick. I don't see any way around the requirement to have everyone pay into the system, not just the elderly

I don't see how they will address this issue for the 20M people already on the ACA.
Believe me, the elderly are still paying for health care. Maybe I misunderstood your comment, but Medicare is more expensive than ever. I need to pay a Part B premium and a Part D premium. In addition, I have a high deductible supplement from a private insurance company. I realize those plans aren't mandatory, but most people pay into them for a similar reason there needs to be an ACA mandate, even though most of us already paid into Medicare for 40 years.

I don't like the ACA as a whole, but I still applaud Obama for pushing it through, because he's the first POTUS who was able to introduce some kind of national health plan. It's the first step to a Public Option or Single Payer program.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-19-2017, 05:12 PM
 
16,956 posts, read 16,708,772 times
Reputation: 10408
Quote:
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post
FAKE THREAD TITLE


You wrote "No more IRS Penalty." False

Nothing has really changed. The IRS has never rejected returns that didn't have the health care info in the past as this story indicated although they were planning to, but taxpayers are still required to pay the mandate, if applicable. If you don't believe me, call the IRS.

Statement from the IRS:

https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-...lity-provision

"However, legislative provisions of the ACA law are still in force until changed by the Congress, and taxpayers remain required to follow the law and pay what they may owe‎. "

Yes, they did: The IRS recently changed it's policy on kicking back "silent tax returns" in which the taxpayer has not indicated whether the people in his or her household have minimal essential health insurance. This year, for the first time, the IRS had planned to send back electronically filed silent returns automatically.




But, pursuant to President Trump's January 20 executive order to lessen the impact of the ACA, the IRS said it would process both electronically filed and paper returns on which the taxpayer failed to provide information about health insurance. The aim of this change, the IRS stated on its website, is to reduce the "potential burden" on taxpayers.


This change returns the process to the one that was used last year. If the taxpayer does not check off a box saying they had full-year coverage in 2016 and provides no further information, they can still get their tax refund if one is coming to them, the IRS said. But the agency noted that under the ACA, taxpayers will later be assessed a penalty if they do not have insurance.


http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/875943
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