Post Punk Kitchen Forum

Im joining this Death Panel

So apparently, unlike regular income tax, if you don't pay this penalty, the IRS doesn't have many tools to enforce payment. They can't jail you, put a lein on you, or garnish your wages like they can for tax evasion. If you overpay taxes in the future, they can hold back the penalty money from your refund and charge interest. It makes me wonder if we'll see lots of people who are unhappy with the mandate refusing to pay the penalty.

I believe Oregon had decided they would uphold it whether the supreme court did or not, since they'd already put a bunch of work into the required infrastructure. Of course now I can't find the article where I read that...

NPR reported that in MA there were few people who refused to get health insurance.

I read somewhere that if you choose not to have insurance, the fine is either $95 dollars a year, or 1% of your income.

The minimum fine per year keeps showing up as a different number in different places though.
http://www.newser.com/story/148924/here ... eform.html
This story says 1% or $285 per family.

The article you linked to says $95.00 individually, $285 per family...

Well, you have to submit proof of insurance every year when you file your state taxes, and if you didn't have it for more than three consecutive months, they charge you a certain amount for each month, and that total is due with your tax payment (when I owed it was about $80 per month, I think). So if you refuse to get insurance, you're going to owe a lot in taxes. I don't know how that differs from Obamacare, but it's hard to refuse it when you know you'll be paying for it anyway.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

Not that Obamacare fixes healthcare in this country, but I think our education system needs to be the new priority.

Let them go! They'll just be disappointed when they get there!


I think we need to get some of the opposition to talk to people from other countries, where so much of this stuff that we're fighting for is the norm in other places. It's refreshing to hear a varied perspective.

I for one am happy because I'm 24 and I get coverage under my parent's plan for two more years, in which time I'll hopefully be on my own feet.

All I know is that NJ has guaranteed issuance insurance and it costs an arm and a leg (as I posted upthread). If they make ordinary families pay $1,500/month for a family of 3 and penalize them $95 dollars a year for not buying it, the ACA will have very little impact.

The cost of insurance just has to come down.

Yes. I get insurance through my employer, but I pay $400 a month for it (50% of the cost). I don't make very much, so that's tough. Well, it's tough for me, but near impossible for some here who make even less than me and are trying to insure themselves and a spouse or children.

That's the individual penalty. For a family of three, the penalty would be the greater of $237.50 or 1% of income for 2014 only. In 2015 it goes up to $912.50 or 2%, and in 2016 it will be $1,7370.50 or 2.5%. Meanwhile, for a family of four making $50,000/year, the cap is 6.77%, meaning they would pay no more than $3,385/year.

Michelle Bachmann has been complaining about "activist judges", which is hilarious on several levels.

Bobby Jindal is saying that Louisiana won't establish an exchange. I guess they're too socialisty for him, what with the market competition and all.

I remember when Obamacare used to be called Romneycare!

Yes, Gov Christie has said that he intends to opt NJ out and not enact the exchanges either. It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out. And how it affects the election.

And in case you haven't heard, Gov. Scott (aka Skeletor, "he who must not be named", or Voldemort; depending on your current favorite nickname for him); has also said he will not implent either the Medicare expansion or exchanges in Florida. He actually said on national television that the Medicare expansion wouldn't help poor Floridians any way, so why do it. From the comments I have been reading up at the Tampa Bay Times, the people do not agree. If our state legislature goes Democrat, he might just get impeached. One can hope at least. It is, unfortunately, the only way to get him out of office before his term is up.

And in case you haven't heard, Gov. Scott (aka Skeletor, "he who must not be named", or Voldemort; depending on your current favorite nickname for him); has also said he will not implent either the Medicare expansion or exchanges in Florida. He actually said on national television that the Medicare expansion wouldn't help poor Floridians any way, so why do it. From the comments I have been reading up at the Tampa Bay Times, the people do not agree. If our state legislature goes Democrat, he might just get impeached. One can hope at least. It is, unfortunately, the only way to get him out of office before his term is up.

At least your mom thinks he does stuff...My father just likes to say that he hasn't done anything for the whole time he's been in office. He didn't sign that equal pay act. He didn't make the decision to go into Pakistan for bin Laden. He didn't even make the State of the Union Address or shuffle some papers around. He's done nothing. At. All. (My father is very poorly informed and really only watches the news for weather reports.)

So, yeah, I'm in the same boat, where my relatives are people who just have a knee-jerk reaction of hatred for everything he (supposedly) does and blaming him for things that aren't even in the purview of the President's powers. And, no, there aren't many snippy comebacks to that kind of mentality.

Yes. I am happy about the "on your parents' insurance until age 26" bit as well.

Apparently Maryland has a state insurance plan or multiple plans actually. They have subsidized and unsubsidized. For the subsidized, you have to basically be considered impoverished and it is still a few hundred dollars per month.

The costs also varied depending if you had health insurance recently or not, it was much cheaper if you were going from having health insurance to the state plan. For a couple (no kids), the cost starts at $900/month if you were previously insured. $1500/month if not. With that plan, you have a pretty high deductible where you'd have to pay $1000 out of your own pocket prior to the insurance kicking in.

For the more comprehensive insurance plans, you could pay $2400 month.

And again, those are the costs without kids and they go up as you get older or if you have kids.

Did you just hear that loud sound? (It was my jaw dropping and hitting the floor, and then a bunch of swearing because of it.) I seriously, seriously don't understand how people think that's a "solution" that "makes sense".



(To read the image: orange = universal healthcare, yellow = "on the way" to universal health care, olive (2 countries) = US-funded health care; grey = neither. You can thank google+ for the image, which originally came from a Wiki article on Universal Health care.)

The CEO of Papa John's Pizza announced that the company will probably have to raise prices and lay off employees, unless the healthcare reform act is repealed. I don't know what he is hoping to get out of this. If the company starts charging more to consumers, this could backfire and they will end up losing business. I get that companies might have to pay more for health insurance, but this doesn't seem like a smart move.

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012 ... 31331.html

"Our best estimate is that the Obamacare will cost 11 to 14 cents per pizza, or 15 to 20 cents per order from a corporate basis," Schnatter said.

So... Charge 20 cents more? Even 50 cents more. I think that sounds like a non-issue.

Why are the comment debates always "This is going to cost us more as consumers, so we shouldn't support Obamacare" and never "Maybe shareholders should make a little less, because this is important"? Why is everyone always so willing to accept that corporations will pass the cost onto consumers? (I mean yes, I would gladly pay an extra 20 cents for a pizza, likely without even noticing it, I'm just talking about the people who are all mad because allegedly every single thing we buy will be more expensive and it will add up).

It just seems like the anger is always misplaced.

It's pretty unlikely that corporations will just pass the costs onto consumers. If they could get away with charging us 20 cents more per pizza, well, they'd already be charging us 20 cents more per pizza. That's not to say that the price of pizza won't go up, only that the costs won't have been passed on--it won't be business as usual for these companies if it does.

It is conceivable that some near-or-at-minimum-wage jobs in labor-intensive industries will be lost, but that won't affect every product in the world, as some of the commentariat are suggesting. One person mentioned Budweiser, car and trucks, aiming straight for the heart of the blue collar working stiff. But those jobs are unionized, and they already have health insurance--good health insurance, by national standards, so the costs of the ACA are negligible. But yeah, there might be some shitty fast food jobs lost. Oh well. I guess that's why all these bullshitters were in favor of a single-payer system, instead of the Republican healthcare plan, right?