Author Topic: How to avoid paying the Obamacare penalty for not having health insurance  (Read 25036 times)

Jesus Christ

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 44
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Wilmington, NC
Update: I applied to the "Health Insurance Marketplace" with my shut off notice from the electrical company. (I paid off the outstanding balance before they could really shut off the power)

It took about 2 weeks and they mailed me the results saying I qualified for the hardship exemption. They gave me a exemption certificate number (ECN) to use when I prepare my taxes.

Exciting for not having to pay the penalty. I only went to the dermatologist once which cost me $120 cash. So I made out.

Lance Burkhart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 120
That is interesting.

A buddy at work got laid off and brought back as a contractor so he pays for his own insurance (family of 7).  He's over 50 and out $1500 a month with a $10k deductible.  Personally, I don't see how that's worth it.  I talked to a medical billing advocate who said he can negotiate really expensive bills like heart attacks from $60-70k down to $30k, so foregoing insurance would pay for itself in 1.5 years if it could be negotiated.  Which is a big 'IF.'  Hospitals know who to stick with big bills (the uninsured with assets).  I'd have a lot of sleepless nights waiting for the outcome of bill negotiations. 


Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
If you don't have insurance, but get treated anyway at a cost of say, $60,000, of which you pay $10,000, and then go bankrupt, how is that different for society than if you paid $10K in premiums and the insurance company paid the rest? In both cases a third party eats the loss, either the insurance company or the hospital. Both entities have procedures in place to handle the risk.
So, my question to those above who argued that it is unjust (I paraphrase) to go without insurance and then load the cost onto someone else, please explain the difference to us as a whole?
Personally, I think insurance has been a huge distraction, a wartime measure adopted by companies that had no other legal option to raise salaries. Prior to WWII medical insurance was a tiny market compared to later. Then the US Gov got involved and started giving tax breaks for having it. What a huge waste, inserting an expensive middleman between the sick person and his doctor. (I work for a medical insurance company, and consider my salary a net loss to society. I am leaving to become a nurse later this month.)

index

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
The OP is an example of what is wrong with the aca. Penalties should be the cost of an unsubsidized bronze plan and the IRS should be able to garnish your wages.

The OP seems to be taking a big gamble for something that reduces his net income by 1800 to 2000 a year. It makes me sick someone who makes 60k voluntarily withholds paying for utilities to get out of paying anything for insurance. You are 33 years old.

Grow up.

Pylortes

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 177
Mr. Christ this seems at best a questionable strategy, and at worst fraud and/or perjury that could subject you to a criminal prosecution, and a much bigger fine than the original ACA tax.  I would strongly recommend you reconsider whether this is worth it.  In a quick glance at the healthcare.gov website I saw the following:

"If one of your utilities was shut off, you qualify for a health coverage exemption.

This means you donít have to pay the fee for the months you were affected by the utility shut-off."

That sure seems to imply that the exemption for a utility shut-off is temporary and not something you can pull off for the entire year, which if you think about the rationale for this hardship makes sense- the hardship is there for folks who lost electricity temporarily and were not able to get online before the deadline to sign up.

In addition, your hardship application is presented under penalty of perjury.  I have not seen what you wrote on your application but if you stretched the truth in any way your application could put you at risk of criminal prosecution.

I have admittedly not done extensive research on the statute and any administrative regulations put out by CMS, but my suspicion is that you are at risk for much bigger penalties than the ACA tax.  I think it would be smart of you to reconsider your plan here.

Rocket

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 99
  • Location: Los Angeles
Jesus wants his login name back.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
The OP is an example of what is wrong with the aca. Penalties should be the cost of an unsubsidized bronze plan and the IRS should be able to garnish your wages.

The OP seems to be taking a big gamble for something that reduces his net income by 1800 to 2000 a year. It makes me sick someone who makes 60k voluntarily withholds paying for utilities to get out of paying anything for insurance. You are 33 years old.

Grow up.

Telling the poor who can't afford it versus telling someone who can afford it but chooses not to (in order to mooch) is different.

How is this mooching? At no point does the op say anything about not paying his medical bills? He doesn't want to be forced to pay for insurance; he is in no way passing the costs off to anyone else.

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1841
The OP is an example of what is wrong with the aca. Penalties should be the cost of an unsubsidized bronze plan and the IRS should be able to garnish your wages.

The OP seems to be taking a big gamble for something that reduces his net income by 1800 to 2000 a year. It makes me sick someone who makes 60k voluntarily withholds paying for utilities to get out of paying anything for insurance. You are 33 years old.

Grow up.

Telling the poor who can't afford it versus telling someone who can afford it but chooses not to (in order to mooch) is different.

How is this mooching? At no point does the op say anything about not paying his medical bills? He doesn't want to be forced to pay for insurance; he is in no way passing the costs off to anyone else.

Because he is not paying the ACA penalty for not having insurance, which is income the public otherwise relies on to pay for governmental programs.  If he's not paying his share of that, the government has to get those dollars from other people somehow or else provide lesser services.  And then, as someone else pointed out, if, god forbid, something terrible were to happen to him this year necessitating huge medical costs that he could not or would not pay, then that means the service providers bear the burden and perhaps may lead to bankruptcy, which would burden all of his creditors.

Lance Burkhart

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 120
The government wrote gave us the ACA as a law then decided it was a tax, ie, you have to participate unless you qualify for an exemption.  He followed the law to apply for an exemption and was granted one by the government.  You people still aren't happy.  The duration of the exemption is between him and the IRS, not him and you.   

I went to healthcare.gov and looked through all the exemptions.  One of them is "in the country illegally."  The people illegally in the country are showing up to the ER and receiving tons of expensive care at the cost of a minimal deposit they pay when they are admitted.  Or they qualify for a government program.  They're not forced to buy insurance.  The costs are either passed onto you and me in the form of higher prices or written off as losses.  I hear no calls for them to be sent home or at least kicked out of the ER around here.  Similarly, there are those who are covered under Medicare.  The providers are minimally-reimbursed at cost according to zip code.  Any costs providers cannot recover from Medicare patients is shifted off onto those who have private insurance or the uninsured with money. 

You shouldn't be surprised that massive cost-shifting in healthcare is causing people to try to circumvent or game the system.  Screaming for more laws and government coercion is just going to cause more people to try to circumvent the system.

You have no evidence that the guy in the OP is going to refuse to pay some big bill or try to evade it.  You are ass-uming it. 





Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5299
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
The OP is an example of what is wrong with the aca. Penalties should be the cost of an unsubsidized bronze plan and the IRS should be able to garnish your wages.

The OP seems to be taking a big gamble for something that reduces his net income by 1800 to 2000 a year. It makes me sick someone who makes 60k voluntarily withholds paying for utilities to get out of paying anything for insurance. You are 33 years old.

Grow up.

Telling the poor who can't afford it versus telling someone who can afford it but chooses not to (in order to mooch) is different.

How is this mooching? At no point does the op say anything about not paying his medical bills? He doesn't want to be forced to pay for insurance; he is in no way passing the costs off to anyone else.

Because he is not paying the ACA penalty for not having insurance, which is income the public otherwise relies on to pay for governmental programs.  If he's not paying his share of that, the government has to get those dollars from other people somehow or else provide lesser services.  And then, as someone else pointed out, if, god forbid, something terrible were to happen to him this year necessitating huge medical costs that he could not or would not pay, then that means the service providers bear the burden and perhaps may lead to bankruptcy, which would burden all of his creditors.

Statistically speaking, the op's income bracket means that he is less likely to need expensive emergent care, less likely to be ill overall and MORE likely to be able to afford his medical bills.  He's paying, in full, for every service he receives - there is no passing the buck or mooching if he doesn't need the insurance. If that were the case, anyone who had an exemption would be mooching. Health INSURANCE is different from Health CARE. He's reducing his costs, saving money and paying all of his medical bills - if only the ACA could have done that.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2016, 05:22:22 PM by Metric Mouse »

tobitonic

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
If you don't have insurance, but get treated anyway at a cost of say, $60,000, of which you pay $10,000, and then go bankrupt, how is that different for society than if you paid $10K in premiums and the insurance company paid the rest? In both cases a third party eats the loss, either the insurance company or the hospital. Both entities have procedures in place to handle the risk.
So, my question to those above who argued that it is unjust (I paraphrase) to go without insurance and then load the cost onto someone else, please explain the difference to us as a whole?

Ignoring the rather significant fact that he may be denied treatment long before he has the chance to go bankrupt, leading to an early, untimely, and unnecessary death, selfish and high-risk behaviors like these contribute to further individualist thinking in society, when what we really need is more interdependence. If we'd like nicer things for everyone (e.g., universal health care), we need to think beyond our individual desires to minimize our taxes and act in ways that increase societal trust and cohesion, not reduce them.

tobitonic

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
I went to healthcare.gov and looked through all the exemptions.  One of them is "in the country illegally."  The people illegally in the country are showing up to the ER and receiving tons of expensive care at the cost of a minimal deposit they pay when they are admitted.  Or they qualify for a government program.  They're not forced to buy insurance.  The costs are either passed onto you and me in the form of higher prices or written off as losses.  I hear no calls for them to be sent home or at least kicked out of the ER around here. 

I've yet to meet a person who believes they'd have a better life as an undocumented immigrant than as a natural born citizen.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
If you don't have insurance, but get treated anyway at a cost of say, $60,000, of which you pay $10,000, and then go bankrupt, how is that different for society than if you paid $10K in premiums and the insurance company paid the rest? In both cases a third party eats the loss, either the insurance company or the hospital. Both entities have procedures in place to handle the risk.
So, my question to those above who argued that it is unjust (I paraphrase) to go without insurance and then load the cost onto someone else, please explain the difference to us as a whole?

Ignoring the rather significant fact that he may be denied treatment long before he has the chance to go bankrupt, leading to an early, untimely, and unnecessary death, selfish and high-risk behaviors like these contribute to further individualist thinking in society, when what we really need is more interdependence. If we'd like nicer things for everyone (e.g., universal health care), we need to think beyond our individual desires to minimize our taxes and act in ways that increase societal trust and cohesion, not reduce them.

Which neatly sidesteps my question. Both insurance companies and hospitals have procedures in place to handle losses. How is society affected if one or the other takes the hit? Insurance companies, and the government too, are just expensive middlemen, wasting money that could better be used for other purposes, as, for example, providing medical care. This isn't a question of individualism vs. corporatism.
A side question, do you think that the ACA increases trust and cohesion? Mainly it seems to make people mad. At least, that's what I hear from our clients, people raving about the unjustness of it all. People don't seem to like being bullied around, even if other people think they know better.

Emergo

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 177
My dad is actually in the same position. He has no insurance and he only makes $24000 a year. He missed the deadline. What are his options not to get penalized?

LeRainDrop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1841
My dad is actually in the same position. He has no insurance and he only makes $24000 a year. He missed the deadline. What are his options not to get penalized?

Here is a starting point:  http://obamacarefacts.com/missed-deadline-obamacare/  I hope that helps.

The_path_less_taken

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 654
OP, it was tough reading all the negative crap on this thread. You asked a question. Period.

And for what it's worth, I hope some of you people realize that not everyone believes in the AMA and even wants medical. Except for catastrophic crap. And like I think Bob said: you can negotiate that down when paying cash. Often making it cheaper than paying insurance.

I have GERD to the point where vomit shoots out my nose when I sleep. I wake up choking and have to figure out how to clear the airway while still asleep. Not fun. Ironically after getting an endoscope done, and taking multiple prescriptions, and seeing 3 docs for it: still happening. And I'm out thousands of fucking dollars.

Know what actually works? DGL. Cheap, natural, pleasant. Not one doctor had even mentioned it.

Had a spine fusion years ago. Woulda probably been better off with a good chiropractor, in the long run.

Some people---and I'm one---are disgusted by the "oh, you can't just go to that specialist, you have to wait 5 weeks for an appointment to see your regular doc, pay him, and THEN wait 9 weeks to see a specialist and pay them. And then pay for mega testing to cover their asses for liability reasons: not because you need multiple MRI's or whatever....just so they look good in court if it should ever come to that."

And that's pure bullshit.

Insurance isn't something the government should be ALLOWED to require and certainly not something they should legally be allowed to fine you for not getting. Period.

Yes...SOME uninsured people in the present system, and illegal aliens work the system. But countries like the UK somehow manage to make medical care available without fining people....imagine.

And regardless of your opinion of his actions, being insulting to someone like the OP who chooses a different path is childish and pathetic.

I'm taking a break from this board...some of you people need a LOT more fiber in your diet. AKA as: you are full of shit.


[MOD NOTE:  Let's be courteous to one another, shall we?  Thank you.  It's the first rule around here]
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 08:39:29 PM by FrugalToque »

index

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 298
OP, it was tough reading all the negative crap on this thread. You asked a question. Period.

I was one of the commenters who told him to grow up.

And for what it's worth, I hope some of you people realize that not everyone believes in the AMA and even wants medical. Except for catastrophic crap. And like I think Bob said: you can negotiate that down when paying cash. Often making it cheaper than paying insurance.

The OP was offered a plan to cover catastrophes but 2k a year after tax was too expensive. Good luck negotiating a 40k bill down to less than 2k. Who cares what someone believes in? It's a law. Guess what? You still have to pay to educate children and the military even if you dont "believe" in it.   

I have GERD to the point where vomit shoots out my nose when I sleep. I wake up choking and have to figure out how to clear the airway while still asleep. Not fun. Ironically after getting an endoscope done, and taking multiple prescriptions, and seeing 3 docs for it: still happening. And I'm out thousands of fucking dollars.

Know what actually works? DGL. Cheap, natural, pleasant. Not one doctor had even mentioned it.

Had a spine fusion years ago. Woulda probably been better off with a good chiropractor, in the long run.

I'm sorry to hear that. My best friend fell off his bike in college and had over 110k in medical bills so he could hold a fork again. He was uninsured as this was pre ACA and negotiated the bills down to just under 50k. We all have nice stories. They are all pointless when discussing if insurance is needed or not. The fact is X% of the population will have a 80k+ hospital stay this year. Will it be you? Don't know, but that is what insurance is for.


Some people---and I'm one---are disgusted by the "oh, you can't just go to that specialist, you have to wait 5 weeks for an appointment to see your regular doc, pay him, and THEN wait 9 weeks to see a specialist and pay them. And then pay for mega testing to cover their asses for liability reasons: not because you need multiple MRI's or whatever....just so they look good in court if it should ever come to that."

And that's pure bullshit.

Insurance isn't something the government should be ALLOWED to require and certainly not something they should legally be allowed to fine you for not getting. Period.

Agreed with the specialist requirements some HMO's require. You could switch insurance types/companies though... Sometimes the testing gets excessive. You excessive testing is more in reference to everyone wanting a good answer to their problem but not wanting to pay for a good answer.

My medical care is more expensive because the OP goes to the ER for a broken hip and can't pay 100k out of pocket for surgery. Sure the hospital will give him a bill negotiated down to 60k, but he can't pay that because he can't work for 18 months. He ends up declaring bankruptcy because he owns a house, a car, and most of his investments are in retirement funds that won't be touched in court. He ends up paying 18k of his liquid investments then my medical care costs are increased to recover the hospital's loss.

This is exactly why medical insurance should be required. Why should everyone paying for insurance have to cover someone who wanted to save 2k more?

   
Yes...SOME uninsured people in the present system, and illegal aliens work the system. But countries like the UK somehow manage to make medical care available without fining people....imagine.

The UK provides point of service primary care and is paid for by taxes. In the UK <30k is taxes at 20%; 30k-150k is taxed at 40k; over 150k is taxed at 45%. Their VAT (sales tax) is 20% and their is a 4% stamp tax when buying real estate. Once again, this is an example of wanting something, but not wanting to pay for it.

0
And regardless of your opinion of his actions, being insulting to someone like the OP who chooses a different path is childish and pathetic.

I'm taking a break from this board...some of you people need a LOT more fiber in your diet. AKA as: you are full of shit.

Except for his different path could get him charged with perjury... I think your last line speaks to who is acting childish. 

maco

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422

Geez. I'm no eloquent degree bearing high income earner, and I'm no socialist, but the comments on this subject just boggle my mind. I pay for those who don't foot their bills too and I don't tell them to die.
Fine, I'll be the socialist. OP shouldn't be able to get out of paying for healthcare, because it should be taken out of every paycheck received by every person in the country, as part of income tax.

Pylortes

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 177
I tried not to come off as too judgmental in my post above, but perhaps it reads that way, if so my apologies.  I don't want to get into a pros/cons debating the merits of the law.  At this point it is the law, right or wrong, that we each must buy insurance subject to a few hardship restrictions.  The OP has admittedly created an artificial hardship in order to qualify for an exemption.  But the government requires a statement under oath certifying that a hardship in fact exists in order to qualify.  perhaps there won't be a problem but in my mind just the chance there would be legal ramifications, money and stress involved makes this a risky strategy vs. buying a policy or paying the penalty.  It makes sense to consider the pros and cons of this strategy. OPs strategy would not be anything I would recommend but perhaps the OP has different priorities.

tobitonic

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
If you don't have insurance, but get treated anyway at a cost of say, $60,000, of which you pay $10,000, and then go bankrupt, how is that different for society than if you paid $10K in premiums and the insurance company paid the rest? In both cases a third party eats the loss, either the insurance company or the hospital. Both entities have procedures in place to handle the risk.
So, my question to those above who argued that it is unjust (I paraphrase) to go without insurance and then load the cost onto someone else, please explain the difference to us as a whole?

Ignoring the rather significant fact that he may be denied treatment long before he has the chance to go bankrupt, leading to an early, untimely, and unnecessary death, selfish and high-risk behaviors like these contribute to further individualist thinking in society, when what we really need is more interdependence. If we'd like nicer things for everyone (e.g., universal health care), we need to think beyond our individual desires to minimize our taxes and act in ways that increase societal trust and cohesion, not reduce them.

Which neatly sidesteps my question.

Nope; I answered it. It just wasn't the answer you wanted to hear, since you were looking for a response that had to do with money. As with many things in life, money isn't really the point at all.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
If you don't have insurance, but get treated anyway at a cost of say, $60,000, of which you pay $10,000, and then go bankrupt, how is that different for society than if you paid $10K in premiums and the insurance company paid the rest? In both cases a third party eats the loss, either the insurance company or the hospital. Both entities have procedures in place to handle the risk.
So, my question to those above who argued that it is unjust (I paraphrase) to go without insurance and then load the cost onto someone else, please explain the difference to us as a whole?

Ignoring the rather significant fact that he may be denied treatment long before he has the chance to go bankrupt, leading to an early, untimely, and unnecessary death, selfish and high-risk behaviors like these contribute to further individualist thinking in society, when what we really need is more interdependence. If we'd like nicer things for everyone (e.g., universal health care), we need to think beyond our individual desires to minimize our taxes and act in ways that increase societal trust and cohesion, not reduce them.

Which neatly sidesteps my question.

Nope; I answered it. It just wasn't the answer you wanted to hear, since you were looking for a response that had to do with money. As with many things in life, money isn't really the point at all.

I still think you missed the point of my comment. To ask a question regarding your point, if we'd all like nice things like universal health care, what difference does it make if it is paid for by insurance companies, the government or some other system? These nice things cost resources (usually measured by money); whether we are more or less individualistic doesn't change that.

tobitonic

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
I still think you missed the point of my comment. To ask a question regarding your point, if we'd all like nice things like universal health care, what difference does it make if it is paid for by insurance companies, the government or some other system? These nice things cost resources (usually measured by money); whether we are more or less individualistic doesn't change that.

I hear what you're saying. Off the top of my head, one of the biggest differences is that these nice things cost far fewer resources when we treat them as societal functions rather than as luxuries for people who can afford them. That's why libraries are far more valuable to a society seeking literacy than bookstores, for example. To me, that has everything to do with individualism vs collectivism, as one mindset (individualism) encourages more bookstores (and literacy for those who can afford it), while the other increases literacy for everyone, regardless of income level.

Or to bring it back to UHC, in pretty much every country with it, per capita healthcare costs are far less than they are in the US, and the same basic level of care is available to everyone (kind of like how everyone can check out every book in a library for free). You can buy more care with private insurance, of course (just as you can buy books from a bookstore), but you don't ever face the prospect of choosing between your health and your income, the way you do in a society without a collective safety net.

And of course, what we have right now with semi-universal health insurance is a far cry from a fully functioning UHC or UHI setup, although it's a large step in the right direction (e.g., by the mere fact that pre-existing conditions can't be used to deny health care or the fact that lifetime coverage limits are also disallowed) from a past healthcare culture that was nothing short of barbaric.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2016, 07:57:05 PM by tobitonic »

purplish

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 140

I went to healthcare.gov and looked through all the exemptions.  One of them is "in the country illegally."
Source please?  Because I literally just looked at the list of exemptions and there is nothing saying people here "illegally" have an exemption.



 The_path_less_taken- Right, but you also need to take in consideration why they do endoscopies.  They are searching for things like Barrets esophagus, cancer, hiatal hernias, motility disorders, and ulcers.  Most of these conditions require further treatment.  Yes, you were lucky that you "only" have GERD.  It's very black and white thinking however to think "I only have GERD therefore medical treatment is dumb!".  That's great you don't have esophageal cancer, but what if you did?  What about the people who do?  What happens?  I say this as someone who was feeling very sick, and ended up finding I have GERD, a hiatal hernia, gastritis, and IBS.  Damn right I felt sick.  What if one of those things happened to be cancer instead?  The bills would be astronomical.

Tom Bri

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 640
  • Location: Small Town, Flyover Country
  • More just cheap, than Mustachian
I still think you missed the point of my comment. To ask a question regarding your point, if we'd all like nice things like universal health care, what difference does it make if it is paid for by insurance companies, the government or some other system? These nice things cost resources (usually measured by money); whether we are more or less individualistic doesn't change that.

I hear what you're saying. Off the top of my head, one of the biggest differences is that these nice things cost far fewer resources when we treat them as societal functions rather than as luxuries for people who can afford them. That's why libraries are far more valuable to a society seeking literacy than bookstores, for example. To me, that has everything to do with individualism vs collectivism, as one mindset (individualism) encourages more bookstores (and literacy for those who can afford it), while the other increases literacy for everyone, regardless of income level.

Or to bring it back to UHC, in pretty much every country with it, per capita healthcare costs are far less than they are in the US, and the same basic level of care is available to everyone (kind of like how everyone can check out every book in a library for free). You can buy more care with private insurance, of course (just as you can buy books from a bookstore), but you don't ever face the prospect of choosing between your health and your income, the way you do in a society without a collective safety net.

And of course, what we have right now with semi-universal health insurance is a far cry from a fully functioning UHC or UHI setup, although it's a large step in the right direction (e.g., by the mere fact that pre-existing conditions can't be used to deny health care or the fact that lifetime coverage limits are also disallowed) from a past healthcare culture that was nothing short of barbaric.

Okay. A quibble though. At least in the US, libraries began as private endowments. Carnegie is the famous example. Only later did they become public entities, and they are certainly not federal entities. Same for schools. The people decided they wanted schools, and got together and started them. (Later, local governments took over, and now we have bastard federal/state/local craptastic schools.)

I see this as very similar to the health care situation. Each time we add a layer of higher government, quality goes down and price goes up (excluding technological improvements which can cut both ways.) I honestly doubt that the ACA, or any other program designed by the US government in cahoots with big insurance will result in reduced costs for the average person.

The US government just doesn't work that way. If it did, the VA would be the best health system in the world. The US government has generations of experience running top-down healthcare for millions of people, and it's a disaster.

The one and only legitimate argument that I see for the ACA is pre-existing conditions. I work in insurance (non-ACA) and our plans do not cover preX. Just about every day I advise one or more people to cancel our plans and get an ACA plan because they bought it not understanding that point. That is so sad, especially since open enrollment is done now, and they'll have to wait until November to sign up for an ACA plan.

But did we really need to overturn a huge industry in order to cover this small minority of people? After you subtract medicare and medicaid-eligible folks, you end up with maybe a few million people who had no insurance option pre-ACA. So, our government chose the worst possible solution, the most expensive, that would cause the greatest disruption and the most bitterness, and rammed it down our throats, literally, in a late-night lame-duck Christmas eve vote.

Sorry, I could ramble on and on.


maco

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 422

Okay. A quibble though. At least in the US, libraries began as private endowments. Carnegie is the famous example. Only later did they become public entities, and they are certainly not federal entities.
Ben Franklin founded the first public library in 1731, over 100 years before Carnegie was born! The first one to be supported solely by taxes was founded in 1833, a couple years before Carnegie's birth.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2016, 09:30:17 PM by maco »

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
Update: I applied to the "Health Insurance Marketplace" with my shut off notice from the electrical company. (I paid off the outstanding balance before they could really shut off the power)

It took about 2 weeks and they mailed me the results saying I qualified for the hardship exemption. They gave me a exemption certificate number (ECN) to use when I prepare my taxes.

Exciting for not having to pay the penalty. I only went to the dermatologist once which cost me $120 cash. So I made out.

Let us know how that goes when you actually file your taxes. They're going to whack you retroactively when they see your income--and whack you for more than what it would've cost to just obey the law--and rightly so. At best, you just fraudulently got out of a whole entire MONTH of health insurance premiums by paying your electrical bill late, woohoo!
« Last Edit: March 16, 2016, 10:03:39 PM by Daleth »