• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

First Day w/ the ACA... ClusterFuck

Well, just skimming, I think what we ended up with in the ACA is not so substantially different from the Coburn plan.
 
...which renders this cartoon sadly relevant:



139157_600.jpg
 
WakeandBake said:
Sure was a lot of interest from Americans who supposedly are losing their liberty, freedom, and allowing big government to ensnare them.....
Click to expand...

Big gubbmint performing miracles, ain't dey?

They done given us a more mighty oligopoly to deal with...great work and truly egalitarian in that it is more expensive for every last damned one of us.

Hip-Hip!
 
Last edited:
random resurrection? thought this thread was buried..
 
Even with that inflated number (they counted people who put a plan into their "shopping cart" but have not paid a dime) they are about 20% of goal.
 
Maybe I'm alone, but I'd be more interested in how many are signed up close to the deadline. That to me will indicate more how this is doing than who jumped in feet first at the beginning.
 
Deadbolt said:
Maybe I'm alone, but I'd be more interested in how many are signed up close to the deadline. That to me will indicate more how this is doing than who jumped in feet first at the beginning.
Click to expand...

you're not alone. when they rolled this out in Massachusetts apparently very small numbers signed up until right before the deadline. I think it's reasonable to expect the same thing here, with the issue being exacerbated by the broken website. Also remember the penalty for next year is like a whopping $95, which can basically only be collected if you have a tax refund coming. there may be a significant number of people who would rather just pay the tax. If the plan misses its numbers in a large way, whether because of website snafus or insufficiently threatening penalty, the ish will be hitting the fan even bigger than it is now.
 
Deacon923 said:
you're not alone. when they rolled this out in Massachusetts apparently very small numbers signed up until right before the deadline. I think it's reasonable to expect the same thing here, with the issue being exacerbated by the broken website. Also remember the penalty for next year is like a whopping $95, which can basically only be collected if you have a tax refund coming. there may be a significant number of people who would rather just pay the tax. If the plan misses its numbers in a large way, whether because of website snafus or insufficiently threatening penalty, the ish will be hitting the fan even bigger than it is now.
Click to expand...

Which sort of brings me to a horrifying thought...if the conservative strategy of making no effort to fix the law and instead have 40 symbolic repeal votes and then hanging that disaster on the dems actually works, how in the world can we ever expect anything but obstructionist politics from either side for the foreseeable future?
 
Deacon923 said:
you're not alone. when they rolled this out in Massachusetts apparently very small numbers signed up until right before the deadline. I think it's reasonable to expect the same thing here, with the issue being exacerbated by the broken website. Also remember the penalty for next year is like a whopping $95, which can basically only be collected if you have a tax refund coming. there may be a significant number of people who would rather just pay the tax. If the plan misses its numbers in a large way, whether because of website snafus or insufficiently threatening penalty, the ish will be hitting the fan even bigger than it is now.
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear somebody help out here but it seems to me that I recall the fine is pro-rated to income and the minimum is $95. I believe the fine can be substantially higher.
 
Coverage doesn't start until at least January, right? Why pay earlier than you have to?
 
And yes, the roll out has been poorly executed. But what matters more, I think, is if the numbers grow sufficiently over the next 1-2 years. I suspect and hope they will. And that eventually there might be a better, more coordinated effort to make it (health care system) work better for us as a society.
 
Deadbolt said:
Which sort of brings me to a horrifying thought...if the conservative strategy of making no effort to fix the law and instead have 40 symbolic repeal votes and then hanging that disaster on the dems actually works, how in the world can we ever expect anything but obstructionist politics from either side for the foreseeable future?
Click to expand...

Why are conservatives tasked to fix this horseshit piece if legislation they had no part in passing? What are the people that actually wrote and rammed this bill doing to fix it?
 
Lectro said:
I'd like to hear somebody help out here but it seems to me that I recall the fine is pro-rated to income and the minimum is $95. I believe the fine can be substantially higher.
Click to expand...

Ironically, I found the answer on healthcare.gov.

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-someone-doesnt-have-health-coverage-in-2014/

Greater of 1% of income, capped at the annual cost of a bronze plan, or $95 per person in your family, capped at $285.

Also remember, the IRS can't come after your assets to collect the penalty. See the very bottom of this page (I like how they hid it): http://www.irs.gov/uac/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Individual-Shared-Responsibility-Provision

The law prohibits the IRS from using liens or levies to collect any payment you owe related to the individual responsibility provision, if you, your spouse or a dependent included on your tax return does not have minimum essential coverage. However, if you owe a shared responsibility payment, the IRS may offset that liability against any tax refund you may be due.

So basically, if you aren't owed a tax refund, you aren't going to be forced to pay anything.
 
Deacon923 said:
Ironically, I found the answer on healthcare.gov.

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-someone-doesnt-have-health-coverage-in-2014/

Greater of 1% of income, capped at the annual cost of a bronze plan, or $95 per person in your family, capped at $285.

Also remember, the IRS can't come after your assets to collect the penalty. See the very bottom of this page (I like how they hid it): http://www.irs.gov/uac/Questions-and-Answers-on-the-Individual-Shared-Responsibility-Provision

The law prohibits the IRS from using liens or levies to collect any payment you owe related to the individual responsibility provision, if you, your spouse or a dependent included on your tax return does not have minimum essential coverage. However, if you owe a shared responsibility payment, the IRS may offset that liability against any tax refund you may be due.

So basically, if you aren't owed a tax refund, you aren't going to be forced to pay anything.
Click to expand...

i.e., If you can figure out how to somehow avoid refundable income tax credits (many of which aren't "refunds" in the conventional sense that you "funded" something that is going to get returned to you), then yours is "free." [sic]. Did anyone ever not think this was going to be the result?
 
jhmd2000 said:
i.e., If you can figure out how to somehow avoid refundable income tax credits (many of which aren't "refunds" in the conventional sense that you "funded" something that is going to get returned to you), then yours is "free." [sic]. Did anyone ever not think this was going to be the result?
Click to expand...

The CBO?
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
Why are conservatives tasked to fix this horseshit piece if legislation they had no part in passing? What are the people that actually wrote and rammed this bill doing to fix it?
Click to expand...

Because they're the leaders of this country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top