need some answers on ACA opinion

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
!) how is it a 'tax' if the word 'tax' was never mentioned a single time in the bill/law or in the gov argument the entire time?
2) if it is indeed a tax, how can someone be compelled to pay taxes on something they don't buy?
3) If a person/family can't afford insurance coverage, how are they going to afford to pay the 'tax' for not being able to afford insurance coverage?
 
1). I can agree that it is strange that they can pull the change of wording out of thin air. To come to the conclusion that the fine can be imposed "as a tax" seems to me to be the way they could keep the ACA in tact and not send it back to the drawing board altogether. With this I do not agree.

2). I think they look at it from the standpoint that eventually everyone will need the service. Again, I do not agree.

3). This is where the government kicks in. If they can't afford it the government (taxpayers) will foot the bill.

I don't know if you have read some of the threads but I am for helping the poor people get coverage in some way....and by the way, many of them have it through state sponsored programs. I know they do in Oklahoma. My big worry with this .... At this time .... Is that we as a nation can't afford it.
 
My biggest concern was also that we can't afford it as a nation.

But I have had a lot of folks tell me that this actually reduces the deficit, and the CBO seems to back that up. I have no idea how, though.

Still, it's the law now - so I will hope that's right.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
!) how is it a 'tax' if the word 'tax' was never mentioned a single time in the bill/law or in the gov argument the entire time?
2) if it is indeed a tax, how can someone be compelled to pay taxes on something they don't buy?
3) If a person/family can't afford insurance coverage, how are they going to afford to pay the 'tax' for not being able to afford insurance coverage?
Click to expand...
#1. The ACA is not a tax. The insurance mandate is. If you don't purchase the minimum requirement for health insurance and your income is above 133% of the poverty line then the IRS will collect a penalty tax from you.
#2. It's a penalty tax for being an irresponsible freerider.
#4. If a families household income is less that 133% of the poverty line for a family of that size there will be subsidies to assist them in paying for health insurance.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
!) how is it a 'tax' if the word 'tax' was never mentioned a single time in the bill/law or in the gov argument the entire time?
Click to expand...

If it quacks like a duck . . .

SmarterthanYou said:
2) if it is indeed a tax, how can someone be compelled to pay taxes on something they don't buy?
Click to expand...

It isn't a tax on health insurance. It's a tax that you have to pay to the government if you don't get health insurance.


SmarterthanYou said:
3) If a person/family can't afford insurance coverage, how are they going to afford to pay the 'tax' for not being able to afford insurance coverage?
Click to expand...

The tax is cheaper than health insurance coverage.
 
Onceler said:
My biggest concern was also that we can't afford it as a nation.

But I have had a lot of folks tell me that this actually reduces the deficit, and the CBO seems to back that up. I have no idea how, though.

Still, it's the law now - so I will hope that's right.
Click to expand...

The reason the CBO shows it as a deficit reducer (at least a big part of the reason) is that within the ACA they demand future Congress's cut payments to Medicare doctors. Similar cuts in the past have been passed in legislation and every year since the Congress has implemented a doc fix to reinstate the amounts of the cuts. It is completely absurd to think that suddenly Congress will stop doing this. If they cut medicare payments to docs/hospitals, then more and more will refuse to take Medicare patients. Until the cost side of the equation is addressed, Congress will continue doing the doc fixes.

But the CBO can only score what it is provided. The ACA calls for the cuts and thus the CBO must score it as if those cuts will happen. The democrats knew this which is why they put it in the bill. The party parrots then repeat the chant that the ACA will lower costs and refuse to discuss the history of Congress and past medicare payment cuts. People like Dung just start chanting 'the doc fixes have nothing to do with the ACA and therefore I will pretend they do not exist'.
 
this will continue apparently, since some answers are making more questions, so here goes.

1) Back in the 70s, there was a USSC case about the 'tax' on marijuana possession. IIRC (lawyers help me out here), the USSC stated that the 'tax' could easily be avoided simply by not participating in the alleged activity, i.e. possession of marijuana. So, how is that now reconciled with the ACA ruling if one can be taxed whether they participate or not?

2) It those that cannot afford health insurance then get taxed, for which they then cannot afford the tax, their tax will simply be paid for by other taxpayers? will this then work for other forms of taxes? For instance, can I get other taxpayers to subsidize my property taxes?
 
Derp Derp said:
#1. The ACA is not a tax. The insurance mandate is. If you don't purchase the minimum requirement for health insurance and your income is above 133% of the poverty line then the IRS will collect a penalty tax from you.
#2. It's a penalty tax for being an irresponsible freerider.
#4. If a families household income is less that 133% of the poverty line for a family of that size there will be subsidies to assist them in paying for health insurance.
Click to expand...

1,2,4... counting past two a bit to challenging for our Ohio residents
 
SmarterthanYou said:
this will continue apparently, since some answers are making more questions, so here goes.

1) Back in the 70s, there was a USSC case about the 'tax' on marijuana possession. IIRC (lawyers help me out here), the USSC stated that the 'tax' could easily be avoided simply by not participating in the alleged activity, i.e. possession of marijuana. So, how is that now reconciled with the ACA ruling if one can be taxed whether they participate or not?
Click to expand...
There is nobody alive that will never need healthcare.

2) It those that cannot afford health insurance then get taxed, for which they then cannot afford the tax, their tax will simply be paid for by other taxpayers? will this then work for other forms of taxes? For instance, can I get other taxpayers to subsidize my property taxes?
Click to expand...
You get a subsidy in order to help you purchase insurance. Having done that, you don't pay the penalty for not purchasing insurance.
 
Derp Derp said:
#1. The ACA is not a tax. The insurance mandate is. If you don't purchase the minimum requirement for health insurance and your income is above 133% of the poverty line then the IRS will collect a penalty tax from you.
Click to expand...
So it's only a tax on the wealthy?

Derp Derp said:
#2. It's a penalty tax for being an irresponsible freerider.
Click to expand...
so if I have always paid any doctor or hospital bills out of pocket and in full, i'm still an irresponsible freerider and must pay more taxes?

Derp Derp said:
#4. If a families household income is less that 133% of the poverty line for a family of that size there will be subsidies to assist them in paying for health insurance.
Click to expand...
so I don't have to worry about being taxed for non participation if my income is at or below a certain amount, because the government will extort it from those who are wealthy?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
So it's only a tax on the wealthy?


so if I have always paid any doctor or hospital bills out of pocket and in full, i'm still an irresponsible freerider and must pay more taxes?

so I don't have to worry about being taxed for non participation if my income is at or below a certain amount, because the government will extort it from those who are wealthy?
Click to expand...
#1. No
#2. Yes
#3. No
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so if I have always paid any doctor or hospital bills out of pocket and in full, i'm still an irresponsible freerider and must pay more taxes?
Click to expand...

This. I didnt acquire health insurance until I was 37 so that I could have more disposable income to live on. I wanted my house paid for by the time I was 45 and I wanted no sizable car payment. At 37 I got on an insurance plan. During the time I was without insurance, I paid in cash for my few clinic visits for sinus infections or ear infections and on one occasion I cut my finger really badly....cost about $3000 to put it back together. I paid that out on a monthly basis ... payment negotiated with the hospital. I used any and all extra income to pay down the debt it takes for most young folks to get started in life if they seek to own a house or some land or whatever.
 
leaningright said:
This. I didnt acquire health insurance until I was 37 so that I could have more disposable income to live on. I wanted my house paid for by the time I was 45 and I wanted no sizable car payment. At 37 I got on an insurance plan. During the time I was without insurance, I paid in cash for my few clinic visits for sinus infections or ear infections and on one occasion I cut my finger really badly....cost about $3000 to put it back together. I paid that out on a monthly basis ... payment negotiated with the hospital. I used any and all extra income to pay down the debt it takes for most young folks to get started in life if they seek to own a house or some land or whatever.
Click to expand...
I have done very similar things, but we're still irresponsible freeriders, so sayeth the derpster.
 
Superfreak said:
The reason the CBO shows it as a deficit reducer (at least a big part of the reason) is that within the ACA they demand future Congress's cut payments to Medicare doctors. Similar cuts in the past have been passed in legislation and every year since the Congress has implemented a doc fix to reinstate the amounts of the cuts. It is completely absurd to think that suddenly Congress will stop doing this. If they cut medicare payments to docs/hospitals, then more and more will refuse to take Medicare patients. Until the cost side of the equation is addressed, Congress will continue doing the doc fixes.

But the CBO can only score what it is provided. The ACA calls for the cuts and thus the CBO must score it as if those cuts will happen. The democrats knew this which is why they put it in the bill. The party parrots then repeat the chant that the ACA will lower costs and refuse to discuss the history of Congress and past medicare payment cuts. People like Dung just start chanting 'the doc fixes have nothing to do with the ACA and therefore I will pretend they do not exist'.
Click to expand...


SF - The ACA does not demand that future Congresses do anything. The ACA makes the cuts. The cuts are the law. The cuts will happen unless the law is changed, which is always a possibility with any legislation.
 
This thread may not be the place for this but my brother-in-law just turned 70, has been retired for 5 years and pays a little over $1000 per month in health insurance for himself and my sister. That is highway robbery to me. To me that is what needs to be addressed.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
!) how is it a 'tax' if the word 'tax' was never mentioned a single time in the bill/law or in the gov argument the entire time?
2) if it is indeed a tax, how can someone be compelled to pay taxes on something they don't buy?
3) If a person/family can't afford insurance coverage, how are they going to afford to pay the 'tax' for not being able to afford insurance coverage?
Click to expand...

1) A rose is a rose is a rose. What you call it is not what is important, what it is, is what is important, and the law creates a tax for those who chose not to have insurance.
2) The Supreme Court ruled that such a tax is within the taxing authority of the USA.
3) The bill itself accounts for that by not imposing the penalty on those making less than a certian amount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top