DescentBB

Yes, Detroit's status is totally because a bunch of people had the letter D next to their names, and not because a bunch of industries offsourced a bunch of jobs, and the US auto manufacturers ★■◆● the bed on quality for a few decades before coming to their senses.

Obama's possible face-saving move in light of all the website problems. It makes sense to delay the fine for one year so the kinks can be ironed out. Of course the Republican's want to KEEP the tax just to piss off people who are having difficulties getting registered.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/heres-tax ... 39311.html

by the way(and I know I've harped on this before), if any of you wish to bother to READ the ACA, in full: around page 133 or so(may vary with format), you will read the part about how, despite a fact the 'fine' is on the books, it is FORBIDDEN for the IRS to pursue, investigate or levy a fine against any INDIVIDUAL not in compliance. In other words, no one was ever going to be fined. Ever.

SO you're saying the the President lied to us YET AGAIN .

and that this new law is going to cost this nation billions more then originally stated, and that it cannot possibly sustain it self economically as they said it would.

either that or you are.

which is it?

CUDA wrote:SO you're saying the the President lied to us YET AGAIN .

actually, Jay Carney has pointed this fact out about 6 times in the past two months. It seems not to have made it to the alternate reality you live in.

and that this new law is going to cost this nation billions more then originally stated, and that it cannot possibly sustain it self economically as they said it would.

why? It wasn't like anyone counted fines as any major source of revenue.

and since this the first ANYONE has mentioned this. Anywhere.......Well

as I said, it's come up in 6 press conferences, both O'Donnell and Maddow mentioned it on MSNBC, I heard the fact brought up on both CNN and public radio. So, once again, I urge you to broaden your sources, as it is there for all to read.

http://b-i.forbesimg.com/theapothecary/ ... e-lien.png


reality check, read this and ponder those words.

callmeslick wrote:by the way(and I know I've harped on this before), if any of you wish to bother to READ the ACA, in full: around page 133 or so(may vary with format), you will read the part about how, despite a fact the 'fine' is on the books, it is FORBIDDEN for the IRS to pursue, investigate or levy a fine against any INDIVIDUAL not in compliance. In other words, no one was ever going to be fined. Ever.

That may be the case, but it would look better politically if Obama waived the fine for the first year and give everyone more time to sign up, since there are so many issues with the website. It would soothe people's anxiety. Even Howard Dean sees that as an option.

So outside of the fact that they lied to us, AGAIN, and you dont deny it.

It seems like the government has just forced millions of people out of their current health care because of law that invalidates their current policy. Leaving them with only 2 recourses.

1. Pay more money to get a government mandated but not enforceable if they choose not to, insurance policy.

2. Say FU you cant do anything to make me buy it so piss off I cant afford it so I'll go without.

hrm I'm seeing lawsuits coming from this law

tunnelcat wrote:

callmeslick wrote:by the way(and I know I've harped on this before), if any of you wish to bother to READ the ACA, in full: around page 133 or so(may vary with format), you will read the part about how, despite a fact the 'fine' is on the books, it is FORBIDDEN for the IRS to pursue, investigate or levy a fine against any INDIVIDUAL not in compliance. In other words, no one was ever going to be fined. Ever.

That may be the case, but it would look better politically if Obama waived the fine for the first year and give everyone more time to sign up, since there are so many issues with the website. It would soothe people's anxiety. Even Howard Dean sees that as an option.

no need to waive it TC they cannot enforce it

It's a whopping 95 bucks, the first year. Geez, mountains out of molehills, anyone?? And, no one lied to you CUDA, just because you couldn't be bothered to look into the details. No one. Ever.

An un-enforceable fine…yes that will encourage all of those healthy young people to sign up.

callmeslick wrote:It's a whopping 95 bucks, the first year.

no it isnt, they cannot enforce it. There is no fine at all. All you need to do to get out of it is structure your taxes do you dont get a return and you give the government the middle finger on the penalty. How long before the tax experts start advising their clients of that?

And, no one lied to you CUDA, just because you couldn't be bothered to look into the details. No one. Ever.

REALLY. No wonder you spin the way you do. You dont even know what a lie is. In the real world when someone tells me there is a penalty for not complying to a law. Then you find out there really is no penalty it was just a scare tactic. I call that a lie.

Let your yes be your yes, and your no be your no. Anything else is a lie

you might be right, Spidey, but given that most young people still have lower salaries, especially the uninsured ones, they might figure it to be worthwhile to pay a $50-70 bucks a month to avoid financial catastrophes, which is exactly what happens when those uninsured young people get into, say, auto accidents.

CUDA, it's sad to see someone so consumed by blind hate that he has to accuse Obama of lying when he didn't. Sure, there IS a penalty, but that penalty is purely self-enforced. Just because the latter part wasn't trumpeted, doesn't make anyone a liar. Speaking of lies, didn't you flat-out say that no one reported it? I told you a few that I heard, then found a report from Forbes. Were you lying, or just making a wild guess based on your own preconceptions??

Your such a child. You cannot get past the ignorance that someone can disagree with a policy and how it was presented without being a racist or a hater. Maybe Russia would be a good place for you to live. I hear they don't allow alternative thinking there. You'd fit right in. You don't seem to like anyone that gets outside your narrow point of view.

CUDA wrote:So outside of the fact that they lied to us, AGAIN, and you dont deny it.

It seems like the government has just forced millions of people out of their current health care because of law that invalidates their current policy. Leaving them with only 2 recourses.

1. Pay more money to get a government mandated but not enforceable if they choose not to, insurance policy.

2. Say FU you cant do anything to make me buy it so piss off I cant afford it so I'll go without.

hrm I'm seeing lawsuits coming from this law

Like I said at one time, Republicans need to have patience. They don't need to do any work to get rid of the ACA. The law is a mess, it was designed by a committee with drastically opposing agendas and it will fail under it's own weight of mistakes, intentional time bombs and lies. It also does not address rising health costs, the elephant in the room.

I agreed with you. My only fear is the immense financial damage it could cause when it does

You mean like that $24 billion that the tea party sponsored government shutdown cost us? Wasn't worth throwing the hizzy fit frankly. Either the law will work, or it will fail......soon. I'm betting if enough people revolt, and refuse to pay the fine and refuse to buy insurance because it now costs too much, the whole thing will epically fail and Republicans can count on getting a Republican president elected in 2016. THEN it will for sure be toast. But I can guarantee you that even if you get rid of Obamacare tomorrow, our nation's health care cost problems will still be hanging on our backs. The whole system is broken and too expensive for the most people, even without Obamacare. There will be no winners.

CUDA wrote:Your such a child. You cannot get past the ignorance that someone can disagree with a policy and how it was presented without being a racist or a hater. Maybe Russia would be a good place for you to live. I hear they don't allow alternative thinking there. You'd fit right in. You don't seem to like anyone that gets outside your narrow point of view.

everyone on the Russia kick! Look, you're the one crying 'Obama Lied to Me' when clearly, he did not.

tunnelcat wrote:You mean like that $24 billion that the tea party sponsored government shutdown cost us? Wasn't worth throwing the hizzy fit frankly. Either the law will work, or it will fail......soon. I'm betting if enough people revolt, and refuse to pay the fine and refuse to buy insurance because it now costs too much, the whole thing will epically fail and Republicans can count on getting a Republican president elected in 2016. THEN it will for sure be toast. But I can guarantee you that even if you get rid of Obamacare tomorrow, our nation's health care cost problems will still be hanging on our backs. The whole system is broken and too expensive for the most people, even without Obamacare. There will be no winners.

I'd disagree, because perhaps if this happens, we will have a SERIOUS look at how the rest of the world delivers healthcare with superior outcomes and at lower cost. The beef I have with Republicans here isn't just lack of patience, it's lack of alternatives of any real sort.

As soon as you file a tax return, and don't pay the fine, you are then in arrears with your "tax obligation".
You have volunteered that information, you have declared your status and have failed to pay.

At that point forward, until you square away your account, the IRS still has the authority to pursue any citizens compliance with the "tax code". Regardless of what particular law/tax/fine it was that initially put you at odds with them... in debt to them... you are vulnerable to their interpretation of your "tax" liability.

Enforcement of existing "tax code" is legal and will become an issue anytime after, say 2014, or 2016... when the midterm or next Presidential election is behind them. There is a reason the first few years has a very low fine and then it jumps way up. Think about it.
If you don't believe that then go rack up about five years of failing to pay the fine and ask your tax accountant what the notices you got in the mail mean....

Remember, the same people who said 'you get to keep your coverage if you want to'...that they 'wont sign it into law if it raises the deficit one dime'...that the 'overall cost was going to be half' of what it has become already....Those are the same people who say the IRS won't really come after you if you don't pay.

It is ridiculous to think they won't enforce the fines because without it we could all refuse to pay and only if we get sick would anyone buy insurance since the law also says we can't be refused coverage.

the wording in the law is pretty clear, Will. The IRS has no authority to put a lien on an individual, to pursue payment, nor issue a penalty.

Ok but the penalty gets tack on to your taxes and refusal to pay taxes can result in fines or imprisonment whether it involves health insurance or not.

Heretic wrote:Ok but the penalty gets tack on to your taxes and refusal to pay taxes can result in fines or imprisonment whether it involves health insurance or not.

not really, it gets deducted from your refund, and if you are getting a refund, frankly, you are doing something wrong(in general principle, not just for this discussion. Letting the government get the interest is foolhardy).

Yea, I was pondering this issue over the weekend, and for anybody getting withholding, I doubt they will be able to avoid paying the “tax” “penalty” “fee” or whatever they are calling the damn thing.

The only way to get it back from the government would be lying about your insurance status…and that “will” get you in trouble.

Not withstanding you know how to manipulate your withholding, which a lot of companies won’t even let you do, because of fear of the IRS.

callmeslick wrote:

Heretic wrote:Ok but the penalty gets tack on to your taxes and refusal to pay taxes can result in fines or imprisonment whether it involves health insurance or not.

not really, it gets deducted from your refund, ...

No. There is the word game.

The fine will supposedly not trigger anything except the seizure of any refund....for now. Or it will increase your employers withholding...thus it is seized...

However, if you don't have any refund to seize, or wages to withhold from, the lack of paying the fine doesn't just go away!
It becomes a debt that you owe on your tax return for that year. NOTHING in the ACA prohibits the IRS from pursuing a citizen who owes back taxes. The way the IRS goes after them is to seize funds and/or property.

In the current political climate I doubt they will do that until at least after the 2014 election.

Tell me slick, why do you think they put a fine in the law if they don't intend to enforce it ultimately? If their true intent was to not impose a fine wouldn't they simply have never created one and put it into law in the first place?!?
Do you really think, if there is no enforceable fine for non compliance, that millions of people won't simply wait to buy insurance only when the need for medical care becomes imminent?
The term "mandatory" has a meaning and it is critical for the ACA to have any hope of becoming sustainable!
Without enforcement people will follow the advice of their financial advisors who will certainly tell them to not worry about the non enforceable fine, It will be looked at just like every other tax loophole and ACA will be doomed.

You would have to be an idiot to think the fines wont be enforced.

I don’t know Will, most policies dealing with preexisting conditions have a waiting period to begin coverage…at least they used to.

Kinda puts a kink in that waiting to get sick theory.

If the ACA changed that…well, that was really dumb.

Spidey wrote:I don’t know Will, most policies dealing with preexisting conditions have a waiting period to begin coverage…at least they used to.

Kinda puts a kink in that waiting to get sick theory.

If the ACA changed that…well, that was really dumb.

I can't say for sure since my primary source is the Federal Government.

Here is what www.healthcare.gov has for example:

What if I have a pre-existing health condition?

Starting in 2014, health insurance plans can't refuse to cover you or charge you more just because you have a pre-existing health condition.

Being sick doesn't keep you from getting coverage
Starting in 2014, being sick won't keep you from getting health coverage. An insurance company can't turn you down or charge you more because of your condition.

Once you have insurance, the plan can't refuse to cover treatment for pre-existing conditions. Coverage for your pre-existing conditions begins immediately.

This is true even if you have been turned down or refused coverage due to a pre-existing condition in the past.

One exception: Grandfathered individual health insurance plans
The only exception is for grandfathered individual health insurance plans -- the kind you buy yourself, not through an employer. They do not have to cover pre-existing conditions.

If you have one of these plans you can switch to a Marketplace plan during open enrollment and immediately get coverage for your pre-existing conditions.

Did I miss some weasel words there? I suppose even if I didn't, can I really believe them? I guess I shouldn't.

Thanks for that Will, but just one more question.

Regarding enrollment...is enrollment open all year long, or only certain times during the year?

So in other words…can you really just start a plan whenever you want?

Spidey wrote:Thanks for that Will, but just one more question.

Regarding enrollment...is enrollment open all year long, or only certain times during the year?

So in other words…can you really just start a plan whenever you want?

The enrollment is limited from what
I recall the initial period is like from a week ago until Jan. after that I don't recall how long before the next period.
Not sure why they wouldn't let people enroll at will.....other than they seem to be really limited on the ability to manage it....

Well seems like the the ceo of the company that built the no bid .gov website is a personal friend of the first lady and a Princeton class mate, and contributed to the president election campaign. Imagine that.

Im guessing they probably wont be friends after this disaster

CUDA wrote:Well seems like the the ceo of the company that built the no bid .gov website is a personal friend of the first lady and a Princeton class mate, and contributed to the president election campaign. Imagine that.

Im guessing they probably wont be friends after this disaster

I think that is the same friend who's company is babysitting a couple billion dollars of Hurricane Sandy Relief funds that still haven't been distributed.
Apparently that company has all sorts of questionable talent and one $weet connection on Pennsylvania Ave!