• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

About Obamacare and Medicare: look what happens in 2014

Faster horses

Well-known member
November 6, 2012 will be the most important date that will affect the rest of your life ... The Choice Is Yours.


A message from Blue Cross Blue Shield

Professor Emeritus John W. Hill, JD, PhD
Kelley School of Business, Indiana University
http://us.mc845.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hillj%40indiana.edu

MEDICARE
Look clearly at the 2014 rate compared to the 2013 rate.

For those of you who are on Medicare, read the following. It's short, but
important and you probably haven't heard about it in the Mainstream News:

"The per person Medicare Insurance Premium will increase from the present
Monthly Fee of $96.40, rising to:

$104.20 in 2012

$120.20 in 2013

And

$247.00 in 2014."

These are Provisions incorporated in the Obamacare Legislation,purposely
delayed so as not to confuse the 2012 Re-Election Campaigns. Send this to
all Seniors that you know, so they will know who's throwing them under the
bus.
Peggy Riehle
Internal Representative
Network Contracting
205-220-6778
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Im about to drop my insurance that went up another 9% this year and just pay the penalty. If I need something, I can get insurance again since they can't deny me correct????
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
To me the "insurance mandate" was the best thing passed by the Obama administration.... Especially since this is originally a Republican and conservative backed idea to bring more responsibility to everyone....Some parts of the law may need tweaking and changing as most major legislation does-- but the mandate was the best way to make folks responsible...

I know we will always be paying for some deadbeats and low income folks-- but there are deadbeats like some of those now working in the Bakken oilfields that are easily making $10,000 to $20,000 a month-- that have absolutely no insurance, and are not planning to buy any as they know if they get hurt or sick-- they will be cared for anyway--- and if they jump ship on the bills -- you , I , and those responsible folks buying insurance and paying our bills will pick up the costs...

And these are the type that are the first to go on their hours off-- get drunk -- roll their outfit- and end up in a hospital for months---- while knowing they can just walk away and leave the bill for the responsible folks to pay...... :(
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
So Ot who is going to pay for their insurance if they won't ? The employer has to, so the deadbeats are still getting a free ride. Now they will really drive the insurance premium up from all using it more. Before they could go after and garnish the wages for those who skipped
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
To me the "insurance mandate" was the best thing passed by the Obama administration.... Especially since this is originally a Republican and conservative backed idea to bring more responsibility to everyone....Some parts of the law may need tweaking and changing as most major legislation does-- but the mandate was the best way to make folks responsible...

I know we will always be paying for some deadbeats and low income folks-- but there are deadbeats like some of those now working in the Bakken oilfields that are easily making $10,000 to $20,000 a month-- that have absolutely no insurance, and are not planning to buy any as they know if they get hurt or sick-- they will be cared for anyway--- and if they jump ship on the bills -- you , I , and those responsible folks buying insurance and paying our bills will pick up the costs...

And these are the type that are the first to go on their hours off-- get drunk -- roll their outfit- and end up in a hospital for months---- while knowing they can just walk away and leave the bill for the responsible folks to pay...... :(

You really don't get it do you?

The ones who won't pay for insurance are gong to be getting it free from the government! You're gonna be paying for them ANYWAY!!!!! :lol: :lol:

Are you really as stupid as you seem?
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
Entitlements are breaking this country, that is what caused the jobs shipPed overseas. Noone can do business here and Pay for all the union backed entitlements and now the government adds more. More jobs will be lost and I can say I told you so, and won't feel good about being right.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ranch hand said:
So Ot who is going to pay for their insurance if they won't ? The employer has to, so the deadbeats are still getting a free ride. Now they will really drive the insurance premium up from all using it more. Before they could go after and garnish the wages for those who skipped

Not really- depends on the size of the company before the employer becomes mandated... The employer mandate (on employers of a certain number of folks or larger) was originally Nixon's idea...
Very hard to track down construction type/transient type employees as they just take off to a whole other state/area.... And unless they have changed the laws lately-- irs/ssi and many of your public records info can not be used to track you down unless it is a child support debt...
Even if they are tracked down- then it takes getting court decrees and orders from the state they are found in even after getting a judgement in the originating state...
And like with so many of the deadbeat dads- they just work for straight cash or never report income- or put anything in their name- so than there is nothing that can be seized...
 

jigs

Well-known member
the govt can F off, for all I care...no one is going to tell me what i can and can not do with my private life....

seems simple to you, where the bulk of your family is already sucking at the govt teat....but those of us earning our way have different views.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
ranch hand said:
So Ot who is going to pay for their insurance if they won't ? The employer has to, so the deadbeats are still getting a free ride. Now they will really drive the insurance premium up from all using it more. Before they could go after and garnish the wages for those who skipped

Not really- depends on the size of the company before the employer becomes mandated... The employer mandate (on employers of a certain number of folks or larger) was originally Nixon's idea...
Very hard to track down construction type/transient type employees as they just take off to a whole other state/area.... And unless they have changed the laws lately-- irs/ssi and many of your public records info can not be used to track you down unless it is a child support debt...
Even if they are tracked down- then it takes getting court decrees and orders from the state they are found in even after getting a judgement in the originating state...
And like with so many of the deadbeat dads- they just work for straight cash or never report income- or put anything in their name- so than there is nothing that can be seized...

So what you're saying is the "Mandate" won't work?

If so, then you'd be correct. It won't for those who don't want to pay, and they'll still be paid for by you. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
ranch hand said:
So if the employer doesn't have to furnish health insurance who and how will they track them down and make them buy insurance?

TAXES.....

In 2016, after the law is fully in place, about 4 million people will pay the penalty to the Internal Revenue Service for being uninsured, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated. They would pay $695 per uninsured adult or 2.5 percent of family income, up to $12,500 per year.

If you don't pay the fines the IRS can withhold your refund, but no other course of action is taken against you.

And as I understand it- the penalty for not having insurance increases as the years go on...

The Basics of PPACA
PPACA was initially signed into law in 2010 and a number of its rules have already gone into effect. Here's a rundown of some of the most important aspects of the law:

Individual Mandates: By 2014, every citizen in the US will be required to have health care. Medicaid will be expanded to include a wider range of people, and subsidies will be offered for those who struggle to pay for insurance (we'll explain how all this will work below).

Employer Mandates: Employers with over 50 employees will be required to offer some type of health insurance option to employees.

No More Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies cannot deny you if you have a pre-existing condition like a chronic illness or disease. In addition, insurance companies can't drop you because of an illness.
Children Can Stay On Parent's Plan Longer: Previously, it was up to the insurance company to decide how long a child could stay on a parent's insurance program. Now, children can stay on their parents plans until they're 26 years old, regardless of whether they're in school, married, or considered a dependent.


No Lifetime Limit: Insurance companies used to have a lifetime limit on the amount you could spend on treatment over the course of your life. Now, that cap has been removed and your insurance company can't refuse to pay for services because you've reached a cap

http://lifehacker.com/5922382/how-will-the-new-health-care-law-affect-me
 

Mike

Well-known member
Here's the kicker:
By 2014, every citizen in the US will be required to have health care. Medicaid will be expanded to include a wider range of people, and subsidies will be offered for those who struggle to pay for insurance

There won't be ANY insurance companies left in a short while.

Not one of them can compete with FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Steve

Well-known member
In 2016, after the law is fully in place, about 4 million people will pay the penalty to the Internal Revenue Service for being uninsured, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated. They would pay $695 per uninsured adult or 2.5 percent of family income, up to $12,500 per year.

If you don't pay the fines the IRS can withhold your refund, but no other course of action is taken against you.

then all a person has to do is drop his deductions/withholding to make sure he owes a few dollars,.. and they get zilch..
 

okfarmer

Well-known member
Steve said:
In 2016, after the law is fully in place, about 4 million people will pay the penalty to the Internal Revenue Service for being uninsured, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated. They would pay $695 per uninsured adult or 2.5 percent of family income, up to $12,500 per year.

If you don't pay the fines the IRS can withhold your refund, but no other course of action is taken against you.

then all a person has to do is drop his deductions/withholding to make sure he owes a few dollars,.. and they get zilch..

So, even if I pay the $695, I'm ahead by about $2300 just for me and 10K for the whole family by not getting insurance.

I currently pay for myself and others, now it will be financially better for me to wait until something happens and then get insurance. They can't deny me, there is no pre-existing condition. So they are going to lose about 10k a year from me. How is this system better?
 

Steve

Well-known member
okfarmer said:
Steve said:
In 2016, after the law is fully in place, about 4 million people will pay the penalty to the Internal Revenue Service for being uninsured, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated. They would pay $695 per uninsured adult or 2.5 percent of family income, up to $12,500 per year.

If you don't pay the fines the IRS can withhold your refund, but no other course of action is taken against you.

then all a person has to do is drop his deductions/withholding to make sure he owes a few dollars,.. and they get zilch..

So, even if I pay the $695, I'm ahead by about $2300 just for me and 10K for the whole family by not getting insurance.

I currently pay for myself and others, now it will be financially better for me to wait until something happens and then get insurance. They can't deny me, there is no pre-existing condition. So they are going to lose about 10k a year from me. How is this system better?

not sure,. and the liberals all think people are getting "free health care"

but how is doubling grandmas not harmful to seniors..



"The per person Medicare Insurance Premium will increase from the present
Monthly Fee of $96.40, rising to:

$104.20 in 2012

$120.20 in 2013

And

$247.00 in 2014."

correct me if I am wrong,.. but I doubt many seniors have an extra $1807.20 laying around...
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
To me the "insurance mandate" was the best thing passed by the Obama administration.... Especially since this is originally a Republican and conservative backed idea to bring more responsibility to everyone....Some parts of the law may need tweaking and changing as most major legislation does-- but the mandate was the best way to make folks responsible...

I know we will always be paying for some deadbeats and low income folks-- but there are deadbeats like some of those now working in the Bakken oilfields that are easily making $10,000 to $20,000 a month-- that have absolutely no insurance, and are not planning to buy any as they know if they get hurt or sick-- they will be cared for anyway--- and if they jump ship on the bills -- you , I , and those responsible folks buying insurance and paying our bills will pick up the costs...

And these are the type that are the first to go on their hours off-- get drunk -- roll their outfit- and end up in a hospital for months---- while knowing they can just walk away and leave the bill for the responsible folks to pay...... :(

and on the Montana Ballot this fall;
LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 122

BALLOT LANGUAGE

LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 122

AN ACT REFERRED BY THE LEGISLATURE

AN ACT PROHIBITING THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MANDATING THE PURCHASE OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE OR IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR DECISIONS RELATED TO THE PURCHASE OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; PROVIDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACT BE SUBMITTED TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

LR-122 prohibits the state and federal governments from requiring the purchase of health insurance or imposing any penalty, tax, fee or fine on those who do not purchase health insurance. The prohibition does not apply to: (1) a court which orders the purchase of insurance when an individual or entity is a named party in a judicial dispute; (2) the state department of public health and human services as part of a child support enforcement action; or (3) the Montana university system as a requirement for students.

[ ] FOR prohibiting the state or federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance or imposing penalties for decisions related to purchasing health insurance.

[ ] AGAINST prohibiting the state or federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance or imposing penalties for decisions related to purchasing health insurance.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
To me the "insurance mandate" was the best thing passed by the Obama administration.... Especially since this is originally a Republican and conservative backed idea to bring more responsibility to everyone....Some parts of the law may need tweaking and changing as most major legislation does-- but the mandate was the best way to make folks responsible...

I know we will always be paying for some deadbeats and low income folks-- but there are deadbeats like some of those now working in the Bakken oilfields that are easily making $10,000 to $20,000 a month-- that have absolutely no insurance, and are not planning to buy any as they know if they get hurt or sick-- they will be cared for anyway--- and if they jump ship on the bills -- you , I , and those responsible folks buying insurance and paying our bills will pick up the costs...

And these are the type that are the first to go on their hours off-- get drunk -- roll their outfit- and end up in a hospital for months---- while knowing they can just walk away and leave the bill for the responsible folks to pay...... :(

and on the Montana Ballot this fall;
LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 122

BALLOT LANGUAGE

LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 122

AN ACT REFERRED BY THE LEGISLATURE

AN ACT PROHIBITING THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MANDATING THE PURCHASE OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE OR IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR DECISIONS RELATED TO THE PURCHASE OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; PROVIDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACT BE SUBMITTED TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

LR-122 prohibits the state and federal governments from requiring the purchase of health insurance or imposing any penalty, tax, fee or fine on those who do not purchase health insurance. The prohibition does not apply to: (1) a court which orders the purchase of insurance when an individual or entity is a named party in a judicial dispute; (2) the state department of public health and human services as part of a child support enforcement action; or (3) the Montana university system as a requirement for students.

[ ] FOR prohibiting the state or federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance or imposing penalties for decisions related to purchasing health insurance.

[ ] AGAINST prohibiting the state or federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance or imposing penalties for decisions related to purchasing health insurance.


BUT- with the ruling as made by the SCOTUS and Chief Justice Roberts-- that means absolutely nothing no matter if it pass's or it doesn't....They ruled a national federal mandate requiring everyone be made to purchase health insurance or put a tax penalty on them for not doing so is legal - NATIONWIDE....

I don't even think I voted on that one- because its already a moot issue..
 

Mike

Well-known member
Of critical concern to nonprofits in the Supreme Court’s decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was the part that didn’t go the Obama administration’s way. The Roberts court ruled that the federal government could not force states to expand Medicaid coverage by threatening to withhold the state’s federal Medicaid funding.

Twenty-six states had challenged the provision of the PPACA that would extend Medicaid coverage to non-elderly people with incomes of as much as 133 percent of the poverty level. This expansion of Medicaid coverage would help some 16 million people by 2019, according to ProPublica. The states that filed against the federal mandate account for approximately 8.5 million of the 16 million who would benefit from the expanded Medicaid coverage.

Why would states reject the expansion of Medicaid? For some, it might be that the expanded program means a larger chunk of funding that the state must provide to cover its share of Medicaid costs (Medicaid is only partially funded by the federal government; between 2014 and 2022, the federal government ends up paying for $931 billion and the states $73 billion toward the costs of the expanded Medicaid). For some others, we have to question a possible motivation that simply won’t countenance additional federal “welfare” to poor people—and believe you me, an income of 133 percent of the federal poverty level, roughly $30,700 for a family of four, is poverty no matter how you define it.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Lonecowboy said:
Oldtimer said:
To me the "insurance mandate" was the best thing passed by the Obama administration.... Especially since this is originally a Republican and conservative backed idea to bring more responsibility to everyone....Some parts of the law may need tweaking and changing as most major legislation does-- but the mandate was the best way to make folks responsible...

I know we will always be paying for some deadbeats and low income folks-- but there are deadbeats like some of those now working in the Bakken oilfields that are easily making $10,000 to $20,000 a month-- that have absolutely no insurance, and are not planning to buy any as they know if they get hurt or sick-- they will be cared for anyway--- and if they jump ship on the bills -- you , I , and those responsible folks buying insurance and paying our bills will pick up the costs...

And these are the type that are the first to go on their hours off-- get drunk -- roll their outfit- and end up in a hospital for months---- while knowing they can just walk away and leave the bill for the responsible folks to pay...... :(

and on the Montana Ballot this fall;
LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 122

BALLOT LANGUAGE

LEGISLATIVE REFERENDUM NO. 122

AN ACT REFERRED BY THE LEGISLATURE

AN ACT PROHIBITING THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM MANDATING THE PURCHASE OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE OR IMPOSING PENALTIES FOR DECISIONS RELATED TO THE PURCHASE OF HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; PROVIDING THAT THE PROPOSED ACT BE SUBMITTED TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

LR-122 prohibits the state and federal governments from requiring the purchase of health insurance or imposing any penalty, tax, fee or fine on those who do not purchase health insurance. The prohibition does not apply to: (1) a court which orders the purchase of insurance when an individual or entity is a named party in a judicial dispute; (2) the state department of public health and human services as part of a child support enforcement action; or (3) the Montana university system as a requirement for students.

[ ] FOR prohibiting the state or federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance or imposing penalties for decisions related to purchasing health insurance.

[ ] AGAINST prohibiting the state or federal government from mandating the purchase of health insurance or imposing penalties for decisions related to purchasing health insurance.


BUT- with the ruling as made by the SCOTUS and Chief Justice Roberts-- that means absolutely nothing no matter if it pass's or it doesn't....They ruled a national federal mandate requiring everyone be made to purchase health insurance or put a tax penalty on them for not doing so is legal - NATIONWIDE....

I don't even think I voted on that one- because its already a moot issue..

tax bills have to originate in the House not the Senate- ooops :oops: :oops:
So this bill passes by popular vote and the State Legislature does it's job and keeps it's oath to support protect and defend both the U.S. Constitution and the Montana Constitution and makes the state penalty for trying to enforce this "mandate/penalty/tax" oh say around 10 years in the state pen and a $500,000 dollar fine and it's applicable on all government beaur-o-crats. who will be the first one to try and enforce it?
Oh and with the passage of the Castle Doctrine in Montana in 2008 it is very legal and proper for a citizen to make the arrest on anyone that tries to extort this payment out of them. also read the 9th and 10th ammendments! The SCOTUS are NOT the final arbitrators of our Constitution! The States created the Federal Government to serve us, not the other way around. by the way, if you blow the dust off of your copy of our Constitution to read the 9th and 10 ammendment why don't you read Article 6 as well. and maybe take a walk down memory lane and read the Declaration of Independence,
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
 
Top