I'm shocked. I thought the affordable care act would be struck down in a flame of partisanship among the justices.
I'm with you and Dachs on this one , both shocked and over the top happy . I have been sick of worry about this ruling and prepared for the worst . I'm also counting the days now till the donut hole is closed for part D drug plans .
I have been thinking I would have been better off leaving the U.S. and have been looking into it to see if it was feasible to do so . I doubt I could have moved abroad but this is how upset I have been over this issue . I finally feel like some progress has been made after living over two decades constantly worrying about my health care and how it effected my ability to live a semi normal life .
I'm also counting the days now till the donut hole is closed for part D drug plans .
Oh and Dachsund you know what I think of you, I won't rehash it here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/
I've been reading this law and I'm not so sure I like it. I like the idea of universal coverage for the country, I just don't like the private health insurance companies being pulled into it. Also the penalties for not having insurance...You don't have money, so you can't buy insurance, so they charge you more money and you still don't have insurance? I'm not sure that's a well thought out plan, maybe I misunderstood it.
Somethings wrong with that link
...
I finally feel like some progress has been made after living over two decades constantly worrying about my health care and how it effected my ability to live a semi normal life .
...
One of the main provisions of this Act, which I have been reading before the today's decision from the S.Ct. is to expand Medicaid and make ALL people in every state who have income below 133% of the FPL (federal poverty level) eligible for Medicaid.
Wow, I guess that leaves me out, I'm way above the 133% FPL :-[
Somethings wrong with that link, no mater what annual income I enter, even down to 1000 a year it says you will probably not qualify for federal assistance to help you purchase insurance. It also says If you do not purchases insurance you will be subject to a $42k penalty. Although I think the states will be offering the assistance?The penalty amount depends on how you answered the questions.
I'm eager to see just how affordable and accessible healthcare will become under the Affordable Care Act, but it's still going to take a few years of implementation to see how that really works out. With additional flexibility to purchase health insurance, it sure would be nice not to have to base every career decision on what health insurance my employer does / does not cover.
The penalty amount depends on how you answered the questions.
It does not appear to work if you change your answers without refreshing
the page and answering the questions all over again.
Sad day for CNNFOXSPEWS (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/health-care-ruling-scotus-cnn-gaffe-fox-news-154347515.html)
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS IS A TRAITOR WHO HATES FREEDOM!
ah yes, thank you. It was figuring the penalty on my original entry of $30k/yr.I input $30k/yr for a single individual and it indicated my full penalty would be $74+k.
I input $30k/yr for a single individual and it indicated my full penalty would be $74+k.
They have to be adding up the penalties from 2014-2016 or their math is wrong.
Why else would the penalty be way over my indicated adjusted gross income?
Either way their numbers seem wrong.
(30k * 3(yrs)) - 74k(penalty) = (leaves me with only) $16k (over the three years)?
Sad day for CNNFOXSPEWS (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/health-care-ruling-scotus-cnn-gaffe-fox-news-154347515.html)
I must be missing something here. I entered info for a single person with NO insurance with $30K income and this is what I saw:Here is what I see. (note the difference in how the $30k was input)
A penalty of about $695
Here is what I see. (note the difference in how the $30k was input)
It looks like the decimal point is ignored.
Yes, apparently it's reading '$30,000' as $300.00, then giving a penalty of $695.That is not what I meant.
Here is what I see. (note the difference in how the $30k was input)
It looks like the decimal point is ignored.
Yes, apparently it's reading '$30,000' as $300.00, then giving a penalty of $695.
Edit: OR it's reading $30,000.00 as $3 million and giving a penalty of $74k..which would be more acceptable.
whatever, its a stupid calculator
I just entered $.03 and it says "Obama lies; freedom dies"
My father is having a field day on facebook about how we are all doomed. I poked a stick at the frothing conservatives he's friends with. They took it well, I was only called a socialist like 12 times.
This is an absolute gem.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare
The highest the penalty can be is 1% of a person's income...
I believe the lowest it can be is $25...
The penalty given is the higher of the two....
So, a person making $50,000 a year would be subject to a penalty of $500 for not having insurance.
The Court noted that the enforcement mechanism for the penalty made it relatively toothless:
An individual who fails to pay the penalty is not subject to criminal or additional civil penalties. The IRS’s authority to use liens or levies does not apply to the penalty. No interest accrues on the penalty. The Act contains no enforcement mechanism. See id. All the IRS, practically speaking, can do is offset any tax refund owed to the uninsured taxpayer.
For anyone interested...
All the gory details can be found here:
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/ (http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/)
In the "Full text of the Affordable Care Act" pdf file...
pdf page 164 (document page 145) the penalties are discussed under...
"Chapter 48 - MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE"
Good luck trying to make heads/tails of it. ;)
For anyone interested...
All the gory details can be found here:
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/ (http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/)
Assuming Barack Obama is re-elected in 2012 and the Affordable Care Act is implemented starting in 2014, which states are most likely to decline the federal government's offer to expand Medicaid on extremely generous terms?
In the very short-term, the decision is likely to be based on idiosyncratic elements of local politics. Governor Rick Perry of Texas has defined his political career in terms of sharp antagonism to the federal government, and Governor Rick Scott of Florida has defined his political career in terms of sharp antagonism to the Affordable Care Act. But it's by no means clear that either of those men will be in office by 2015. Over the longer term, Medicaid expansion should be driven by structural factors rather than the peculiarities of any particular politician.
The way I see it playing out, in most places local health care providers—hospitals, doctors—plus the national pharmaceutical industry will exist as a powerful lobby in favor of expansion. More Medicaid equals more customers. Certain classes of low-wage employers should also favor expansion. That means the greatest opposition to expansion over the long-term may come not from places like Texas, but from the low-population states of the Plains. Why? Because those are the places most likely to be suffering from shortages of doctors and other health providers. In a place where people worry about provider shortages, Medicaid expansion won't do existing providers much good. And the existing set of insured people will worry that completely aside from financial issues, Medicaid expansion will mean fewer doctors' appointments and hospital beds to go around.