Final Obamacare "Individual Mandate" Rules Released: This Is What You Will Pay

[NightFox]

Oh believe me someone will be paying for every freeloader in the country.

You can bet it won't be the freeloaders.

Not sure about you but I sure don't want to pay for someone elses HC. Anyone that does is a flamming idiot.

To be honest with you Claudette helping to pay for someone Else's health insurance isn't an issue for me, as long as it can be demonstrated that the person receiving the help is truly needy (below the poverty line) and that something is being done to actually assist that person to become self-reliant. What I object to is subsidizing the health insurance of people that are NOT below the poverty line and being forced to accept lower quality health insurance for myself and my family at HIGHER prices simply because the federal government wants to impose arbitrary conformity standards on everyone.

Healthcare policy in general should be done at the STATE level not the federal level so that policies are tailored more to the wants and needs of the constituents affected by them. For example the Massachusetts program was fine, because thats what the people of Massachusetts wanted, as long as I'm not forced to pay for it, more power to 'em. However the authoritarians feel justified in screwing over everyone else in the country by shoving what the people of Massachusetts wanted down everyone's throat, whether it's what we want or not.

The hubris and lack of empathy of these authoritarian statists is simply astounding.

"a state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country" --Justice Louis Brandeis, New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann

 

[AceRothstein]

Bend over America

-Geaux

Final Obamacare "Individual Mandate" Rules Released: This Is What You Will Pay

ith president Obama taking his role as Warmonger-In-Chief ever more seriously, it is easy to forget that the only important function before the greatest presidential teleprompter reader in history, is that of Socialized Healthcare Provider-in-Comrade. And so today, in the fog of pre-war, the Obama administration released the final rules on the "Individual Mandate" component of Obamacare, which requires most Americans to buy health insurance starting in 2014 or be fined. Specifically, the rules list lay out the amount of penalties that Americans will face if they opt out of socialized healthcare.

The WSJ was kind enough to read the Treasury Department release and summarize it as follows:

Most Americans will be required to have health insurance starting in 2014 and will have to report whether they had coverage on their 2015 tax returns. An individual who opts against carrying insurance will be subject to a fine of $95 next year or 1% of income above a certain threshold, which is ever greater. The penalty increases to $695 per person in 2016 and beyond – or 2.5% of taxable annual income – with the amount rising by inflation.

You are such a dumb fuck. I have some of the best health insurance available through my job. However, were my health suddenly to deteriorate, a distinct possibility at 70, my wife would not have health care insurance at present, as she is much younger than I am. However, after 1Jan14, the cost of that health care insurance would drop to about 1/6 of what it is at present. So, after 1Jan14, I have a realistic option of retiring, should I chose to do so.

What's really important is that you get yours, screw everybody else, right?

That's the Republican way.

 

[NightFox]

You are such a dumb fuck. I have some of the best health insurance available through my job. However, were my health suddenly to deteriorate, a distinct possibility at 70, my wife would not have health care insurance at present, as she is much younger than I am. However, after 1Jan14, the cost of that health care insurance would drop to about 1/6 of what it is at present. So, after 1Jan14, I have a realistic option of retiring, should I chose to do so.

What's really important is that you get yours, screw everybody else, right?

That's the Republican way.

It's the Democrat way too, mindless partisan robots are so very tiresome, as long as their chosen brand of criminality reigns supreme they don't give a damn about who they screw over, what they steal or the people whose lives are negatively impacted.

The choice between Republicans and Democrats is a choice of whether to be eaten by jackals or to be eaten by hyenas.

"The private citizen, beset by partisan appeals for the loan of his public opinion, will soon see, perhaps, that these appeals are not a compliment to his intelligence, but an imposition on his good nature and an insult to his sense of evidence." -- Walter Lippman

 

[Geaux4it]

This is news to you chumps? LOL. Thank Obama for your free or cheap guaranteed health care, get a doctor and a free checkup, and stfu, morons. Welcome to civilization.

I have health care and have no issue with the cost. But now we are to help pay for those who chose to spend their money on luxuries instead of making health care a priority.. So now we are screwed because it's all of a sudden important to them? LMAO

-Geaux

 

[dblack]

So you choose to go without health insurance? If you get sick, who will pay your medical bills? Maybe you are self-insured? Or if you get sick, maybe you just plan on letting those who actually pay for insurance pick up the tab for you?

It's really none of your business. How much more of this 'guilty-until-proven-innocent' shit are we going to indulge in the US?

 

[Geaux4it]

So you choose to go without health insurance? If you get sick, who will pay your medical bills? Maybe you are self-insured? Or if you get sick, maybe you just plan on letting those who actually pay for insurance pick up the tab for you?

It's really none of your business. How much more of this 'guilty-until-proven-innocent' shit are we going to indulge in the US?

This folks. /\/\/\/\

I respect the right for those who don't want health care to make that choice. Just as I expect those to respect the insurance I have without forcing me to pay for health care for those who don't want it.

Now the decision has been made to force insurance on those who don't want it, I have issue not making that demographic pay for it. Why do we that already have insurance have to pay for those who choose not to have it?

-Geaux

 

[The Rabbi]

You are such a dumb fuck. I have some of the best health insurance available through my job. However, were my health suddenly to deteriorate, a distinct possibility at 70, my wife would not have health care insurance at present, as she is much younger than I am. However, after 1Jan14, the cost of that health care insurance would drop to about 1/6 of what it is at present. So, after 1Jan14, I have a realistic option of retiring, should I chose to do so.

What's really important is that you get yours, screw everybody else, right?

That's the Republican way.

How is that Republican? The Democrats concocted this scheme. The Democrats have exempted themselves from this mess. The Democrats have saddled average working Americans with bills from illegals and cheats. The Democrats have voted in funds for unions, trial lawyers and other favored groups at everyone else's expense.
You need to get your partisan head out of Debbie's ass and see what's going on here.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

This is news to you chumps? LOL. Thank Obama for your free or cheap guaranteed health care, get a doctor and a free checkup, and stfu, morons. Welcome to civilization.

"Free" ? Lol ! You are so pathetic.

 

[AceRothstein]

What's really important is that you get yours, screw everybody else, right?

That's the Republican way.

How is that Republican? The Democrats concocted this scheme. The Democrats have exempted themselves from this mess. The Democrats have saddled average working Americans with bills from illegals and cheats. The Democrats have voted in funds for unions, trial lawyers and other favored groups at everyone else's expense.
You need to get your partisan head out of Debbie's ass and see what's going on here.

You fucking idiot, I was referring to his "you got yours, screw everyone else" statement. I wasn't at all talking about the ACA.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's the Republican way.

How is that Republican? The Democrats concocted this scheme. The Democrats have exempted themselves from this mess. The Democrats have saddled average working Americans with bills from illegals and cheats. The Democrats have voted in funds for unions, trial lawyers and other favored groups at everyone else's expense.
You need to get your partisan head out of Debbie's ass and see what's going on here.

You fucking idiot, I was referring to his "you got yours, screw everyone else" statement. I wasn't at all talking about the ACA.

You fucking moron, the ACA is a great example of Democrats saying "I got mine, screw everyone else", exactly what you complained about the Republicans.
You're a litle short on actual examples. That's probably because you're ill informed and stupid.

 

[Jarhead]

Bend over America

-Geaux

Final Obamacare "Individual Mandate" Rules Released: This Is What You Will Pay

ith president Obama taking his role as Warmonger-In-Chief ever more seriously, it is easy to forget that the only important function before the greatest presidential teleprompter reader in history, is that of Socialized Healthcare Provider-in-Comrade. And so today, in the fog of pre-war, the Obama administration released the final rules on the "Individual Mandate" component of Obamacare, which requires most Americans to buy health insurance starting in 2014 or be fined. Specifically, the rules list lay out the amount of penalties that Americans will face if they opt out of socialized healthcare.

The WSJ was kind enough to read the Treasury Department release and summarize it as follows:

Most Americans will be required to have health insurance starting in 2014 and will have to report whether they had coverage on their 2015 tax returns. An individual who opts against carrying insurance will be subject to a fine of $95 next year or 1% of income above a certain threshold, which is ever greater. The penalty increases to $695 per person in 2016 and beyond – or 2.5% of taxable annual income – with the amount rising by inflation.

You are such a dumb fuck. I have some of the best health insurance available through my job. However, were my health suddenly to deteriorate, a distinct possibility at 70, my wife would not have health care insurance at present, as she is much younger than I am. However, after 1Jan14, the cost of that health care insurance would drop to about 1/6 of what it is at present. So, after 1Jan14, I have a realistic option of retiring, should I chose to do so.

Lets put aside what those that favor the ACA say is true...and look at plain logic.

The younger Americans are what will make the ACA work......assuming they play the game properly. Afterall, their premiums will go in, and very little will be paid out for they are more often than not healthy......so a profit will be made on their premiums.

However......

Most, if not all young Americans will be faced with this:

Pay 4,000 a year for health insurance I will not use or pay 700 penalty. 4000 or 700....what to do, what to do. I make a mere 35K a year and have the expenses of clubbing, dating, rent, fashionable wardrobe, beer......4000 or 700. Hmmmm...

Wait....no more pre existing conditions rules....I can simply buy the insurance when I need it.....so I will get to save 3300 a year......

Then they get sick....pay their 4000 for their insurance....and get 100,000 in benefits....a loss of 96,000.

So the ones that will make insurance cheaper for you and your wife are actually going to make it infinitely more expensive.

Apply logic. Don't simply go with what they tell you.

 

[AceRothstein]

How is that Republican? The Democrats concocted this scheme. The Democrats have exempted themselves from this mess. The Democrats have saddled average working Americans with bills from illegals and cheats. The Democrats have voted in funds for unions, trial lawyers and other favored groups at everyone else's expense.
You need to get your partisan head out of Debbie's ass and see what's going on here.

You fucking idiot, I was referring to his "you got yours, screw everyone else" statement. I wasn't at all talking about the ACA.

You fucking moron, the ACA is a great example of Democrats saying "I got mine, screw everyone else", exactly what you complained about the Republicans.
You're a litle short on actual examples. That's probably because you're ill informed and stupid.

Nobody is saying screw everyone else in regards to the ACA.

I got mine, screw everyone else is the golden plank of the GOP.

 

[The Rabbi]

You fucking idiot, I was referring to his "you got yours, screw everyone else" statement. I wasn't at all talking about the ACA.

You fucking moron, the ACA is a great example of Democrats saying "I got mine, screw everyone else", exactly what you complained about the Republicans.
You're a litle short on actual examples. That's probably because you're ill informed and stupid.

Nobody is saying screw everyone else in regards to the ACA.

I got mine, screw everyone else is the golden plank of the GOP.

Except Congress, the unions, etc.
Pay attention, big haired boy. You need to learn a few things.

 

[Jarhead]

You fucking idiot, I was referring to his "you got yours, screw everyone else" statement. I wasn't at all talking about the ACA.

You fucking moron, the ACA is a great example of Democrats saying "I got mine, screw everyone else", exactly what you complained about the Republicans.
You're a litle short on actual examples. That's probably because you're ill informed and stupid.

Nobody is saying screw everyone else in regards to the ACA.

I got mine, screw everyone else is the golden plank of the GOP.

Really?

Then why did congress gat a waiver for themselves and their staff? Isnt that saying "I got mine and screw everyone else"?

 

[The Rabbi]

You fucking moron, the ACA is a great example of Democrats saying "I got mine, screw everyone else", exactly what you complained about the Republicans.
You're a litle short on actual examples. That's probably because you're ill informed and stupid.

Nobody is saying screw everyone else in regards to the ACA.

I got mine, screw everyone else is the golden plank of the GOP.

Really?

Then why did congress gat a waiver for themselves and their staff? Isnt that saying "I got mine and screw everyone else"?

If you have your head up Debbie Wasserman-Shultz' tuchas it doesnt look like that.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Oh believe me someone will be paying for every freeloader in the country.

You can bet it won't be the freeloaders.

Not sure about you but I sure don't want to pay for someone elses HC. Anyone that does is a flamming idiot.

To be honest with you Claudette helping to pay for someone Else's health insurance isn't an issue for me, as long as it can be demonstrated that the person receiving the help is truly needy (below the poverty line) and that something is being done to actually assist that person to become self-reliant. What I object to is subsidizing the health insurance of people that are NOT below the poverty line and being forced to accept lower quality health insurance for myself and my family at HIGHER prices simply because the federal government wants to impose arbitrary conformity standards on everyone.

Healthcare policy in general should be done at the STATE level not the federal level so that policies are tailored more to the wants and needs of the constituents affected by them. For example the Massachusetts program was fine, because thats what the people of Massachusetts wanted, as long as I'm not forced to pay for it, more power to 'em. However the authoritarians feel justified in screwing over everyone else in the country by shoving what the people of Massachusetts wanted down everyone's throat, whether it's what we want or not.

The hubris and lack of empathy of these authoritarian statists is simply astounding.

"a state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country" --Justice Louis Brandeis, New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann

Didn't/doesn't Romenycare require additional monies (in the billions) from the feds?

 

[NightFox]

Oh believe me someone will be paying for every freeloader in the country.

You can bet it won't be the freeloaders.

Not sure about you but I sure don't want to pay for someone elses HC. Anyone that does is a flamming idiot.

To be honest with you Claudette helping to pay for someone Else's health insurance isn't an issue for me, as long as it can be demonstrated that the person receiving the help is truly needy (below the poverty line) and that something is being done to actually assist that person to become self-reliant. What I object to is subsidizing the health insurance of people that are NOT below the poverty line and being forced to accept lower quality health insurance for myself and my family at HIGHER prices simply because the federal government wants to impose arbitrary conformity standards on everyone.

Healthcare policy in general should be done at the STATE level not the federal level so that policies are tailored more to the wants and needs of the constituents affected by them. For example the Massachusetts program was fine, because thats what the people of Massachusetts wanted, as long as I'm not forced to pay for it, more power to 'em. However the authoritarians feel justified in screwing over everyone else in the country by shoving what the people of Massachusetts wanted down everyone's throat, whether it's what we want or not.

The hubris and lack of empathy of these authoritarian statists is simply astounding.

"a state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country" --Justice Louis Brandeis, New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann

Didn't/doesn't Romenycare require additional monies (in the billions) from the feds?

As far as I know no extraordinary federal allocation was provided to Massachusetts to offset increased costs for their state program.

 

[Claudette]

If a State wants to have a MA type HC system then the taxpayers of that State should foot the bills. Not the taxpayers of America.

The only winners in the ACA are going to be those who can't pay for their own HC insurance. All the rest of us will be paying for our HC and theirs.

That is going to suck big time and anyone who thinks its going to be cheaper or better is living in la la land.

The ACA is a trainwreck and the Dem idiots who passed it are now catching a clue as to what they have foisted on we taxpayers. Notice how they have exempted themselve and staff??

The Unions also are trying to get themselves subsidized by we the taxpayer or exempted form ACA .

That shouuld tell everyone everything they need to know about this POS bill. Its a fucking trainwreck and we are not stuck with it.

 

[Zoom-boing]

To be honest with you Claudette helping to pay for someone Else's health insurance isn't an issue for me, as long as it can be demonstrated that the person receiving the help is truly needy (below the poverty line) and that something is being done to actually assist that person to become self-reliant. What I object to is subsidizing the health insurance of people that are NOT below the poverty line and being forced to accept lower quality health insurance for myself and my family at HIGHER prices simply because the federal government wants to impose arbitrary conformity standards on everyone.

Healthcare policy in general should be done at the STATE level not the federal level so that policies are tailored more to the wants and needs of the constituents affected by them. For example the Massachusetts program was fine, because thats what the people of Massachusetts wanted, as long as I'm not forced to pay for it, more power to 'em. However the authoritarians feel justified in screwing over everyone else in the country by shoving what the people of Massachusetts wanted down everyone's throat, whether it's what we want or not.

The hubris and lack of empathy of these authoritarian statists is simply astounding.

"a state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country" --Justice Louis Brandeis, New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann

Didn't/doesn't Romenycare require additional monies (in the billions) from the feds?

As far as I know no extraordinary federal allocation was provided to Massachusetts to offset increased costs for their state program.

You are misinformed.

Brian Moody’s profile on Romney’s health care plan published in the Boston Globe read: “Another source of concern is that the state, during the economic downswing, relied heavily on federal stimulus funds — $582 million over three years — to meet the expense of the health overhaul. But that revenue source, designed to offset some of the expense of the unemployed moving onto Medicaid, expires June 30, meaning the state will have to come up with almost $200 million from another revenue source next year. Without the bonus federal Medicaid funds, the price tag for the state’s share will rise from about 1.2 percent to about 1.8 percent of the total state budget.” [Brian Mooney, Boston Globe, 6/26/11]

Today's Debate Headquarters | Democrats.org

I stated billions; millions is correct.

 

[NightFox]

Didn't/doesn't Romenycare require additional monies (in the billions) from the feds?

As far as I know no extraordinary federal allocation was provided to Massachusetts to offset increased costs for their state program.

You are misinformed.

Brian Moody’s profile on Romney’s health care plan published in the Boston Globe read: “Another source of concern is that the state, during the economic downswing, relied heavily on federal stimulus funds — $582 million over three years — to meet the expense of the health overhaul. But that revenue source, designed to offset some of the expense of the unemployed moving onto Medicaid, expires June 30, meaning the state will have to come up with almost $200 million from another revenue source next year. Without the bonus federal Medicaid funds, the price tag for the state’s share will rise from about 1.2 percent to about 1.8 percent of the total state budget.” [Brian Mooney, Boston Globe, 6/26/11]

Today's Debate Headquarters | Democrats.org

I stated billions; millions is correct.

Thanks for the info. much appreciated, while I don't approve of Massachusetts getting targeted federal "stimulus" dollars to offset the costs of their chosen state health care policies (which appears to be an extraordinary 1 time event), it's much less distressing than imposing similar policies on the entire nation. One of the beauties of the states acting as "laboratories of democracy" is that each state can learn from the successes and failures of the other states as well as tailor policies to the unique wants, needs and standards of it's own citizenry.

This of course is something that flies in the face of the incredible hubris of the authoritarian statists that believe they know what is best for everybody and thus feel no shame in using federal power to shove it down everybody's throat. The same people wonder why those of us whose brains haven't been turned to mush by overexposure to partisan propaganda view them with suspicion and contempt.