# Vent about the "Affordable" Care Act...gonna be long!



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

As some of you might have gleaned from reading some of my posts, I *DESPISE* Obamacare. The way it was passed and signed into law (sometimes I wish I could punch Pelosi square in the face for her infamous "you have to pass it to see what's in it" remark), the individual mandate, the "penalty" that (regardless of how many ways those who embrace this monstrosity try to sugar coat it) IS A TAX, the broken promises...the whole shebang.

It seems that now, if I understand correctly, I have yet another reason to despise it even more...allow me to lay this out and please, by all means, if I'm wrong, show me I'm wrong.

So after reading a few posts about some folks finding policies on the Marketplace with MUCH lower deductibles than what I saw when I tried to sign up for 2014, I decided to give it another go and see if anything had somehow miraculously changed. So off I go...

I used 2014's income for 2015, input all my info (which was exactly the same as the first go-round, including income, by the way), and in a couple of minutes I received my Eligibility Results Statement..."You don't qualify for a tax credit because you have access to or are enrolled in coverage through a job that meets minimum standards".

So, I don't qualify for a "tax credit" because insurance is available to me through DH's employer..that's fine with me as the idea of having someone else pay my bills never sat quite right with me in the first place, so SURELY there must be at least ONE policy available to me on the Marketplace with an affordable premium, right?

WRONG! The lowest premium available to me was over $100/mo higher than that I could get through DH's employer. If I cannot afford to get insurance through DH's employer, it doesn't take a genius to figure out I cannot afford "affordable" insurance through the Marketplace for $100 more! 

Well then, I just won't have insurance yet again because I cannot afford it, but I'll still be charged a penalty (AKA tax, TYVM!). Then I recalled something about if the cost of insurance exceeded 8 percent of annual income (hereafter referred to as AI), you would be exempt from the individual mandate. I ran the numbers and, just as I suspected, the cost of adding me to DH's insurance WOULD be over that 8 percent, so hey! Light at the end of the tunnel after all, yes?

Ummm, that would be a big, fat NOPE!

As I understand it, the affordability test (as it applies to our situation) is based on whether or not DH's insurance through his employer is considered "affordable". The test is thus...if the portion DH actually pays for HIS insurance (referred to as "self-only") does not exceed 8 percent (or 9.5...still unclear over which one it is) of his AI, then that insurance is considered affordable to our household.

What? What about the cost of adding ME to his insurance jacking that 8 (or 9.5) percent up to over 15 percent for both of us combined???

Doesn't matter...if I'm understanding this correctly, the test is based SOLELY on whether or not the amount HE pays for HIS insurance (a little over 5 percent of AI) falls below that threshold.

WHAT KIND OF MESS IS THAT! Just because HIS 5 percent of AI premium is under the threshold it makes that 15 percent for both of us AFFORDABLE? SERIOUSLY? Who in the WORLD came up with this "affordability" test...Tweedledee and Tweedledum? 

Sigh. I knew when I first heard Obama yammering about "affordable" health care that it was going to go sour right off the bat, and at the first mention of "individual mandate", I told DH "somebody's" wallet is about to get FAT!

Anyway, thanks for letting me go on this long and sometimes rambling tirade. I just sometimes feel so "pinned down", so to speak, with no way out, KWIM?

Anyway, as I NEED insurance, I'm looking at Christian Healthcare Ministries and the $150/mo Gold plan looks do-able for me, but I'm still trying to figure out exactly how they work (I honestly can't see these local med services discounting anything...there will probably end up being some sort of "requirement" I'll have to meet to get a discount and I won't meet it...as usual). Anyway, gonna give them a call Monday and see what the deal is.

Gonna go look for some goat baby pics so I won't go to bed all mad and stuff! 

Hugs to all that'll take 'em,

HGhttp://www.homesteadingtoday.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

my premium has went up two months in a row now.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Does anyone know "what" is the penalty if you DON'T have insurance?

I make less than 35K a year, and my premium is 200.00 a month with a 1500.00 deductible........so, my health care costs me 3,900.00 a year, more than about 14% of my GROSS annual income.....
THAT my friends is NOT affordable.


----------



## popscott (Oct 6, 2004)

I'm sure some folks from Nevada will be on here telling you all about it here shortly.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hippy,
I am confused, on one hand you seem upset at the nature of 0care and that it exists. Then in the same "venting", you seem upset that you don't get the subsidy.

Which is it?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Its both, I'm sure.
B/c why do some get subsidies & not others?
B/c ObummerUNcare only works if you don't.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

HDRider said:


> Hippy,
> I am confused, on one hand you seem upset at the nature of 0care and that it exists. Then in the same "venting", you seem upset that you don't get the subsidy.
> 
> Which is it?


Because while the law was touted as being fair, the way it's written, it's about as UNfair as it can get. 

And it is putting undue burdens on a whole bunch of people....which sounds like grounds for a whole bunch of lawsuits to me.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

It can be very frustrating when you fall through the cracks, and unfortunately there are lots of cracks in the ACA. 

Hippygirl -- I was on Christian Healthcare Ministries before I aged out into Medicare. It is a fabulous plan. I was on the gold plan and paid quarterly for My Brother's Keeper, so had plenty of coverage if I ever needed it. The one time I did need it -- over $3500. of testing for a heart condition, I ended up paying less than $200.00 out of pocket. The CHM folks will work directly with your providers to get the best discounts, and I had no problem with any healthcare provider giving the same discount as they give regular insurance (about 35%), and one was so impressed with the program he gave the same discount as Medicaid. 

What they don't pay is wellness exams, routine doctor's visits, any procedure under $500.00 or on-going medications. But the best place to get prescription meds is RXOutreach. I use them even though I have drug coverage because they are less than my deductibles.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

there was a news article here in my area about a woman who works and doesnt qualfy for subsidy but makes to much for medicare...she made $16,245....here in virginia if you make over $8,109 you dont qualify for medicade....WTH !!!!!!!!....you gotta be kidding me....there are 1,000's in my state that work and fall in coverage gap....me being one....the article say theres 400,000 gap people in my state....ohyeeeeee..

of those 400,000 71% are low wage working house holds !!!!

what a system we have as the huge corps get record profits .


ETA...was it GE made 700million a couple tears back and never paid a dime in taxes and they took all the flak when tv media exposed the story?


----------



## DAVID In Wisconsin (Dec 3, 2002)

ACA a is a misnomer as it is neither affordable nor about promoting good health care


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

elkhound said:


> ETA...was it GE made 700million a couple tears back and never paid a dime in taxes and they took all the flak when tv media exposed the story?


 Then after all that the real truth came out and was buried by the media. WHY? because they HATE rich companies that is why.


> Those headlines are based on the storyâs third paragraph, which discusses GEâs 2010 financial results. âIts American tax bill? None. In fact, GE claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.â That seems to say that GE GE is getting a tax refund for 2010 â but the words âtax benefitâ are so ambiguous that itâs not clear what they mean, and the article never explains them, or mentions them again.
> 
> By the time a revised (and accurate) headline got slapped on the later-edition print issues â âAt GE on Tax Day, Billions of Reasons to Smileâ â the idea that the Times was saying that GE paid no U.S. income taxes and was getting a big refund was firmly implanted.





> Did GE get a $3.2 billion tax refund? No.
> 
> *Did GE pay U.S. income taxes in 2010? Yes, it paid estimated taxes for 2010, and also made payments for previous years*. Think of it as your having paid withholding taxes on your salary in 2010, and sending the IRS a check on April 15, 2010, covering your balance owed for 2009.


 But of course that story never made it to the front page and never sank into the minds of those that hate the rich.

http://fortune.com/2011/04/04/the-truth-about-ges-tax-bill/


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

No one should ever have to pay the Obamacare penalty for not having health insurance (well, at least if you're willing to tell a fib!). Go read the list of exemptions. Playing the domestic violence victim card will get you an exemption without any documentation required whatsoever. You can also acquire a utility shut-off notice (another exemption) by letting your payments lapse for a couple of months. Just make sure you bring your account up to date before they actually cut off the power! :teehee:

Make too little to qualify for Obamacare? I explained how to get around that one, too, in another thread. If anyone is interested and can't find it, I'll recap here upon request. 

Read the rules ... figure out how to make them work for you! :thumb:


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Last year I went and signed up for silver plan. Both of us on SS and thank heavens my DH gets his care through the VA. I paid several months of premiums and then discontinued the ins. because before I would get any sick care I would have to pay a $3500.00 deductible plus 20% copay. I was informed that since I had over 3 months premiums paid I would not incur a tax penalty for 2014. We'll see.

Next year at 2% income penalty that should be about $600.00. If they find a way to collect the subsidy because WI didn't play patty cake with them I/we would owe much more. This whole mess has been one great big shell game. 

I will not lie to get exemption from the penalty. I don't believe in it. Also who knows what penalty they have hidden away like a copperhead for that action... Open and transparent...:umno:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

light rain said:


> Last year I went and signed up for silver plan. Both of us on SS and thank heavens my DH gets his care through the VA. I paid several months of premiums and then discontinued the ins. because before I would get any sick care I would have to pay a $3500.00 deductible plus 20% copay. I was informed that since I had over 3 months premiums paid I would not incur a tax penalty for 2014. We'll see.
> 
> Next year at 2% income penalty that should be about $600.00. If they find a way to collect the subsidy because WI didn't play patty cake with them I/we would owe much more. This whole mess has been one great big shell game.
> 
> I will not lie to get exemption from the penalty. I don't believe in it. Also who knows what penalty they have hidden away like a copperhead for that action... Open and transparent...:umno:


 Ya it is too bad that Medicare doesn't kick in when someone starts on SS. Why must it be age 65?
And even those that go on SSDI there is a 24 month wait before getting Medicare.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> No one should ever have to pay the Obamacare penalty for not having health insurance (well, at least if you're willing to tell a fib!). Go read the list of exemptions. Playing the domestic violence victim card will get you an exemption without any documentation required whatsoever. You can also acquire a utility shut-off notice (another exemption) by letting your payments lapse for a couple of months. Just make sure you bring your account up to date before they actually cut off the power! :teehee: :thumb:


But isn't that defeating the goal of having more _paying_ customers, which was supposed to reduce health care costs?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

willow_girl said:


> No one should ever have to pay the Obamacare penalty for not having health insurance (well, at least if you're willing to tell a fib!). Go read the list of exemptions. Playing the domestic violence victim card will get you an exemption without any documentation required whatsoever. You can also acquire a utility shut-off notice (another exemption) by letting your payments lapse for a couple of months. Just make sure you bring your account up to date before they actually cut off the power! :teehee:
> 
> Make too little to qualify for Obamacare? I explained how to get around that one, too, in another thread. If anyone is interested and can't find it, I'll recap here upon request.
> 
> Read the rules ... figure out how to make them work for you! :thumb:


 Control that is what it is all about. Control insurance for people and you control those people. And also you have the government in control of 1/6th of the nations economy. And that in by itself is not good at all.


----------



## deb_rn (Apr 16, 2010)

This is all part of the plan to make people dependent on government... then we switch to One World Order....the Pope is helping to move that along very nicely!
Keep praying for the Rapture... it's the only hope we have now!

Debbie


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I can see why most people call it Obamacare instead of the ACA. It definitely isn't affordable. But Obamacare is wrong also as everyone knows Obama does not care.


----------



## lhspirited (Jan 31, 2010)

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/obamacare-healthcare-coverage-spouses

..."Still, Rome says that Obamacare advocates would like to be able to address technical issues in the law, such as this potential spousal coverage problem, but that the Republican-controlled House makes that impossible. "It is an imperfection in the law and there are some things many of us want to fix," Rome says. "And we could if we did not have a GOP House of Representatives obsessed with repealing the law."


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

HDRider said:


> Hippy,
> I am confused, on one hand you seem upset at the nature of 0care and that it exists. Then in the same "venting", you seem upset that you don't get the subsidy.
> 
> Which is it?





Tricky Grama said:


> Its both, I'm sure.
> _*B/c why do some get subsidies & not others?
> B/c ObummerUNcare only works if you don't.*_


Thank you, TG! Add to that "B/c I'm required by law to participate in something I cannot afford or pay a penalty".

I knew somehow I wouldn't be able to articulate my thoughts such that everyone would understand, but that's basically it in a nutshell, it's unfair...it penalizes those who try to "do the right thing" and pay their own way in this world and rewards those who do not.

I do not know what the solution is or if one even exists in today's world. I was HOPING that minds more educated than my own would be able to come up with something, but Obamacare isn't it.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

lhspirited said:


> http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/05/obamacare-healthcare-coverage-spouses
> 
> ..."Still, Rome says that Obamacare advocates would like to be able to address technical issues in the law, such as this potential spousal coverage problem, but that the Republican-controlled House makes that impossible. "It is an imperfection in the law and there are some things many of us want to fix," Rome says. "And we could if we did not have a GOP House of Representatives obsessed with repealing the law."


Article was written in 2013, point being that no one can address the many problems associated with ocare in a timely manner? Maybe if they quit worrying about the republicans and worked on fixes there would be nothing to argue about. :hammer:


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

light rain said:


> Last year I went and signed up for silver plan. Both of us on SS and thank heavens my DH gets his care through the VA. I paid several months of premiums and then discontinued the ins. because before I would get any sick care I would have to pay a $3500.00 deductible plus 20% copay. I was informed that since I had over 3 months premiums paid I would not incur a tax penalty for 2014. We'll see.
> 
> Next year at 2% income penalty that should be about $600.00. If they find a way to collect the subsidy because WI didn't play patty cake with them I/we would owe much more. This whole mess has been one great big shell game.
> 
> _*I will not lie to get exemption from the penalty. I don't believe in it.*_ Also who knows what penalty they have hidden away like a copperhead for that action... Open and transparent...:umno:


Neither will I, LR. There is NO WAY I could ever even SUGGEST that my DH has abused me. Some folks have no problem with telling lies to get what they want, but my conscience won't let me do it.
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Many people say Obamacare is mostly for those who do not work. That is pretty far from the truth. If you do not work you do not file taxes. If you do not file taxes you cannot buy insurance through the ACA.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Got to


Www.contactingthecongress.org

The mindshare is good way for now.
Keep the list of exemptions out if not for another time but for someone else.

Call if you have a pro Obama dem demand that they know how you feel .That it IS THEIR FAULT. STAND UP

Clean house..bring back American pride and culture achievement by working.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

pancho said:


> Many people say Obamacare is mostly for those who do not work. That is pretty far from the truth. If you do not work you do not file taxes. *If you do not file taxes you cannot buy insurance through the ACA.*


 What happens to those people that went on SS at 62? 3 years before they can get Medicare. And many like myself, don't make enough on SS to file taxes. 
What happens to them?


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

pancho said:


> Many people say Obamacare is mostly for those who do not work. That is pretty far from the truth. If you do not work you do not file taxes. If you do not file taxes you cannot buy insurance through the ACA.


Not true. Obamination is looking out for his destitute voting base. In the states that expanded medicaid, if your income is below 133% of the federal poverty level, you can sign up for medicaid at no charge to you. No asset tests or other restrictions, just an income test. Detroit declared bankruptcy so can a state declare bankruptcy? Waiting to see what happens when the fed passes the cost of expanded medicaid on to the states. 

In states that didn't sign up for expanded medicaid you may qualify for medicaid if you make less than 133% of the federal poverty level. They do have asset tests and restrictions on who can get medicaid so you probably won't qualify. Your best bet is to move to a state that has expanded medicaid.

For those making under 133% of the federal poverty level, their choice is medicaid or buy health insurance on the open market. If they don't feel that medicaid is very good health insurance and would like to buy their own insurance, they don't qualify for subsidies even though they make less than those who do get subsidies. The health insurance plans that they can buy have to cover everything that Obamacare plans cover. They can not buy just the coverage they need or can afford. The plans have large premiums and deductibles. I think they can get an exemption from the tax (read penalty) based on income if they don't want to have insurance.

If you make over 133% of the federal poverty level, like the OP, you can get subsidies. The amount of the subsidies decline as income goes up until they go to zero at a specific point. Those on the low end of the income range probably will pay less in premiums than before but higher deductibles. Those in the higher part of the income range will pay higher premiums than before, even though they are getting some subsidies, and they will pay the higher deductibles. They are worse off than before Obummer care.

If your income is above the level that qualifies you for subsidies then you have to buy a health insurance plan that covers everything the Obummer care plan covers. The premiums and deductibles are higher than before. If you are rich enough you can self insure but you have to pay the tax. The tax is a percent of your income or a specific amount, whichever is higher, so it could get really expensive if you have a high income. Well to do folks are paying more for health care then before.

The only ones that universally benefited from Obummer care are those very low income folks that live in states that expanded medicaid. Some of the people with income just above 133% of the federal poverty level may be benefiting as well. Oh yea, forgot the insurance companies. They are getting fat.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Hippygirl, let me candid, 1) I don't lie or try to avoid it like the plague because I think it is wrong and a sign of weakness. But 2) I would be worried about getting caught and finding out what the hidden penalty the gov. has in store. It is both that guide my actions. 

Willow_girl I know you are trying to help and share options, they just wouldn't be options for me.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Neither will I, LR. There is NO WAY I could ever even SUGGEST that my DH has abused me.


Why does it have to be your husband, though? Be creative! My old cow, Bitey, gets cranky and clubs me with her head from time to time. That is domestic (animal) abuse, right? ound: 




> Willow_girl I know you are trying to help and share options, they just wouldn't be options for me.


That is fine, Light Rain; you have to be able to sleep at night. Everyone has their own parameters as far as what is acceptable. Me, having worked for the government and seen firsthand how it wastes our hard-earned tax dollars ... all bets are off, AFAIC.

Although for the record, I'm not actually using the strategies I've suggested to avoid the penalty. I qualify for a whopping subsidy, and thus I'm insured through Obamacare. I don't like it, but I figure if the government is going to fine me for not having insurance, it can darned well buy me some!


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

hippygirl said:


> Thank you, TG! Add to that "B/c I'm required by law to participate in something I cannot afford or pay a penalty".
> 
> I knew somehow I wouldn't be able to articulate my thoughts such that everyone would understand, but that's basically it in a nutshell, it's unfair...it penalizes those who try to "do the right thing" and pay their own way in this world and rewards those who do not.
> 
> I do not know what the solution is or if one even exists in today's world. I was HOPING that minds more educated than my own would be able to come up with something, but Obamacare isn't it.


Indeed, it takes money almost exclusively from those who stand no chance of deriving benefit to give to those who mostly never paid for it. It is simply a stupidly written law unvetted by debate prior to passage by strong arm methods. 
And it is not just a selective givaway. It also keeps those who pay yet don't benefit from seeking the best insurance solution for themselves by making such insurance illegal.
And makes the government the sole arbitrator of what health care is made available to whom. Which will get more intrusive each year. 
Obamacare is a cobbling together of the worst of private insurance health care and nationalized heath care.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

willow_girl said:


> Although for the record, I'm not actually using the strategies I've suggested to avoid the penalty. I qualify for a whopping subsidy, and thus I'm insured through Obamacare. I don't like it, but I figure if the government is going to fine me for not having insurance, it can darned well buy me some!


Almost right- the government would fine you but it is the taxpayers who are buying it for you. The government has no money of its own.

It frosts my cake to see all those ads with stories of freelance dress designers, florists, street dancers, etc that are touting the ability to now have people working at hard, ordinary jobs pay for insurance for them that was not affordable to them previously so they can keep following their bliss without worry.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

"Christians can opt out of Obama-care" article with link to comparison chart (below)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/gary-north/christians-can-opt-out-of-obamacare/

Chart with links
http://www.garynorth.com/Opt-Out.pdf


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

elkhound said:


> there was a news article here in my area about a woman who works and doesnt qualfy for subsidy but makes to much for medicare...she made $16,245....here in virginia if you make over $8,109 you dont qualify for medicade....WTH !!!!!!!!....you gotta be kidding me....there are 1,000's in my state that work and fall in coverage gap....me being one....the article say theres 400,000 gap people in my state....ohyeeeeee...


Don't blame the ACA for the coverage gap. Blame your state legislators who won't expand Medicaid. Texas and MO is in that same camp. If you lived in a state that expanded Medicaid there would not be a coverage gap. The law was written with a provision that states would expand Medicaid coverage so low income folks would get insurance, but that part of the law was struck down. 

So what's left, unfortunately, is those who work at low paying jobs and need the coverage are the ones who can't get it. The very ones the ACA was supposed to cover. The shame of it is for the first few years, the states would not pay any extra for expanded Medicaid. 

And before I'm flamed, I'm not advocating either way. As it is written the ACA is a mess. But there's nothing else better at present unless one goes through something like Christian Healthcare Ministries, Christian Medi-Share or the such.


----------



## Belfrybat (Feb 21, 2003)

BlackFeather said:


> "Christians can opt out of Obama-care" article with link to comparison chart (below)
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/02/gary-north/christians-can-opt-out-of-obamacare/
> 
> ...


I didn't check the articles, but saying only Christians can opt out is misleading. Anyone who was in a health sharing organization that was formed before 2010 (not sure of the exact date) meets the "insurance" exemption. Although the majority of them are Christian, I imagine there are others as well.

Well, out of curiosity, I checked the links and the best one is not even listed: Christian Healthcare Ministries. I suggest staying away from Christian Medi-Share as their premiums increase every year. I bailed when mine ended up over $300.00. CHM was $150.00 for better coverage.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

Well it looks to me like a lot of us will need to go to the re-education camp concerning this important matter. Let me know what time the bus is leaving.:hammer:


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> What happens to those people that went on SS at 62? 3 years before they can get Medicare. And many like myself, don't make enough on SS to file taxes.
> What happens to them?


You fell through a crack just like I did. You have to buy insurance or be fined but there isn't anyone who will sell you insurance. Sort of a bad place to be, I am right there with you.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Nimrod said:


> Not true. Obamination is looking out for his destitute voting base. In the states that expanded medicaid, if your income is below 133% of the federal poverty level, you can sign up for medicaid at no charge to you. No asset tests or other restrictions, just an income test. Detroit declared bankruptcy so can a state declare bankruptcy? Waiting to see what happens when the fed passes the cost of expanded medicaid on to the states.
> 
> In states that didn't sign up for expanded medicaid you may qualify for medicaid if you make less than 133% of the federal poverty level. They do have asset tests and restrictions on who can get medicaid so you probably won't qualify. Your best bet is to move to a state that has expanded medicaid.
> 
> ...


All of that may be true but I am still waiting to see. So far all O have received in a notice that I cannot buy insurance. They sent my paperwork on to medicaid but they must be pretty far behind as I haven't received anything from them. Really don't think I will.


----------



## billinwv (Sep 27, 2013)

pancho said:


> All of that may be true but I am still waiting to see. So far all O have received in a notice that I cannot buy insurance. They sent my paperwork on to medicaid but they must be pretty far behind as I haven't received anything from them. Really don't think I will.


You must contact your local DHHR office. They will not contact you. Ask for an appointment with an ACA specialist. I printed the part of my notification that said I would be contacted. The specialist explained there is no communication between the two agencies. It is one big mess. :facepalm:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

pancho said:


> You fell through a crack just like I did. You have to buy insurance or be fined but there isn't anyone who will sell you insurance. Sort of a bad place to be, I am right there with you.


 Well at least when I went on SSDI, I had 18 months of insurance through my employer under the COBRA law. For me it was only that 6 months at which I picked up a catastrophic policy and paid cash for any doctor visits. Guess now you can't do that eh? if not that is a dirty rotten shame what the government has done for people and TO PEOPLE, by this ObamaUncare stuff.


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> What happens to those people that went on SS at 62? 3 years before they can get Medicare. And many like myself, don't make enough on SS to file taxes.
> What happens to them?


Silly, you aren't supposed to retire at 62. Nor are you to retire at 65. You are supposed to keep working until you are older and then you file for SS. While your paperwork is being processed, you are then supposed to die so you don't collect any of the SS you put in.

And if you think Obamacare is bad, wait until the government overhauls SS and medicare. I can see the day coming where different procedures won't be covered because the senior citizen has lived long enough.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Michael W. Smith said:


> Silly, you aren't supposed to retire at 62. Nor are you to retire at 65. You are supposed to keep working until you are older and then you file for SS. While your paperwork is being processed, you are then supposed to die so you don't collect any of the SS you put in.
> 
> And if you think Obamacare is bad, wait until the government overhauls SS and medicare. I can see the day coming where different procedures won't be covered because the senior citizen has lived long enough.


Ah-yup. Or it may be covered but youbwill have no say either way.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Michael W. Smith said:


> Silly, you aren't supposed to retire at 62. Nor are you to retire at 65. You are supposed to keep working until you are older and then you file for SS. While your paperwork is being processed, you are then supposed to die so you don't collect any of the SS you put in.


 That is the way it was set up in the first place. Only 1 in 10 people Ever Collected SS. 
That has to chance, somehow, somewhere, sometime, as that is why SS is going broke along with Medicare, along with the Medicaid program.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

hippygirl said:


> So, I don't qualify for a "tax credit" because insurance is available to me through DH's employer..that's fine with me as the idea of having someone else pay my bills never sat quite right with me in the first place, so SURELY there must be at least ONE policy available to me on the Marketplace with an affordable premium, right?


Your insurance is still subsidized. Employer healthcare insurance is subsidized at a rate of $250 billion/year, which is more than twice the annual cost of ACA subsidies.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> It frosts my cake to see all those ads with stories of freelance dress designers, florists, street dancers, etc that are touting the ability to now have people working at hard, ordinary jobs pay for insurance for them that was not affordable to them previously so they can keep following their bliss without worry.


There's no law that says you can't join us in the cart instead of helping to pull it. :thumb:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> That is the way it was set up in the first place. Only 1 in 10 people Ever Collected SS.


That's not true. In the mid-30s the average life expectancy was 61.7 years, which means that about half of them made it to 62.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> In the mid-30s the average life expectancy was 61.7 years


Average, or median? If it's average, that doesn't mean about half made it to 62. People living to 70+ raise the average.


----------



## light rain (Jan 14, 2013)

Nevada, I use to go take pictures of graveyards in remote places in VA for my friend's genealogy books. These graveyards went far back. You would see a lot of babies and children's gravestones but you would also see a lot of dates that went to 70's 80's and 90's. There were a lot of children's deaths due to infectious diseases and probably having children too close together. It was all averaged together to come up with those 60 yr. statistics. TB in VA really had an impact on my family's lifespans.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Ah, there you are, Nevada! I was wondering when you would be along to tell us all how wrong we are about everything. 



Nevada said:


> Your insurance is still subsidized. Employer healthcare insurance is subsidized at a rate of $250 billion/year, which is more than twice the annual cost of ACA subsidies.


That's not what I'm talking about and you darn well know it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

hippygirl said:


> That's not what I'm talking about and you darn well know it.


We're both talking about government subsidy, aren't we?.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...uge-health-care-subsidy-everyone-is-ignoring/


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Nevada said:


> We're both talking about government subsidy, aren't we?.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...uge-health-care-subsidy-everyone-is-ignoring/


What the author is calling a "subsidy" is actually the deduction the employer takes for the employee's insurance...an expense. Nothing more, nothing less.

What I'm talking about specifically in THIS thread is the subsidy available to some individuals for insurance purchased via the exchanges/Marketplace. THIS amount is a GIFT to the individual who receives it, not an expense.

Regardless of how much extrapolation is attempted by the author, it is NOT the same thing.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

hippygirl said:


> What the author is calling a "subsidy" is actually the deduction the employer takes for the employee's insurance...an expense. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> What I'm talking about specifically in THIS thread is the subsidy available to some individuals for insurance purchased via the exchanges/Marketplace. THIS amount is a GIFT to the individual who receives it, not an expense.
> 
> Regardless of how much extrapolation is attempted by the author, it is NOT the same thing.


Call it whatever you like, it still costs the government more than twice what Obamacare costs the government each year.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

pancho said:


> Many people say Obamacare is mostly for those who do not work. That is pretty far from the truth. If you do not work you do not file taxes. If you do not file taxes you cannot buy insurance through the ACA.


Not so. Some on here do not work & have ObummerUNcare. So does 2 neighbors.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Txsteader said:


> But isn't that defeating the goal of having more _paying_ customers, which was supposed to reduce health care costs?


No, the goal is signing up as many as possible. So they can tout the success.
B/c "D" voters are stupid enuf (not MY words, Gruber's) to believe if you kick 6 million off their insurance, even if they LIKED their ins, and count the already on medicare who sign & get a total of 7-8 million signed-oh, and lie about another million...you have success!
Just ask a "D" if its a success. 'Course ask 'em if the country LOVES it. 
Bwhahaha!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

pancho said:


> I can see why most people call it Obamacare instead of the ACA. It definitely isn't affordable. But Obamacare is wrong also as everyone knows Obama does not care.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's not true. In the mid-30s the average life expectancy was 61.7 years, which means that about half of them made it to 62.


Are you sure there was the 62 option then? Thought it was 65 only...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Call it whatever you like, it still costs the government more than twice what Obamacare costs the government each year.


Please explain to those who think you possibly could be telling the truth.
The gov't has NO $$$ unless WE give it to them.
IF a co. takes a deduction, it means that am't is not sent to the Gov't. It does NOT mean the gov't SENDS $$$ to that co.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Are you sure there was the 62 option then? Thought it was 65 only...


 DEFINITION OF OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE
SEC. 3. As used in this title, old-age assistance &#65532; shall mean financial assistance assuring a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health to persons not less than sixty-five years of age who, at the time of receiving such
financial assistance, are not inmates of public or other

Well that was the wording of the SS bill. age 65~! Says not one thing about 62.

Retiring at the age of 62 to collect SS did NOT happen until 1961~~ Gee I love the internet to prove points so some that tweak twist and leave out things can be called on the carpet. LOL


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Your insurance is still subsidized. Employer healthcare insurance is subsidized at a rate of $250 billion/year, which is more than twice the annual cost of ACA subsidies.


Nope, this is wrong. Employer-paid health care is not taxed. That doesn't make it subsidized. Just because something exists and is not subject to taxation, does not equal subsidy! And not only is the basic premise that it's a subsidy wrong, that $250 billion a year figure is pure fantasy, too.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Call it whatever you like, it still _*costs the government*_ more than twice what Obamacare costs the government each year.






Tricky Grama said:


> Please explain to those who think you possibly could be telling the truth.
> _*The gov't has NO $$$ unless WE give it to them.*_




PRECISELY!

The GOVERNMENT "subsidizes" nothing...all they do is take the monies FROM THE PEOPLE, primarily in the form of taxes, and dole it out as THEY see fit. It is THE PEOPLE who bear the cost of everything, good or bad...it "costs the government" NOTHING!

It's kind of like giving rich Uncle John's checkbook to his scoundrel of a nephew and expecting him to take care of the estate...before you know it, all of Uncle John's money is gone and the nephew, along with all his friends, is living large.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

hippygirl said:


> PRECISELY!
> 
> The GOVERNMENT "subsidizes" nothing...all they do is take the monies FROM THE PEOPLE, primarily in the form of taxes, and dole it out as THEY see fit. It is THE PEOPLE who bear the cost of everything, good or bad...it "costs the government" NOTHING!
> 
> It's kind of like giving rich Uncle John's checkbook to his scoundrel of a nephew and expecting him to take care of the estate...before you know it, all of Uncle John's money is gone and the nephew, along with all his friends, is living large.


I'm not clear on what your point is. Are you advocating running the country without any funding?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> DEFINITION OF OLD-AGE ASSISTANCE
> SEC. 3. As used in this title, old-age assistance &#65532; shall mean financial assistance assuring a reasonable subsistence compatible with decency and health to persons not less than sixty-five years of age who, at the time of receiving such
> financial assistance, are not inmates of public or other
> 
> ...


Post of the day award!


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Nevada said:


> _*I'm not clear on what your point is*_. Are you advocating running the country without any funding?


Yes you are.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

hippygirl said:


> Yes you are.


Then please, what is your point?


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

MO_cows said:


> Nope, this is wrong. Employer-paid health care is not taxed. That doesn't make it subsidized. Just because something exists and is not subject to taxation, does not equal subsidy! And not only is the basic premise that it's a subsidy wrong, that $250 billion a year figure is pure fantasy, too.


That is a subsidy of sorts. If not, it's certainly favored treatment by the tax code. In my book, it's a form of welfare.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> There's no law that says you can't join us in the cart instead of helping to pull it. :thumb:


LMAO!:hysterical:


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

bowdonkey said:


> That is a subsidy of sorts. If not, it's certainly favored treatment by the tax code. In my book, it's a form of welfare.


May be the answer is to end all favored treatments in the tax code.


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

Wanna see Obummercare fixed? I have an idea.

Make it the law of the land: EVERY PERSON, regardless of position, from president to pauper will have exactly the same insurance coverage, no exemptions, no exceptions and will have exactly the same access to health care regardless of who they are. 

Watch and see how quickly it would get fixed when the likes of Pelosi, Reed, Obama, Biden, and the whole bunch of them have to rely upon exactly the same things they lay down for all the rest of us. I suspect it would be fixed (or scrapped) in a matter of a few weeks.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> What happens to those people that went on SS at 62? 3 years before they can get Medicare. And many like myself, don't make enough on SS to file taxes.
> What happens to them?


You need to get a job!:thumb:


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

bowdonkey said:


> That is a subsidy of sorts. If not, it's certainly favored treatment by the tax code. In my book, it's a form of welfare.


I agree. One person pays no tax on the benefit portion of their wages, because it is heath insurance. The other person pays taxes on their entire wages. The word subsidy may not be correct but they are getting money in their paycheck that should be going to taxes( both payroll and income.) or the person who buys their own insurance should be getting a deduction.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> May be the answer is to end all favored treatments in the tax code.


Oh sure, a republican controlled congress is going to go along with that. 

As you might recall, Obama suggested doing that in the state of the union address a few weeks ago. Republicans balked at the idea.


----------



## fixitguy (Nov 2, 2010)

I don't understand the whole subsidy end of the health care.

If I go to healthcare.gov, Type in all my info @ a family of 3 earning $17k the monthly premiums are $900 per month.

Now, If I go back and go back and insert $25k, the premium is @ $68 per month.:facepalm:


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

bowdonkey said:


> That is a subsidy of sorts. If not, it's certainly favored treatment by the tax code. In my book, it's a form of welfare.


Many employers are now under a mandate from the federal govt. to provide their employees with health insurance, or else pay a penalty. How do you figure that is "favorable treatment by the tax code"? 

Most employers provide toilet paper and paper towels in their restrooms for employees. Is that "welfare", should we all start paying taxes on this valuable "subsidy"? 

The federal government decided a long time ago not to tax employee benefits. It's only now that health insurance has become so expensive and the numbers are bigger, that they are drooling for a piece of that pie and want to do a bait and switch. Don't fall for it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

fixitguy said:


> I don't understand the whole subsidy end of the health care.
> 
> If I go to healthcare.gov, Type in all my info @ a family of 3 earning $17k the monthly premiums are $900 per month.
> 
> Now, If I go back and go back and insert $25k, the premium is @ $68 per month.:facepalm:


You've been screwed by your own state republican leadership. They knew what they were doing when they did it.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Oh sure, a republican controlled congress is going to go along with that.
> 
> As you might recall, Obama suggested doing that in the state of the union address a few weeks ago. Republicans balked at the idea.


Republican or democrat doesn't matter they both can screw up about anything. The promise all kinds of things that never happen or if they do the result is the opposite.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Republican or democrat doesn't matter they both can screw up about anything. The promise all kinds of things that never happen or if they do the result is the opposite.


The problem is that republicans will never agree with removing loopholes for corporations and the wealthy, which is where meaningful tax reform naturally is found.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> The problem is that republicans will never agree with removing loopholes for corporations and the wealthy, which is where meaningful tax reform naturally is found.


Obama panders to the wealthy as much as any, why do you think after 6 years in office the wealthy are doing better and the middle class is dying? He had plenty of time to try and implement his tax proposals, funny it never came about.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Wlover said:


> I agree. One person pays no tax on the benefit portion of their wages, because it is heath insurance. The other person pays taxes on their entire wages. The word subsidy may not be correct but they are getting money in their paycheck that should be going to taxes( both payroll and income.) or the person who buys their own insurance should be getting a deduction.


Benefits are not wages. They are not income. 

The person who buys their own insurance is not entitled to a deduction. They are entitled 1) to see if they qualify for a subsidy on their premiums, and they are entitled to 2) look for another job which does provide health insurance. Period. Health insurance is not a right. 

If I was rich and decided to give you $13,000 just out of the goodness of my heart so you can go buy health insurance, guess what? That is tax exempt, it falls under the limit for the "gift tax". You wouldn't pay any taxes on that $13,000. Just like most of the benefits paid by employers fall under the limit of the gift tax, too. So why should a person pay taxes on a benefit of their employment, but if it happened between two individuals it would be tax exempt?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Call it whatever you like, it still costs the government more than twice what Obamacare costs the government each year.


Every once in awhile, it seem neccessary to take a trip around on Nevada's merry-go-round. Not taxing is not the same as giving away tax money. If that were true than every deduction a business takes or every non-taxable Social Security benefit would be the government's 'cost.' There'd be no limit as to the government being considered to be supporting religion by not taxing as opposed to taxing being considered an unconstitutional interference in religion as it is. Why everything in the whole world would be under government ownership- no rules neccessary. Your untaxed child would be the government's property. A dictators utopia for sure.
The difference is that not taxing is me being able to keep my earnings for my own use while taxing seems to mean to you, you get my earnings for your use.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Benefits are not wages. They are not income.
> 
> The person who buys their own insurance is not entitled to a deduction. They are entitled 1) to see if they qualify for a subsidy on their premiums, and they are entitled to 2) look for another job which does provide health insurance. Period. Health insurance is not a right.
> 
> If I was rich and decided to give you $13,000 just out of the goodness of my heart so you can go buy health insurance, guess what? That is tax exempt, it falls under the limit for the "gift tax". You wouldn't pay any taxes on that $13,000. Just like most of the benefits paid by employers fall under the limit of the gift tax, too. So why should a person pay taxes on a benefit of their employment, but if it happened between two individuals it would be tax exempt?


Benefits are part of your wage compensation and many are taxable.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-fringe-benefits-taxable.html


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Wlover said:


> I agree. One person pays no tax on the benefit portion of their wages, because it is heath insurance. The other person pays taxes on their entire wages. The word subsidy may not be correct but they are getting money in their paycheck that should be going to taxes( both payroll and income.) or the person who buys their own insurance should be getting a deduction.


This is why sales tax makes much more sense as a means for assessing government taxes. Think of it as there being no sales tax on health insurance expenditures. Now does that sound like a subsidy?


----------



## Bellyman (Jul 6, 2013)

fixitguy said:


> I don't understand the whole subsidy end of the health care.
> 
> If I go to healthcare.gov, Type in all my info @ a family of 3 earning $17k the monthly premiums are $900 per month.
> 
> Now, If I go back and go back and insert $25k, the premium is @ $68 per month.:facepalm:


Though we're a family of 2 instead of a family of 3, our numbers seem to line up pretty closely.

We looked at trying to sign up last year. I think the income that year was something similar to your $17k, though, I'd have to go look. How in the world can somebody making $17k/yr afford $900/mo payments on anything? The short answer, they can't. And that's one of the main reasons we do not have any health insurance today.

We are working to try to see if we can remedy the lack of insurance but ya can't get blood out of a turnip. 

Thank you for your post!


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

where I want to said:


> Every once in awhile, it seem neccessary to take a trip around on Nevada's merry-go-round. Not taxing is not the same as giving away tax money. If that were true than every deduction a business takes or every non-taxable Social Security benefit would be the government's 'cost.' There'd be no limit as to the government being considered to be supporting religion by not taxing as opposed to taxing being considered an unconstitutional interference in religion as it is. Why everything in the whole world would be under government ownership- no rules neccessary. Your untaxed child would be the government's property. A dictators utopia for sure.
> The difference is that not taxing is me being able to keep my earnings for my own use while taxing seems to mean to you, you get my earnings for your use.


Makes you wonder if this logic will ever be used on 401K savings plans. Following the logic of not taxing being a subsidy then the government may claim their portion of your 401k since they have been subsidizing it all these years.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Makes you wonder if this logic will ever be used on 401K savings plans. Following the logic of not taxing being a subsidy then the government may claim their portion of your 401k since they have been subsidizing it all these years.


401K funds are taxed when they are eventually withdrawn.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Face it, it's a scam, and most of us knew it from the start.
Bribes, blackmail, threats....took a whole lot of it to get Obamacare shoved through.
If it was a good deal, he wouldn't have had to resort to Chicago thuggery.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> You've been screwed by your own state republican leadership. They knew what they were doing when they did it.


Funny how you always blame Republicans for Obama :rotfl:
Goes to show there's no defending Obama on his own merit


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Wlover said:


> Benefits are part of your wage compensation and many are taxable.
> 
> http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-fringe-benefits-taxable.html


If you are going to link information about what is and is not taxable, suggest you go straight to the source, the IRS:

http://www.irs.gov/uac/About-Publication-15B

I wouldn't say "many" benefits are taxable. Most of the most commonly offered benefits of employment are specifically listed as exempt. Page 6 of publication 15-B is a list of exempted items.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> 401K funds are taxed when they are eventually withdrawn.


Yes but what if the government needs their portion before I choose to withdraw it? By your logic the 401k is government subsidy until the tax is paid.

BTW there is also the Roth 401k which does not require taxes on increase in value. Talk about a tax dodge!


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

MO_cows said:


> Many employers are now under a mandate from the federal govt. to provide their employees with health insurance, or else pay a penalty. How do you figure that is "favorable treatment by the tax code"?
> 
> Most employers provide toilet paper and paper towels in their restrooms for employees. Is that "welfare", should we all start paying taxes on this valuable "subsidy"?
> The federal government decided a long time ago not to tax employee benefits. It's only now that health insurance has become so expensive and the numbers are bigger, that they are drooling for a piece of that pie and want to do a bait and switch. Don't fall for it.


I agree with your last statement. Here's where I take issue with the way the system is set up. For one thing I do agree with employers being able to write off benefits, whether voluntary or coerced as they are now. It's a form of wage. The beneficiary should be taxed. It's a hit to the person that's working and who does not have the same "write off". I'm basing this on the fact it takes X amount of dollars to run the country. Someone will pay more for this. The person without the write off who doesn't qualify. Or the gov just pushes it on a future generation as has been popular the last 35 years. No matter how you slice it, it's a hidden form of welfare or subsidy.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Just because something exists and the government doesn't tax it, does not mean it's a subsidy or welfare. That is the reasoning of someone who believes everything belongs to the government to start with, and not the people. 

Here's an example - where we live, there is no requirement for dog licenses. Following your logic, my dogs are "subsidized" and I'm on "welfare", because city dogs have to have a license but mine don't. 

There are two driving forces behind this propaganda campaign that employer-provided benefits are "welfare". One, is the amount of money involved in benefits in today's world. The government wants a piece of it. Bad. Two, is the sour grapes of people who don't have a job that provides them with health insurance. It's not fair. Waaaah. Well I read somewhere that slavery has been outlawed, so people are free to change jobs! If health insurance is your priority, go find a job that comes with it. 

Employer-provided health insurance has been the part of the health care system that has worked the best up to this point. Why would we want to mess that up?


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

As for the question about people who make too little money to file income taxes, those people are not required to have health care coverage. 

And as per the original point, I said that it was in the aca mess that the ONLY person who would fall under the "affordable" portion was the main wage earner. If covering the rest of the family costs even 50% of you take-home pay, too bad, so sad according to the way the fiasco was written. And since the main wage earner qualifies for employer coverage those families are not permitted to buy insurance through the exchange. And they have to pay a penalty (aka, TAX) for not being able to afford to pay for coverage for the rest of the family. Some people here said I didn't know what I was talking about. 

As for the original poster, I wish I knew a way around it. But the way the thing was written it really screws you.

And I don't agree with taxing employees who decided to take a job that pays benefits. If you want employer sponsored health care then get a job that offers it. Some of us made that decision, others chose not to. As for those who simply cannot work a full time job due to physical restrictions, there is a disability clause. Check into it if you need it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I have a job that provides employer heath insurance. It is part of my employment compensation. I am lucky as this is a company that is small enough to not have to provide heath insurance. It is not right in any way that I get it before tax but my neighbor that does not get it has to pay for theirs after taxes.

You either have a it one way or the other because no person, class or level of education or any other reason makes it right.

So while it is not a subsidy it is money left in your pocket that one person gets that another person does not get for absolutely no good reason.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> Benefits are part of your wage compensation and many are taxable.
> 
> http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-fringe-benefits-taxable.html


Of course what would make Obamacare subsidies more like employer health insurance, beside the employer health insurance is actually earned not given away, is if the subsidy was added to the receiver's income and taxes were paid on that too. Especially as most employees these days, except public workers like state employees and teachers, pay a share out of their after tax dollars anyway. And to which, the obamacare subsidized think there is some huge advantage to their employer not paying even more taxes on what they earn.
Hmm- so not only do people get a subsidy, they get a tax break too. More salt in the wounds of those paying for those not paying yet as well as having to listen to made up justifications to make the subsidized feel better about it.

Why the more I think about it, the more I think that businesses shouldn't be allowed tax deductions at all for anything. They should simply pay on the gross and charge that to the buying public. That seems fair. And if the buying public can't pay for it, then the businees should fold.
How about if the government giveaways should be added in everyone's gross for taxes. Food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid, social security, medicare, veteran's benefits, roth IRA interest and dividends, etc. No child care credits, earned income credits, mortgage interest deductions, charitable deductions, state property tax deductions, etc. 
By all means let's be totally fair about it. One for all.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Life is a series of choices, and life is not fair...it is not fair for the seed that lands on a rock, or the whale caught on the beach when the tide goes out.

What is right is the ability to seek out employers that meet your wants and need for which you provide what the employer needs and wants..

Equal is not fair.....unless you agree that everyone must take insulin so that equality is achieved.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> 401K funds are taxed when they are eventually withdrawn.


Of course at a lower rate presumably and Roth's not on any of the gains or interest at all.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Life is a series of choices, and life is not fair...it is not fair for the seed that lands on a rock, or the whale caught on the beach when the tide goes out.
> 
> What is right is the ability to seek out employers that meet your wants and need for which you provide what the employer needs and wants..
> 
> Equal is not fair.....unless you agree that everyone must take insulin so that equality is achieved.


Not about fair, it is about right. Just as it is not right to force anyone to buy health insurance it is not right to treat people who do buy it different under the law.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Where does that right come from....or are you confusing right with want.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> I have a job that provides employer heath insurance. It is part of my employment compensation. I am lucky as this is a company that is small enough to not have to provide heath insurance. It is not right in any way that I get it before tax but my neighbor that does not get it has to pay for theirs after taxes.
> 
> You either have a it one way or the other because no person, class or level of education or any other reason makes it right.
> 
> So while it is not a subsidy it is money left in your pocket that one person gets that another person does not get for absolutely no good reason.


I'm sorry but don't think this post could sound any more socialistic.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Or equal with right 
Or equal with justice
Or right with equal.

Nature is not equal, fair or just.
Same situation different results.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> Not about fair, it is about right. Just as it is not right to force anyone to buy health insurance it is not right to treat people who do buy it different under the law.


I agree- the government should totally subsidize the costs that I have to pay for Medicare and the supplimental insurance I buy to cover what medicare doesn't. After all, if I was getting Obamacare, they would pay for just about all of my costs at my income level, especially as even with the free (if you don't consider the taxes I paid for decades)parts, I am spending more that most Obamacare policies without subsidy.

I think you can afford that out of your wages too, even if you are paying Medicare taxes. JMO


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> I'm sorry but don't think this post could sound any more socialistic.


So you woul be fine paying more income tax because you work for company a instead of working for company b?

That is about as good a reason that one person getting their health insurance before tax and one getting it after.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wlover ....this is an international site...thus are you an American citizen. The knowledge is important as your government that you belong to just may have accepted socialism, thus to you individual rights and responsibilities promote the freedoms that have allowed persons growth and major achievements. Noted as the American dream ----just might be abnormal, or scary because individuals than have personal responsibilities.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

where I want to said:


> I agree- the government should totally subsidize the costs that I have to pay for Medicare and the supplimental insurance I buy to cover what medicare doesn't. After all, if I was getting Obamacare, they would pay for just about all of my costs at my income level, especially as even with the free (if you don't consider the taxes I paid for decades)parts, I am spending more that most Obamacare policies without subsidy.
> 
> I think you can afford that out of your wages too, even if you are paying Medicare taxes. JMO


I agree, anyone that buys heath insurance of any kind should get it deducted pretax.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Or equal with right
> Or equal with justice
> Or right with equal.
> 
> ...


Everyone deserves equal treatment under the law. If one person gets it tax free, everyone should get it tax free.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Equal treatment under the law....

Equal treatment under the law...

Well has Obama overstepped his constitutional right on immigration as such a breach he has then breached his oath, and has violated constitutional law and should be tried.

FYI that is per Obama himself.....guess he is now wearing a crown?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Congress and the president should have the same care at the same cost.

Alaskans should pay the same shipping or if it is free shipping to anyone I too should get free shipping.


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

I'm paying more for less coverage and my options consisted of two companies selling similar plans, one just cost more. Multiple plans with the same deductible, you just chose between what each plan paid on what before you met the deductible. Plus I get to subsidies some ones kids pediatric eye and dental care with my premium besides my tax dollars subsidizing some body's premium. 

I don't know how many more people's hope and change I can support.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Wlover said:


> I agree, anyone that buys heath insurance of any kind should get it deducted pretax.


Ah but that is not what subsidized Obamacare does. It actually pays for most of the cost for most of the people getting it. To do that for people buying Medicare and a supplement, just a very rough calculation as the costs for Medicare and a supplement would only add a miserly $1600 to $2300 per year in taxes per working person. That's assuming that only half of Medicare beneficiaries qualify for subsidies and only people working full time have to pay for it. And I low balled the year cost of Medicare and Supplemental insurance. And we know that about half the population doesn't pay taxes anyway, so in the end the ones that do would have to pay more. 

Gee- I wonder if it's affordable to be 'fair' after all?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Everyone deserves equal treatment under the law. If one person gets it tax free, everyone should get it tax free.


If that is all that happened with Obamacare subsidies, it would not be so bad. But what subsidized people mostly get is the majority of it paid for them, not just a tax break.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Danaus29 said:


> _*And as per the original point, I said that it was in the aca mess that the ONLY person who would fall under the "affordable" portion was the main wage earner. If covering the rest of the family costs even 50% of you take-home pay, too bad, so sad according to the way the fiasco was written. And since the main wage earner qualifies for employer coverage those families are not permitted to buy insurance through the exchange. And they have to pay a penalty (aka, TAX) for not being able to afford to pay for coverage for the rest of the family.*_ Some people here said I didn't know what I was talking about.


And this is my situation in a nutshell...they "said" if the cost of insurance exceeds 8 percent of income, one would be exempt from having to buy it because it would be considered "unaffordable". Adding me to DH's almost doubles that (over 15 percent)...but magically that 15 percent is affordable because the amount DH pays is under 8 percent?

In what UNIVERSE can that logic POSSIBLY hold up?

I'm not mad because I don't qualify for a subsidy...I'm mad because I have NO CHOICE but to buy this outrageously priced steaming pile of fetid poop or pay a penalty.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

bowdonkey said:


> You need to get a job!:thumb:


I know this is easy for you to say but when all your skills are in sales, or that sort of thing, when you are over say...55, you cannot get a job. Prolly parttime things but no job that pays your H.C.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

no really said:


> Obama panders to the wealthy as much as any, why do you think after 6 years in office the wealthy are doing better and the middle class is dying? He had plenty of time to try and implement his tax proposals, funny it never came about.


Post of the decade award.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> I know this is easy for you to say but when all your skills are in sales, or that sort of thing, when you are over say...55, you cannot get a job. Prolly parttime things but no job that pays your H.C.


It's not easy for me to say, I'll be 60 this year. But I am in excellent health, knock on wood. But no one will hire me, despite my education, training and background. It's a good thing I like my job, and best of all the people I work with. Believe I know most are not as fortunate. This is why it pains me to see our a country's treasury being looted, some of our best jobs off shored, and my pet peeve, future generations put in hock so someone can profit. :thumb:


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Everyone deserves equal treatment under the law. If one person gets it tax free, everyone should get it tax free.


But the ACA is in direct violation of this. It is going to tax me for not having insurance but will not tax my neighbor for the same act. How is that at all considered equal?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

hippygirl said:


> And this is my situation in a nutshell...they "said" if the cost of insurance exceeds 8 percent of income, one would be exempt from having to buy it because it would be considered "unaffordable". Adding me to DH's almost doubles that (over 15 percent)...but magically that 15 percent is affordable because the amount DH pays in under 8 percent?
> 
> In what UNIVERSE can that logic POSSIBLY hold up?
> 
> I'm not made because I don't qualify for a subsidy...I'm mad because I have NO CHOICE but to buy this outrageously priced steaming pile of fetid poop or pay a penalty.


What's the problem then? Your insurance is under 8% of your income, which makes it affordable.

My insurance would be 40% of my income without subsidy. With subsidy it's more like 4%.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> But the ACA is in direct violation of this. It is going to tax me for not having insurance but will not tax my neighbor for the same act. How is that at all considered equal?


Some laws are designed to level the playing field.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Some laws are designed to level the playing field.


But that's not "equal under the law". You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> But that's not "equal under the law". You can't have it both ways.


When it makes people more equal I don't have a problem with it, and either does the supreme court.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> When it makes people more equal I don't have a problem with it, and either does the supreme court.


There it is in a nut shell. Let's just legislate that everyone is equal. Everyone should get the same pay, live in identical homes, be given their proper ration of food.

FWIW. Equal <> Free.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

It makes people more equal? You must be joking. Everyone with self-paid and employer-paid insurance is paying more for their insurance, plus all the billions in tax dollars that go toward subsidies and administrative costs.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> What's the problem then? Your insurance is under 8% of your income, which makes it affordable.
> 
> My insurance would be 40% of my income without subsidy. With subsidy it's more like 4%.


No, your math is wrong......and I question how you could work in your field without extrapolating that if her husband was 8% and hers would be 8% then the household total expense would be 16% .

But she s not you but that excess covers you so it's great for you.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Notice that you have avoided the opt out you claim did not exist.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> There it is in a nut shell. Let's just legislate that everyone is equal. Everyone should get the same pay, live in identical homes, be given their proper ration of food.
> 
> FWIW. Equal <> Free.


There's equal, then there's equal. I don't have a problem with some people eating lobster while others eat hamburger, and I don't have a problem with some people living in mansions while others live in apartments. But when some are eating lobster while others don't eat at all, and some live in mansions while others live on the street I think the government needs to step in. We're talking about children going hungry and living on the street.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> There's equal, then there's equal. I don't have a problem with some people eating lobster while others eat hamburger, and I don't have a problem with some people living in mansions while others live in apartments. But when some are eating lobster while others don't eat at all, and some live in mansions while others live on the street I think the government needs to step in. We're talking about children going hungry and living on the street.


Where do you get the idea that it's the government's responsibility to fix peoples' lives? Haven't you read enough history to know that giving the government that much power eventually* always* ends in disaster, culminating in _massive_ suffering and death?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Where do you get the idea that it's the government's responsibility to fix peoples' lives?


Because I believe everyone deserves food, shelter, and medical care.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Then you do not believe in The Constitution simple as that. Well you are in good company, cause neither does Obama


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Then you do not believe in The Constitution simple as that. Well you are in good company, cause neither does Obama


The question isn't what the constitution says, it's that you don't interpret the constitution the same way the supreme court and I do.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Nevada said:


> What's the problem then? Your insurance is under 8% of your income, which makes it affordable.
> 
> My insurance would be 40% of my income without subsidy. With subsidy it's more like 4%.





kasilofhome said:


> No, your math is wrong......and I question how you could work in your field without extrapolating that if her husband was 8% and hers would be 8% then the household total expense would be 16% .
> 
> But she s not you but that excess covers you so it's great for you.


Give it up K...he apparently just scans posts for certain keywords and catch phrases and piles on regardless of whether or not his replies address or are relevant to the topic discussed.

I had a long post typed out, but my login timed out and I'm not gonna try to type it out again, but I will reiterate what MY problem with the affordability test is once more for Nevada's benefit...

The ACA's "affordability test" does not take into account the cost of insuring an ADDITIONAL family member...ONLY THE WAGE EARNER. If it did, because of the TOTAL amount we'd have to pay for BOTH DH and myself (over 15% COMBINED), I would be exempt from the individual mandate and, therefore, not required by law to purchase a product I cannot afford or pay a penalty.

There Nevada...I cannot make it any simpler than that. If it makes you happy to pretend you don't understand that, g'head...be happy.

Also, Nevada, the amount of subsidy you do or do not receive is irrelevant EVEN to your OWN REPLY quoted above. Please, if you're going to pile on, at least TRY to pile on with something that at least resembles relevancy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

hippygirl said:


> The ACA's "affordability test" does not take into account the cost of insuring an ADDITIONAL family member...ONLY THE WAGE EARNER. If it did, because of the TOTAL amount we'd have to pay for BOTH DH and myself (over 15% COMBINED), I would be exempt from the individual mandate and, therefore, not required by law to purchase a product I cannot afford or pay a penalty.


That's true, the test is for self-only coverage. Seems like something that congress should take a look at.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Because I believe everyone deserves food, shelter, and medical care.


That is very noble and you should make donations and do volunteer work. Charity isn't the government's job.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> That is very noble and you should make donations and do volunteer work. Charity isn't the government's job.


The reality is that America is working a lot better for some people than others. Often that's the government's doing. When it is the government needs to step in.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The question isn't what the constitution says, it's that you don't interpret the constitution the same way the supreme court and I do.


Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government is to act as the conscience of the people, to ensure that everyone has everything they need?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The reality is that America is working a lot better for some people than others. *Often that's the government's doing.* When it is the government needs to step in.


Perhaps the government needs to stop screwing things up by staying out of peoples' lives, because for some odd reason, the more they meddle, the less freedoms we enjoy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government is to act as the conscience of the people, to ensure that everyone has everything they need?


The welfare clause for starters...


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

At what point in time did people stop being responsible for themselves?? By your thinking, I should give my sister half of my food. After all, I have 4 freezers stocked full to feed us & she has none. She has the same # of people in her house that I do. Actually 2 more if you count her mooching daughter with her new baby that has no dad around. It doesn't matter that my sister makes 3 times the amount of money that my husband & I do. Because she is irresponsible with her money I should give her food? I should make sure she has shelter, healthcare, & food? Sorry, that is her job. She could choose to give up her satellite TV & buy food. 

Yes, I realize there are a lot of people that do go hungry, but sometimes hunger is a good motivator to get a job. If you get everything handed to you & don't have to work for it, before long you forget how to work. I am all for helping people that are down & out & have fallen on hard times. That is what charity is for, not the government. I would never turn a hungry person away from door. However, if I found out they were not trying to better their situation, then I would have to tell them to beg somewhere else. 

There are way too many people in this country that do nothing, NOTHING, & reap the benefits that other people have worked hard for. Why do they deserve to have the same if they are not willing to work as hard to get it? Why do so many kids of today think they need to start out with a big new house, new cars, high paying job, etc, right out of school? It took us 25 years & a lot of hard work to get what we have. Seems most people don't want the hard work part. They want what their parents have because they think they deserve it. If you refuse to get off of your butt & work you do not DESERVE anything. If you are really trying & still having a hard time, then help should be given. If you are not trying at all, then you should be hungry or living in a cardboard box.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Some laws are designed to level the playing field.


More of that circular logic...making people equal by treating them unequally....


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> We're talking about children going hungry and living on the street.


No we're not...we're talking about the ACA...I don't believe I've seen the provision in said law that deals with children going hungry and living on the street.

But nice typical leftist tactic...what about the children?! You've already admitted several times that you really don't care about the children, as long as nobody takes away your subsidy before you get on Medicare.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> The reality is that America is working a lot better for some people than others. Often that's the government's doing. When it is the government needs to step in.


I can agree with the first part of this. The government is quite often the cause of things working better for some than others. We just differ on the action to correct. You feel that more government will solve that, I feel less will.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Because I believe everyone deserves food, shelter, and medical care.


You are confusing _government_ with _society_.

Society is called upon to watch and help out with the less fortunate, but that is NOT the government.

I refer you to _Common Sense_ by Thomas Paine for a good review of the difference between the two, as well as why you would want Society to handle it and not Government.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Anybody for whom America is "not working", should travel to some other country and try their luck. 

People are risking death to get into this country, not just a few but by the millions. That wouldn't happen if America was such a bad and unfair place to live.

Wouldn't it be wonderful it there wasn't any hardship and suffering in this world? But it will never happen, that is fantasy.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Because I believe everyone deserves food, shelter, and medical care.


Are you going to take kids away from parents that will not feed them, shelter them, and get them medical care?

There is help for almost everyone in this country, between charities and the government. If people prefer to buy drugs, alcohol, cigarettes and toys for themselves, they will not support their kids if they are given more money or benefits. Even putting deadbeat Dads in jail does not encourage a lot of them to support their kids.

Many of the homeless have serious mental health or substance abuse issues, or both. Giving them more anything won't help that. They really need to be hospitalized, but they won't go and we won't make them. Throwing money at them isn't going fix them. 

I ran a community/churches charity for three years. Without the power to put people in jail or the hospital, there are many you can't help. They don't want help, but more money to do more of what they want is always welcome. Just don't expect them to take care of themselves or anyone else. They can't or won't.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The reality is that America is working a lot better for some people than others. Often that's the government's doing. When it is the government needs to step in.[/QUOTEYe
> 
> Here we might agree--the government works very well for those governing. Look at all the broke people that run for office and then become multimillionaires in short order, starting with the Clinton's and obama's. Then you have all the senators and representatives that have become very rich in office, or have made their families very rich, the way harry reid has. America seems to work well for those in office.


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

Nevada said:


> The reality is that America is working a lot better for some people than others. Often that's the government's doing. When it is the government needs to step in.





This is one of the most interesting things I have ever read here. 


Every time your neighbor borrows your truck, he dents it or damages it or something.
But you just keep giving him the keys. 

Or a better comparison might be:
Every time Sally babysits your child, there is a bruise or scratch or other unexplained something discovered the next day. Disturbing as it is, you were able to have your night on the town. You got what you needed for your enjoyment after all, so.. meh
Keep calling Sally every time you need a sitter. Instead of holding one's self accountable for the most precious thing to ever be charged with looking after, just put off that gift to incompetent Sally.

That's really what government is. Incompetent, abusive, and damaging to our most precious gift - freedom.
Not only to us, but generations coming.

To facilitate a known failure, an evil, is something I don't understand.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Nevada said:


> That's true, the test is for self-only coverage. Seems like something that congress should take a look at.


FINALLY! Thank you for acknowledging that.

And, for the record, I'll believe "Congress" will do something about as much as I'll believe pigs will fly...under their own power...on their own wings...on the 6th Sunday...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nate_in_IN said:


> There it is in a nut shell. Let's just legislate that everyone is equal. Everyone should get the same pay, live in identical homes, be given their proper ration of food.
> 
> FWIW. Equal <> Free.


Yup.
Can we say "Communism"?

Reminds me of Van Jones...remember him? One of the Idiotincharge's early czars b/4 someone finally forced him out.
He wanted everyone in the country to be THE SAME.
He said, I want it to be that if we all drew straws for out lives, no one would have a long one or short one. All would be the same.
I'd venture to say that most of the lib friends on here would think much the same, while conservatives want everyone to have opportunities to make their own way, wealth, pursue happiness.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's true, the test is for self-only coverage. Seems like something that congress should take a look at.


Yup, they should & then abolish the whole rotten thing.
How is that FAIR? To charge folks 16% of their income for HC when they HAD ins b/4 & LIKED IT!!! Many had affordable health care. DH did. So now he has none. Now my neighbor as well as MILLIONS of Americans have HC the cannot afford b/c the now have free b.c. & maternity benefits at age 60.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wendy said:
At what point in time did people stop being responsible for themselves?? By your thinking, I should give my sister half of my food. After all, I have 4 freezers stocked full to feed us & she has none. She has the same # of people in her house that I do. Actually 2 more if you count her mooching daughter with her new baby that has no dad around. It doesn't matter that my sister makes 3 times the amount of money that my husband & I do. Because she is irresponsible with her money I should give her food? I should make sure she has shelter, healthcare, & food? Sorry, that is her job. She could choose to give up her satellite TV & buy food. 

Soon, Wendy, if this Idioitincharge is not curtailed, you will have to give 1/2!!
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Or kinda like that.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nate_in_IN said:


> You are confusing _government_ with _society_.
> 
> Society is called upon to watch and help out with the less fortunate, but that is NOT the government.
> 
> I refer you to _Common Sense_ by Thomas Paine for a good review of the difference between the two, as well as why you would want Society to handle it and not Government.


Post of the day award.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)




----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Soon, Wendy, if this Idioitincharge is not curtailed, you will have to give 1/2!!
> From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
> Or kinda like that.


Right now the govt. already takes at least half of the money a working person makes.


----------

