Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsure...

Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people

There are 45 comments on the Northern Michigan News story from Sep 19, 2012, titled Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people. In it, Northern Michigan News reports that:

Nearly 6 million Americans - most of them in the middle class - will face a tax penalty for not carrying medical coverage once President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law is fully in place, congressional budget analysts said Wednesday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Northern Michigan News.

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
rehabthebill

Pottstown, PA

#1 Sep 19, 2012
It's not just the tax penalty that will hit those supposedly able to afford but don't buy INSURANCE. If a person does buy health care INSURANCE the cost might be more than the penalty. The premiums must be paid every month like clock work. Those who can't afford health INSURANCE or are borderline probably can't afford a premium payment every single month. There will be months of missed payments or dropped INSURANCE. Then they will try to get INSURANCE again but it will be more since they dropped their last policy or had a record of irregular payments.

Or even worse those will have to use their health INSURANCE now faced with deductables, copays or not covered services. They might have been better off putting off entering the system or have gotten a better deal without insurance:many more practices, doctors and even some hospitals will cash discounts if you have no health INSURANCE.

Sometimes it literally pays to stay out of the health care system.
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#3 Sep 21, 2012
Agree, the health providers are busy bombarding the air waves with "take control of your health care management". They leave out the part where it's our individual responsibility to make sure they aren't defrauding the insurance companies on our behalf; which ultimately increases our premiums. For instance, a couple years back I was forced to get a chest x-ray for a bout of bronchitis (I'm and asthmatic). I paid for the doctor visit and anti-biotics out of pocket, as well as the x-ray. That x-ray went to 4 different labs and each "technician" who allegedly "read" the x-ray sent me a bill, 6 months after the bronchitis was cleared up. That kind of abuse is going on all the time, and people who are insured never bother to look at the bills, who could read the codes anyhow. The point is, when you pay it out of pocket, you ask questions. Obamacare is another loophole for the healthcare providers to bill the insurance at their discretion. It needs repealed and revised!
Austinite

Austin, TX

#4 Sep 21, 2012
For my healthy sister, brother in law and their 8 year old twin girls the cost of health insurance is just over $850.00 a month with a $5,000 each deductable for medical and $1,000 each deductable for medications. They have no dental insurance.
$10,200 a year in premiums and if they have to use the incirance it is another $20,000 out of poacket before insurance pays a penny of their care. Add in medications it is another $4,000 a year.
Basically before insurance pays out a penny on their behalf the have to pay out of their pocket
$36,000
Thier combined income is barely double that.
Yup, they have already said they will stop paying and just take the penalty at the end of the year. If they have an emergency they will just go to the ER and habla Mexicant and not have to pay a dime.
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#5 Sep 21, 2012
Austinite wrote:
For my healthy sister, brother in law and their 8 year old twin girls the cost of health insurance is just over $850.00 a month with a $5,000 each deductable for medical and $1,000 each deductable for medications. They have no dental insurance.
$10,200 a year in premiums and if they have to use the incirance it is another $20,000 out of poacket before insurance pays a penny of their care. Add in medications it is another $4,000 a year.
Basically before insurance pays out a penny on their behalf the have to pay out of their pocket
$36,000
Thier combined income is barely double that.
Yup, they have already said they will stop paying and just take the penalty at the end of the year. If they have an emergency they will just go to the ER and habla Mexicant and not have to pay a dime.
There is the problem in a nutshell. No regulation on insurance companies, just the policyholders.....
5950

Farmington, MO

#6 Sep 21, 2012
Austinite wrote:
For my healthy sister, brother in law and their 8 year old twin girls the cost of health insurance is just over $850.00 a month with a $5,000 each deductable for medical and $1,000 each deductable for medications. They have no dental insurance.
$10,200 a year in premiums and if they have to use the incirance it is another $20,000 out of poacket before insurance pays a penny of their care. Add in medications it is another $4,000 a year.
Basically before insurance pays out a penny on their behalf the have to pay out of their pocket
$36,000
Thier combined income is barely double that.
Yup, they have already said they will stop paying and just take the penalty at the end of the year. If they have an emergency they will just go to the ER and habla Mexicant and not have to pay a dime.
Or they can get a better rate on a better plan, and if their combined income is what you say, they will also be eligible for a tax credit that will help cover much of the cost. They should really research the health care bill, not take others tirades as facts. Many are still basing complaints on the HR3200 bill that was never endorsed by the administration, and never voted on.

Obamacare holds the insurance companies to a 15% administrative cost cap, we have just been notified that our insurance rates will go down 7% this next year, as opposed to an average increase of over 10%.
Austinite

Austin, TX

#7 Sep 21, 2012
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
There is the problem in a nutshell. No regulation on insurance companies, just the policyholders.....
That is correct. Insurance companies can deny coverage and can cancel it without penalty to them if you cannof afford the premiums. Premiums that they control without restriction.
If you have insurance and get sick they can simply raise the rates as high as they want until you cannot pay, then they drop you and you are fined by the IRS if you do not get insurance. Same goes for if you are sick and want to get insured, cannot pay the premiums, too bad, so sad.
Insirance companies are the big winners in all this because they fought to get rid of the Public Option so now they have no competition and millions of new customers.
This is simply robbery, only thing missing is the gun in the ribs of the consumer.
5950

Farmington, MO

#8 Sep 21, 2012
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>There is the problem in a nutshell. No regulation on insurance companies, just the policyholders.....
Who doesn't regulate the insurance companies? Obamacare most certainly does. That's the real reason the GOP is against it. The 15% administrative expense cap. But even the insurance companies understand that when the number of policy holders increases, the overall average expenses decline.
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#9 Sep 21, 2012
Austinite wrote:
<quoted text>
That is correct. Insurance companies can deny coverage and can cancel it without penalty to them if you cannof afford the premiums. Premiums that they control without restriction.
If you have insurance and get sick they can simply raise the rates as high as they want until you cannot pay, then they drop you and you are fined by the IRS if you do not get insurance. Same goes for if you are sick and want to get insured, cannot pay the premiums, too bad, so sad.
Insirance companies are the big winners in all this because they fought to get rid of the Public Option so now they have no competition and millions of new customers.
This is simply robbery, only thing missing is the gun in the ribs of the consumer.
Exactly. I had a health policy some years back. I had a severe infection and was hospitalized. They took my insurance information. After I was well, I received a bill from the hospital, less the exact amount that I had paid in premiums. I had to pay the rest out of pocket. There is no insurance company regulations in place because these companies are public offerings. The shareholders such as Pelosi reid, and Obama (among others who got in on the ground floor investment atrocity called Obamacare, oops affordable care act)aren't going to regulate profits. Of course you could jump through the government hoops that the previous poster suggested, who has time for that?
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#10 Sep 21, 2012
5950 wrote:
<quoted text>
Who doesn't regulate the insurance companies? Obamacare most certainly does. That's the real reason the GOP is against it. The 15% administrative expense cap. But even the insurance companies understand that when the number of policy holders increases, the overall average expenses decline.
Theoretically sound. real world naive. There are more developing nations using fossil fuels, and look at where oil is. The more individuals on a plan, the more expansion needs to take place. Supply must meet demand, and with supply comes increased costs. I own a manufacturing company. As my business has grown, income increased. But, to meet the demands that came with that income, i had to re-invest and spend more. Health Insurance companies will do the same thing car insurance companies do. Make all pay for un-insured/under insured. Don't think so, guess again.
5950

United States

#11 Sep 21, 2012
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>Theoretically sound. real world naive. There are more developing nations using fossil fuels, and look at where oil is. The more individuals on a plan, the more expansion needs to take place. Supply must meet demand, and with supply comes increased costs. I own a manufacturing company. As my business has grown, income increased. But, to meet the demands that came with that income, i had to re-invest and spend more. Health Insurance companies will do the same thing car insurance companies do. Make all pay for un-insured/under insured. Don't think so, guess again.
Insurance is not a supply demand industry, they manufacture nothing, they sell nothing. If your theory was sound, then group insurance would be more expensive than an individual policy for the same coverage. Please make fun of me all you want, you either understand the business model or you don't.
5950

United States

#12 Sep 21, 2012
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>Theoretically sound. real world naive. There are more developing nations using fossil fuels, and look at where oil is. The more individuals on a plan, the more expansion needs to take place. Supply must meet demand, and with supply comes increased costs. I own a manufacturing company. As my business has grown, income increased. But, to meet the demands that came with that income, i had to re-invest and spend more. Health Insurance companies will do the same thing car insurance companies do. Make all pay for un-insured/under insured. Don't think so, guess again.
In your own business I hope you understand positive leverage, now apply that to a company that carries thousands or millions of policies. How much would they increase administrative costs to handle new policies, they'd be idiotic if they let the additional costs outweigh the additional premiums. Hence, more profits. Make sense?
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#13 Sep 21, 2012
5950 wrote:
<quoted text>
Insurance is not a supply demand industry, they manufacture nothing, they sell nothing. If your theory was sound, then group insurance would be more expensive than an individual policy for the same coverage. Please make fun of me all you want, you either understand the business model or you don't.
They have offices and personnel, correct? To expand to supply the demand for the paperwork it takes to maintain an insurance facility, that comes from the consumer, and/or investors. Investors expect dividends on those investments. The more claims an insurer pays out, the more they must bring in, that IS supply and demand. Group policies aren't as CHEAP as you think, my company was part of a group policy, my rates were as much as if I had a singular policy that I chose the coverage for. I don't have little kids, I am in a certain age group and don't have a chronic disease, yet in the GROUP policy, those benefits were still part of the plan, and everyone knows nothing is free. So, in a nutshell, I was helping pay for the people's "little kid" health care the chronic individuals and the either very old or very young. So group coverage is no more cost effective than a group plan for car insurance.
CBOW

Abbottstown, PA

#14 Sep 21, 2012
5950 wrote:
<quoted text>
In your own business I hope you understand positive leverage, now apply that to a company that carries thousands or millions of policies. How much would they increase administrative costs to handle new policies, they'd be idiotic if they let the additional costs outweigh the additional premiums. Hence, more profits. Make sense?
That's also why they have shareholders, to eliminate capital gains so as not to be taxed. The profit disbursement is not about to be given as premium breaks to policy holders. How much do you pay for car insurance a year? Based on your age and accident rate and amount of coverage? You realize that a huge percentage is to cover those who are young, have accidents frequently and don't carry enough coverage on themselves.
5950

Farmington, MO

#15 Sep 21, 2012
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>They have offices and personnel, correct? To expand to supply the demand for the paperwork it takes to maintain an insurance facility, that comes from the consumer, and/or investors. Investors expect dividends on those investments. The more claims an insurer pays out, the more they must bring in, that IS supply and demand. Group policies aren't as CHEAP as you think, my company was part of a group policy, my rates were as much as if I had a singular policy that I chose the coverage for. I don't have little kids, I am in a certain age group and don't have a chronic disease, yet in the GROUP policy, those benefits were still part of the plan, and everyone knows nothing is free. So, in a nutshell, I was helping pay for the people's "little kid" health care the chronic individuals and the either very old or very young. So group coverage is no more cost effective than a group plan for car insurance.
My point is, insurance companies will make more money without raising premiums. Especially since they are regulated to 15-20% administrative cost to payout ratio. They simply can not increase premiums at the pace they have and continue to make it in under the max.

I'm sure you have already seen the positive affect on the policies that you furnish to your associates like I have. Our increase was -7% this year, as opposed to regular increases of 10%+. And I also received reduction notices for the buy up plans, as well as a small return of 7k from last years overcharges, it'll be a great christmas party this year!

Good luck with your business, keep it on American soil, and may it grow beyond your expectations, but never beyond your ability to control.
5950

Farmington, MO

#16 Sep 21, 2012
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>That's also why they have shareholders, to eliminate capital gains so as not to be taxed. The profit disbursement is not about to be given as premium breaks to policy holders. How much do you pay for car insurance a year? Based on your age and accident rate and amount of coverage? You realize that a huge percentage is to cover those who are young, have accidents frequently and don't carry enough coverage on themselves.
Insurance companies soak up the uninsured and pass it on through premiums, so in my opinion everyone should be insured. I would have liked a public option, but the GOP will do everything they can to stop that from ever happening. Like helping veterans get jobs! Etc.
rehabthebill

Pottstown, PA

#17 Sep 21, 2012
5950 wrote:
<quoted text>
Insurance companies soak up the uninsured and pass it on through premiums, so in my opinion everyone should be insured. I would have liked a public option, but the GOP will do everything they can to stop that from ever happening. Like helping veterans get jobs! Etc.


Should everyone have insurance to lower your current insurance premiums? People AND the health care industry seem to forget that until 16 months from now health INSURANCE is an OPTIONAL voluntary form of payment. I do agree that premiums will increase. The ACA basically affords you the oppurtunity to buy INSURANCE and not health care.

Now the health care industry made it seeeeem like INSURANCE was the only way to pay for their service when in fact it's they way to pay their desired prices. To top it off the INSURANCE industry has created fixed pricing in geographic areas for particualar procedures-in a free market system that would be called price fixing for most other businesses.

They needed health care pricing reform not INSURANCE "reform".

“your life is great”

Since: Aug 09

you poop in clean water

#18 Sep 21, 2012
wow.
there are some painfully uninformed people on this thread.
.
"Obamacare" includes the expansion of Medicaid, which means that the annual income level to qualify will be raised.
(except in those states that refuse to follow the new rules)
.
Premiums are capped at 10% of annual income.
.
the "penalty tax" for not having coverage is about $700, which is paid through your tax returns, and appears as a liability, and will be off-set by deductions.
.
.
saying that "Obamacare" is a bad thing just means a person is uninformed.
educate yourself on the FACTS, don't trust media; trust yourself.
rehabthebill

Pottstown, PA

#19 Sep 21, 2012
5950 wrote:
<quoted text>
Or they can get a better rate on a better plan, and if their combined income is what you say, they will also be eligible for a tax credit that will help cover much of the cost. They should really research the health care bill, not take others tirades as facts. Many are still basing complaints on the HR3200 bill that was never endorsed by the administration, and never voted on.
Obamacare holds the insurance companies to a 15% administrative cost cap, we have just been notified that our insurance rates will go down 7% this next year, as opposed to an average increase of over 10%.
Health INSURANCE is 50% of their income, WAY TOO HIGH. Throw in other normal costs of daily living that's an outrageous percent of their income let alone price/premium.

To show the percentage of their income being paid a rule of thumb is that a mortgage should be no more than 3 times your yearly salary or 1/3 of annual income. Also many credit experts feel that once you owe one company or credit card companies over 20% of your yearly salary your doomed. They are being gouged. The benefit of having health care INSURANCE is negated by the fincial hardship.

You have a health care system that has become hooked to third party someone else is paying for it system like junkies on crack. The ACA was about giving or keeping the health care industry recieving their desired outrageous price gouging fees. The ACA focused on WHO would pay rather WHAT and WHY is it being paid. Throw in an insurance hooked on the health system like fleas on a dog they got what they wanted-steady and new customers/revenue.

36K a year in premiums AND medical expenses??? The medical expense is a much closer number to what INSURANCE should be an even that's high.
rehabthebill

Pottstown, PA

#20 Sep 21, 2012
CBOW wrote:
<quoted text>
There is the problem in a nutshell. No regulation on insurance companies, just the policyholders.....
Exactly. Ironically the ACA was an INSURANCE bill or who will pay for it bill. NOT a health CARE bill. The focus needs to be on WHAT and WHY pricing is the way it is.

rehabthebill

Pottstown, PA

#21 Sep 21, 2012
anneutral wrote:
wow.
there are some painfully uninformed people on this thread.
.
"Obamacare" includes the expansion of Medicaid, which means that the annual income level to qualify will be raised.
(except in those states that refuse to follow the new rules)
.
Premiums are capped at 10% of annual income.
.
the "penalty tax" for not having coverage is about $700, which is paid through your tax returns, and appears as a liability, and will be off-set by deductions.
.
.
saying that "Obamacare" is a bad thing just means a person is uninformed.
educate yourself on the FACTS, don't trust media; trust yourself.
Can you a reference a website or article with this information?

I can only find this:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/26/pf/taxes/heal...

I don't see premiums being at 10% of income. I know medicare user retires and their premiums don't sound like 10% of income. The taxes are spelled out. They also talk about the exchanges but they're no where near close to being set up in many states nor are the prices. My thing with the ACA besides the tax and penalty angle is that it only addresses WHO will pay and not WHAT and WHY. The actual cost of care is not being address the way it should be. You should be able to go an office for under a 100 bucks, how the heck did an office VISIT wind up over 200$ with threats of cancellation penalties(sounds like a sense of entitlement to your money no matter what they did)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Health Insurance Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Federal tax hike on cigarettes is criticized by... (Mar '09) Jun 23 Porch Honkey the ... 31
News Brown signs bill to help illegal immigrants buy... Jun 11 tomin cali 1
News Clinton Dumbfounded byRising Cost of Obamacare Jun 10 just axe me 2
Very upset with my situation.! Help, please Jun 9 just axe me 8
News California Dems Inch Closer to Extending Obamac... Jun 8 tomin cali 1
News Americans are more overweight than ever, CDC su... May '16 TimeforHonesty 9
News Al Franken: Health reform has made a difference... (Sep '10) May '16 Not Low Income Se... 241
More from around the web