Penalty For Uninsured Not Signing Up For Obamacare To More Than Triple

a reply to: raymundoko

And is 40% in 2 years generally true across the board, or merely in a few *cough*cherry-picked*cough* cases?

I'll be glad to be corrected with facts; like for example:

Premiums Set to Decline for Benchmark ACA Plans - Kaiser

An early look at the cost of health insurance in 16 major cities finds that average premiums for the benchmark silver plan – the one upon which federal financial help under the Affordable Care Act to consumers is based – will decrease slightly in 2015. The new study from the Kaiser Family Foundation analyzes premiums in the largest cities in 15 states and the District of Columbia where information from rate filings is available.

Premiums for the second-lowest cost silver plan for individuals will fall by an average of 0.8 percent from current levels in these cities when open enrollment begins on Nov. 15, according to the study. The analysis finds that the premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan is decreasing in 7 of the 16 areas studied – but also that changes in average premiums will vary considerably across areas.

First I thought they did this all on purpose for something "greater" - now I realize they just plain incompetent and have no freaking clue - they might be a few smarties out there but they get out weight by the idiots (which includes this President).

I can see how this whole thing sounded great in the first place and once unleashed it spun out of control and now they trying to compensate because most of these architectures didn't consider ALL possible scenarios or just plain didn't care - because it wouldn't affect them.

Also I love how all the supporters (can't believe that there are still some) now push the agenda that the whole ObamaCare is the Republican's fault .. HAHAHAAHAHAHA... I love it... you will see how this will be intensified in the next 2 years.

When do people realize that "Progressive" always fails ...

a reply to: flyandi

I wouldn't say that Obamacare is the Republican's fault, only that the idea of the individual mandate (which is what drives most people here nuts) was born and raised in conservative think-tanks and Republican heathcare reform legislation.

Nope, the Democrats did the ACA, watered down their message to try to work with the other side of the aisle, and look what it got them.

But just out of curiosity, flyandi ... why do you believe that "Progressive" always fails?

What do you mean when you say "Progressive"?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Right, that's the high deductibility HMO plan...did you even read that? It even says there was an 8+% increase in some areas which is in line with what I see. And how am I cherry picking? I gave my personal experience...

a reply to: raymundoko

Right, you did give your personal experience.

And from that you're making a general claim about the cost of everyone's premiums. Call it anedotal if you wish.

Cherry picking is when one takes a small number of examples (or one in your case) and leaves out other information.

Yep, I did read the article. Did you? Particularly the part about premiums actually coming down in some cases?

So, your 40% in two years might not be accurate for everyone, everywhere, nor does it make a statement about the process in general ... see what that evidence actually does?

I didn't claim that all ACA related plans are coming down, in fact, they ARE going up. But not at 20% a year.

Here ...

The average increase for Obamacare plans will be 8.2 percent next year in 29 states and the District of Columbia where data about health insurance premiums for 2015 are available, according to PricewaterhouseCoopers, which has conducted the most thorough review to date. That's significant, but it's a little lower than the 10 percent annual rate hikes typical before the Affordable Care Act, according to a recent analysis published by the Commonwealth Fund.

HuffPo

And why is that? All too often we want to reduce incredibly complicated situations to inaccurate simplicity, because that makes it easier to make political arguments. However, there are a wide range of factors involved in individual insurance costs:

Averages mask a lot of variation between the states, and even within them, because rates typically are set on a local level. Also, these big-picture numbers don't account for individual variables that affect prices, like age, family size and tobacco use. There are multiple health insurance companies operating in nearly all states, and each sells numerous products to individual households, both on and off the exchanges. The plan one consumer has this year could cost 15 percent more, while her next-door neighbor may see his price go down.

That's the point.

a reply to: flyandi

you're way off....this isn't incompetence, it's pure greed....

a reply to: Gryphon66

i gotta nitpick, Gryph...sry...

it's "Anecdotal"

and actually, cherry picking is only acknowledging and using facts and information that support one's claims or assertions, while leaving anything damaging to those assertions and claims out....like how when you pick cherries, you grab the best looking ones, and leave the uglies on the tree...

that is all.

Yep D, I already took care of it (see above)

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: raymundoko

Right, you did give your personal experience.

And from that you're making a general claim about the cost of everyone's premiums. Call it anedotal if you wish.

Cherry picking is when one takes a small number of examples (or one in your case) and leaves out other information.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Where did I say all health plans went up? Care to quote that? I said MINE went up. I haven't posted any AneCdotal evidence, I just related my personal experience. I have my papers from this year and last to show a 30% increase last year, and a nearly 10% increase this year.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You still used it wrong though.

a reply to: amazing

Because the corporations will pimp slap them

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: BrianFlanders

glad to see i'm not the only one who sees this...

with the ACA, they criminalized personal choice....and they can expand upon that in a number of ways...

"well, we made you buy health insurance, because we love you, and want you to be healthy...it's for your own good. nevermind if you can't afford it, and will never be able to use it, because of the obscenely high deductible....what's important is that you have it, and we love you.......NOW!.....we see you're not eating right, or exercising. this could significantly impact your health, and because we love you, and we want you to be healthy, for your own good, we're going to need you to follow this meal program, and we're also going to need you to report to this government-operated gym 5 times a week, so we can ensure you're getting the proper exercise and food, to keep you healthy, because we love you, and we want you to be healthy. sadly, our love, and best wishes DO come with a small financial burden...after all, the money for the gyms and experts that make up the meal programs, has to come from somewhere. with that said, in order to ensure your compliance, we're going to need to impose a penalty on you, if you fail to comply with our directions.....but why would you want to do that? after all, we love you, we want you to be healthy, and this is for your own good."

with a quick perversion/interpretation of the "general welfare" clause, this could become a reality.....the government is no stranger to creating additional authority for itself, outside of the constitution....

Right. And also, if you refuse to cooperate, they can even use that against you. They can say you'd have to be crazy not to want to be healthy. So they can use this to say you're not mentally qualified to make your own decisions.

This could definitely turn into a nightmare. The worst thing about it is people who support the Obamacare mandate are already showing us that they would most likely support things that go MUCH farther. All it would take is for the government to decide to do it and these people would be on board immediately.

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: SubTruth

Replace liberal with corporatist. Both parties engage in this. Obamacare was a Republican developed plan tested out in MA by Romney. There's a reason Obama came out of nowhere and became president. He's a flawless Patsy for corporate interests. If you think Republicans are the better party you are missing the point. Even more so if you thought McCain or Romney would have been different. All our candidates for president are essentially identical on the stuff that truly matters.

Right. But also you need to take this one step farther. This is precisely why Mitt Romney was the Republican candidate in 2012. Because they knew he could not denounce the individual mandate without being called on it. What is better for the Obamacare individual mandate than a Republican opponent who has the same law in his history?

And the Republicans obviously knew this. They knew as soon as Romney mentioned the mandate, the Democrats would throw Romneycare up in his face. Romney's job in 2012 was to loose.

a reply to: raymundoko

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

50% over 8 years is a big difference from 40% in 2 years...especially since ACA was supposed to REDUCE premiums...

Perhaps you forgot what you said. Here you are making a comment comparing the cumulative results of a 8 year comparison study with your single instance of "40% in 2 years" and tying it even more closely into what "the ACA was supposed to do."

But your statement, now, is that you weren't making any wider statement about ACA premiums or about the data I presented, you were just lamenting about your personal situation, not comparing it to anything else?

Okay.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And since you want to pursue it, your evidence was anecdotal but the fallacy you committed was, indeed, "cherry-picking" --

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

Wikipedia - Cherry Picking (fallacy)

CHERRY PICKING
(also known as: suppressed evidence, fallacy of incomplete evidence, argument by selective observation, argument by half-truth, card stacking, fallacy of exclusion, ignoring the counter evidence, one-sided assessment, slanting, one-sidedness)

Description: When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.

Cherry Picking at Logically Fallacious

So, yes, in fact you were cherry-picking your response via anecdotal evidence from your own experience attempting to counter the evidence that I presented (thousands of data points over 8 years) and using that to attempt to support your position that the ACA was indeed NOT doing what it was "supposed" to do.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: Grovit

In many states you absolutely do HAVE to have a license and plates which take a registered owner who can provide insurance for those plates.

not in my state.
not worried about other states.
where i live you can get plates with a state id and you dont have to show proof of insurance to get them. you have to sign a paper saying you have it but dont have to show proof.
those other states are not my problem

Let's get back to the OP for a minute, shall we?

Forget that the title is misleading and that the tone of the CBSDC piece is fairly biased; you don't have to buy through the exchanges or be on Medicaid to avoid the penalty.

Forget that there are millions of people insured now that weren't before.

Forget that "pre-existing conditions" and other insurance company shenanigans to avoid paying on premiums are now a thing of the past.

What do you want to see the Republican Congress do to the ACA? Repeal it? Revise it? If revision, what do you want to change?

a reply to: eXia7

This has always been the completely effed up part of the law. The penalty portion didn't go into effect last year. Now that it is they more than triple the penalty. This is outrageous and unconscionable.

a reply to: th3dudeabides

Actually the individual mandate did go into effect last year, which means that if you didn't get coverage through your employer or other means you'll be fined 99.50 cents or one percent of income on your tax return for 2014.

Also if you have children, they too are incentivized, meaning a penalty for non coverage for them will incur as well, including yourself.

Then in 2015, when taxes are due the following year and you still don't have coverage, 2% of income will be taken, for you and your children if their not covered.

Double post.

My question is is how will they determine who gets paid if a person has his or her taxes offset for child support?

I've yet to find an answer for that one?

a reply to: Gryphon66

You can't back out of looking foolish guy, no matter how many wiki articles you link...

Cherry picking would be if I took multiple sources and only used the ones to support a case. I was only giving my personal experience.

I feel bad that you want to seem smart but don't even understand the difference between those.

Also, I have no idea why you think I was trying to counter some stuff you posted, I didn't even read any of your posts until you replied to me. I was just replying to the OP with my personal experience. It is obvious you are extremely defensive about this issue.