It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Willtell
Okay…people who support the ACA, as flawed as it is, is supposed to just lie down and let the propaganda from the ACA haters be the only commentary available. Does the real world work that way?
Willtell
reply to post by solomons path
Okay…people who support the ACA, as flawed as it is, is supposed to just lie down and let the propaganda from the ACA haters be the only commentary available. Does the real world work that way?
Why don’t YOU start thinking and get out of your EMOTIONAL state.
Some actual light may get through!
You don't kill the man who owes you money because dead men pay no debts.
ThichHeaded
solomons path
I'm sure the multitude of people that have to fight the IRS, daily, would disagree.
He should ask the people at Ruby Ridge how that turned out..
He still has not shown proof these people where remotely helped via Obamacare...
Mods when do we call this a hoax?
kaylaluv
It looks like all of the examples in the OP relate to the pre-existing conditions govt insurance plan (PCIP) - which took effect in 2010 as a temporary measure, and under 26 adult children being able to be on their parents' insurance, which also became effective in 2010. Why is this considered a hoax?
I have fielded alot of questions on the Affordable Care Act (the "ACA") lately, and I have held off on my answers to see what the full ramifications of IRS enforcement will be. The answers are not coming quickly from the IRS or Congress, but here is what we know. The ACA requires all U.S. citizens to purchase insurance beginning in 2014. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the ACA is constitutional as a tax, not as a matter of insterstate commerce. So, the lion's share of policing compliance with the ACA will be up to the IRS. However, the ACA prohibits many of the traditional methods the IRS uses in tax enforcement. The IRS cannot initiate civil or criminal penalties, file liens or levy (garnish) a taxpayer's bank accounts or wages or otherwise seize property to satisfy any unpaid ACA tax. Also, no interest can accrue on these tax penalties. The only practical way for the IRS to collect on penalties is to capture or withhold tax refunds from year to year until satisfied. So, in summary, you can't go to jail for failure to comply, but you could lose your refund. The IRS will also oversee many tax breaks and incentives to allow taxpayers to afford health insurance and penalize those not in compliance. Future employment of thousands more IRS agents and more changes to the already complex tax code are anticipatedreply to post by xuenchen
Because there are no criminal charges associated with not purchasing health insurance, and offenders only face a $95 fee, Larry Kocot, visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, says some individuals many not feel obligated to get coverage. “It’s a decision individuals will have to make—there will be bigger consequences for dishonesty,” Kockot says. “The payment is not subject to criminal penalties, liens or levies. Essentially, the government can issue you a notice of payment or can collect this from your tax return.”
beezzer
Who pays for the surgeries?
Who pays for the medical care?
Who pays for the medicine?
Willtell
www.taxhelpok.com...
I have fielded alot of questions on the Affordable Care Act (the "ACA") lately, and I have held off on my answers to see what the full ramifications of IRS enforcement will be. The answers are not coming quickly from the IRS or Congress, but here is what we know. The ACA requires all U.S. citizens to purchase insurance beginning in 2014. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the ACA is constitutional as a tax, not as a matter of insterstate commerce. So, the lion's share of policing compliance with the ACA will be up to the IRS. However, the ACA prohibits many of the traditional methods the IRS uses in tax enforcement. The IRS cannot initiate civil or criminal penalties, file liens or levy (garnish) a taxpayer's bank accounts or wages or otherwise seize property to satisfy any unpaid ACA tax. Also, no interest can accrue on these tax penalties. The only practical way for the IRS to collect on penalties is to capture or withhold tax refunds from year to year until satisfied. So, in summary, you can't go to jail for failure to comply, but you could lose your refund. The IRS will also oversee many tax breaks and incentives to allow taxpayers to afford health insurance and penalize those not in compliance. Future employment of thousands more IRS agents and more changes to the already complex tax code are anticipatedreply to post by xuenchen
Because there are no criminal charges associated with not purchasing health insurance, and offenders only face a $95 fee, Larry Kocot, visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, says some individuals many not feel obligated to get coverage. “It’s a decision individuals will have to make—there will be bigger consequences for dishonesty,” Kockot says. “The payment is not subject to criminal penalties, liens or levies. Essentially, the government can issue you a notice of payment or can collect this from your tax return.”
xuenchen
I also wonder what those people had to pay in deductibles ?
I also wonder if deductibles were responsible for anybody who never were able to comment.
[ as in undertaker fees and deductions ]
And I wonder if those people can even deduct those contributing *expenses* from their tax returns ?
Hmmm.
IRS 1040 Sch A is tricky.
Section 1101: ESTABLISHES AN INTERIM HIGH-RISK POOL PROGRAM
Provides immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition.
Establishes a temporary national high-risk pool to provide health coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions.
U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who have a pre-existing medical condition and who have been uninsured for at least six months will be eligible to enroll in the high-risk pool and receive subsidized premiums.
Premiums for the pool will be established based on a standard population and may vary by no more than a 4 to 1 ratio due to age.
The law appropriates $5 billion to finance the program.
The new pools are to be administered directly by a state or a nonprofit entity under contract. States may not reduce their current high risk pool efforts.
CMS has estimated that about 375,000 people may be eligible to sign up for the federally-funded high risk pools.
Premiums in the new federal pool are designed to be 10 percent to 50 percent lower than current state rates. Co-payments and deductibles are also expected to be considerably lower. Current beneficiaries in state high-risk pools could get the federal coverage only if they drop out of their state pool and remain uninsured for six months.
The high risk pool provision of the federal law became effective 90 days after enactment, June 21, 2010. Individual policies are offered for sale after July 1, 2010; the federal program remains legally in effect until January 1, 2014.
~Lucidity
beezzer
Who pays for the surgeries?
Who pays for the medical care?
Who pays for the medicine?
The same person who paid for their healthcare prior to "Obamacare." You.
If you got healthcare the cost that healthcare carried the burden. Most people think any healthcare not paid for by those who needed and got it even though they could not pay was carried by the government. It was not. It was carried by insurers, and hospitals and doctors raised their costs to cover the people who didn't pay. Pretty much the only time the government covered it was if the people qualified for Medicare/Medicaid or if there was some sort of special subsidy.
MsAphrodite
reply to post by Willtell
It's NOT a fine. It's a tax. Plain and simple, the Supreme Court said so. It's a $95 tax to subsidize someone else's healthcare. The person paying the tax gets nothing in return, except of course a mandate to buy insurance or pay a tax for refusing to do so.
tax [taks] Show IPA
noun
1.
a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.edit on 6-10-2013 by MsAphrodite because: (no reason given)
Definition
Local or federal punitive tax applied to deter non-compliance, such as underpayment of income tax or disregard of the rules governing a business activity.