What's funny is that I think fewer right-wing people in the US would oppose the single-payer system like Canada has than currently oppose Obamacare, even though Obamacare is a republican idea. It's probably due to the simplicity of explaining it to them vs the slightly more complex private insurance model the ACA relies on. dumb gonna dumb

I do, because I have health care.

Can you even answer one single ****ing direct question that is put to you?

I mean, do you even have the capability?

I think this is a great outcome.

Businesses everywhere are having buyer's remorse when it comes to providing health benefits to their employees because of the ridiculously high costs associated with doing so, costs that rise well above the rate of inflation annually and have been doing so since well before the ACA was a twinkle in Obama's eye. It's completely unsustainable.

Businesses should be in the businesses of selling widgets or whatever it is that they do, not the business of healthcare. Unless their business IS healthcare.

thisistheamericayouvotedfor?

A man who attempted to sign up for Obamacare online was told that a fine of over $4,000 dollars a year for refusing to take out mandatory health insurance could be taken directly from his bank account, and that his drivers license would be suspended and a federal tax lien placed against his home, according to an entry on the HealthCare.gov Facebook page.

If true, the implementation of Obamacare is going to be a whole lot more draconian than Americans have been led to believe.http://www.infowars.com/obamacare-fi...bank-accounts/

How could this happen?

FatherDoesntKnowBest

So some rando posted something he claims he read on FB and you're quoting it here as news? lolu

“I actually made it through this morning at 8:00 A.M. I have a preexisting condition (Type 1 Diabetes) and my income base was 45K-55K annually I chose tier 2 “Silver Plan” and my monthly premiums came out to $597.00 with $13,988 yearly deductible!!! There is NO POSSIBLE way that I can afford this so I “opt-out” and chose to continue along with no insurance.

I received an email tonight at 5:00 P.M. informing me that my fine would be $4,037 and could be attached to my yearly income tax return. Then you make it to the “REPERCUSSIONS PORTION” for “non-payment” of yearly fine. First, your drivers license will be suspended until paid, and if you go 24 consecutive months with “Non-Payment” and you happen to be a home owner, you will have a federal tax lien placed on your home. You can agree to give your bank information so that they can easy “Automatically withdraw” your “penalties” weekly, bi-weekly or monthly! This by no means is “Free” or even “Affordable.”


I would tend to believe this until proven false.

same link....\

Nobody is going to dispute that if you don't pay the tax penalty they will take your house. That's true beyond challenge.

This is a great law for bums that have never worked and have nothing to lose. I resent it to hell.

/point

/laugh

It's impossible for 2.5% of his income (the max fine) to equal 4000$ if he's making 55000$/year.

Simple math should tell you his story is bull****.

Sigh....

From the same article..

Section 1501(g)(2) of the Affordable Care Act also states that the IRS cannot “file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section.”

Either Sheehan’s claim that he received this notice is a lie, or the feds have been dishonest with the American people all along, and the revolt against Obamacare is about to take “don’t tread on me” to a whole new level.

Ya think?

I WILL BELIEVE ANYTHING ALEX JONES SAYS, AND A RANDO HEARSAY-LADEN FACEBOOK POAST!

This, I figured would be lolsfobv, so why do you reply with this?:

People don't get frustrated with you because you disagree, but because you're consistently communicating ignorance of the status quo to raise concerns in a claim of future circumstances.

I'll re-phrase:

1.) If firm will choose the cheaper option of paying the fine, why did they offer any coverage in the first place when there would be no fine of not doing so?

2.) And why would they continue to offer coverage in the face of the inevitable ACA instead of 'coming to their senses' of sorts and taking the cheaper option of zero?

Because the current plans are cheaper and with lower deductibles now, are they not?

Hell, now and for the last 15 years, these same firms could've offered 50/50 plans. More economical for them, but I ask, why didn't they if this would be cheaper for them.

You folks just fell off the turnip truck.

We have reached a new low.

Hai Alex

It seems like 75% of what is written about obamacare is a bunch of bull**** and the other 25% is not true.

Either way, I read that insurance companies are not allowed to increase the premiums on someone with cancer, but they are allowed to on someone who uses tobacco... And to think that I thought all along that the reason smokers pay higher premiums was because of the increased risk of getting cancer from smoking.

You ask me a question when I raised an issue about the unintended consequences of this law. Because there are going to be unintended, as is always the case. There will be future ramifications, is that not correct?

This is being waved temporarily only for one year:

"Employer mandate and part-time working hours

Not to be confused with the individual mandate[246][247]

For more details on health insurance mandates, see Health insurance mandate.

The employer mandate is a penalty that will be incurred by employers with more than 50 employees, if they do not offer health insurance to their full-time workers.[248] This provision was included as a disincentive for employers considering dropping their current insurance plans once the insurance exchanges begin operating as an alternative source of insurance.[249] Proponents of the reform law wanted to address the parts of the healthcare system they believed to not be working well, while causing minimal disruption to those happy with the coverage they have, and the employer mandate was a part of this attempt.[250][249] Lawmakers recognized that approximately 80% of Americans already have insurance, of whom 54% are covered directly or indirectly through an employer (44% of the total population) and 29% (or 23% of the total population) are covered by the government, mainly though Medicare and Medicaid.[251][252] And 73% of the total population reported themselves satisfied with their insurance situation; however significant minorities, even among those that reported favorably, had medically related financial troubles and/or dissatisfaction with aspects of their insurance coverage, especially among the poor and sick.[250] The intent of the employer mandate (along with a grandfather clause in the ACA) is to help ensure that existing employer-sponsored insurance plans that people like will stay in place.

However, because a company will not face the penalty if it has less than 50 full-time employees, many are concerned that the employer mandate creates a perverse incentive for business to employ people part-time instead of full-time.[253][254] Several businesses and the State of Virginia have clarified the contracts of their part-time employees by adding a 29-hour a week cap,[255][256] to reflect the 30-hour threshold for full-time hours, as defined by the law.[248] As of yet, however, only a small percent of companies have shifted their workforce towards more part-time hours (4% in a survey from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis).[254] And labor market experts note that such shifts are not clearly attributable to the implementation of the ACA: pre-existing, long-term trends in working hours,[257] and the effects of the Great Recession correlate with part-time working hour patterns.[258][259] The impact of this provision on employer’s decision-making is partially offset by other factors: offering healthcare helps attract and retain employees, while increasing productivity and reducing absenteeism; and to trade a smaller full-time workforce for a larger part-time work force carries costs of training and administration for a business.[254][257][260] In addition, the amount of employers with over 50 employees is relatively small,[254] and over 90% of them already offer insurance,[261] so changes in employer plans from this provision are expected to be small.[253] Workers who do not receive insurance from an employer plan will still be able to purchase insurance on the exchanges.

Regardless of the political rationale of maintaining existing insurance arrangements for those happy with them, most policy analysts (on both the right and left) are critical of the employer mandate provision on the policy merits.[253][261] They argue that the perverse incentives regarding part-time hours, even if they do not change many existing insurance plans, are real and harmful; that the raised marginal cost of the 50th worker for businesses could limit companies’ growth; that the costs of reporting and administration—the paperwork for businesses and the state enforcement—are not worth the trade-off of incentivizing the maintenance of current employer plans; and note that the employer mandate, unlike the individual mandate, is a non-essential part of the law.[262][263][264][265][247] (At the same time, though, some analysts have noted that it is possible to design an employer mandate that partially avoids these problems, by instead taxing business that do not offer insurance by a percentage of their payroll, known as "pay-or-play", rather than using the 50-employee and 30-hour cut-offs).[253][262] Furthermore, many healthcare policy analysts think it would be better to transition away from the employer-based system to systems (whether state- or market-based) where insurance is more portable and stable, and hence think that it is a bad idea to even try to maintain existing employer insurance systems.[266] The effects of the provision have also generated vocal opposition from several business and unions.[263][267]"

How are they not going to have to pay a fine if they choice not to offer health care to full time employees?

Because we don't instantly believe Facebook posts linked to by Alex Jones that are obviously false when using the slightest bit of thinking?

As I stated before, I work in construction. If they are trying to recruit the best people in the field, they will offer better benefits packages.

If one company, because they chose not to offer health care starts grabbing all the work because they have cheaper overhead and operating costs. Other companies will start doing the same, even though they may take a hit in the short run with employees. They know their employees can obtain health care on their own.

These companies were free to not offer health care coverage last year. Yet they did.

"Why won't they just cut health care when they have leas incentive to do so?!" is one of my favorites.

Was there a gov option last year? All I'm saying is we don't know if or how this is going to change the dynamics. Just like the reason companies started offering health coverage in the first place. When the gov makes major policy changes, biz make adjustments.

30 million new customers. One would think healthcare providers could be able to offer services at a lower rate.