Penalties grow for not getting insurance

[sealybobo]

Its not perfect but folk memory recalls a time when you needed cash to get the doctor to see you.Many didnt. I am from Wrexham and I read a story about a local woman who died because the Dr would not attend late at night. She still owed him money from her last visit. He went round in the morning but she was dead. Who wants to go back to that barbaric system.
Our Drs have recently been on strike in opposition to the government and have had 100% support from the public.Its likely that the tory war against the Drs will bring them down. Speed the day.

Dear Tommy Tainant to put things in fuller perspective
How many people die of drug or alcholic addiction, suicide or homicide
who could have been saved by Christian spiritual healing that cures the root sickness in abuse/addiction cases.

Yet we would not think to "mandate spiritual healing" through the government to save lives.

People can choose that freely, and there are PLENTY of charities, churches and nonprofits that provide this help FREELY.

So why can't the people who care about this sickness and health so much
be held to the same standards as Christians are who want to save lives.

The missionaries I know can only save so many orphans, and have watched children die due to lack of resources.

Is your solution to use govt to FORCE everyone to pay to save lives through charities?
Where does it end?

Surely we can find a more consistent way to free up resources to cover health care
than to TAX TAXPAYERS by forcing them to buy insurance.

I mentioned before reforming the prison system.
If taxpayers are spending 50,000 a year per person, why isn't anyone complaining about that cost
and trying to save that money?

Instead of charging taxpayers more, why not stop the waste of resources that could have
ALREADY paid for health care, education and housing at the rate we are blowing on a failed prison system.

We haven't even looked at other means of funding health care.

Taxing citizens and making people buy insurance are not the only way;
in fact, they take resources AWAY from other programs. Why can't these be the equal choice
and responsibility of taxpayers? To pay for the programs that do the best job and cover
the most people, so naturally the more effective programs will get the most support?

Some of the best medical programs I know of are nonprofit charities, run by
volunteer participation and donations. Nobody has to FORCE people to fund these in order to save lives.

Why can't we model programs after those, so people freely and naturally choose
to fund what works most cost effectively?

I already offer the free spiritual healing programs as a way to cut the costs.
Why can't all methods be freely chosen, based on what is the most cost-effective solution?

If you want to use taxes as an incentive:
Why not give tax breaks for people or groups investing in building sustainable
teaching hospitals and medical training/service programs?

Why punish people for not going along with govt mandated insurance as the only choice?
It's still not covering all the people or all the expenses.
So if other programs are needed anyway, to fill the gaps,
why punish people for investing in other programs that are clearly needed anyway?
Why not REWARD that investment instead of punishing it as "not a choice under ACA."

I am not sure what point you are making. Historically healthcare was the preserve of the rich.
Your health is a lottery in many ways. My view is that if the whole community pays in a little bit then everyone is covered. I dont know if I am going to slip on the ice or get Alzeihmers. Dont know if my neighbour is either. But if we all chip in a bit then we are all covered. How can I sit comfortably in my house when my neighbour is suffering next door. My duty as a Christian is to help him. And his duty is to help me. That is community, that is what binds us together.

Dear Tommy Tainant That's fine, but it still has to be FREE CHOICE
of which groups or programs people want to fund for health care.
Everyone can be covered this way, but it isn't the place or duty of govt to mandate what those choices are.

The same way Christian groups are allowed an exemption for members of
health sharing ministries, why not open the door for ALL groups to have equal freedom
and not be penalized for not choosing one of the options approved by govt.

That's exempting people based on religious affiliation that govt pre-approves,
while penalizing someone who believes in a different way to fund sustainable health care.

That's discriminating by religion and creed.

You've made me think how I would present this as a revision to the ACA mandates.
What I would suggest to lawmakers to minimalize the legislative changes needed
is to create an option in Texas (as a model for others) where the people or groups
who invest in creating a Singlepayer system can get taxbreaks and deduct whatever they
pay under ACA by applying that money (or credit) to the plan they really believe in;
which I would suggest be organized by the Democrats and Greens who seem to have networked
the support for such a program. And for the Republicans and Libertarian types who believe in
Free Market, give tax breaks and allow the mandate to be paid toward or credited toward
a system of reforming the VA to provide health care not just for vets but for the membership under that plan.
If insurance is part of that plan, it remains the choice of that group and its members whether to mandate
it or keep it optional within their plan.

I'd ask the groups with the more liberal beliefs in universal health care as a right to
commit to setting up a more cost-effective prison system of corrections through medical treatment,
diagnostics, therapy, rehabilitation and restitution, and base the state alternative on that system
converted into facilities for providing health care to the general public (probably by integrating
medical education and internships to provide public health services on a sustainable basis).

If the major parties agree to organize their own tracks for state alternatives,
so that taxpayers have a choice of which programs match their beliefs
(in universal care, singlepayer, prochoice or prolife, free market or mandated membership)
perhaps the mandate and exemptions could be revised to include that option,
and let the members of the parties or groups decide the terms for themselves instead of
fighting over what to impose through govt for all people to follow.

so if these two major groups who'd rather fund some other way, besides insurance mandates,
can agree to use their party networks to set up state alternatives, why not give tax breaks,
credits and exemptions for that. And let people choose how to work it out themselves
so it is the most cost effective for their members paying for it, voting and participating in it.

Free choice is a myth where taxation is concerned.There are many things that I dont want my taxes spent on and I try and vote accordingly.Other than that its just tough.There are things that the state should provide that we all use and benefit from. Roads,defence,schools and so on. There shouldnt be an opt out there.
If you get knocked down by a car, anywhere in the UK, an ambulance will pick you up and take you to the local hospital.Trained staff will set your bones,stitch up your wounds and provide he medication you need to get better. It benefits all of us so why should a certain group opt out of that ?

1. Yes, if you really want free choice, that is why the Libertarians Republicans Conservatives and other Constitutionalists are saying that liberty is inherent in human nature, and the point is to limit govt from TAKING and REGULATING that freedom.

the other school of thought is that rights depend politically on govt to protect;
and thus this "myth" that you can depend on govt to protect your free choice.

You just made the argument for why people ARE saying to keep health care out of govt.
Or you are giving up your freedom to the political whim of whoever is in power and can change laws
or refuse to change them where you're stuck for years waiting to elect people who might change them.
Either way it's a disaster expecting federal govt to manage personal and financial health care decisions at the top,
when the people affected are at the local grassroots level, so that's wehre the decision makign should take place.

2. As for emergency care, the argument is whether you can force people IN ADVANCE who haven't
used any services or reneged on any bill to "buy insurance in advance" assuming they won't pay their costs otherwise.

Why not go after the people who use the services if the point is responsibility for paying?

Otherwise, it is a violation of the Constitutional laws
* that nobody should be deprived of liberty without due process of laws
(ie there was no proof that taxpayers have or intend to abuse public resources without paying BEFORE depriving liberty by forcing them to buy insurance, and not even giving people the freedom to pay for the costs themselves, or pay for other ways to provide ER and other services sustainably, but ONLY mandating insurance or a limited number of options regulated by federal govt instead of leaving this to local decisions that citizens CAN participate in democratically BEFORE losing rights)
* and against "involuntary servitude" except as penalty for a crime duly convicted of
by "in effect" forcing people to work and give up that income to a system they didn't agree to pay for or be under,
WITHOUT first being convicted of a crime for which such a penalty is owed.

It is ONE thing if people actually incur costs and you are making people sign a contract that they will pay their costs.
But nowhere in the Constitution is the federal govt authorized to mandate HOW people will pay their health care costs,
much less force them to buy private insurance or be penalized.

Whatever services you say will benefit everyone, public housing, public schools, public health care,
to pay for it, would be a LOCAL decision how to manage the costs and access so there is
"no taxation without representation" and the management and costs remain ACCOUNTABLE to the people
affected and paying for this. If you look at the corruption of public housing and schools, when decisions are made at a higher level AWAY from the taxpayers and families in the actual districts, who are actually paying and affected by school policies, that's where corruption and waste happens because of lack of direct accountability.

So that's where people are arguing not to make health care decisions on a federal level REMOVED
from the local implementation that should be governed LOCALLY to represent the people and taxpayers.

The arguments against ACA is that the FEDERAL govt has no Constitutional authority
and is NOT DESIGNED to manage health care and how to pay for it.

The arguments is that the rights not stated EXPRESSLY in the Constitution
are reserved to the STATES and to the PEOPLE. So the people state by state
should be managing this, not the federal govt in Washington where people don't have direct vote on policies.

The problem with liberals trying to run things through federal govt is that they generally do not teach individuals or groups LOCALLY how to manage, exercise and protect their own Constitutional rights and freedoms; the liberal agenda pushed by the Democrats promotes depending on federal govt and officials to push social programs and benefits so they can get votes.

If the health care programs were resolved on a STATE level (such as the idea of reforming prison budgets)
the President could not use that to run for office on a FEDERAL level.

The political interests in pushing issues up to the FEDERAL level is for power and control in order to have a selling point to get elected.

The people who really want to solve problems sustainably would push to bring those programs
back to the States and people to manage more directly and democratically.

But democratizing the system spreads the power and responsibility unilaterally, shared among the public
and working with all institutions, private and public, to make this work most cost effectively.

This idea of sustainable solutions on a grassroots level is more INDIVIDUALIZED per state and district.
For candidates to prove that works would actually take implementing them.
But they run for office based on simple concepts they can pitch and sell quickly through the media.

People want shortcuts but those are not realistic.
The real work it's going to take is on the state level and organizing resources directly,
not depending on solutions to be mandated from the top down by federal govt.

Tommy Tainant we can keep the hospitals running sustainably
when we have local ownership and responsibility, so no resources are wasted
on corruption,crime and abuse, and the local management has direct interest
and investment in making sure the programs are cost-effective and meeting the local demands.

Again, addressing crime and prisons is a MAJOR source of lost resources I would tackle
in order to save more resources and medical help for the cases that can't be helped.
Crime, prosecution and incarceration CAN be prevented, and thus the costs wasted on these.

Instead of going after taxpayers who happen to make enough money to tap their tax returns,
I would go after the mentally ill and gang members who abuse arms to put people in the
hospital and cost everyone more money. Get rid of that waste, and there will be more
resources freed up to invest in sustainable schools, health and other social services.

Tommy Tainant it's not a matter of rejecting the public hospitals open to everyone,
but arguing how to pay for this without criminalizing or penalizing law abiding citizens who committed no crimes
and haven't refused to pay bills before being forced by federal govt to buy private insurance and lose liberties.

People should be able to go without insurance but then hospitals should be able to deny them if they don't have the money up front. And often times when we call 911 we want the non insured to be taken care of but they can't pay, so the rest of us have to pay for you. That's why everyone should have insurance. Eventually you're gonna need it.

 

[dblack]

People should be able to go without insurance but then hospitals should be able to deny them if they don't have the money up front.

Exactly. If the reason for the mandate was EMTALA - there was a very simple fix at hand. Just repeal EMTALA.

But of course that wasn't the reason. The mandate was put in place to compensate insurance companies for the ridiculous demand of guaranteed issue. It had nothing to do with the free-rider problem. That was merely a sales pitch to cover up the fact that the mandate was a quid-pro-quo demanded by the insurance industry.

 

[Arianrhod]

People should be able to go without insurance but then hospitals should be able to deny them if they don't have the money up front.

Exactly. If the reason for the mandate was EMTALA - there was a very simple fix at hand. Just repeal EMTALA....

...and let people die?

Or let other people get charged more without realizing it?

Or let hospitals go bankrupt so the entire community suffers?

I bet you've got a fourth answer, right?

 

[dblack]

People should be able to go without insurance but then hospitals should be able to deny them if they don't have the money up front.

Exactly. If the reason for the mandate was EMTALA - there was a very simple fix at hand. Just repeal EMTALA....

...and let people die?

Or let other people get charged more without realizing it?

Or let hospitals go bankrupt so the entire community suffers?

I bet you've got a fourth answer, right?

Whatever. As I said, EMTALA isn't the real reason for the mandate. It's a horseshit excuse.

 

[Arianrhod]

People should be able to go without insurance but then hospitals should be able to deny them if they don't have the money up front.

Exactly. If the reason for the mandate was EMTALA - there was a very simple fix at hand. Just repeal EMTALA....

...and let people die?

Or let other people get charged more without realizing it?

Or let hospitals go bankrupt so the entire community suffers?

I bet you've got a fourth answer, right?

Whatever. As I said, EMTALA isn't the real reason for the mandate. It's a horseshit excuse.

"Whatever." You could have at least tried for "Let them eat cake..." while they die on the sidewalk.

 

[dblack]

People should be able to go without insurance but then hospitals should be able to deny them if they don't have the money up front.

Exactly. If the reason for the mandate was EMTALA - there was a very simple fix at hand. Just repeal EMTALA....

...and let people die?

Or let other people get charged more without realizing it?

Or let hospitals go bankrupt so the entire community suffers?

I bet you've got a fourth answer, right?

Whatever. As I said, EMTALA isn't the real reason for the mandate. It's a horseshit excuse.

"Whatever." You could have at least tried for "Let them eat cake..." while they die on the sidewalk.

Just ignore the point and carry on with your diversion. That's really all you do, eh?

 

[Arianrhod]

People should be able to go without insurance but then hospitals should be able to deny them if they don't have the money up front.

Exactly. If the reason for the mandate was EMTALA - there was a very simple fix at hand. Just repeal EMTALA....

...and let people die?

Or let other people get charged more without realizing it?

Or let hospitals go bankrupt so the entire community suffers?

I bet you've got a fourth answer, right?

Whatever. As I said, EMTALA isn't the real reason for the mandate. It's a horseshit excuse.

"Whatever." You could have at least tried for "Let them eat cake..." while they die on the sidewalk.

Just ignore the point and carry on with your diversion. That's really all you do, eh?

Were you under the impression that I brought up EMTALA?

 

[dblack]

Exactly. If the reason for the mandate was EMTALA - there was a very simple fix at hand. Just repeal EMTALA....

...and let people die?

Or let other people get charged more without realizing it?

Or let hospitals go bankrupt so the entire community suffers?

I bet you've got a fourth answer, right?

Whatever. As I said, EMTALA isn't the real reason for the mandate. It's a horseshit excuse.

"Whatever." You could have at least tried for "Let them eat cake..." while they die on the sidewalk.

Just ignore the point and carry on with your diversion. That's really all you do, eh?

Were you under the impression that I brought up EMTALA?

No but you always do. Every single apologist for ACA brings it up to justify the mandate. And it's pure bullshit.

I, myself, don't care much about it one way or another. EMTALA is kind of like minimum wage laws. It's symbolic regulation to make people feel better, but it has very little impact.

But know that every time one of you pull it out of your bag of ACA talking points, I'm going to rub your nose in the hypocrisy of it all. If the potential cost-shifting of EMTALA is really the problem, if it really does just burn your stingy ass to think that you might have to cover some poor slobs unpaid health care bill, then put your money where your mouth is and repeal the law. Or shut the fuck up. Just don't use it as a weak ass excuse to sell us out to the insurance industry as captive customers.

 

[Arianrhod]

...and let people die?

Or let other people get charged more without realizing it?

Or let hospitals go bankrupt so the entire community suffers?

I bet you've got a fourth answer, right?

Whatever. As I said, EMTALA isn't the real reason for the mandate. It's a horseshit excuse.

"Whatever." You could have at least tried for "Let them eat cake..." while they die on the sidewalk.

Just ignore the point and carry on with your diversion. That's really all you do, eh?

Were you under the impression that I brought up EMTALA?

No but you always do.

But I haven't.

 

[auditor0007]

what a scam they pulled on the people in this country. I'm old enough I won't have to pay it. but MILLIONS of our children just starting out in life will have to. that is just sickening

snip;
With less than three weeks of open enrollment left, Covered California is working to highlight increased penalties for not having health insurance this year.

Since its individual coverage requirement took effect in 2014, Obamacare has doled out increasingly expensive fines to people who do not purchase coverage through health exchanges or obtain insurance from an employer or a government program such as Medicare. This year brings the highest penalty yet, Peter Lee, Covered California’s executive director, said during a news conference Wednesday.


“This is real money going straight to the IRS, where the consumer gets nothing in return,” Lee said.


This year, the penalty is $695 per adult and $347 per child up to a family cap of $2,500 or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. Last year’s penalty was $325 for adults, with a $975 maximum or 2 percent of household income.


For some consumers, getting an exchange policy is a no-brainer. People in lower income brackets can qualify for significant government subsidies that help pay monthly premiums, and many in those categories also qualify for health plans with lower out-of-pocket costs.


A recent study from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that of the nation’s 7 million people who qualify for a subsidy, about half have incomes low enough to qualify them for a zero-cost bronze plan, which must cover at least 60 percent of the enrollee’s health care costs.
The decision is more difficult for those in higher income brackets.

The more income a household makes, the less subsidy is available, forcing many to gauge the expense of a penalty for being uninsured against the cost of monthly premiums. Kaiser predicts that in 2016, penalties will increase, on average, from $1,177 to $1,450.


According to the Internal Revenue Service, 7.5 million Americans paid a total of $1.5 billion in Obamacare penalties on their 2015 tax returns for failing to obtain insurance in 2014. In 2014, the fines assessed were only $95 per adult or 1 percent of household income, whichever was greater.

all of it here:
Penalties grow for not getting insurance

It really sucks if you are one of those people who suck off the teat of all those who actually pay for insurance. I'm tired of supporting freeloaders, aren't you?

 

[dblack]

what a scam they pulled on the people in this country. I'm old enough I won't have to pay it. but MILLIONS of our children just starting out in life will have to. that is just sickening

snip;
With less than three weeks of open enrollment left, Covered California is working to highlight increased penalties for not having health insurance this year.

Since its individual coverage requirement took effect in 2014, Obamacare has doled out increasingly expensive fines to people who do not purchase coverage through health exchanges or obtain insurance from an employer or a government program such as Medicare. This year brings the highest penalty yet, Peter Lee, Covered California’s executive director, said during a news conference Wednesday.


“This is real money going straight to the IRS, where the consumer gets nothing in return,” Lee said.


This year, the penalty is $695 per adult and $347 per child up to a family cap of $2,500 or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. Last year’s penalty was $325 for adults, with a $975 maximum or 2 percent of household income.


For some consumers, getting an exchange policy is a no-brainer. People in lower income brackets can qualify for significant government subsidies that help pay monthly premiums, and many in those categories also qualify for health plans with lower out-of-pocket costs.


A recent study from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that of the nation’s 7 million people who qualify for a subsidy, about half have incomes low enough to qualify them for a zero-cost bronze plan, which must cover at least 60 percent of the enrollee’s health care costs.
The decision is more difficult for those in higher income brackets.

The more income a household makes, the less subsidy is available, forcing many to gauge the expense of a penalty for being uninsured against the cost of monthly premiums. Kaiser predicts that in 2016, penalties will increase, on average, from $1,177 to $1,450.


According to the Internal Revenue Service, 7.5 million Americans paid a total of $1.5 billion in Obamacare penalties on their 2015 tax returns for failing to obtain insurance in 2014. In 2014, the fines assessed were only $95 per adult or 1 percent of household income, whichever was greater.

all of it here:
Penalties grow for not getting insurance

It really sucks if you are one of those people who suck off the teat of all those who actually pay for insurance. I'm tired of supporting freeloaders, aren't you?

I just think it's funny. You bought too much insurance and want to blame it in someone else.

 

[auditor0007]

what a scam they pulled on the people in this country. I'm old enough I won't have to pay it. but MILLIONS of our children just starting out in life will have to. that is just sickening

snip;
With less than three weeks of open enrollment left, Covered California is working to highlight increased penalties for not having health insurance this year.

Since its individual coverage requirement took effect in 2014, Obamacare has doled out increasingly expensive fines to people who do not purchase coverage through health exchanges or obtain insurance from an employer or a government program such as Medicare. This year brings the highest penalty yet, Peter Lee, Covered California’s executive director, said during a news conference Wednesday.


“This is real money going straight to the IRS, where the consumer gets nothing in return,” Lee said.


This year, the penalty is $695 per adult and $347 per child up to a family cap of $2,500 or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. Last year’s penalty was $325 for adults, with a $975 maximum or 2 percent of household income.


For some consumers, getting an exchange policy is a no-brainer. People in lower income brackets can qualify for significant government subsidies that help pay monthly premiums, and many in those categories also qualify for health plans with lower out-of-pocket costs.


A recent study from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that of the nation’s 7 million people who qualify for a subsidy, about half have incomes low enough to qualify them for a zero-cost bronze plan, which must cover at least 60 percent of the enrollee’s health care costs.
The decision is more difficult for those in higher income brackets.

The more income a household makes, the less subsidy is available, forcing many to gauge the expense of a penalty for being uninsured against the cost of monthly premiums. Kaiser predicts that in 2016, penalties will increase, on average, from $1,177 to $1,450.


According to the Internal Revenue Service, 7.5 million Americans paid a total of $1.5 billion in Obamacare penalties on their 2015 tax returns for failing to obtain insurance in 2014. In 2014, the fines assessed were only $95 per adult or 1 percent of household income, whichever was greater.

all of it here:
Penalties grow for not getting insurance

It really sucks if you are one of those people who suck off the teat of all those who actually pay for insurance. I'm tired of supporting freeloaders, aren't you?

I just think it's funny. You bought too much insurance and want to blame it in someone else.

What are you talking about? Another clueless rube.

 

[dblack]

what a scam they pulled on the people in this country. I'm old enough I won't have to pay it. but MILLIONS of our children just starting out in life will have to. that is just sickening

snip;
With less than three weeks of open enrollment left, Covered California is working to highlight increased penalties for not having health insurance this year.

Since its individual coverage requirement took effect in 2014, Obamacare has doled out increasingly expensive fines to people who do not purchase coverage through health exchanges or obtain insurance from an employer or a government program such as Medicare. This year brings the highest penalty yet, Peter Lee, Covered California’s executive director, said during a news conference Wednesday.


“This is real money going straight to the IRS, where the consumer gets nothing in return,” Lee said.


This year, the penalty is $695 per adult and $347 per child up to a family cap of $2,500 or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. Last year’s penalty was $325 for adults, with a $975 maximum or 2 percent of household income.


For some consumers, getting an exchange policy is a no-brainer. People in lower income brackets can qualify for significant government subsidies that help pay monthly premiums, and many in those categories also qualify for health plans with lower out-of-pocket costs.


A recent study from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that of the nation’s 7 million people who qualify for a subsidy, about half have incomes low enough to qualify them for a zero-cost bronze plan, which must cover at least 60 percent of the enrollee’s health care costs.
The decision is more difficult for those in higher income brackets.

The more income a household makes, the less subsidy is available, forcing many to gauge the expense of a penalty for being uninsured against the cost of monthly premiums. Kaiser predicts that in 2016, penalties will increase, on average, from $1,177 to $1,450.


According to the Internal Revenue Service, 7.5 million Americans paid a total of $1.5 billion in Obamacare penalties on their 2015 tax returns for failing to obtain insurance in 2014. In 2014, the fines assessed were only $95 per adult or 1 percent of household income, whichever was greater.

all of it here:
Penalties grow for not getting insurance

It really sucks if you are one of those people who suck off the teat of all those who actually pay for insurance. I'm tired of supporting freeloaders, aren't you?

I just think it's funny. You bought too much insurance and want to blame it in someone else.

What are you talking about? Another clueless rube.

Which part of my post confused you?

 

[ashleyramirez]

Ya ... I agree .

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Ya ... I agree .

With what ?

If you are going to agree with something, please quote it so we know what you are talking about.

what a scam they pulled on the people in this country. I'm old enough I won't have to pay it. but MILLIONS of our children just starting out in life will have to. that is just sickening

snip;
With less than three weeks of open enrollment left, Covered California is working to highlight increased penalties for not having health insurance this year.

Since its individual coverage requirement took effect in 2014, Obamacare has doled out increasingly expensive fines to people who do not purchase coverage through health exchanges or obtain insurance from an employer or a government program such as Medicare. This year brings the highest penalty yet, Peter Lee, Covered California’s executive director, said during a news conference Wednesday.


“This is real money going straight to the IRS, where the consumer gets nothing in return,” Lee said.


This year, the penalty is $695 per adult and $347 per child up to a family cap of $2,500 or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. Last year’s penalty was $325 for adults, with a $975 maximum or 2 percent of household income.


For some consumers, getting an exchange policy is a no-brainer. People in lower income brackets can qualify for significant government subsidies that help pay monthly premiums, and many in those categories also qualify for health plans with lower out-of-pocket costs.


A recent study from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that of the nation’s 7 million people who qualify for a subsidy, about half have incomes low enough to qualify them for a zero-cost bronze plan, which must cover at least 60 percent of the enrollee’s health care costs.
The decision is more difficult for those in higher income brackets.

The more income a household makes, the less subsidy is available, forcing many to gauge the expense of a penalty for being uninsured against the cost of monthly premiums. Kaiser predicts that in 2016, penalties will increase, on average, from $1,177 to $1,450.


According to the Internal Revenue Service, 7.5 million Americans paid a total of $1.5 billion in Obamacare penalties on their 2015 tax returns for failing to obtain insurance in 2014. In 2014, the fines assessed were only $95 per adult or 1 percent of household income, whichever was greater.

all of it here:
Penalties grow for not getting insurance

It really sucks if you are one of those people who suck off the teat of all those who actually pay for insurance. I'm tired of supporting freeloaders, aren't you?

Is it really that simple ?

We are forcing people onto insurance....but when this was sold, the claim was that we would be lowering medical costs.

Has that really happened ? I mean substantially ?

I can't tell (and frankly, I am not sure how I could with the data that gets thrown around). Someone saying that Obamacare is bending the cost curve means nothing to me. If I can't connect it to my neighbor who is struggling to make ends meet while paying for a high deductible plan he can't use....then it means nothing.