Penalty for not buying insurance.

[Arianrhod]

Sorry, misunderstood you. The thing is, premiums are based on income, and they vary from insurer to insurer, from state to state, and from plan to plan within the same insurer.

Premiums are not based on income.

Yes, they are.

Prove it.

Plug in an income of $30,000 a year, and one of $100,000 a year:

Subsidy Calculator Widget

That's what I figured. You don't know the difference between a premium and a subsidy.

What I know is that people who couldn't afford health insurance before can afford it now.

When your kid has cancer, that's important.

Some annoying dweeb on a message board making claims that fit his agenda isn't.

 

[dblack]

Premiums are not based on income.

Yes, they are.

Prove it.

Plug in an income of $30,000 a year, and one of $100,000 a year:

Subsidy Calculator Widget

That's what I figured. You don't know the difference between a premium and a subsidy.

What I know is that people who couldn't afford health insurance before can afford it now.

When your kid has cancer, that's important.

Some annoying dweeb on a message board making claims that fit his agenda isn't.

But you're wrong when you claim the the premium is based on income. It isn't. The insurance companies charge the same, overpriced, premium regardless of income.

 

[Arianrhod]

Yes, they are.

Prove it.

Plug in an income of $30,000 a year, and one of $100,000 a year:

Subsidy Calculator Widget

That's what I figured. You don't know the difference between a premium and a subsidy.

What I know is that people who couldn't afford health insurance before can afford it now.

When your kid has cancer, that's important.

Some annoying dweeb on a message board making claims that fit his agenda isn't.

But you're wrong when you claim the the premium is based on income. It isn't. The insurance companies charge the same, overpriced, premium regardless of income.

And yet, millions of Americans have health insurance who could not afford it before.

Now, refute that, or go chase your tail as usual.

 

[emilynghiem]

^The mandate isn't nearly that much:

ObamaCare Individual Mandate

Dear Arianrhod

RE:
The annual fee for not having insurance in 2015 is $695 per adult and$347.50 per child (up to $2,085 for a family), or it’s 2.5% of your household income above the tax return filing threshold for your filing status – whichever is greater. You’ll pay 1/12 of the total fee for each full month in which a family member went without coverage or an exemption.

This cost is devastating to me.

I am already working two jobs to pay for

* rent for a homeless vet who took over my apt, saying he could pay the rent, but can't pay anything -- so now I'm paying not only the rent for that place, but also the place I moved to and two storage units to hold th costume supplies and writing materials/records that I used to store at my place and don't fit into the place I moved to. My rent tripled.

do you want me to pay for the veteran not to be homeless
or pay for my health insurance policy so I don't get fined?

* 300 a month car payment for a Van I took over payments for to save it for the nonprofit community organization that was using it for elderly and youth activities

Do you want me to ruin my credit by defaulting on a car loan
in order to afford health insurance?

This is why I opted to pay the 45 a month for the health share ministries.

And I do have to work extra hours on weekends to cover for that.

The reason this doesn't count as hardship
* the people I am helping don't count as FAMILY we are COMMUNITY members and share costs but aren't IMMEDIATE FAMILY
* the expenses I am sharing are not just HEALTH CARE.
the exemption only recognizes religious membership groups that share MEDICAL expenses but doesn't consider what if people share rent, car, food, bills and other costs for "nonfamily"

I could ask for an exemption if this counts as DOMESTIC ABUSE
to make me work two jobs plus extra hours to pay for costs on top of what I already have to pay to prevent one person from being evicted onto the street and another from losing the Van that would mess up my credit.

I would be fined based on my income which does not take into account these expenses needed by community members that aren't counted as paying for health care, but many people would put HOUSING costs first before paying for health care. Unfortunately this doesn't count as either a hardship exemption or sharing "medical expenses for a family member"

It is oppressive to threaten to fine me "2.5 % of my income" while I am already strained helping people worse off than myself.

Totally insulting, depressing, infuriating that my situation doesn't count, and I wasn't asked before this "business contract forcing people to pay for insurance" was added to my plate "or else pay a growing fine that is now at 2.5% of income and will continue to rise every year."

I am basically being punished for using my income to pay for housing to prevent a homeless vet from being kicked out into the street instead of giving that money to an insurance company to "avoid a penalty."

I can't afford the 45 a month either, but that is the minimum so I had to do it.

You bet I'd rather use that money to pay off credit cards where I charged over 60,000 in expenses to support nonprofit groups that were keeping distressing communities from going under.

None of that counts. Only if you pay for insurance.
Paying for other urgent costs so people and whole communities
don't lose their homes, center, cars doesn't count and I would still be penalized for paying for that instead of "paying for insurance I DON'T WANT OR NEED"

When I need medical costs covered I can ask help to pay for that, the same way I am helping other people who ask me for help.

But none of that counts, I still face fines if I don't pay for things
"the way the ACA requires -- written and passed by people in Washington who never bothered to check how this might affect
someone in my situation"

NOTE: I only found ONE article where this point was brought up at all. What if someone does have income but uses it for other urgent expenses not covered as part of the exemptions. what if it still imposes a hardship even if not for the reasons offered as "hardship exemptions."

This idea of trying to regulate and penalize people for how we spend our income is WAY too personal, sensitive and private for the govt to judge people by, in order to decide who should be exempted or not.

This stressed me out so much, where I went through long bouts of depression and rage on and off because NOBODY WAS DOING ANYTHING TO CHANGE THIS MANDATE that I finally had to quit thinking about it and turn my brain off and go into numbness mode just to be able to function.

So I am able to work both jobs, even though I fall asleep on the road, at every light I stop at, both day and night I take naps whenever I sit still long enough for my system to sneak a micronap,
knowing that this current administration thinks I should be fined if I don't give my money to insurance companies instead of using it to save vans, homes, centers and credit for nonprofit volunteers trying to keep our community from going under after years of govt abuse to shut us down.

On top of all the other govt abuses and damages I had to take on as debts, this mandate added even more pressure, requirements and costs to what I was already paying to try to repair damages from bad govt. Now more just got added on. So I had to quit thinking and worrying about it, or else I would be mad all the time and unable to work my two jobs. A friend offered me a third job to try to cover costs, but the stress is just too much trying to fit that in. I do need all three jobs to cover these costs, but physically it's not humanly possible. I'm not getting enough rest as it is, and over time this causes memory loss and brain damage.

So much for helping with health care, as this is DESTROYING my health!

 

[Arianrhod]

^And yet, prior to January 2014, the premiums for many working families were multiple times that, and none of you seemed to care as long as it didn't affect you.

Some of us believe that no child in the wealthiest country on Earth should want for health care because of their parents' income or lack of same.

And many of us are not even Christians.

 

[BlueGin]

Obamacare Fines Double for Many Uninsured at Tax Time

WASHINGTON (AP) — Many people who went without health insurance last year are now seeing fines more than double under President Barack Obama's health care law, tax preparation company H&R Block said Tuesday.

Among its customers who owe a penalty for the 2015 tax year, the average fine is $383, compared with $172 for 2014, the company said.

Separately, among those who complied with the law and took advantage of its taxpayer-subsidized private health insurance, 6 in 10 are now having to pay back to the IRS some portion of their financial assistance.

Those payments also are trending higher this year, averaging $579, compared with $530 last tax season.

Although millions of uninsured people have gained coverage through the Affordable Care Act, the update from H&R Block underscores the extent to which the law's complex provisions remain a challenge for many consumers.

 

[emilynghiem]

Prove it.

Plug in an income of $30,000 a year, and one of $100,000 a year:

Subsidy Calculator Widget

That's what I figured. You don't know the difference between a premium and a subsidy.

What I know is that people who couldn't afford health insurance before can afford it now.

When your kid has cancer, that's important.

Some annoying dweeb on a message board making claims that fit his agenda isn't.

But you're wrong when you claim the the premium is based on income. It isn't. The insurance companies charge the same, overpriced, premium regardless of income.

And yet, millions of Americans have health insurance who could not afford it before.

Now, refute that, or go chase your tail as usual.

Dear Arianrhod
The same Democrat leaders who pushed this could have insisted on group discounts by requiring this of all PARTY members who want these benefits.

Why does it have to be based on populations who didn't agree to be part of the program?

If you go to the theatre and ask for a group discount, that is based on the people who agree to be part of your group.

You don't go and recruit other people to force them to go see the show with you so you can get a discount for "all those people."

You base your discount on the people you CAN get to agree to participate. That's how that NORMALLY works.

How would you like it if people used YOUR NAME to get a discount at a club that way?

SIGNED YOU UP AND MADE YOU PAY just so they could get a discount using YOUR numbers, whether you agreed or not.

Then said HOORAY! So many more people can afford to join now!

Why didn't they bother organizing all the people who WANTED to join and NEGOTIATE A DISCOUNT THAT WAY.

How would you like it if people made college affordable this same way:
Made everyone pay in advance so everyone who needs college now can get a discount. Wouldn't you say wait a minute, there's enough people who CAN invest in education who WANT to do that, why not work with THOSE numbers and get the best discount given THAT population that WANTS to pay in advance?

Wouldn't you object if someone passed a bill making YOU pay in advance for education you may or may not need right now "just so millions can afford to get education immediately."

ALSO : I have pointed this out before
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE AND DEMAND FOR RESPONSIBILITY
when it comes to convicts and prison inmates costing taxpayers for their medical, health care, education and housing. If you are going after funding sources, why not demand those billions be credited back to taxpayers and applied toward health care and medical programs/services.

Why this insistence on going after working taxpayers who can be reached and billed through their tax returns BEFORE THESE PEOPLE HAVE COMMITTED ANY CRIMES AND/OR INCURRED ANY COSTS THEY OWE MONEY FOR; while letting people SLIDE WHO HAVE INCURRED COSTS TO TAXPAYERS "just because they don't have income tax returns that can be tapped"

So this is PUNISHING the lawabiding working people for EARNING an SAVING MONEY
and it is letting people slide who can't or aren't earning money while they are incurring costs to the public for medical, health and housing costs in prison.

Is that backwards or what?
Why isn't anyone addressing this way of paying for health care?
Requiring people to pay back their costs they DID incur to taxpayers
instead of penalizing people who HAVEN'T incurred any costs.

Don't you think that might have a motivational effect?

That if you can't afford to pay the costs of crimes and incarceration, then maybe you should get counseling help for behaviorial issues, addictions or abuse in order NOT to commit crimes in the first place.

If we quit wasting billions of state dollars on crime 'after the fact' don't you think we could pay for health care. Don't you think all the facilities currently used for housing convicts "after the fact" would be better invested in medical and mental health treatment, education and training programs to PREVENT crime in the first place. Wouldn't THAT make more sense to support sustainable health care by investing state rsources directly into creating and training more health service providers

RATHER THAN DEPEND ON FUNDING INSURANCE WHICH DOESN'T CURE THE CAUSE OF ANY DISEASE AND DOESN'T PROVIDE EDUCATION TO TRAIN ANY NEW DOCTORS OR NURSES

 

[sealybobo]

^The mandate isn't nearly that much:

ObamaCare Individual Mandate

You mean the penalty? I'm talking about how much it costs to get insurance. You're talking about what the penalty is for not having insurance.

I was thinking about this the other day. Lets say the penalty is $100 a month. So if you go a year without insurance you will not get back $1200. If you buy insurance it is $300 a month. So people should think about it this way. It's only an extra $2400 a year to have insurance.

Still too much.

Sorry, misunderstood you. The thing is, premiums are based on income, and they vary from insurer to insurer, from state to state, and from plan to plan within the same insurer.

Premiums are not based on income.

I think the penalty is. If you made $100k and didn't have insurance you'll be hit for let's say max $150 per month. But if you made $20k the penalty might not be as high

 

[BlueGin]

Another article that came out this week

Repayment of Health-Insurance Tax Credits Threatens Refunds - ObamaCare Watch

Most people who got tax credits to buy insurance under the federal health law will be repaying part of them for the second year in a row, according to a leading tax preparer.

 

[emilynghiem]

^And yet, prior to January 2014, the premiums for many working families were multiple times that, and none of you seemed to care as long as it didn't affect you.

Some of us believe that no child in the wealthiest country on Earth should want for health care because of their parents' income or lack of same.

And many of us are not even Christians.

^ THIS CAN BE FUNDED WITHOUT IMPOSING MANDATES ON THE WRONG PEOPLE ^

SEE PREVIOUS MESSAGE ABOUT REVAMPING THE COST OF THE SPIRALLING PRISON BUDGETS TO PAY FOR MEDICAL PROGRAMS INSTEAD

HAVE YOU EVEN CONSIDERED THAT
NO YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T

DOESN'T IT MAKE SENSE TO STOP THE COSTS OF CRIME THAT ARE IMPOSING BILLIONS PER STATE ON THE PUBLIC.

WHY SPEND 50K A PERSON TO KEEP THEM IN PRISON FOR A YEAR. HOW MUCH HEALTH CARE COULD YOU PAY FOR IF YOU WENT AFTER PRISON COSTS INSTEAD OF PUNISHING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS WHO HAVEN'T COMMITTED CRIMES THAT CAN COST TAXPAYERS 50K PER YEAR PER INMATE.

WHY GO AFTER THE EASY TARGETS YOU CAN TAX FROM WASHINGTON.

WHY NOT CURB THE REAL CAUSES AND COSTS OF CRIME AND REDIRECT THOSE RESOURCES INTO PREVENTATIVE HEALTH CARE THAT WOULD PREVENT CRIME BY ADDRESSING THE REAL ROOT OF MENTAL AND CRIMINAL ILLNESS.

 

[BlueGin]

^The mandate isn't nearly that much:

ObamaCare Individual Mandate

You mean the penalty? I'm talking about how much it costs to get insurance. You're talking about what the penalty is for not having insurance.

I was thinking about this the other day. Lets say the penalty is $100 a month. So if you go a year without insurance you will not get back $1200. If you buy insurance it is $300 a month. So people should think about it this way. It's only an extra $2400 a year to have insurance.

Still too much.

Sorry, misunderstood you. The thing is, premiums are based on income, and they vary from insurer to insurer, from state to state, and from plan to plan within the same insurer.

Premiums are not based on income.

I think the penalty is. If you made $100k and didn't have insurance you'll be hit for let's say max $150 per month. But if you made $20k the penalty might not be as high

Try over 300.00. Last years penalty was over 170.00

 

[emilynghiem]

^The mandate isn't nearly that much:

ObamaCare Individual Mandate

You mean the penalty? I'm talking about how much it costs to get insurance. You're talking about what the penalty is for not having insurance.

I was thinking about this the other day. Lets say the penalty is $100 a month. So if you go a year without insurance you will not get back $1200. If you buy insurance it is $300 a month. So people should think about it this way. It's only an extra $2400 a year to have insurance.

Still too much.

Sorry, misunderstood you. The thing is, premiums are based on income, and they vary from insurer to insurer, from state to state, and from plan to plan within the same insurer.

Premiums are not based on income.

I think the penalty is. If you made $100k and didn't have insurance you'll be hit for let's say max $150 per month. But if you made $20k the penalty might not be as high

The % goes up every year

It started at 95 or 1% of taxable income whatever is GREATER

now it's up to 695 or 2.5% of taxable income whatever is GREATER

sorry but I don't want to be penalized for "not buying insurance"
when that isn't the only way to pay for and provide for health care

Given that this insurance mandate doesn't cover all people
and all costs anyway, it is clear we STILL NEED OTHER OPTIONS
and SOLUTIONS set up to cover the greater needs and demands.

So if these are needed, why penalize these other choices?

 

[sealybobo]

^The mandate isn't nearly that much:

ObamaCare Individual Mandate

You mean the penalty? I'm talking about how much it costs to get insurance. You're talking about what the penalty is for not having insurance.

I was thinking about this the other day. Lets say the penalty is $100 a month. So if you go a year without insurance you will not get back $1200. If you buy insurance it is $300 a month. So people should think about it this way. It's only an extra $2400 a year to have insurance.

Still too much.

Sorry, misunderstood you. The thing is, premiums are based on income, and they vary from insurer to insurer, from state to state, and from plan to plan within the same insurer.

Premiums are not based on income.

I think the penalty is. If you made $100k and didn't have insurance you'll be hit for let's say max $150 per month. But if you made $20k the penalty might not be as high

The % goes up every year

It started at 95 or 1% of taxable income whatever is GREATER

now it's up to 695 or 2.5% of taxable income whatever is GREATER

sorry but I don't want to be penalized for "not buying insurance"
when that isn't the only way to pay for and provide for health care

Given that this insurance mandate doesn't cover all people
and all costs anyway, it is clear we STILL NEED OTHER OPTIONS
and SOLUTIONS set up to cover the greater needs and demands.

So if these are needed, why penalize these other choices?

I think the insurance companies should have a $100 a month option that only covers emergencies. Everything else is out of pocket

 

[Arianrhod]

Plug in an income of $30,000 a year, and one of $100,000 a year:

Subsidy Calculator Widget

That's what I figured. You don't know the difference between a premium and a subsidy.

What I know is that people who couldn't afford health insurance before can afford it now.

When your kid has cancer, that's important.

Some annoying dweeb on a message board making claims that fit his agenda isn't.

But you're wrong when you claim the the premium is based on income. It isn't. The insurance companies charge the same, overpriced, premium regardless of income.

And yet, millions of Americans have health insurance who could not afford it before.

Now, refute that, or go chase your tail as usual.

Dear Arianrhod
The same Democrat leaders who pushed this could have insisted on group discounts by requiring this of all PARTY members who want these benefits.

Why does it have to be based on populations who didn't agree to be part of the program?

If you go to the theatre and ask for a group discount, that is based on the people who agree to be part of your group.

You don't go and recruit other people to force them to go see the show with you so you can get a discount for "all those people."

You base your discount on the people you CAN get to agree to participate. That's how that NORMALLY works.

How would you like it if people used YOUR NAME to get a discount at a club that way?

SIGNED YOU UP AND MADE YOU PAY just so they could get a discount using YOUR numbers, whether you agreed or not.

Then said HOORAY! So many more people can afford to join now!

Why didn't they bother organizing all the people who WANTED to join and NEGOTIATE A DISCOUNT THAT WAY.

How would you like it if people made college affordable this same way:
Made everyone pay in advance so everyone who needs college now can get a discount. Wouldn't you say wait a minute, there's enough people who CAN invest in education who WANT to do that, why not work with THOSE numbers and get the best discount given THAT population that WANTS to pay in advance?

Wouldn't you object if someone passed a bill making YOU pay in advance for education you may or may not need right now "just so millions can afford to get education immediately."

ALSO : I have pointed this out before
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE AND DEMAND FOR RESPONSIBILITY
when it comes to convicts and prison inmates costing taxpayers for their medical, health care, education and housing. If you are going after funding sources, why not demand those billions be credited back to taxpayers and applied toward health care and medical programs/services.

Why this insistence on going after working taxpayers who can be reached and billed through their tax returns BEFORE THESE PEOPLE HAVE COMMITTED ANY CRIMES AND/OR INCURRED ANY COSTS THEY OWE MONEY FOR; while letting people SLIDE WHO HAVE INCURRED COSTS TO TAXPAYERS "just because they don't have income tax returns that can be tapped"

So this is PUNISHING the lawabiding working people for EARNING an SAVING MONEY
and it is letting people slide who can't or aren't earning money while they are incurring costs to the public for medical, health and housing costs in prison.

Is that backwards or what?
Why isn't anyone addressing this way of paying for health care?
Requiring people to pay back their costs they DID incur to taxpayers
instead of penalizing people who HAVEN'T incurred any costs.

Don't you think that might have a motivational effect?

That if you can't afford to pay the costs of crimes and incarceration, then maybe you should get counseling help for behaviorial issues, addictions or abuse in order NOT to commit crimes in the first place.

If we quit wasting billions of state dollars on crime 'after the fact' don't you think we could pay for health care. Don't you think all the facilities currently used for housing convicts "after the fact" would be better invested in medical and mental health treatment, education and training programs to PREVENT crime in the first place. Wouldn't THAT make more sense to support sustainable health care by investing state rsources directly into creating and training more health service providers

RATHER THAN DEPEND ON FUNDING INSURANCE WHICH DOESN'T CURE THE CAUSE OF ANY DISEASE AND DOESN'T PROVIDE EDUCATION TO TRAIN ANY NEW DOCTORS OR NURSES

"Why does it have to be based on populations who didn't agree to be part of the program?"

Because you're either Americans, or you aren't.

I don't agree with the contortions some Americans go through to protect their right to sashay around WalMart with semi-automatic weapons.

I don't agree with Americans who think it's kewl to attack other sovereign nations because their leaders lie to them about WMD.

"It is always easier to destroy than to create."

Those of us who believe in creation rather than destruction are forced to put up with the rest of you.

The Ammon Bundys, unfortunately, are as much Americans as we are.

The best we can hope for is to balance them out.

 

[Arianrhod]

You mean the penalty? I'm talking about how much it costs to get insurance. You're talking about what the penalty is for not having insurance.

I was thinking about this the other day. Lets say the penalty is $100 a month. So if you go a year without insurance you will not get back $1200. If you buy insurance it is $300 a month. So people should think about it this way. It's only an extra $2400 a year to have insurance.

Still too much.

Sorry, misunderstood you. The thing is, premiums are based on income, and they vary from insurer to insurer, from state to state, and from plan to plan within the same insurer.

Premiums are not based on income.

I think the penalty is. If you made $100k and didn't have insurance you'll be hit for let's say max $150 per month. But if you made $20k the penalty might not be as high

The % goes up every year

It started at 95 or 1% of taxable income whatever is GREATER

now it's up to 695 or 2.5% of taxable income whatever is GREATER

sorry but I don't want to be penalized for "not buying insurance"
when that isn't the only way to pay for and provide for health care

Given that this insurance mandate doesn't cover all people
and all costs anyway, it is clear we STILL NEED OTHER OPTIONS
and SOLUTIONS set up to cover the greater needs and demands.

So if these are needed, why penalize these other choices?

I think the insurance companies should have a $100 a month option that only covers emergencies. Everything else is out of pocket

They used to, in some states.

Deregulation killed that option.

 

[dblack]

"Why does it have to be based on populations who didn't agree to be part of the program?"

Because you're either Americans, or you aren't.

That's not much of an answer. And it's a worthwhile question. Why are some people justified in forcing other people to join their idea of a good insurance plan? Because that's what's going on. This isn't something that truly requires conformity. This isn't like going to war, or laws against murder. It's perfectly feasible for people to decide for themselves how they want to fund their health care and government should protecting that freedom rather than violating it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes, they are.

Prove it.

Plug in an income of $30,000 a year, and one of $100,000 a year:

Subsidy Calculator Widget

That's what I figured. You don't know the difference between a premium and a subsidy.

What I know is that people who couldn't afford health insurance before can afford it now.

When your kid has cancer, that's important.

Some annoying dweeb on a message board making claims that fit his agenda isn't.

But you're wrong when you claim the the premium is based on income. It isn't. The insurance companies charge the same, overpriced, premium regardless of income.

Yes....but Obama is cutting costs.....ROTFLMAO

 

[justinacolmena]

Mandatory health insurance pays for mandatory C-section childbirth, mandatory circumcision, mandatory tooth-pulling, mandatory incarceration of social undesirables and the mentally ill, and all sorts of other mandatory butchery by doctors whose medical competence lies in the direction of brutality and murder rather than healing and life-saving.

If the health insurance available on the market truly offered anything whatsoever to our benefit, then surely we as the "consumers" of such marvelous services would be intelligent enough to seek them out on our own without having them forced upon us under color of law.

 

[Penelope]

Mandatory health insurance pays for mandatory C-section childbirth, mandatory circumcision, mandatory tooth-pulling, mandatory incarceration of social undesirables and the mentally ill, and all sorts of other mandatory butchery by doctors whose medical competence lies in the direction of brutality and murder rather than healing and life-saving.

If the health insurance available on the market truly offered anything whatsoever to our benefit, then surely we as the "consumers" of such marvelous services would be intelligent enough to seek them out on our own without having them forced upon us under color of law.

I see this is an old thread, so lets say you are in an auto accident , should they bring you to the er or just let you die,

and if they bring you to the er to save your life due to a fractured hip and broken pelvis , while in the hosp for your broken hip and pelvis they also discover you have abnormal lab work and doing a scan for your ribs see you also have a spot in your breast and a lymph node is enlarged in your armpit, the dx is breast cancer. They also suspect adult onset diabetes.

What do you do??

 

[justinacolmena]

I see this is an old thread, so lets say you are in an auto accident , should they bring you to the er or just let you die,

and if they bring you to the er to save your life due to a fractured hip and broken pelvis , while in the hosp for your broken hip and pelvis they also discover you have abnormal lab work and doing a scan for your ribs see you also have a spot in your breast and a lymph node is enlarged in your armpit, the dx is breast cancer. They also suspect adult onset diabetes.

What do you do??

Bring it in for an oil change, and you need a front-end alignment, radiator coolant flush, brake job, and if you don't PAY for all that work you find out someone has slit your brakehose partway through with a knife, it bursts open on the highway and you can't stop.