Questions on ACA

[Zoom-boing]

A few questions about ACA . . .

Who, exactly, gets taxed? I've read and heard that only those who have chosen not to purchase insurance will get taxed. I've read and heard that most everyone will be taxed. Or by 'get taxed' is that referring to the trillions of dollars in taxes that are attached to ACA?

Congress has the power to tax you . . . on your income, your bathing suit, your gasoline, etc. Yesterday's decision claims on one hand it reigns in government's over reach regarding the commerce clause in as far as government can not compel you to buy something. But on the other hand it gave government the power to tax you for not purchasing something. The government can tax you for not purchasing something . . . how isn't this related to commerce and how is taxing you for not purchasing something any different than fining you for not purchasing something? So . . . . what exactly changed? Can/does this give the government the power to tax you for not purchasing anything they deem as 'good for you' (maybe not now but someday soon and for the rest of your life)?

Since Medicaid is already a government run insurance plan, why didn't they just add provisions to that like the pre-existing conditions, etc. and broaden who it covers? (I know, I know ... power grab).

The original bill repeatedly said that not complying with purchasing insurance would result in a penalty/fine and the justices corrected the lawyers when the lawyers would call that penalty/fine a tax. Roberts turned around and called the penalty/fine a tax in order to let ACA stand. Huh? It wasn't a tax until the SC decided it was a tax?

How is Obama going to spin the fact that he repeatedly said this was not a tax when in fact it was? When ACA originally passed I wondered 'how will they collect the fine'? It was always going to be via taxes, which is why they hired so many more IRS agents. Duh.

 

[PixieStix]

Yes

 

[Meister]

I think we will end up doing what Canada has done and just raise prices through taxes on fuel, liquor, etc. The price of this Bill has already increased in price from the time that the CBO got the first numbers and what those numbers are today.
Probably down the road another president like Obama will sell the left on a VAT, and the courts will...well let's say "court" the idea.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I think we will end up doing what Canada has done and just raise prices through taxes on fuel, liquor, etc. The price of this Bill has already increased in price from the time that the CBO got the first numbers and what those numbers are today.
Probably down the road another president like Obama will sell the left on a VAT, and the courts will...well let's say "court" the idea.

Oh crap, I forgot all about VAT.

We've managed to depress each other, M!

 

[BDBoop]

Best link you could hope for.

CaspianX2 comments on ELI5: What exactly is Obamacare and what did it change?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Best link you could hope for.

CaspianX2 comments on ELI5: What exactly is Obamacare and what did it change?

A blog of someone's interpretation of ACA? Great.

Any direct answers to my direction questions?

 

[BDBoop]

Best link you could hope for.

CaspianX2 comments on ELI5: What exactly is Obamacare and what did it change?

A blog of someone's interpretation of ACA? Great.

Any direct answers to my direction questions?

Those ARE the direct answers to your direct questions, citations and all.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Best link you could hope for.

CaspianX2 comments on ELI5: What exactly is Obamacare and what did it change?

A blog of someone's interpretation of ACA? Great.

Any direct answers to my direction questions?

Those ARE the direct answers to your direct questions, citations and all.

The only question this answered was my first one.

It does point out a whole lot of crap in the bill. Take pre-existing conditions ... according to the link: "Already in effect. It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them. ( Citation: Page 30, sec. 1101, Page 45, sec. 2704, and Page 46, sec. 2702)"

then:

"In 2014: No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history. ( Citation: Page 45, sec. 2704, Page 46, sec. 2701, and Page 57, sec. 1255)

Why shouldn't people with pre-existing conditions pay a higher premium? They're more of a risk so they should pay more; as should smokers, as should obese, etc.

Starting in 2014: "If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee (taxed). This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick."

Trade-off for the pre-existing conditions? Bullshit. The amount of money they will collect via 'those who do not purchase and are taxed' will not be nearly enough to cover the high risk people.

There's more but I'm too tired to go through it all right now.

 

[Greenbeard]

Who, exactly, gets taxed?

If you're talking about the individual mandate, virtually no one. That's the idea. Are you looking for a more expansive answer?

Since Medicaid is already a government run insurance plan, why didn't they just add provisions to that like the pre-existing conditions, etc. and broaden who it covers? (I know, I know ... power grab).

They did do that.

Why shouldn't people with pre-existing conditions pay a higher premium? They're more of a risk so they should pay more; as should smokers, as should obese, etc. Trade-off for the pre-existing conditions? Bullshit. The amount of money they will collect via 'those who do not purchase and are taxed' will not be nearly enough to cover the high risk people.

The individual mandate is not a revenue raiser. It's a "trade-off" in the sense that it goes to the first point you made: it provides a mechanism for pricing risk such that someone can't avoid buying insurance until they get sick/injured (at which point they pay premiums rated not primarily on individual factors but on community factors) without consequence.

In general, being a woman or having a weak heart or whatever will no longer affect your premium (though smoking will).

 

[Zoom-boing]

Who, exactly, gets taxed?

If you're talking about the individual mandate, virtually no one. That's the idea. Are you looking for a more expansive answer?

Since Medicaid is already a government run insurance plan, why didn't they just add provisions to that like the pre-existing conditions, etc. and broaden who it covers? (I know, I know ... power grab).

They did do that.

Why shouldn't people with pre-existing conditions pay a higher premium? They're more of a risk so they should pay more; as should smokers, as should obese, etc. Trade-off for the pre-existing conditions? Bullshit. The amount of money they will collect via 'those who do not purchase and are taxed' will not be nearly enough to cover the high risk people.

The individual mandate is not a revenue raiser. It's a "trade-off" in the sense that it goes to the first point you made: it provides a mechanism for pricing risk such that someone can't avoid buying insurance until they get sick/injured (at which point they pay premiums rated not primarily on individual factors but on community factors) without consequence.

In general, being a woman or having a weak heart or whatever will no longer affect your premium (though smoking will).

Thank you.

#1 ... so all this 'tax' ruling etc is over 'virtually no one'? So companies that are getting taxed via aca will not pass on the cost to consumers?

#2 .. unstated but implied was 'why didn't they just extend medicaid, etc. without a 2,000+ bill'?

#3 ... high risk patients should pay more, not the same, as low/lower risk patients. Obese, diabetics, smokers, etc. are more of a risk so should pay higher premiums, not have it spread out among the rest of us (which is how I'm reading it).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Who, exactly, gets taxed? I've read and heard that only those who have chosen not to purchase insurance will get taxed. I've read and heard that most everyone will be taxed. Or by 'get taxed' is that referring to the trillions of dollars in taxes that are attached to ACA?

The Court addressed only the IM and whether or not it is Constitutional per the Commerce Clause or Congress’ taxing authority. The Court upheld the IM based on the latter.

Congress has the power to tax you . . . on your income, your bathing suit, your gasoline, etc. Yesterday's decision claims on one hand it reigns in government's over reach regarding the commerce clause in as far as government can not compel you to buy something. But on the other hand it gave government the power to tax you for not purchasing something. The government can tax you for not purchasing something . . . how isn't this related to commerce and how is taxing you for not purchasing something any different than fining you for not purchasing something? So . . . . what exactly changed? Can/does this give the government the power to tax you for not purchasing anything they deem as 'good for you' (maybe not now but someday soon and for the rest of your life)?

The law was never designed to ‘force’ anyone to buy anything. If one elects to not have insurance, then he won’t have insurance; he will, however, be taxed to ensure the solvency of the overall program.

Since Medicaid is already a government run insurance plan, why didn't they just add provisions to that like the pre-existing conditions, etc. and broaden who it covers? (I know, I know ... power grab).

Medicaid is a state program, funded with Federal tax dollars. And it was indeed expanded to cover those who can not afford insurance.

The original bill repeatedly said that not complying with purchasing insurance would result in a penalty/fine and the justices corrected the lawyers when the lawyers would call that penalty/fine a tax. Roberts turned around and called the penalty/fine a tax in order to let ACA stand. Huh? It wasn't a tax until the SC decided it was a tax?

Incorrect. From the outset the government argued the provision was a tax:

The Act provides that the penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties, such as the penalty for claiming too large an income tax refund. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(g)(1). The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its nor-mal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are sub-ject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certain threshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e).

We think the Government has the better reading. As it observes, “Assessment” and “Collection” are chapters of the Internal Revenue Code providing the Secretary author-ity to assess and collect taxes, and generally specifying the means by which he shall do so. See §6201 (assess-ment authority); §6301 (collection authority). Section 5000A(g)(1)’s command that the penalty be “assessed and collected in the same manner” as taxes is best read as referring to those chapters and giving the Secretary thesame authority and guidance with respect to the penalty. That interpretation is consistent with the remainder of§5000A(g), which instructs the Secretary on the tools he may use to collect the penalty. See §5000A(g)(2)(A) (bar-ring criminal prosecutions); §5000A(g)(2)(B) (prohibiting the Secretary from using notices of lien and levies). The Anti-Injunction Act, by contrast, says nothing about the procedures to be used in assessing and collecting taxes.

How is Obama going to spin the fact that he repeatedly said this was not a tax when in fact it was? When ACA originally passed I wondered 'how will they collect the fine'? It was always going to be via taxes, which is why they hired so many more IRS agents. Duh.

Since the government always argued the provision was a tax, nothing is being 'spun.'

Perhaps if you stopped ‘reasoning’ like a partisan hack, and instead read the actual ruling, you wouldn’t exhibit your ignorance accordingly.

 

[Trajan]

Who, exactly, gets taxed? I've read and heard that only those who have chosen not to purchase insurance will get taxed. I've read and heard that most everyone will be taxed. Or by 'get taxed' is that referring to the trillions of dollars in taxes that are attached to ACA?

The Court addressed only the IM and whether or not it is Constitutional per the Commerce Clause or Congress’ taxing authority. The Court upheld the IM based on the latter.

Congress has the power to tax you . . . on your income, your bathing suit, your gasoline, etc. Yesterday's decision claims on one hand it reigns in government's over reach regarding the commerce clause in as far as government can not compel you to buy something. But on the other hand it gave government the power to tax you for not purchasing something. The government can tax you for not purchasing something . . . how isn't this related to commerce and how is taxing you for not purchasing something any different than fining you for not purchasing something? So . . . . what exactly changed? Can/does this give the government the power to tax you for not purchasing anything they deem as 'good for you' (maybe not now but someday soon and for the rest of your life)?

The law was never designed to ‘force’ anyone to buy anything. If one elects to not have insurance, then he won’t have insurance; he will, however, be taxed to ensure the solvency of the overall program.


Medicaid is a state program, funded with Federal tax dollars. And it was indeed expanded to cover those who can not afford insurance.



Incorrect. From the outset the government argued the provision was a tax:

The Act provides that the penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties, such as the penalty for claiming too large an income tax refund. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(g)(1). The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its nor-mal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are sub-ject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certain threshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e).

We think the Government has the better reading. As it observes, “Assessment” and “Collection” are chapters of the Internal Revenue Code providing the Secretary author-ity to assess and collect taxes, and generally specifying the means by which he shall do so. See §6201 (assess-ment authority); §6301 (collection authority). Section 5000A(g)(1)’s command that the penalty be “assessed and collected in the same manner” as taxes is best read as referring to those chapters and giving the Secretary thesame authority and guidance with respect to the penalty. That interpretation is consistent with the remainder of§5000A(g), which instructs the Secretary on the tools he may use to collect the penalty. See §5000A(g)(2)(A) (bar-ring criminal prosecutions); §5000A(g)(2)(B) (prohibiting the Secretary from using notices of lien and levies). The Anti-Injunction Act, by contrast, says nothing about the procedures to be used in assessing and collecting taxes.

How is Obama going to spin the fact that he repeatedly said this was not a tax when in fact it was? When ACA originally passed I wondered 'how will they collect the fine'? It was always going to be via taxes, which is why they hired so many more IRS agents. Duh.

Since the government always argued the provision was a tax, nothing is being 'spun.'

Perhaps if you stopped ‘reasoning’ like a partisan hack, and instead read the actual ruling, you wouldn’t exhibit your ignorance accordingly.

Medicaid is a state program, funded with Federal tax dollars. And it was indeed expanded to cover those who can not afford insurance.

how is that paid for?

Since the government always argued the provision was a tax, nothing is being 'spun.'

who is this Government? links please?cuze that won't get it, unless you have reading comprehension issues or are uber selective,I go with a and b. what section is the revenue in in the aca btw?

 

[Trajan]

Who, exactly, gets taxed?

If you're talking about the individual mandate, virtually no one. That's the idea. Are you looking for a more expansive answer?

Since Medicaid is already a government run insurance plan, why didn't they just add provisions to that like the pre-existing conditions, etc. and broaden who it covers? (I know, I know ... power grab).

They did do that.

Why shouldn't people with pre-existing conditions pay a higher premium? They're more of a risk so they should pay more; as should smokers, as should obese, etc. Trade-off for the pre-existing conditions? Bullshit. The amount of money they will collect via 'those who do not purchase and are taxed' will not be nearly enough to cover the high risk people.

The individual mandate is not a revenue raiser. It's a "trade-off" in the sense that it goes to the first point you made: it provides a mechanism for pricing risk such that someone can't avoid buying insurance until they get sick/injured (at which point they pay premiums rated not primarily on individual factors but on community factors) without consequence.

In general, being a woman or having a weak heart or whatever will no longer affect your premium (though smoking will).

If you're talking about the individual mandate, virtually no one. That's the idea. Are you looking for a more expansive answer?

yes.

start with those 'virtual' people if you please.

 

[Greenbeard]

#1 ... so all this 'tax' ruling etc is over 'virtually no one'? So companies that are getting taxed via aca will not pass on the cost to consumers?

The ruling concerned the individual mandate. There are actual revenue raisers in the law but those don't have anything to do with what happened yesterday (the biggest over time being the fact that group health insurance won't be getting a bottomless tax subsidy anymore, starting in 2018).

#2 .. unstated but implied was 'why didn't they just extend medicaid, etc. without a 2,000+ bill'?

Contrary to what it may sound like in the news, the legislation isn't just about expanding coverage. There are two major provisions in it for doing that--the expansion of Medicaid and the availability of tax credits if you buy insurance in an exchange--but the law's about more than that.

900 pages (not 2,000) is large, but so is the task before any Congress that attempts a comprehensive approach to the deficiencies in our health care system. The law has nine parts, running the gamut from setting up new marketplaces for shopping for coverage to Medicaid reform (beyond the expansion and simplification of enrollment to make Medicaid accessible to those eligible for it, the law creates a number of new options and opportunities for states to experiment with ways to contain costs and improve the way care is delivered) to Medicare reform to building up the health care workforce to investing in prevention and public health.

It's a BFD.

#3 ... high risk patients should pay more, not the same, as low/lower risk patients. Obese, diabetics, smokers, etc. are more of a risk so should pay higher premiums, not have it spread out among the rest of us (which is how I'm reading it).

There's a good chance that if you're in a small group plan, your premiums are already community (not individually) rated to some extent.

 

[Trajan]

but the law's about more than that.

no truer words have been spoken.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Who, exactly, gets taxed? I've read and heard that only those who have chosen not to purchase insurance will get taxed. I've read and heard that most everyone will be taxed. Or by 'get taxed' is that referring to the trillions of dollars in taxes that are attached to ACA?

The Court addressed only the IM and whether or not it is Constitutional per the Commerce Clause or Congress’ taxing authority. The Court upheld the IM based on the latter.

Congress has the power to tax you . . . on your income, your bathing suit, your gasoline, etc. Yesterday's decision claims on one hand it reigns in government's over reach regarding the commerce clause in as far as government can not compel you to buy something. But on the other hand it gave government the power to tax you for not purchasing something. The government can tax you for not purchasing something . . . how isn't this related to commerce and how is taxing you for not purchasing something any different than fining you for not purchasing something? So . . . . what exactly changed? Can/does this give the government the power to tax you for not purchasing anything they deem as 'good for you' (maybe not now but someday soon and for the rest of your life)?

The law was never designed to ‘force’ anyone to buy anything. If one elects to not have insurance, then he won’t have insurance; he will, however, be taxed to ensure the solvency of the overall program.


Medicaid is a state program, funded with Federal tax dollars. And it was indeed expanded to cover those who can not afford insurance.



Incorrect. From the outset the government argued the provision was a tax:

The Act provides that the penalty will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties, such as the penalty for claiming too large an income tax refund. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(g)(1). The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its nor-mal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies. §5000A(g)(2). And some individuals who are sub-ject to the mandate are nonetheless exempt from the penalty—for example, those with income below a certain threshold and members of Indian tribes. §5000A(e).

We think the Government has the better reading. As it observes, “Assessment” and “Collection” are chapters of the Internal Revenue Code providing the Secretary author-ity to assess and collect taxes, and generally specifying the means by which he shall do so. See §6201 (assess-ment authority); §6301 (collection authority). Section 5000A(g)(1)’s command that the penalty be “assessed and collected in the same manner” as taxes is best read as referring to those chapters and giving the Secretary thesame authority and guidance with respect to the penalty. That interpretation is consistent with the remainder of§5000A(g), which instructs the Secretary on the tools he may use to collect the penalty. See §5000A(g)(2)(A) (bar-ring criminal prosecutions); §5000A(g)(2)(B) (prohibiting the Secretary from using notices of lien and levies). The Anti-Injunction Act, by contrast, says nothing about the procedures to be used in assessing and collecting taxes.

How is Obama going to spin the fact that he repeatedly said this was not a tax when in fact it was? When ACA originally passed I wondered 'how will they collect the fine'? It was always going to be via taxes, which is why they hired so many more IRS agents. Duh.

Since the government always argued the provision was a tax, nothing is being 'spun.'

Perhaps if you stopped ‘reasoning’ like a partisan hack, and instead read the actual ruling, you wouldn’t exhibit your ignorance accordingly.

You didn't answer most of my questions just regurgitated leftwing puke. But you knew that. And you call me a partisan hack? lol, tff

I can see that they fully imply that it's a tax . . especially when the repeatedly use the word penalty. Oh and when Obama repeatedly said, over and over, that it is NOT a tax. Oh and when the SC corrected the lawyers when they called it a tax, by reminding them it was a penalty. And especially that it has to go back to congress so they can fix it by replacing the language of 'penalty' with 'tax'.

And you have the balls to call me ignorant? Too bad you couldn't just converse like an adult.

 

[Zoom-boing]

but the law's about more than that.

no truer words have been spoken.

Well, these words are:

the legislation isn't just about expanding coverage

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I've posted links to the Kaiser site several times. The latest thread is called Facts ... BDBoop also posted an excellent FAQ. Or you can Google it.

Theres a lot of misinformation and downright lies coming from the right. If you take the time to educate yourself, you'll learn that you really will benefit from the AHA.

 

[BDBoop]

I've posted links to the Kaiser site several times. The latest thread is called Facts ... BDBoop also posted an excellent FAQ. Or you can Google it.

Theres a lot of misinformation and downright lies coming from the right. If you take the time to educate yourself, you'll learn that you really will benefit from the AHA.

It's more fun to wave torches and pitchforks though, doncha think?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The original bill repeatedly said that not complying with purchasing insurance would result in a penalty/fine and the justices corrected the lawyers when the lawyers would call that penalty/fine a tax. Roberts turned around and called the penalty/fine a tax in order to let ACA stand. Huh? It wasn't a tax until the SC decided it was a tax?

The SCOTUS merely refused to overturn a law which is constitutional under Congress's authority to tax. Whether or not Congress - or anyone for that matter - calls it a tax isn't really relevant.