Millions of Americans probably praying that the ACA penalty will end immediately.

[francoHFW]

. True but healthcare should be affordable to everyone who is an American, and does the best that they can in life.

The reality is that the industry has to charge what it has to charge to provide a certain level of care. It just is NOT possible to fit that into every single budget. And then you consider the ACA where people that do absolutely nothing in life get insured for free, then we start to have a serious problem.
I know some will argue, but health insurance, or even health care is not a right. Yes, if you go to a hospital or Dr and have the money to pay, he should have to treat you, however no treatment should be forced if you are not willing or able to pay.
Choose any other product or service in this country and try to get it for free because you dont have the money in your pocket to pay the price. You go without, the cashier at the store does not ring up your "purchase" , let you walk out without paying and then charge the next 10 people in line for your purchases. Insurance should be no different.

. I disagree with your cold take on someone being denide treatment based upon their non-ability to pay at the time of treatment. You cannot associate healthcare with any other industry as you have done here, because we are talking human beings and whether someone lives or dies. I hope you take another opinion on your idea of who should be treated and those you think who should not be treated.

No, I wont change my opinion, I have been paying for insurance my entire working life, I do not find it at all acceptable to suddenly have to be concerned if I am going to be able to continue my coverage just because some lazy bastard refuses to care for himself and expects me to triple my personal expenses to make sure he has coverage.
Where might I ask is the compassion for those that are going to lose their ability to gain health care due to the cost of insuring the worthless? Do the worthless even give a second thought to any of this? NO, its a **** you just pay for my shit.
If you are getting a subsidy of any amount you should be out there kissing the ass of the workers that are getting screwed so you can get prices that you just did not earn.

You'always paid for the uninsured. Under ACA they pay what they can and get preventive care, and don't DIE.

. No not the way it is done now. We are getting screwed big time now.

That's the true price now. No scams now...

 

[usmbguest5318]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

Regarding your thread title:

• Unlike you, I cannot speak to what people pray for or to how many people pray for various things.

Regarding the OP Comments:

• Nobody has their taxes levied to pay a penalty for noncompliance with the mandate that almost everyone have health insurance.
• Who that cannot afford health insurance finds themselves paying for others' health insurance? Please answer with specific credible details explaining how that happens so that I can fully understand the basis for your claim.
• What do people who lack health insurance do when they get sick? They wait until the condition gets "really bad" and then they go to hospital emergency rooms. As they have no funds to pay for the care they receive there, the hospital will not collect money as compensation for services it rendered and it will eventually write off the debt. It receives a portion of the money it was owed when it, at a discount, sells the debt to a collection agency; however, doing so results in the hospital receiving less than the sum it would have received had an insurance company paid for the patient's treatment.
• What do people who lack health insurance do when they don't feel ill? Nothing. They don't generally obtain health screenings, preventive care and/or routine maintenance care. A consequence of that is that when they do need care, the only options are the most expensive ones, one example being obtaining emergency care instead of routine care or having to undergo dental (or other) treatment as a prerequisite for a given procedure, such as heart surgery.

The comments above are made to illustrate the mypic scope of the remarks that inspired them.

.

Well unless a good friend is lying to me, he said that his federal and/or state taxes are levied to pay the fine for not having insurance on his wife. Another friend purchased a plan for his wife, and found that the plan sucked, so he dropped it, and opted to pay the fine. Just asked the wife about the daughter, and she said that their taxes are levied for not having the coverage in which she can't afford either. Her 3 kids are on Medicade, but there was something wrong with that once as well. Her husband also pays the fine through the taxes being levied for the amount he owes. This is causing starter families to catch pure hell getting ahead in life. Otherwise while trying to get themselves settled into the right jobs, these things constantly plague them. If a family has a few things go wrong, then these things can almost put them back to square one where they have to struggle to dig out from under over and over again.

Okay. Well, it may be that you should stop relying on that friend for accurate information. It may also/instead be that you should retell the information he shares with greater accuracy.

I see now that what you (your friend?) meant is that is the government levies a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate and it collects penalty by reducing one's federal income tax refund by the sum of the penalty. Let your friend know that if he's going to discuss taxes and related matters, he should at least use the right "fancy" terms or accurate "non fancy" language. Your friend is having his tax refund withheld, not his taxes levied.

• Tax --> sums people pay to the government. Governments levy taxes, but the tax levied is the government's not the taxpayer's.
• Tax refund --> sums the government returns to taxpayers who paid more taxes than they were legally obliged to pay.

Don't think I'm being semantically picayune. I'm not. I'm sure you've seen from your time on USMB that people say all sorts of things that they believe to be true and that simply are not.

Tax planning tip:

Taxpayers who are efficient at estimating their taxes can effectively avoid paying the penalty by not overpaying their federal income taxes. This is so because the only mechanism the ACA provided to the federal government for collection of penalties for non-compliance with the individual mandate is withholding of tax refunds.

Thus if one isn't owed a refund and one is also non-compliant with the mandate, the penalty can build, but there's no legal means for the feds to collect it as there is no other means of enforcement for collecting the penalty. The key point here is that if one didn't want to comply with the individual mandate, there is/was a means for not doing so and not paying the penalty for non-compliance with that mandate. Rather than explore how that could have been accomplished, people got "up in arms" about the mandate's mere existence. Once again, not doing one's own research and critical analysis of the matter leads people to hold inaccurate and unnecessary beliefs and positions.

It is, of course, financially ideal to owe the federal government a small sum in income taxes and pay it to them on April 15th rather than receive a refund for overpayment of income taxes. The reason is because the government does not pay interest on the sums overpaid. The larger one's refund, the less optimally one is using one's own money, and that has nothing to do with the vagaries of what one might think about how the government uses the money it collects.

The way to minimize one's overpayment is to claim more wage exemptions than one is entitled to and cover the delta between what one rightfully owes and what one has paid via the payroll income tax withholding process by making estimated tax payments on a quarterly basis so as to, come the end of the tax year, owe between $1 and a few hundred dollars. Taxpayers who care to be glib about their money are, of course, free to handle their taxes without planning.
​

 

[francoHFW]

. True but healthcare should be affordable to everyone who is an American, and does the best that they can in life.

The reality is that the industry has to charge what it has to charge to provide a certain level of care. It just is NOT possible to fit that into every single budget. And then you consider the ACA where people that do absolutely nothing in life get insured for free, then we start to have a serious problem.
I know some will argue, but health insurance, or even health care is not a right. Yes, if you go to a hospital or Dr and have the money to pay, he should have to treat you, however no treatment should be forced if you are not willing or able to pay.
Choose any other product or service in this country and try to get it for free because you dont have the money in your pocket to pay the price. You go without, the cashier at the store does not ring up your "purchase" , let you walk out without paying and then charge the next 10 people in line for your purchases. Insurance should be no different.

. I disagree with your cold take on someone being denide treatment based upon their non-ability to pay at the time of treatment. You cannot associate healthcare with any other industry as you have done here, because we are talking human beings and whether someone lives or dies. I hope you take another opinion on your idea of who should be treated and those you think who should not be treated.

No, I wont change my opinion, I have been paying for insurance my entire working life, I do not find it at all acceptable to suddenly have to be concerned if I am going to be able to continue my coverage just because some lazy bastard refuses to care for himself and expects me to triple my personal expenses to make sure he has coverage.
Where might I ask is the compassion for those that are going to lose their ability to gain health care due to the cost of insuring the worthless? Do the worthless even give a second thought to any of this? NO, its a **** you just pay for my shit.
If you are getting a subsidy of any amount you should be out there kissing the ass of the workers that are getting screwed so you can get prices that you just did not earn.

You'always paid for the uninsured. Under ACA they pay what they can and get preventive care, and don't DIE.

if I have always paid for the uninsured that indicates that they have always had healthcare. this indicates there is no problem. Keep it like it was.
The savings they talk about is not for the consumer, the savings is for the industry. I just cant understand how the left is so interested in giving an industry all this extra money all the sudden.

Yup, only 40k died a year because of no insurance and cutoffs, no problem. Enjoy hell.

It was totally out of control the way it was- ACA was the first attempt to fix it.

 

[beagle9]

Maybe you just need to find a better job. Ive never had a complaint with my insurance.
why should I suffer because you are not able to support yourself in the manner you think you should live?

Tell that to all those Coal Workers too. Oh wait, I thought you SUPPORT coalworkers? Just not their healthcare?

coal workers can buy their own health care.
besides, where did I indicate I support coalworkers, do you just make shit up and pretend its real without knowing?

I agree with you. **** coal workers. They should get a job... they're outdated. Educate yourselves, find something better.

If the silly negro and his idiot liberals wouldnt have destroyed the industry this would not be an issue now would it.
The liberals caused it, so let the liberals fix it on their own.

Oh, so you're just a nazi white supremacist. Got it.

How many black men have you murdered? You can be honest here on this forum.... you're well supported by other racist murderers and rapists.

. It's OK for the CNN black guy Mark Lamont Hill to call blacks "mediocre negro's", but how dare someone else use any type of speak eh ?? What have you said about that I wonder ?

 

[beagle9]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

Regarding your thread title:

• Unlike you, I cannot speak to what people pray for or to how many people pray for various things.

Regarding the OP Comments:

• Nobody has their taxes levied to pay a penalty for noncompliance with the mandate that almost everyone have health insurance.
• Who that cannot afford health insurance finds themselves paying for others' health insurance? Please answer with specific credible details explaining how that happens so that I can fully understand the basis for your claim.
• What do people who lack health insurance do when they get sick? They wait until the condition gets "really bad" and then they go to hospital emergency rooms. As they have no funds to pay for the care they receive there, the hospital will not collect money as compensation for services it rendered and it will eventually write off the debt. It receives a portion of the money it was owed when it, at a discount, sells the debt to a collection agency; however, doing so results in the hospital receiving less than the sum it would have received had an insurance company paid for the patient's treatment.
• What do people who lack health insurance do when they don't feel ill? Nothing. They don't generally obtain health screenings, preventive care and/or routine maintenance care. A consequence of that is that when they do need care, the only options are the most expensive ones, one example being obtaining emergency care instead of routine care or having to undergo dental (or other) treatment as a prerequisite for a given procedure, such as heart surgery.

The comments above are made to illustrate the mypic scope of the remarks that inspired them.

.

Well unless a good friend is lying to me, he said that his federal and/or state taxes are levied to pay the fine for not having insurance on his wife. Another friend purchased a plan for his wife, and found that the plan sucked, so he dropped it, and opted to pay the fine. Just asked the wife about the daughter, and she said that their taxes are levied for not having the coverage in which she can't afford either. Her 3 kids are on Medicade, but there was something wrong with that once as well. Her husband also pays the fine through the taxes being levied for the amount he owes. This is causing starter families to catch pure hell getting ahead in life. Otherwise while trying to get themselves settled into the right jobs, these things constantly plague them. If a family has a few things go wrong, then these things can almost put them back to square one where they have to struggle to dig out from under over and over again.

Okay. Well, it may be that you should stop relying on that friend for accurate information. It may also/instead be that you should retell the information he shares with greater accuracy.

I see now that what you (your friend?) meant is that is the government levies a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate and it collects penalty by reducing one's federal income tax refund by the sum of the penalty. Let your friend know that if he's going to discuss taxes and related matters, he should at least use the right "fancy" terms or accurate "non fancy" language. Your friend is having his tax refund withheld, not his taxes levied.

• Tax --> sums people pay to the government. Governments levy taxes, but the tax levied is the government's not the taxpayer's.
• Tax refund --> sums the government returns to taxpayers who paid more taxes than they were legally obliged to pay.

Don't think I'm being semantically picayune. I'm not. I'm sure you've seen from your time on USMB that people say all sorts of things that they believe to be true and that simply are not.

Tax planning tip:

Taxpayers who are efficient at estimating their taxes can effectively avoid paying the penalty by not overpaying their federal income taxes. This is so because the only mechanism the ACA provided to the federal government for collection of penalties for non-compliance with the individual mandate is withholding of tax refunds.

Thus if one isn't owed a refund and one is also non-compliant with the mandate, the penalty can build, but there's no legal means for the feds to collect it as there is no other means of enforcement for collecting the penalty. The key point here is that if one didn't want to comply with the individual mandate, there is/was a means for not doing so and not paying the penalty for non-compliance with that mandate. Rather than explore how that could have been accomplished, people got "up in arms" about the mandate's mere existence. Once again, not doing one's own research and critical analysis of the matter leads people to hold inaccurate and unnecessary beliefs and positions.

It is, of course, financially ideal to owe the federal government a small sum in income taxes and pay it to them on April 15th rather than receive a refund for overpayment of income taxes. The reason is because the government does not pay interest on the sums overpaid. The larger one's refund, the less optimally one is using one's own money, and that has nothing to do with the vagaries of what one might think about how the government uses the money it collects.

The way to minimize one's overpayment is to claim more wage exemptions than one is entitled to and cover the delta between what one rightfully owes and what one has paid via the payroll income tax withholding process by making estimated tax payments on a quarterly basis so as to, come the end of the tax year, owe between $1 and a few hundred dollars. Taxpayers who care to be glib about their money are, of course, free to handle their taxes without planning.
​

. Umm so my friend was right... Got it and thanks. At least you put it in more correct terms, but the outcome was still the same.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

Regarding your thread title:

• Unlike you, I cannot speak to what people pray for or to how many people pray for various things.

Regarding the OP Comments:

• Nobody has their taxes levied to pay a penalty for noncompliance with the mandate that almost everyone have health insurance.
• Who that cannot afford health insurance finds themselves paying for others' health insurance? Please answer with specific credible details explaining how that happens so that I can fully understand the basis for your claim.
• What do people who lack health insurance do when they get sick? They wait until the condition gets "really bad" and then they go to hospital emergency rooms. As they have no funds to pay for the care they receive there, the hospital will not collect money as compensation for services it rendered and it will eventually write off the debt. It receives a portion of the money it was owed when it, at a discount, sells the debt to a collection agency; however, doing so results in the hospital receiving less than the sum it would have received had an insurance company paid for the patient's treatment.
• What do people who lack health insurance do when they don't feel ill? Nothing. They don't generally obtain health screenings, preventive care and/or routine maintenance care. A consequence of that is that when they do need care, the only options are the most expensive ones, one example being obtaining emergency care instead of routine care or having to undergo dental (or other) treatment as a prerequisite for a given procedure, such as heart surgery.

The comments above are made to illustrate the mypic scope of the remarks that inspired them.

.

Well unless a good friend is lying to me, he said that his federal and/or state taxes are levied to pay the fine for not having insurance on his wife. Another friend purchased a plan for his wife, and found that the plan sucked, so he dropped it, and opted to pay the fine. Just asked the wife about the daughter, and she said that their taxes are levied for not having the coverage in which she can't afford either. Her 3 kids are on Medicade, but there was something wrong with that once as well. Her husband also pays the fine through the taxes being levied for the amount he owes. This is causing starter families to catch pure hell getting ahead in life. Otherwise while trying to get themselves settled into the right jobs, these things constantly plague them. If a family has a few things go wrong, then these things can almost put them back to square one where they have to struggle to dig out from under over and over again.

Okay. Well, it may be that you should stop relying on that friend for accurate information. It may also/instead be that you should retell the information he shares with greater accuracy.

I see now that what you (your friend?) meant is that is the government levies a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate and it collects penalty by reducing one's federal income tax refund by the sum of the penalty. Let your friend know that if he's going to discuss taxes and related matters, he should at least use the right "fancy" terms or accurate "non fancy" language. Your friend is having his tax refund withheld, not his taxes levied.

• Tax --> sums people pay to the government. Governments levy taxes, but the tax levied is the government's not the taxpayer's.
• Tax refund --> sums the government returns to taxpayers who paid more taxes than they were legally obliged to pay.

Don't think I'm being semantically picayune. I'm not. I'm sure you've seen from your time on USMB that people say all sorts of things that they believe to be true and that simply are not.

Tax planning tip:

Taxpayers who are efficient at estimating their taxes can effectively avoid paying the penalty by not overpaying their federal income taxes. This is so because the only mechanism the ACA provided to the federal government for collection of penalties for non-compliance with the individual mandate is withholding of tax refunds.

Thus if one isn't owed a refund and one is also non-compliant with the mandate, the penalty can build, but there's no legal means for the feds to collect it as there is no other means of enforcement for collecting the penalty. The key point here is that if one didn't want to comply with the individual mandate, there is/was a means for not doing so and not paying the penalty for non-compliance with that mandate. Rather than explore how that could have been accomplished, people got "up in arms" about the mandate's mere existence. Once again, not doing one's own research and critical analysis of the matter leads people to hold inaccurate and unnecessary beliefs and positions.

It is, of course, financially ideal to owe the federal government a small sum in income taxes and pay it to them on April 15th rather than receive a refund for overpayment of income taxes. The reason is because the government does not pay interest on the sums overpaid. The larger one's refund, the less optimally one is using one's own money, and that has nothing to do with the vagaries of what one might think about how the government uses the money it collects.

The way to minimize one's overpayment is to claim more wage exemptions than one is entitled to and cover the delta between what one rightfully owes and what one has paid via the payroll income tax withholding process by making estimated tax payments on a quarterly basis so as to, come the end of the tax year, owe between $1 and a few hundred dollars. Taxpayers who care to be glib about their money are, of course, free to handle their taxes without planning.
​

. Umm so my friend was right... Got it and thanks. At least you put it in more correct terms, but the outcome was still the same.

No, your friend was not correct. The government does not levy your friend's taxes to collect a penalty. Your friend does not have taxes so he can't have them levied; he pays taxes. The government has taxes.

 

[beagle9]

The reality is that the industry has to charge what it has to charge to provide a certain level of care. It just is NOT possible to fit that into every single budget. And then you consider the ACA where people that do absolutely nothing in life get insured for free, then we start to have a serious problem.
I know some will argue, but health insurance, or even health care is not a right. Yes, if you go to a hospital or Dr and have the money to pay, he should have to treat you, however no treatment should be forced if you are not willing or able to pay.
Choose any other product or service in this country and try to get it for free because you dont have the money in your pocket to pay the price. You go without, the cashier at the store does not ring up your "purchase" , let you walk out without paying and then charge the next 10 people in line for your purchases. Insurance should be no different.

. I disagree with your cold take on someone being denide treatment based upon their non-ability to pay at the time of treatment. You cannot associate healthcare with any other industry as you have done here, because we are talking human beings and whether someone lives or dies. I hope you take another opinion on your idea of who should be treated and those you think who should not be treated.

No, I wont change my opinion, I have been paying for insurance my entire working life, I do not find it at all acceptable to suddenly have to be concerned if I am going to be able to continue my coverage just because some lazy bastard refuses to care for himself and expects me to triple my personal expenses to make sure he has coverage.
Where might I ask is the compassion for those that are going to lose their ability to gain health care due to the cost of insuring the worthless? Do the worthless even give a second thought to any of this? NO, its a **** you just pay for my shit.
If you are getting a subsidy of any amount you should be out there kissing the ass of the workers that are getting screwed so you can get prices that you just did not earn.

You'always paid for the uninsured. Under ACA they pay what they can and get preventive care, and don't DIE.

if I have always paid for the uninsured that indicates that they have always had healthcare. this indicates there is no problem. Keep it like it was.
The savings they talk about is not for the consumer, the savings is for the industry. I just cant understand how the left is so interested in giving an industry all this extra money all the sudden.

Yup, only 40k died a year because of no insurance and cutoffs, no problem. Enjoy hell.

It was totally out of control the way it was- ACA was the first attempt to fix it.

. Yes it was out of control, but what Obumer did was took advantage of a crisis by making it a worse crisis for millions.

 

[beagle9]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

Regarding your thread title:

• Unlike you, I cannot speak to what people pray for or to how many people pray for various things.

Regarding the OP Comments:

• Nobody has their taxes levied to pay a penalty for noncompliance with the mandate that almost everyone have health insurance.
• Who that cannot afford health insurance finds themselves paying for others' health insurance? Please answer with specific credible details explaining how that happens so that I can fully understand the basis for your claim.
• What do people who lack health insurance do when they get sick? They wait until the condition gets "really bad" and then they go to hospital emergency rooms. As they have no funds to pay for the care they receive there, the hospital will not collect money as compensation for services it rendered and it will eventually write off the debt. It receives a portion of the money it was owed when it, at a discount, sells the debt to a collection agency; however, doing so results in the hospital receiving less than the sum it would have received had an insurance company paid for the patient's treatment.
• What do people who lack health insurance do when they don't feel ill? Nothing. They don't generally obtain health screenings, preventive care and/or routine maintenance care. A consequence of that is that when they do need care, the only options are the most expensive ones, one example being obtaining emergency care instead of routine care or having to undergo dental (or other) treatment as a prerequisite for a given procedure, such as heart surgery.

The comments above are made to illustrate the mypic scope of the remarks that inspired them.

.

Well unless a good friend is lying to me, he said that his federal and/or state taxes are levied to pay the fine for not having insurance on his wife. Another friend purchased a plan for his wife, and found that the plan sucked, so he dropped it, and opted to pay the fine. Just asked the wife about the daughter, and she said that their taxes are levied for not having the coverage in which she can't afford either. Her 3 kids are on Medicade, but there was something wrong with that once as well. Her husband also pays the fine through the taxes being levied for the amount he owes. This is causing starter families to catch pure hell getting ahead in life. Otherwise while trying to get themselves settled into the right jobs, these things constantly plague them. If a family has a few things go wrong, then these things can almost put them back to square one where they have to struggle to dig out from under over and over again.

Okay. Well, it may be that you should stop relying on that friend for accurate information. It may also/instead be that you should retell the information he shares with greater accuracy.

I see now that what you (your friend?) meant is that is the government levies a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate and it collects penalty by reducing one's federal income tax refund by the sum of the penalty. Let your friend know that if he's going to discuss taxes and related matters, he should at least use the right "fancy" terms or accurate "non fancy" language. Your friend is having his tax refund withheld, not his taxes levied.

• Tax --> sums people pay to the government. Governments levy taxes, but the tax levied is the government's not the taxpayer's.
• Tax refund --> sums the government returns to taxpayers who paid more taxes than they were legally obliged to pay.

Don't think I'm being semantically picayune. I'm not. I'm sure you've seen from your time on USMB that people say all sorts of things that they believe to be true and that simply are not.

Tax planning tip:

Taxpayers who are efficient at estimating their taxes can effectively avoid paying the penalty by not overpaying their federal income taxes. This is so because the only mechanism the ACA provided to the federal government for collection of penalties for non-compliance with the individual mandate is withholding of tax refunds.

Thus if one isn't owed a refund and one is also non-compliant with the mandate, the penalty can build, but there's no legal means for the feds to collect it as there is no other means of enforcement for collecting the penalty. The key point here is that if one didn't want to comply with the individual mandate, there is/was a means for not doing so and not paying the penalty for non-compliance with that mandate. Rather than explore how that could have been accomplished, people got "up in arms" about the mandate's mere existence. Once again, not doing one's own research and critical analysis of the matter leads people to hold inaccurate and unnecessary beliefs and positions.

It is, of course, financially ideal to owe the federal government a small sum in income taxes and pay it to them on April 15th rather than receive a refund for overpayment of income taxes. The reason is because the government does not pay interest on the sums overpaid. The larger one's refund, the less optimally one is using one's own money, and that has nothing to do with the vagaries of what one might think about how the government uses the money it collects.

The way to minimize one's overpayment is to claim more wage exemptions than one is entitled to and cover the delta between what one rightfully owes and what one has paid via the payroll income tax withholding process by making estimated tax payments on a quarterly basis so as to, come the end of the tax year, owe between $1 and a few hundred dollars. Taxpayers who care to be glib about their money are, of course, free to handle their taxes without planning.
​

. Umm so my friend was right... Got it and thanks. At least you put it in more correct terms, but the outcome was still the same.

No, your friend was not correct. The government does not levy your friend's taxes to collect a penalty. Your friend does not have taxes so he can't have them levied; he pays taxes. The government has taxes.

The witholding is what most consider the taking of ones resources due to whatever reason by the IRS. Some call it levied or withheld, withold or whatever. Everyone knew what I meant. Anyway my friends wife's health is real bad, and he can't afford to add her onto his work insurance, so they pay the penalty in which they can't afford, and then they have to pay up front $200.00 dollars to this doctor before seeing him or $200.00 at another doc before seeing him, so before you know it they are almost just working to pay doctor bills above and beyond anything else. These people have barely had much of anything, but somehow they get by in life. Talk about living on the edge. The boy is a hard worker though, and he doesn't forsake his wife no matter how tough it has been.

 

[Slyhunter]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

What ACA penalty?
Anyone who wants to can check mark the box whether they really have the insurance or not. Nobody has to pay the penalty that doesn't want to.

 

[beagle9]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

What ACA penalty?
Anyone who wants to can check mark the box whether they really have the insurance or not. Nobody has to pay the penalty that doesn't want to.

. You are talking about poor honest people who if a law comes out, then they abide by it, not like those who are experts (in which they aren't), to get around the laws or to try and skirt the laws without consequences.

 

[beagle9]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

Regarding your thread title:

• Unlike you, I cannot speak to what people pray for or to how many people pray for various things.

Regarding the OP Comments:

• Nobody has their taxes levied to pay a penalty for noncompliance with the mandate that almost everyone have health insurance.
• Who that cannot afford health insurance finds themselves paying for others' health insurance? Please answer with specific credible details explaining how that happens so that I can fully understand the basis for your claim.
• What do people who lack health insurance do when they get sick? They wait until the condition gets "really bad" and then they go to hospital emergency rooms. As they have no funds to pay for the care they receive there, the hospital will not collect money as compensation for services it rendered and it will eventually write off the debt. It receives a portion of the money it was owed when it, at a discount, sells the debt to a collection agency; however, doing so results in the hospital receiving less than the sum it would have received had an insurance company paid for the patient's treatment.
• What do people who lack health insurance do when they don't feel ill? Nothing. They don't generally obtain health screenings, preventive care and/or routine maintenance care. A consequence of that is that when they do need care, the only options are the most expensive ones, one example being obtaining emergency care instead of routine care or having to undergo dental (or other) treatment as a prerequisite for a given procedure, such as heart surgery.

The comments above are made to illustrate the mypic scope of the remarks that inspired them.

.

Well unless a good friend is lying to me, he said that his federal and/or state taxes are levied to pay the fine for not having insurance on his wife. Another friend purchased a plan for his wife, and found that the plan sucked, so he dropped it, and opted to pay the fine. Just asked the wife about the daughter, and she said that their taxes are levied for not having the coverage in which she can't afford either. Her 3 kids are on Medicade, but there was something wrong with that once as well. Her husband also pays the fine through the taxes being levied for the amount he owes. This is causing starter families to catch pure hell getting ahead in life. Otherwise while trying to get themselves settled into the right jobs, these things constantly plague them. If a family has a few things go wrong, then these things can almost put them back to square one where they have to struggle to dig out from under over and over again.

Okay. Well, it may be that you should stop relying on that friend for accurate information. It may also/instead be that you should retell the information he shares with greater accuracy.

I see now that what you (your friend?) meant is that is the government levies a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate and it collects penalty by reducing one's federal income tax refund by the sum of the penalty. Let your friend know that if he's going to discuss taxes and related matters, he should at least use the right "fancy" terms or accurate "non fancy" language. Your friend is having his tax refund withheld, not his taxes levied.

• Tax --> sums people pay to the government. Governments levy taxes, but the tax levied is the government's not the taxpayer's.
• Tax refund --> sums the government returns to taxpayers who paid more taxes than they were legally obliged to pay.

Don't think I'm being semantically picayune. I'm not. I'm sure you've seen from your time on USMB that people say all sorts of things that they believe to be true and that simply are not.

Tax planning tip:

Taxpayers who are efficient at estimating their taxes can effectively avoid paying the penalty by not overpaying their federal income taxes. This is so because the only mechanism the ACA provided to the federal government for collection of penalties for non-compliance with the individual mandate is withholding of tax refunds.

Thus if one isn't owed a refund and one is also non-compliant with the mandate, the penalty can build, but there's no legal means for the feds to collect it as there is no other means of enforcement for collecting the penalty. The key point here is that if one didn't want to comply with the individual mandate, there is/was a means for not doing so and not paying the penalty for non-compliance with that mandate. Rather than explore how that could have been accomplished, people got "up in arms" about the mandate's mere existence. Once again, not doing one's own research and critical analysis of the matter leads people to hold inaccurate and unnecessary beliefs and positions.

It is, of course, financially ideal to owe the federal government a small sum in income taxes and pay it to them on April 15th rather than receive a refund for overpayment of income taxes. The reason is because the government does not pay interest on the sums overpaid. The larger one's refund, the less optimally one is using one's own money, and that has nothing to do with the vagaries of what one might think about how the government uses the money it collects.

The way to minimize one's overpayment is to claim more wage exemptions than one is entitled to and cover the delta between what one rightfully owes and what one has paid via the payroll income tax withholding process by making estimated tax payments on a quarterly basis so as to, come the end of the tax year, owe between $1 and a few hundred dollars. Taxpayers who care to be glib about their money are, of course, free to handle their taxes without planning.
​

. Umm so my friend was right... Got it and thanks. At least you put it in more correct terms, but the outcome was still the same.

No, your friend was not correct. The government does not levy your friend's taxes to collect a penalty. Your friend does not have taxes so he can't have them levied; he pays taxes. The government has taxes.

. I think garnish was the correct term to use.. oh well...

 

[usmbguest5318]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

Regarding your thread title:

• Unlike you, I cannot speak to what people pray for or to how many people pray for various things.

Regarding the OP Comments:

• Nobody has their taxes levied to pay a penalty for noncompliance with the mandate that almost everyone have health insurance.
• Who that cannot afford health insurance finds themselves paying for others' health insurance? Please answer with specific credible details explaining how that happens so that I can fully understand the basis for your claim.
• What do people who lack health insurance do when they get sick? They wait until the condition gets "really bad" and then they go to hospital emergency rooms. As they have no funds to pay for the care they receive there, the hospital will not collect money as compensation for services it rendered and it will eventually write off the debt. It receives a portion of the money it was owed when it, at a discount, sells the debt to a collection agency; however, doing so results in the hospital receiving less than the sum it would have received had an insurance company paid for the patient's treatment.
• What do people who lack health insurance do when they don't feel ill? Nothing. They don't generally obtain health screenings, preventive care and/or routine maintenance care. A consequence of that is that when they do need care, the only options are the most expensive ones, one example being obtaining emergency care instead of routine care or having to undergo dental (or other) treatment as a prerequisite for a given procedure, such as heart surgery.

The comments above are made to illustrate the mypic scope of the remarks that inspired them.

.

Well unless a good friend is lying to me, he said that his federal and/or state taxes are levied to pay the fine for not having insurance on his wife. Another friend purchased a plan for his wife, and found that the plan sucked, so he dropped it, and opted to pay the fine. Just asked the wife about the daughter, and she said that their taxes are levied for not having the coverage in which she can't afford either. Her 3 kids are on Medicade, but there was something wrong with that once as well. Her husband also pays the fine through the taxes being levied for the amount he owes. This is causing starter families to catch pure hell getting ahead in life. Otherwise while trying to get themselves settled into the right jobs, these things constantly plague them. If a family has a few things go wrong, then these things can almost put them back to square one where they have to struggle to dig out from under over and over again.

Okay. Well, it may be that you should stop relying on that friend for accurate information. It may also/instead be that you should retell the information he shares with greater accuracy.

I see now that what you (your friend?) meant is that is the government levies a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate and it collects penalty by reducing one's federal income tax refund by the sum of the penalty. Let your friend know that if he's going to discuss taxes and related matters, he should at least use the right "fancy" terms or accurate "non fancy" language. Your friend is having his tax refund withheld, not his taxes levied.

• Tax --> sums people pay to the government. Governments levy taxes, but the tax levied is the government's not the taxpayer's.
• Tax refund --> sums the government returns to taxpayers who paid more taxes than they were legally obliged to pay.

Don't think I'm being semantically picayune. I'm not. I'm sure you've seen from your time on USMB that people say all sorts of things that they believe to be true and that simply are not.

Tax planning tip:

Taxpayers who are efficient at estimating their taxes can effectively avoid paying the penalty by not overpaying their federal income taxes. This is so because the only mechanism the ACA provided to the federal government for collection of penalties for non-compliance with the individual mandate is withholding of tax refunds.

Thus if one isn't owed a refund and one is also non-compliant with the mandate, the penalty can build, but there's no legal means for the feds to collect it as there is no other means of enforcement for collecting the penalty. The key point here is that if one didn't want to comply with the individual mandate, there is/was a means for not doing so and not paying the penalty for non-compliance with that mandate. Rather than explore how that could have been accomplished, people got "up in arms" about the mandate's mere existence. Once again, not doing one's own research and critical analysis of the matter leads people to hold inaccurate and unnecessary beliefs and positions.

It is, of course, financially ideal to owe the federal government a small sum in income taxes and pay it to them on April 15th rather than receive a refund for overpayment of income taxes. The reason is because the government does not pay interest on the sums overpaid. The larger one's refund, the less optimally one is using one's own money, and that has nothing to do with the vagaries of what one might think about how the government uses the money it collects.

The way to minimize one's overpayment is to claim more wage exemptions than one is entitled to and cover the delta between what one rightfully owes and what one has paid via the payroll income tax withholding process by making estimated tax payments on a quarterly basis so as to, come the end of the tax year, owe between $1 and a few hundred dollars. Taxpayers who care to be glib about their money are, of course, free to handle their taxes without planning.
​

. Umm so my friend was right... Got it and thanks. At least you put it in more correct terms, but the outcome was still the same.

No, your friend was not correct. The government does not levy your friend's taxes to collect a penalty. Your friend does not have taxes so he can't have them levied; he pays taxes. The government has taxes.

The witholding is what most consider the taking of ones resources due to whatever reason by the IRS. Some call it levied or withheld, withold or whatever. Everyone knew what I meant. Anyway my friends wife's health is real bad, and he can't afford to add her onto his work insurance, so they pay the penalty in which they can't afford, and then they have to pay up front $200.00 dollars to this doctor before seeing him or $200.00 at another doc before seeing him, so before you know it they are almost just working to pay doctor bills above and beyond anything else. These people have barely had much of anything, but somehow they get by in life. Talk about living on the edge. The boy is a hard worker though, and he doesn't forsake his wife no matter how tough it has been.

I don't really care what people call things. People can call a duck a chicken and their doing so won't make a duck be a chicken. One need not use a "fancy" term like "levy" to accurately convey the point; simply noting what in fact is happening will do just as well. It's obvious that some people call it "levied," but it's equally obvious that term is inaptly used when they do so. The misuse causes uncertainty in the minds of thoughtful readers by causing them to think, "I know he doesn't really mean "the gov't levies a person's taxes" because that is an existential impossibility, but what does he mean?"

• Does the writer mean the gov't levies an additional tax?
• Does the writer mean the gov't ascribes a share of the person's tax liability as payment for the penalty? (Inscrutably convoluted executions of policy are not unheard of or rare for a government.)
• Does the writer mean the gov't withholds some or all of a taxpayer's tax refund?
• Does the writer mean something different that any of those things?

Insofar as one may have audience members know what "levy" means, and who are trying to give one due respect by actually reading and thinking carefully what one writes, one's best course for effective self-expression is to eschew the efficiency afforded by using "fancy" terms one doesn't know fully and instead "spell it all out" long-hand in clear and accurate "unsophisticated," so to speak, language. Readers can read and interpret one's written words, but they cannot read an author's mind, and they certainly cannot read the mind of a third party with whom the author has spoken.

___________


I cannot offer specific advice for your friend, but I can say that he would be well served to apply the tax planning strategy I broadly described a couple posts back. It sounds like his financial position is one that would benefit, at least in the near term, from minimizing his income tax overpayments to federal and state governments. Doing so will require some effort on their part to analyze their historic tax liabilities and project their current year liability, but the information needed to do so is readily available on the Internet. There may be other cash conservation tactics he and his wife should apply.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

Regarding your thread title:

• Unlike you, I cannot speak to what people pray for or to how many people pray for various things.

Regarding the OP Comments:

• Nobody has their taxes levied to pay a penalty for noncompliance with the mandate that almost everyone have health insurance.
• Who that cannot afford health insurance finds themselves paying for others' health insurance? Please answer with specific credible details explaining how that happens so that I can fully understand the basis for your claim.
• What do people who lack health insurance do when they get sick? They wait until the condition gets "really bad" and then they go to hospital emergency rooms. As they have no funds to pay for the care they receive there, the hospital will not collect money as compensation for services it rendered and it will eventually write off the debt. It receives a portion of the money it was owed when it, at a discount, sells the debt to a collection agency; however, doing so results in the hospital receiving less than the sum it would have received had an insurance company paid for the patient's treatment.
• What do people who lack health insurance do when they don't feel ill? Nothing. They don't generally obtain health screenings, preventive care and/or routine maintenance care. A consequence of that is that when they do need care, the only options are the most expensive ones, one example being obtaining emergency care instead of routine care or having to undergo dental (or other) treatment as a prerequisite for a given procedure, such as heart surgery.

The comments above are made to illustrate the mypic scope of the remarks that inspired them.

.

Well unless a good friend is lying to me, he said that his federal and/or state taxes are levied to pay the fine for not having insurance on his wife. Another friend purchased a plan for his wife, and found that the plan sucked, so he dropped it, and opted to pay the fine. Just asked the wife about the daughter, and she said that their taxes are levied for not having the coverage in which she can't afford either. Her 3 kids are on Medicade, but there was something wrong with that once as well. Her husband also pays the fine through the taxes being levied for the amount he owes. This is causing starter families to catch pure hell getting ahead in life. Otherwise while trying to get themselves settled into the right jobs, these things constantly plague them. If a family has a few things go wrong, then these things can almost put them back to square one where they have to struggle to dig out from under over and over again.

Okay. Well, it may be that you should stop relying on that friend for accurate information. It may also/instead be that you should retell the information he shares with greater accuracy.

I see now that what you (your friend?) meant is that is the government levies a penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate and it collects penalty by reducing one's federal income tax refund by the sum of the penalty. Let your friend know that if he's going to discuss taxes and related matters, he should at least use the right "fancy" terms or accurate "non fancy" language. Your friend is having his tax refund withheld, not his taxes levied.

• Tax --> sums people pay to the government. Governments levy taxes, but the tax levied is the government's not the taxpayer's.
• Tax refund --> sums the government returns to taxpayers who paid more taxes than they were legally obliged to pay.

Don't think I'm being semantically picayune. I'm not. I'm sure you've seen from your time on USMB that people say all sorts of things that they believe to be true and that simply are not.

Tax planning tip:

Taxpayers who are efficient at estimating their taxes can effectively avoid paying the penalty by not overpaying their federal income taxes. This is so because the only mechanism the ACA provided to the federal government for collection of penalties for non-compliance with the individual mandate is withholding of tax refunds.

Thus if one isn't owed a refund and one is also non-compliant with the mandate, the penalty can build, but there's no legal means for the feds to collect it as there is no other means of enforcement for collecting the penalty. The key point here is that if one didn't want to comply with the individual mandate, there is/was a means for not doing so and not paying the penalty for non-compliance with that mandate. Rather than explore how that could have been accomplished, people got "up in arms" about the mandate's mere existence. Once again, not doing one's own research and critical analysis of the matter leads people to hold inaccurate and unnecessary beliefs and positions.

It is, of course, financially ideal to owe the federal government a small sum in income taxes and pay it to them on April 15th rather than receive a refund for overpayment of income taxes. The reason is because the government does not pay interest on the sums overpaid. The larger one's refund, the less optimally one is using one's own money, and that has nothing to do with the vagaries of what one might think about how the government uses the money it collects.

The way to minimize one's overpayment is to claim more wage exemptions than one is entitled to and cover the delta between what one rightfully owes and what one has paid via the payroll income tax withholding process by making estimated tax payments on a quarterly basis so as to, come the end of the tax year, owe between $1 and a few hundred dollars. Taxpayers who care to be glib about their money are, of course, free to handle their taxes without planning.
​

. Umm so my friend was right... Got it and thanks. At least you put it in more correct terms, but the outcome was still the same.

No, your friend was not correct. The government does not levy your friend's taxes to collect a penalty. Your friend does not have taxes so he can't have them levied; he pays taxes. The government has taxes.

. I think garnish was the correct term to use.. oh well...

Garnishing is strictly different because it applies to something other than tax refunds, but conceptually, yes, "garnish" is similar enough that using it would not have created the same ambiguity.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I know people who need this money badly, and they can't afford to have their taxes levied to pay this penalty. They couldn't afford the insurance, and they sure don't need to be paying for anyone else's insurance. Period.

I'm one of those people.

I know plenty of people that are having to pay this penalty, and not because they choose to, but because they have to. They land right in between the not being able to qualify for a decent plan or to afford one, so they go without insurance, and pay the dam fine through a levy of their taxes.

60% of America believes that it is a responsibility of the government to ensure that all Americans have health care coverage.

We fail at that.

More should be done.

If that's true then 60 percent of Americans are stupid. It's not the governments place, in this country, to provide for the people.

.

To be fair, many more Americans feel that the government has the ability to help on some issues far more than being thrown to the wolves in the for profit market system. Social security is one of the sacred cows that best not be touched as we have seen, so it almost has gotten there with healthcare, but people and government just haven't quite figured it out yet. What worked years ago has been destroyed somehow, and undoubtedly no one knows how or why that has happened now.

From an economic standpoint, that's not at all so. The things that give rise to shifts in supply and demand are quite well understood and their impacts are quite measurable. The people who don't understand it are the people who make no effort to do so.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

what does the cost of a product have to do with it being fair?
not everything can be affordable to everyone.

. True but healthcare should be affordable to everyone who is an American, and does the best that they can in life.

The reality is that the industry has to charge what it has to charge to provide a certain level of care. It just is NOT possible to fit that into every single budget. And then you consider the ACA where people that do absolutely nothing in life get insured for free, then we start to have a serious problem.
I know some will argue, but health insurance, or even health care is not a right. Yes, if you go to a hospital or Dr and have the money to pay, he should have to treat you, however no treatment should be forced if you are not willing or able to pay.
Choose any other product or service in this country and try to get it for free because you dont have the money in your pocket to pay the price. You go without, the cashier at the store does not ring up your "purchase" , let you walk out without paying and then charge the next 10 people in line for your purchases. Insurance should be no different.

. I disagree with your cold take on someone being denide treatment based upon their non-ability to pay at the time of treatment. You cannot associate healthcare with any other industry as you have done here, because we are talking human beings and whether someone lives or dies. I hope you take another opinion on your idea of who should be treated and those you think who should not be treated.

No, I wont change my opinion, I have been paying for insurance my entire working life, I do not find it at all acceptable to suddenly have to be concerned if I am going to be able to continue my coverage just because some lazy bastard refuses to care for himself and expects me to triple my personal expenses to make sure he has coverage.
Where might I ask is the compassion for those that are going to lose their ability to gain health care due to the cost of insuring the worthless? Do the worthless even give a second thought to any of this? NO, its a **** you just pay for my shit.
If you are getting a subsidy of any amount you should be out there kissing the ass of the workers that are getting screwed so you can get prices that you just did not earn.

You'always paid for the uninsured. Under ACA they pay what they can and get preventive care, and don't DIE.

Utter bull. You can't even afford the worst of the plans yet along preventative care. It's you people that never had to look into Commie Care that think they know what the plans are or how much they cost. Hell, even the lady at Commie Care told me she could never afford the plans she was offering me.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

HEATH CARE IN THE US COSTS TOO DAMN MUCH. ACA needs to be FIXED, and someone has to go after the Big Health and Big Pharma.

Big health and Big pharma are not the problem. We need to go after BIG GOVERNMENT, and we took the first step by electing Donald Trump.

How is gov't the problem with HC?

I don't even know where to start and perhaps if I have dead time at work I'll chime in. Right now I have time to tell you that government is the problem all along. I give you a short one on Medicare and Medicaid. Both programs only pay about 2/3 of the bill for their patients. Doctors and hospitals have to make up that loss. So they increase fees on everybody else that our insurance companies had to pay all these years. Where do you think insurance companies get that money from????

 

[WillReadmore]

Healthcare in this nation has to be fixed. And this bullcrap of having multiple policies in order to cover things like your eyes, and your dental when they are a vital part of your health is just a complete travisty. It all needs to be in one policy just like we do with car insurance. You can add on to the policy, but it's all with the same company of choice.

Seriously??? Are you going to start requiring insurance companies to cover your EYES and TEETH???

So, you want MORE regulation???

. Seriously ?? You don't know what I meant by consolidating for one bill ?? Why do you have separate insurance bills for one body, when your health can be adversely affected by your teeth just like it can with your heart? There is no dam reason that our healthcare insurance doesn't cover our entire health from head to toe. No reason to have separate policies for separate body parts.

I don't know why you ask ME that question.

Ask your insurance company.

Nothing is stopping them from covering these features.

 

[Dschrute3]

The Mandate is dead. No more fines or 'penalties.' Thank you President Trump.

 

[WillReadmore]

HEATH CARE IN THE US COSTS TOO DAMN MUCH. ACA needs to be FIXED, and someone has to go after the Big Health and Big Pharma.

Big health and Big pharma are not the problem. We need to go after BIG GOVERNMENT, and we took the first step by electing Donald Trump.

How is gov't the problem with HC?

I don't even know where to start and perhaps if I have dead time at work I'll chime in. Right now I have time to tell you that government is the problem all along. I give you a short one on Medicare and Medicaid. Both programs only pay about 2/3 of the bill for their patients. Doctors and hospitals have to make up that loss. So they increase fees on everybody else that our insurance companies had to pay all these years. Where do you think insurance companies get that money from????

Pressure on prices is made harder by having several different health care coverage systems trying to coexist.

If we had ONE, there would be more effective options for putting pressure on price.

 

[WillReadmore]

The Mandate is dead. No more fines or 'penalties.' Thank you President Trump.

So, what will the effect of that be on the coverage policies of American families?