Where does the money go

True. You don't research anything you say.

You really are a dumb shit. Unbelievable!

I swear I am talking to a 12 year old. Next you are going to say, "I'm rubber and you're glue". lol

--

Rick

If their income rises, they need to get their subsidy check reduced. That infers someone needs to be notified.

I suppose if they continue with the oversize subsidy check and then then a check to the irs, that would fulfill their tax bill. Which is kinda what we said, they owe additional taxes.

It wasn't that they screwed up their withholding, they collected an overpayment on their insurance subsidy, and they must pay it back. Unless Obama let's them keep the hardworking taxpayer money.

"The Obama administration announced Friday that it would significantly scale back the health law?s requirements that new insurance marketplaces verify consumers? income and health insurance status.

Instead, the federal government will rely more heavily on consumers? self-reported information until 2015, when it plans to have stronger verification systems in place."

"Not only won't the federal government check to see if you're trying to defraud the taxpayer, they've told states they can relax the scrutiny as well:"

Mikek

--
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. 
http://www.avast.com

It's completely right. I explained it twice.

Most Americans now have to pay more, not only for their own coverage, but to pay for for others' coverages.

Yes, Obamacare mandates that colonoscopies be provided "free."

As a supporter you really should have known that. The next O-claim is that that saves money, which is also false.

No one forces me to buy a car--much less every year--and hand over all the details on my personal life in the bargain.

But to the point, in the middle of vehemently denying that Obamacare costs more you've just admitted it, and have switched to rationalizing.

Thanks, I actually got through.

Doctors are standing up to Obamacare and throwing all the government b.s. out the window--I love it. If they take cash they're immune from most of Obamacare's new hideous requirements, such as sharing patient records with the government.

Zero, I imagine. Good for them--there's no reason they should have to put up with Obamacare. Another Obamacare success.

I prefer the idea of paying cash per visit for ordinary care--no need to pass that through insurance companies plus Obamacare-bureaucrats. Just paying is sooo obviously cheaper, better and faster for everyone, plus then your doctor is working for you, not the government.

Math tells us that for every Medicaid person a doctor sees at 60% of his actual cost, he *has* to charge someone else more. Full stop.

On the contrary, it's not crap,and it's a direct result of Obamacare.

There are three new agencies in Obamacare that ration care, a.k.a. "Death Panels," e.g. the Medicare Independent Payments Advisory Board.

They're not gone.

You've just admitted insurance isn't "a free market with competition." Thank you.

No, you're depending on the Administration's false talking points. That's worse than nothing, it's falsity.

I've explained my points at every turn.

Obamacare compels coverage for lactation counseling I can't possibly use. The money I'd pay for that isn't insurance for me, that money is being used to cover the cost of someone else's services.

Previously if I bought insurance, it would be (approximately) to cover services *I* might possibly need. Now you have to pay for others'.

(E.g. How many colonoscopies will the average twenty-something need?)

And taking some of the price of providing insurance from certain people, and using it to purchase insurance for others.

It's a second-order subtlety most people won't understand.

*Insurance* is pooling a bunch of people with like risks, and charging the average cost of their risk (plus administration and profit). *Obamacare* charges you for other people's risks, risks you don't have and don't need protection from.

Which are now higher, as we've established. The 'Affordable' Care Act makes insurance cost more.

Cheers, James Arthur

Yes, I suppose you are right. I wasn't thinking this was a regular payment, but rather a one time thing. So that still doesn't translate into having to pay taxes. They recalculate their subsidy, end of story, no?

Not additional tax, they are giving back the money they took which they didn't deserve. In any event, they only have to write a check if they also reduced their withholding.

Bottom line is they have to screw up in order to owe the government any money. In fact, they have to screw up a couple of ways.

In the end they will have to deal with it. It is up to the consumer to be honest now, or be honest later or go to jail.

--

Rick

There is no point trying to reason with you any more than six years above your level. You constantly demonstrate your refusal to do your research, listen, or read, as James has so many times put you in your clueless place. All you are is a clueless lefty looking for a free lunch and whining, like the six year old you are, when you don't get your way. Typical of all lefties.

Don't expect Rick to ever get it. He's too far into the the left's free lunch program to ever see reality.

You keep saying that despite being constantly wrong. I'm dealing from actual knowledge, you're not.

As far as the benefit cliff, Medicaid has the most extreme examples (you get kicked off completely), but the exchanges have their perils too--here's a more moderate case:

Look out below! Work more, get less in Obamacare 'cliff'

Cheers, James Arthur

That pretty well explains it, doesn't it? It's compassion.

Only one million in the US can't get insurance due to a pre-existing condition. That's a pretty poor reason to spoil the soup for 315 million others.

IMNSHO on this, the solution is to pass less through insurance, not more. That's more efficient, drives competition, and makes it all cost less.

Cheers, James Arthur

And how do that 1 million get insurance?

BTW, before the ACA, how many in the US were not covered by insurance?

--

Rick

This is the part you are making up. Is that what you did? Do you know anyone who has done this?

But you keep making it up...

--

Rick

Google it.

If I did you'd approve, since Obamacare made it possible, right?

Yes, of course. It'll get more common as people get up to speed. People aren't stupid.

You snipped my link that showed you were wrong, and that I wasn't making it up.

You like Obamacare because you think you'll benefit and other people will pay. You don't care about anything else.

Fine. Why not just say that? No need to apologize for it or make excuses--it's a horrible design, but that's not your fault.

Cheers, James Arthur

Mike, the Obamacare subsidy cliff is a real danger, and it looks like you might be in the danger zone.

Here's a worked-out example of how a wife earning an extra $10,000 can lose a family $15,000 in subsidies:

I found that site just now and didn't check the math, but it looks reasonable and in line with other reports.

Note in the first graph that this particular cliff for a single person is at $47K; for a family of four, it's $95K.

Subsidies vary by state, therefore so does the cliff. It makes least sense to work in states where insurance is the most expensive, since those are the states where subsidies are largest.

Many people will figure out that under Obamacare it doesn't make sense for them to work harder, so they won't.

Cheers, James Arthur

I read the link and it talks about one little corner of the law where someone can get less subsidy by making more money. The part you are making up is that people will let that dictate how much money they will earn... really? This is the part where you have not found one case to support.

You talk about me liking the law because *I* will get something for nothing when you don't know shit about my situation. I can assure you that I won't qualify for any subsidies. This is another way that you don't know what you are talking about.

I've been paying into the insurance system for about 30 years costing the system very little. Then a very few years ago I found myself without a job and without insurance. I ramped up my company and found a Maryland mandated plan very similar to the ACA and had insurance again for a few years. My coworker left and I lost that coverage.... just as I was preparing to have surgery to replace my hip joint.

Now no one will insure me because I am an immediate liability. The only way I can get coverage is to rely on the ACA. But it's not that I was just waiting for someone to *give* me anything. I worked all my life and paid insurance for most of it. But because of the way insurance companies have run it, when I am ready to collect I can't get covered.

The bottom line is that so many people are getting wrapped around the axle over the new law just because they have adopted an attitude about it. There are a *lot* of facts about the law and you are very selective about the ones you bring to light.

Do you really think there is nothing good about the law? I personally feel it is a law that is just the beginning. Medical care is rationed in this country to those who can afford it. There are not enough people who can afford it because of the high cost of medical care. That is

*wrong*. The ACA is a first baby step to fixing the problem and there will be many more steps to come.

Don't expect things to stay the same because there are still lots of things broken and they are going to be fixed.

--

Rick

It's not a little corner. It's central.

You asked above if I knew anyone who was doing it and I said "Of course." Am I supposed to post their addresses?

There's no need for even that though--there are lots of stories already published on the web.

Do you really think people are that stupid? That they'll not add things up and make decisions in their own best interest? That's either awfully arrogant or awfully naive.

I was going on what you said. You said it was the only way you thought you could get insured. That implies an expensive pre-existing condition that you'd rather someone else paid for.

You could have simply saved up all that money all those years, and had plenty for a new hip. 30 years of ~$5-6k a year, plus investment returns.

These guys do a hip replacement for just waiting for someone to *give* me anything. I worked all my life

No, you already got what you paid for--you were insured all those years.

What you want now is *exactly* a handout. Sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, just accurate.

Unlike saving your own money, paying insurance premiums does *not* accrue or otherwise accumulate some sort of lasting obligation to your advantage.

It's a bet. You made a bet, a gamble, where the insurance company bet you wouldn't need it, and you bet that you might. The insurance company won that bet, and used the money to pay for people who needed care.

Naturally a few people benefit--that can scarcely be helped. With all the money being wasted, crumbs are going to fall on some lucky ones.

I think if the government just got the heck out of the business we could cut the cost in half, and that all the remaining problems would be enormously improved, more easily managed, and more easily solved.

After years of studying it there's no question whatever in my mind that the ACA is a giant leap increasing all that's wrong, making things worse.

Instead of reducing costs, it increases them. Instead of encouraging people to shop for value and providers and use care judiciously, it does the opposite. Instead of incentivizing providers to innovate better care, it simply caps their pay. Rather than challenging hospitals to do more for less, it simply pays them as if they were all the same.

It's awful, frankly.

Not by Obamacare.

Not only does its architecture simply not work, it's an appalling, anti-American ruination of our founding notions of liberty, privacy, and government for the People. Obamacare is central-control of the citizenry at a very basic, fundamental level.

Next April 15th I'm supposed to tell the IRS all my private business on the new 1040. I'm not going to.

Maybe once you get your new hip you can come visit me in prison.

Cheers, James Arthur

My attitude stems from the fact that 28 months ago I was paying $5,246 for a good policy covering "four" in my family. Today the cheapest ACA plan to cover "three" in my family is $13,800. Mikek

I'm more compassionate than that. It is a shame that someone can pay for many many years then lose there life savings because of some technicality, or losing a job. I like some of the things in Obamacare but not so much that I want to make such drastic upheaval in the entire system. I'm still not convinced we have more than 8 million covered under the ACA and less than 2 million of those are new insured. I think we need to cover preexisting conditions, and somehow cover those that can't work because of their condition. My dad had a heart attack at 43, he couldn't work, but the ins. premium kept increasing and money got very tight. It was a bad time. I certainly have a problem paying for someones insurance when they can afford a new car, a trip to the Bahamas, $3,000 worth of wheels and tires on their car, a smart phone, cable, eating out more than once a week. You get the point you need to take care of you own problems before I want to start. A working commercial marina has a lot of people hanging around living on the edge. Deck hands that live paycheck to a week before the next trip. Have nothing and pay nothing into the system, but they get covered any time they are hurt. Recently had a captain stab a deckhand, he spent

5 days in the hospital, (belly wound) the hospital will never get any money from the deck hand, he lives with a woman collecting benefits for her and her kids. The captain is wealthy, even more so since the BP spill, I don't know why the hospital can't go after him, but I haven't heard anything about it. I have always been vigilant about keeping insurance after seeing the bills my father racked up after a couple more heart attacks. I don't have any answers, but I think I'm glad I'm not 20 yrs old, knowing how much harder it will be to accumulate wealth in the future America. Mikek

I don't think it's compassionate to force everyone into a crappy system so that some entity can pay a hospital $150k (or whatever) in Rick's name, for an operation he could get from a free-market, no-government provider for $20K (linked above).

I don't think it's compassionate for the government to take people's hard-won capital and waste it for them--depriving them of the opportunity and security they could have had--in exchange for empty promises to make someone else pay for it later.

I don't think it's compassion to enable that system and expand it.

How could you have saved enough money to start your business if you'd been paying these new O-crap premiums all the years before? See what I mean?

To me it's compassionate to encourage people to use the guys I just cited, save a fortune, and pressure other providers to step up and do their operations for even less. THAT lowers everyone's cost. THAT makes it more affordable, more accessible for everyone.

I've got no problem helping the five or ten percent that really need it, and helping with the things they really need help on. Passing everything-- all their most trivial needs--through insurance and the government is simply a colossal, idiotic waste and inefficiency. Enabling and expanding that system is immoral.

I simply don't believe it's sixty, ninety, or one hundred percent that are hopeless, helpless, and need government help.

To a first approximation, health care could cost half. If we did that, many more people could afford it on their own, and taking care of those who couldn't would be tremendously easier as well.

But, you don't get there passing everything through third-party payers, "single-p(r)ayer" being the worst of all.

Rick could pay cash for less than the cost of four years' O-premiums, (maybe less than three after adding in Rick's deductible and co-pay).

THAT's the kind of thing that controls costs, improves care, and makes health care affordable. That's compassionate. Not O-care.

Cheers, James Arthur