More Obamacare fuckups

[Thondalar]

Thanks. IRS, eh? Like they don't have enough to do. Wonder how much more that's going to cost to have them policing people who aren't interested. I'm guessing more than the penalties will bring in, but hey, that's government for you. Are the particulars of how they can tell who to fine er, um, "tax" in there? If so, that'll be good reading for me.

As far as I can tell, they will have extra paperwork for you to fill out with your tax returns. Here's another good read that's probably going to piss you off a bit, I know it did me...the IRS' budget for FY 2014:

http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget...FINAL%20v2.pdf

Almost 2,000 bureaucrats assigned to nothing but ACA enforcement. Sweet.

[Buckwheet]

Actually in respect to costs, I did say I felt like uninsured is what caused my bills to be so high. Now, I don't know.

I ruled out overweight people, smokers, and any other condition because my assumption is they are all covered moving forward so why would that reduce my costs. I assumed it was because people, who had nothing, would be now be paying "something" and that the number of uninsured/under insured is what is making up the difference.

I still don't know why it dropped as much as did, and the only reason I can come up with is that more people are paying in and so the ratio of payers to services paid has gone up.

[Wrathbringer]

As far as I can tell, they will have extra paperwork for you to fill out with your tax returns. Here's another good read that's probably going to piss you off a bit, I know it did me...the IRS' budget for FY 2014:

http://www.treasury.gov/about/budget...FINAL%20v2.pdf

Almost 2,000 bureaucrats assigned to nothing but ACA enforcement. Sweet.

Ah, and there it is. I'm sure they're all minimum wage workers, too... Thanks for the links, in the middle of the first one now.

[Tgo01]

I don't think anyone is saying that's the reason for our healthcare mess. The uninsured are a component of cost but it's not breaking us.

Now you're being disingenuous.

And again, ACA is not because the uninsured are driving our country to bankruptcy. You're just projecting here.

Still being disingenuous.

The reason you get pushback on this is probably because the GOP is the party that should be FOR making sure people are insured with private insurers. The Dem's should be pushing socialized medicine.

Ironic isn't it?

What you're describing is what Obama and his mouthpieces have said all along. It's why the individual mandate is important and this has been a stated reason all along. We need as many healthy people paying into this system as possible to balance the effect of insuring the previously uninsurable.

And how was this phrased? Was it phrased by stating that, or was it phrased with fear and hyperbole like my previous broken leg statement? Come on man, you know it's the latter, just stop.

I thought you were the one writing all the posts about how the people ACA is targeting aren't going to pay their deductibles anyway. You've written a lot on here about how ACA sucks because most people go bankrupt for relatively small medical expenses. Can't have it both ways.

A) I never said all people Obamacare is targeting aren't going to pay their bills. B) How is what you just said having it both ways? People (SOME!) still aren't going to pay their bills and people are still going to file for bankruptcy for relatively small medical expenses. How are those two mutually exclusive?

[cwolff]

Now you're being disingenuous.

You're just overly sensitive to the argument against being uninsured. There's no ifs, ands, or buts. We're all better off with more people insured. It's as simple as that.

Ironic isn't it?

Ya it is ironic. The party that should love the individual mandate is the party that's opposed to it. It makes no sense logically but that's only because it's a political maneuver. In the context of elections it makes perfect sense and just goes back to my theory that the GOP is so fucking whacked right now because Obama's stealing their thunder on middle of the road conservative issues.

And how was this phrased? Was it phrased by stating that, or was it phrased with fear and hyperbole like my previous broken leg statement? Come on man, you know it's the latter, just stop.

I've known this all along. Why didn't you? As for the suggestion that politicians can be hyperbolic....well no shit. I've known that forever too.

A) I never said all people Obamacare is targeting aren't going to pay their bills. B) How is what you just said having it both ways? People (SOME!) still aren't going to pay their bills and people are still going to file for bankruptcy for relatively small medical expenses. How are those two mutually exclusive?

Before you said that ACA is useless because people aren't going to pay their bills. Now you're saying that even the uninsured makes efforts to pay their bills. Depending on which side you're arguing on a day to day basis you flip flop.

[cwolff]

See the bolded portion. If these previously uninsurable are now insurable and able to cover their "affordable" premiums now, then why do we need the mandate again?

You're trying to make a connection here that doesn't exist. If your tortured reasoning were sound we'd never have seen states develop laws about financial responsibility. Everyone would just be responsible because it's the right thing to do.

[Thondalar]

You're trying to make a connection here that doesn't exist. If your tortured reasoning were sound we'd never have seen states develop laws about financial responsibility. Everyone would just be responsible because it's the right thing to do.

So by this logic, the only thing that keeps you from stealing my car is that you're afraid of going to jail.

[Buckwheet]

So by this logic, the only thing that keeps you from stealing my car is that you're afraid of going to jail.

That and if you were around you might have a gun and stop me. But if there is no jail and there is no you or a gun, hell yeah I would be stealing cars. It would be a victimless crime, because your insurance would just pay you back.

[Wrathbringer]

You're trying to make a connection here that doesn't exist. If your tortured reasoning were sound we'd never have seen states develop laws about financial responsibility. Everyone would just be responsible because it's the right thing to do.

Oh, it exists. If previously uninsured people can now be covered and "afford" their insurance, who am I being forced to subsidize? You said this was the reason for the mandate. Is it not now? Since when is touting individual liberties tortured reasoning?

[Wrathbringer]

That and if you were around you might have a gun and stop me. But if there is no jail and there is no you or a gun, hell yeah I would be stealing cars. It would be a victimless crime, because your insurance would just pay you back.

So then we agree that if everyone has a gun we don't need government. Glad that's settled.