Tax time and the ACA (Obamacare)

[Strictly Street]

As of now the IRS has no authority to garnish wages, put a lein on your house or demand payment for the "Shared Responsibility Tax" or as others call it the the Obamacare penalty tax. We are told that they will do nothing if you owe this but pay the rest of your taxes. For now the IRS will take or deduct it from what once was your yearly tax refund. At least that is what we have been told. (Does anyone really think that it will stay this way?)

 

In any case as a matter of civil disobedience or protest regarding the law as it is now you can try to calculate your withholding tax to make it zero out and then not pay the  "Shared Responsibility Tax" leaving the IRS with no option to collect it. (Again does anyone really think that it will stay this way?)

 

 

The IRS has provided a handy calculator for individuals to do just that.

 

http://apps.irs.gov/app/withholdingcalculator/index.jsp

 

If your a business and pay quarterly your already paying so it is too late to plan your already in the thick of it.

Try it with a different number of dependents and see how it comes out. You'll be surprised at your vanishing refund.

 

This post is not to advocate evasion of taxes rather it is to provide an intellectual exercise of "What if".

Edited March 22, 2014 by Strictly Street

[smccrory]

The best way to protest is to say "to heck with health insurance" so that you're not covered in an accident or emergent health issue and then make sure the penalty/tax/whatever isn't paid?  Well, I have to credit a person for their commitment to their cause... I guess...  Though I'll have to pay for their emergency care as a tax payer and insurance participant, so thanks for nothing.

Edited March 22, 2014 by smccrory

[OsuMj]

... Though I'll have to pay for their emergency care as a tax payer and insurance participant, so thanks for nothing.

Isn't that how its always been anyway? 

[Bakemono]

Isn't that how its always been anyway? 

Pretty much...LOL.  

[magley64]

What if you really don't need it and really don't want it?

[Strictly Street]

The best way to protest is to say "to heck with health insurance" so that you're not covered in an accident or emergent health issue and then make sure the penalty/tax/whatever isn't paid?  Well, I have to credit a person for their commitment to their cause... I guess...  Though I'll have to pay for their emergency care as a tax payer and insurance participant, so thanks for nothing.

 

You've been doing that for years already. That is how Hospitals dealt with emergency room visits that went unpaid, through tax credits. In turn they admitted everyone. A novel idea might be to just pay the bill yourself for an emergency room visit.

 

But if you don't need it and don't want it and don't want to pay for it at the end of the year because you didn't pay for it, why pay for it?

Or to put it another way, if you think the law sucks, and enough other people think it sucks too and none of you pay, the law will collapse under it's own weight. Then they will have to come up with a better law or criminalize non-payment and foreclose on your house, take your car, pets  etc and/or build a lot of new jails. Then you could get coverage for free because you are now homeless or in jail. Or maybe they will just attach your paycheck to make it a de-facto single payer system.

 

Remember the intent of the law is to get the healthy people to pay for the sick ones. That's why they need x number of people to sign up in the first place to make it self sustaining.

 

Or you could write a letter to your Senator knowing that will surely get their attention and your concerns will be addressed.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Strictly Street

[Bakemono]

A novel idea might be to just pay the bill yourself for an emergency room visit.

 

That would be great providing that everyone who doesnt pay does so simply because they dont want to.  Oftentimes, its not as simply as just paying the bill.  Sometimes people simply dont have the money to afford the health care that they need and refusing them care would basically be a death sentence.  Its easy to say, "oh well, thats their problem" when you look at it from a numbers standpoint, its not so easy when its a kid or someone that YOU love.

The issue that I really have with the whole thing is that medicine is so expensive, yet drug companies clearly have more than enough money to advertise all the time (why they should even be allowed to do so is a whole different issue), so clearly they are doing pretty well.

As is usually the case, those who foot the bill arent the rich guys, its the middle class and the poor.  Thats to be expected though when the rich guys are the ones running the show.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Bakemono

[Strictly Street]

That would be great providing that everyone who doesnt pay does so simply because they dont want to.  Oftentimes, its not as simply as just paying the bill.  Sometimes people simply dont have the money to afford the health care that they need and refusing them care would basically be a death sentence. 

 

Very true. Under the old system nobody got refused treatment. Under the new system nobody will get refused either. Both systems generate a bill for the patient. No real change there. Unpaid bills get paid by the taxpayers in both cases. The only difference is the perception of who is paying. In the end it is still the taxpayers. Putting the poor on free Medicaid is still being paid by the taxpayers. Subsidies are still being paid by the taxpayers. In short you have been paying for it and you will continue to pay for it. Nothing has really changed except your perception of who is paying and how much you will pay.

 

The issue that I really have with the whole thing is that medicine is so expensive, yet drug companies clearly have more than enough money to advertise all the time (why they should even be allowed to do so is a whole different issue), so clearly they are doing pretty well.

 

 

Amen to that. How many time have you seen a prime-time ad on TV for a drug that you can't even figure out what it's supposed to be for? Or seen of or heard of a bill that seemed ridiculously expensive for basic services. The real problems are that 1.) Health Care in the USA costs too much. 2.) Politicians are bought by lobbyists who represent the Health Care Industry and not you the consumer.

 

As is usually the case, those who foot the bill arent the rich guys, its the middle class and the poor.  Thats to be expected though when the rich guys are the ones running the show.

 

 

Be careful not to fall for the class envy argument. Blaming everything on "The Rich Guys" isn't really fair because you lump "them" all into one category. In fact there are some on your side and some that aren't. Once you buy into an argument like that you are quickly diverted into other false trails and wind up loosing sight of the real argument. Which is or should be 1.) Health Care in the USA costs too much. 2.) Politicians are bought by lobbyists who represent the Health Care Industry and not you the consumer. "Rich Guys" need health care too, they can afford it though unlike others.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Strictly Street

[bloodninja420]

The issue that I really have with the whole thing is that medicine is so expensive, yet drug companies clearly have more than enough money to advertise all the time (why they should even be allowed to do so is a whole different issue), so clearly they are doing pretty well.

 

Pharma gets a bad rap from the hoi polloi.  It is about the toughest business imaginable to succeed in, and their margins are just not that big.  The info is out there -- a quick google of the first 3 the came to mind show profit margins around the 15% range.  And for every Merck of the world, there have been 50 upstarts that didnt make it..

 

If the US squeeze the big drug makers more (as they do in the EU, who are basically being subsidized by US consumers, but thats another topic) it's just less incentive for them to invest in new drug discovery.  It takes $750M+ to bring the average drug to market, so they need to recoup that in addition to the sunk costs of R&D that didnt yeild results. 

 

Sorry for the semi-rant, I just hate the idea of throwing more roadblocks in front of Pharma.  In terms of quality of life and the medical breakthroughs that have really made a difference over the last 100 years-- it's been Phama who has delivered the goods.  Not your neighborhood GP for cardio surgeon, whose reputations in the public eye are golden compared to the scary drug-makers...

 

Merck

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AMRK&fstype=ii&ei=Kx0vU5jjBoWkqgH1mwE

 

Glaxo

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AGSK&fstype=ii&ei=Kh4vU8DYIYyxqAGefQ

 

Bristol Myers

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ABMY&fstype=ii&ei=Tx4vU5CmN8ibrAH-Ag

Edited March 23, 2014 by bloodninja420

[Tonik]

 (as they do in the EU, who are basically being subsidized by US consumers, but thats another topic)

 

No, it's not another topic. It directly impacts what all of us are paying for insurance in the US. And how much more we have to fund Medicare and how much more we have to subsidize people on the health exchange. It is very much on topic as is the private meetings Obama had with the drug companies at the White House just prior to the start of the ACA legislation. Those private meetings lead to Obama saying right at the beginning that drug costs were off the table for the ACA. I want to know why the Dems were so hard on drug costs prior to Obama taking office but since then they have not said a fucking word. Not one word.

 

And that is the biggest hole in the ACA. It addresses people getting insurance but it does nothing to address costs. And thus is doomed to fail.

 

I do however agree with your assertion that drug company profit margins are not out of line.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Tonik

[Bakemono]

Pharma gets a bad rap from the hoi polloi.  It is about the toughest business imaginable to succeed in, and their margins are just not that big.  The info is out there -- a quick google of the first 3 the came to mind show profit margins around the 15% range.  And for every Merck of the world, there have been 50 upstarts that didnt make it..

 

If the US squeeze the big drug makers more (as they do in the EU, who are basically being subsidized by US consumers, but thats another topic) it's just less incentive for them to invest in new drug discovery.  It takes $750M+ to bring the average drug to market, so they need to recoup that in addition to the sunk costs of R&D that didnt yeild results. 

 

Sorry for the semi-rant, I just hate the idea of throwing more roadblocks in front of Pharma.  In terms of quality of life and the medical breakthroughs that have really made a difference over the last 100 years-- it's been Phama who has delivered the goods.  Not your neighborhood GP for cardio surgeon, whose reputations in the public eye are golden compared to the scary drug-makers...

 

Merck

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AMRK&fstype=ii&ei=Kx0vU5jjBoWkqgH1mwE

 

Glaxo

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AGSK&fstype=ii&ei=Kh4vU8DYIYyxqAGefQ

 

Bristol Myers

http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3ABMY&fstype=ii&ei=Tx4vU5CmN8ibrAH-Ag

My issue is why do they advertise at all?  Doctors are supposed to keep up to date on what new drugs are coming out.  They dont advertise for the doctors, they advertise for Joe Blow who sees an ad for a drug on TV and then goes to his doctor and asks for it.  What medcine a person takes should be the doctor's decision, so they shouldnt even advertise at all.

Sorry but Im not ready for throw the drug companies a pity party.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Bakemono

[Bakemono]

No, it's not another topic. It directly impacts what all of us are paying for insurance in the US. And how much more we have to fund Medicare and how much more we have to subsidize people on the health exchange. It is very much on topic as is the private meetings Obama had with the drug companies at the White House just prior to the start of the ACA legislation. Those private meetings lead to Obama saying right at the beginning that drug costs were off the table for the ACA. I want to know why the Dems were so hard on drug costs prior to Obama taking office but since then they have not said a fucking word. Not one word.

 

And that is the biggest hole in the ACA. It addresses people getting insurance but it does nothing to address costs. And thus is doomed to fail.

 

I do however agree with your assertion that drug company profit margins are not out of line.

Well, perhaps if the Repubs had come up with some constructive ideas, instead of just saying it wouldnt work, we could come up with something better.  ACA isnt a perfect system and will be tweaked over time.  Saying that its doomed to fail and just wanting to scrap it isnt a helpful mindset though.  Sadly, thats the state of the Republican party today though.  They are the party of no and say everything is going to fail, yet they have no real ideas on how we can move forward and make things better.

[smccrory]

Well, perhaps if the Repubs had come up with some constructive ideas, instead of just saying it wouldnt work, we could come up with something better. ACA isnt a perfect system and will be tweaked over time. Saying that its doomed to fail and just wanting to scrap it isnt a helpful mindset though. Sadly, thats the state of the Republican party today though. They are the party of no and say everything is going to fail, yet they have no real ideas on how we can move forward and make things better.

You're not wrong, but the repubs would likely have negotiated with pharma as well. Remember that corporations are people too, and small business fuels the economy.

[Tonik]

Well, perhaps if the Repubs had come up with some constructive ideas, instead of just saying it wouldnt work, we could come up with something better.  ACA isnt a perfect system and will be tweaked over time.  Saying that its doomed to fail and just wanting to scrap it isnt a helpful mindset though.  Sadly, thats the state of the Republican party today though.  They are the party of no and say everything is going to fail, yet they have no real ideas on how we can move forward and make things better.

 

LOL, the failures of the ACA is the Repubs fault. That is rich, even by OR standards.

[Bakemono]

LOL, the failures of the ACA is the Repubs fault. That is rich, even by OR standards.

Never said that.  Im saying that they had a chance to comment and contribute they had nothing to say, other than that it would never work. 

Edited March 23, 2014 by Bakemono

[Tonik]

Never said that.  Im saying that they had a chance to comment and contribute they had nothing to say, other than that it would never work. 

 

Oh, in that case then you are wrong. The offered and got passed plenty of reasonably good amendments.

 

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/hcr_amendments/

 

http://www.americasfairhealthcare.org/blog/entry/fact-check-how-the-health-care-law-was-made/

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html

[smccrory]

Tonic I'm impressed you found those and it does blunt some of my disdain about the GOP being actively disengaged with the ACA.  It doesn't help my faith that working together would have made a better law though, so, um, thanks for that.

[Tonik]

Tonic I'm impressed you found those and it does blunt some of my disdain about the GOP being actively disengaged with the ACA.  It doesn't help my faith that working together would have made a better law though, so, um, thanks for that.

 

And now you start understand my extreme hatred for both parties. Why I insist they are the same and that voting for either of them is like voting for the other.  The R's also have repeatedly offered legislation to allow drug re importation...so we can buy the same drugs back from Canada far cheaper than here. It's pretty f'd up man. I can't find the article, but I remember something about Bohner calling Obama early on in the ACA and being told 'We got this'. But I cant find it.

 

I pick more on Obama and the Dem's right now because they are in power, but I will continue my attacks should that ever change.

[smccrory]

Save some for the news industry as well.

[Bad324]

Tonic I'm impressed you found those and it does blunt some of my disdain about the GOP being actively disengaged with the ACA. It doesn't help my faith that working together would have made a better law though, so, um, thanks for that.

I finally agree with you on something. There is only ONE thing that could have made this all better and it was for the government to stay the hell out of health care

[Tonik]

Save some for the news industry as well.

 

You are absolutely right. If they were telling what was really going on in DC there would be riots in the streets. The lib media won't talk about what the R's contributed because it doesn't fit with their party of No bullshit. And they won't talk about reimporting drugs which was a hot topic when W was president because that would make the Dems in the Senate the party of No.  And Fox and Limbaugh won't talk about all the amendments the R's did get through because that kills the story that the R's are trying to save us from the ACA.

 

It's F'd up man, really f'd up. I might move to Crimea.

[Bakemono]

Oh, in that case then you are wrong. The offered and got passed plenty of reasonably good amendments.

 

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/hcr_amendments/

 

http://www.americasfairhealthcare.org/blog/entry/fact-check-how-the-health-care-law-was-made/

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html

Id love to accept that information if it were from some more credible sources.  Next thing you know, you will be quoting Americans For Prosperity. 

[Tonik]

Id love to accept that information if it were from some more credible sources.  Next thing you know, you will be quoting Americans For Prosperity. 

 

Can't wait to see your excuse for this source.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas

[Tonik]

Interesting, I didn't know the cover children to 26 was a Republican idea.

[bloodninja420]

Republicans should get zero credit for any kind of leadership or vision on the healthcare issue.  In the run-up to ACA, they had no coheasive and principled ideas, and their messaging was beyond poor and disjointed.  The stuff you're linking to Tonik amounts to a bunch of one-off patches that pander to various constituencies. 

 

I would have loved to see Republicans advancing a healthcare platform that included just a few simple concepts:

 

- Catastrophic coverage provided persons below a certain (very low) income threshold.

- Removal of the distortionary tax-advantage of employer-provided insurance, or at least give parity to private individual plans.

- Remove the barriers that are currently preventing the creation of a market for private, cradle-to-grave, catistrophic insurance coverage for individuals. 

 

These 3 simple things would have done more to both control costs (by making them more transparent to the consumer) and increase coverage (by covering the poors and eliminating situations where people fall through the cracks between employment) than the ACA, which is a ridiculous super-structure imposed on an already broken system.  The above-stuff seems completely in line with the free-market ideas Repubs give lip-service to, but Repubs simply couldnt make a coherent arguement when it mattered.