Affordable Health Care Law

[ShotoJuku]

...They will be taxed....

Just curious.....How will the hoards of the roaming homeless, or anyone else for that matter who do not pay taxes at all, be taxed?

[sanantone]

Just curious.....How will the hoards of the roaming homeless, or anyone else for that matter who do not pay taxes at all, be taxed?

I'll pass that on to the resident HR professional, Mrs. B. :p

But, the poor shouldn't have to purchase health insurance because they now qualify for Medicaid. There are states, including my own unfortunately, that have refused to expand Medicaid.

[mrs.b]

I'll pass that on to the resident HR professional, Mrs. B. :p

But, the poor shouldn't have to purchase health insurance because they now qualify for Medicaid. There are states, including my own unfortunately, that have refused to expand Medicaid.

Wait, what? HR hat doesn't equate to tax expert! My non-expert assumption would be they won't, just like no one tracks them down and makes them report incoming earnings each April 15th for panhandling or under-the-table day labor jobs. ...But that's just my uneducated guess. So yeah, it does not appear that ACA will help that category of poor all that much, nor will it protect the rest of us from the impact of their unpaid emergency room medical bills.

I'm keeping my personal opinions of ACA to myself, mind. Just arguing the impact on me, personally, as a consumer, with a minor mention of explaining to my lovely group of worker-bees I've helped navigate the oh-so-murky waters of ACA.

[quasarvs]

They will be taxed. This was done so that people wouldn't put off buying insurance until they get really sick raising rates for everyone else. This was also done so that taxpayers wouldn't have to foot the bill when they go to the emergency room and don't pay.

If the government didn't own healthcare then there wouldn't be any problem of raised rates because of those who waited.
What about the freedom to choose, for the uninsured-who-don't-want-to-be-insured?

[sanantone]

Wait, what? HR hat doesn't equate to tax expert! My non-expert assumption would be they won't, just like no one tracks them down and makes them report incoming earnings each April 15th for panhandling or under-the-table day labor jobs. ...But that's just my uneducated guess. So yeah, it does not appear that ACA will help that category of poor all that much, nor will it protect the rest of us from the impact of their unpaid emergency room medical bills.

I'm keeping my personal opinions of ACA to myself, mind. Just arguing the impact on me, personally, as a consumer, with a minor mention of explaining to my lovely group of worker-bees I've helped navigate the oh-so-murky waters of ACA.

I figured you probably had to read a lot about the law and how people would be fined.

If the government didn't own healthcare then there wouldn't be any problem of raised rates because of those who waited.
What about the freedom to choose, for the uninsured-who-don't-want-to-be-insured?

But, it is still the law that these people have to receive treatment when they go to the emergency room. If they can't pay, taxpayers still cover the bill. People can still choose to be uninsured, but they will have to pay a fine just like you would if you chose not to wear a seat belt or purchase car insurance.

[quasarvs]

But, it is still the law that these people have to receive treatment when they go to the emergency room. If they can't pay, taxpayers still cover the bill.

Perhaps that is a corrupt law that should be repealed. The responsibility to pay should be on each person's own head even if it puts them in debt. That's just the right thing to do, and its fair.

People can still choose to be uninsured, but they will have to pay a fine just like you would if you chose not to wear a seat belt or purchase car insurance.

At least I don't have to pay to wear my seat belt. It costs me nothing to buckle up.

[sanantone]

Perhaps that is a corrupt law that should be repealed. The responsibility to pay should be on each person's own head even if it puts them in debt. That's just the right thing to do, and its fair.

It was signed into law by one of your heroes: Ronald Reagan.

At least I don't have to pay to wear my seat belt. It costs me nothing to buckle up.

But, you do have to pay for car insurance, and the seat belt adds to the cost of your vehicle. Car companies didn't always include seat belts.

[mrs.b]

I figured you probably had to read a lot about the law and how people would be fined.



But, it is still the law that these people have to receive treatment when they go to the emergency room. If they can't pay, taxpayers still cover the bill. People can still choose to be uninsured, but they will have to pay a fine just like you would if you chose not to wear a seat belt or purchase car insurance.

I've probably read more of the 906 page document than the lawmakers who voted it in, but I'll admit I've not read it word-for-word yet. That said, I've mentioned before I'm not an HR-focused worker; it's a tiny piece of my job - I'd say maybe 10% which is why I just call it an HR hat, not my job - but I earned an HR-focused BSBA (which only really differed from a regular BSBA by two classes) because it's the one piece of my job where you have to know enough to recognize when you're over your head and need help because gray areas are not obvious until you've stepped in them. Responsibilities like benefit design and policy compliance are thankfully managed by people in corporate who just do that, because I'd probably have changed careers if I had to deal with this law's nonsense on a daily basis.

Still, it was all over the news last year that the Supreme Court confirmed the penalty imposed by ACA is a tax. A couple months ago, the Treasury Dept confirmed the tax will be collected when filing income tax returns. ACA exempts people with low income where premiums exceed 8% of income after employer contribution and fed subsidy, people who do not need to file a tax return, or people of certain faiths.

I'd venture to say homeless make below the threshold requiring them to submit a tax return. No tax return = no penalty. No penalty = no obligation to get health care. No health care = the supposed protections against unpaid medical bills are moot.

In essence, at it's best I see ACA as a benign tumor; we know it is there but it does not harm us other than maybe being a bit unsightly or inconvenient sometimes. At it's worst, it's going to drain the already struggling lower-middle class that could not afford health care to begin, are now obligated to get it (though the fines are minimal this year, they increase exponentially year over year), and do not qualify for much assistance. There were and are better areas to focus government efforts and taxpayer monies that would have improved our healthcare system and availability of care, but as tends to be the case, our lawmakers look at options and select the most poorly-designed one and insist they've found the Holy Grail.

[sanantone]

Those too poor to pay a penalty probably already qualify for or have access to health insurance from Medicare, Medicaid, or the military (a lot of the homeless are veterans). Of course, some states refused to expand Medicaid like my state where 25% of the population is uninsured. My county as well as some others in Texas are upset by this because we spend so much money reimbursing hospitals for unpaid medical bills. From what I've read, individuals and families who make up to 400% of the poverty line will qualify for some sort of subsidy.

What is ironic is that Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, who opposes ACA, is using ACA as a chance to bump people off of Wisconsin's Medicaid. With the subsidies, most should expect a premium of about $19 a month. He says he's giving people a chance to empower themselves with what's supposed to be a "socialist" law. Apparently, it's less socialist than Medicaid, and it's giving Wisconsin a chance to save some money.

[mrs.b]

Those too poor to pay a penalty probably already qualify for or have access to health insurance from Medicare, Medicaid, or the military (a lot of the homeless are veterans).

True enough. One usually needs a stable address to receive letters of acceptance and cards to register and remain registered, though, which is difficult for the homeless.

With the subsidies, most should expect a premium of about $19 a month.

What income range is representing "most" here? Everyone I've heard from that was able to get into the system and run their own quotes are claiming quoted premiums in the $500+ per month range, with some considerably higher.