(05-26-2016 07:44 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  Everyone's situation is different, but I see many who are pissed about how much they pay for insurance now, why not go off of it and pay the penalty instead?

Actually that is good advice. As a pure economic decision, it makes perfect sense. If/when they get seriously ill at a later date, they can not be denied insurance.

(05-26-2016 07:44 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  Everyone's situation is different, but I see many who are pissed about how much they pay for insurance now, why not go off of it and pay the penalty instead?

That's what a lot of people are doing, especially younger folks.

(05-26-2016 07:48 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:44 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  Everyone's situation is different, but I see many who are pissed about how much they pay for insurance now, why not go off of it and pay the penalty instead?

Actually that is good advice. As a pure economic decision, it makes perfect sense. If/when they get seriously ill at a later date, they can not be denied insurance.

Can't be denied at the next open enrollment. Any medical expenses incurred outside of that is on the uninsured.

I'm playing that game right now.

(05-26-2016 07:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:48 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:44 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  Everyone's situation is different, but I see many who are pissed about how much they pay for insurance now, why not go off of it and pay the penalty instead?

Actually that is good advice. As a pure economic decision, it makes perfect sense. If/when they get seriously ill at a later date, they can not be denied insurance.

Can't be denied at the next open enrollment. Any medical expenses incurred outside of that is on the uninsured.

I'm playing that game right now.

In a world where one pill can run 75,000 us (although it might be 50 bucks in Canada), that's a real risk if you have any assets

(05-26-2016 08:29 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:48 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:44 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  Everyone's situation is different, but I see many who are pissed about how much they pay for insurance now, why not go off of it and pay the penalty instead?

Actually that is good advice. As a pure economic decision, it makes perfect sense. If/when they get seriously ill at a later date, they can not be denied insurance.

Can't be denied at the next open enrollment. Any medical expenses incurred outside of that is on the uninsured.

I'm playing that game right now.

In a world where one pill can run 75,000 us (although it might be 50 bucks in Canada), that's a real risk if you have any assets

I agree but also depends on age, place in life, etc. If I was 20 years old no kids, no wife, I'd just pay the damn tax if I didn't have insurance through my employer.

(05-26-2016 08:44 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 08:29 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:48 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:44 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  Everyone's situation is different, but I see many who are pissed about how much they pay for insurance now, why not go off of it and pay the penalty instead?

Actually that is good advice. As a pure economic decision, it makes perfect sense. If/when they get seriously ill at a later date, they can not be denied insurance.

Can't be denied at the next open enrollment. Any medical expenses incurred outside of that is on the uninsured.

I'm playing that game right now.

In a world where one pill can run 75,000 us (although it might be 50 bucks in Canada), that's a real risk if you have any assets

I agree but also depends on age, place in life, etc. If I was 20 years old no kids, no wife, I'd just pay the damn tax if I didn't have insurance through my employer.

It's not a tax.

(05-26-2016 08:47 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 08:44 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 08:29 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:48 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Actually that is good advice. As a pure economic decision, it makes perfect sense. If/when they get seriously ill at a later date, they can not be denied insurance.

Can't be denied at the next open enrollment. Any medical expenses incurred outside of that is on the uninsured.

I'm playing that game right now.

In a world where one pill can run 75,000 us (although it might be 50 bucks in Canada), that's a real risk if you have any assets

I agree but also depends on age, place in life, etc. If I was 20 years old no kids, no wife, I'd just pay the damn tax if I didn't have insurance through my employer.

It's not a tax.

lol, yeah, another Obama marketing lie.

(05-26-2016 08:47 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 08:44 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 08:29 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:48 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  Actually that is good advice. As a pure economic decision, it makes perfect sense. If/when they get seriously ill at a later date, they can not be denied insurance.

Can't be denied at the next open enrollment. Any medical expenses incurred outside of that is on the uninsured.

I'm playing that game right now.

In a world where one pill can run 75,000 us (although it might be 50 bucks in Canada), that's a real risk if you have any assets

I agree but also depends on age, place in life, etc. If I was 20 years old no kids, no wife, I'd just pay the damn tax if I didn't have insurance through my employer.

It's not a tax.

It's not. It's a penalty.

(05-26-2016 08:29 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  In a world where one pill can run 75,000 us (although it might be 50 bucks in Canada), that's a real risk if you have any assets

Why must you consistently rely on overwrought hyperbole.

There are no drugs that cost $75,000 a pill. And many of the most expensive drugs aren't available in Canada as their health service doesn't cover them.

However it is true that many commonly prescribed drugs are cheaper in Canada and the savings can be significant but nothing like what you suggest. If you have any insurance with a drug benefit, you are going to be better off buying at your friendly local pharmacy. If you don't have insurance, you might be wise to check on Canada availability.

But if your 2 year old has an ear infection tonight, are you going to go to the local pharmacy and get the antibiotic right now, or make her wait a couple of days for it to ship to you?

By the way, it is illegal to import drugs bought in Canada.

(05-26-2016 09:18 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 08:47 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  It's not a tax.

It's not. It's a penalty.

(05-26-2016 09:29 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:18 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 08:47 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  It's not a tax.

It's not. It's a penalty.

A penalty is a punishment for breaking a rule or law.

A tax is something you pay because you are following the rules.

Two very different things.

(05-26-2016 09:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:29 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:18 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 08:47 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  It's not a tax.

It's not. It's a penalty.

A penalty is a punishment for breaking a rule or law.

A tax is something you pay because you are following the rules.

Two very different things.

So you are telling me that you know more than Justice Roberts from the Supreme Court?

Quote:“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

Here's some AVERAGE announced increases on the exchanges:

Georgia 65.2%
Penn 38%
Oregon 29%

Link

(05-26-2016 09:49 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:29 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:18 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 08:47 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  It's not a tax.

It's not. It's a penalty.

A penalty is a punishment for breaking a rule or law.

A tax is something you pay because you are following the rules.

Two very different things.

So you are telling me that you know more than Justice Roberts from the Supreme Court?

Quote:“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

Looks like he agrees with me.

(05-26-2016 09:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:49 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:29 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:18 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  It's not. It's a penalty.

A penalty is a punishment for breaking a rule or law.

A tax is something you pay because you are following the rules.

Two very different things.

So you are telling me that you know more than Justice Roberts from the Supreme Court?

Quote:“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penaltyfor not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax . Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

Looks like he agrees with me.

here fitbutt, I fixed it for you. And he doesnt agree with you, you disagree with him.

(05-26-2016 10:02 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:49 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:29 AM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

A penalty is a punishment for breaking a rule or law.

A tax is something you pay because you are following the rules.

Two very different things.

So you are telling me that you know more than Justice Roberts from the Supreme Court?

Quote:“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penaltyfor not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax . Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

Looks like he agrees with me.

here fitbutt, I fixed it for you. And he doesnt agree with you, you disagree with him.

I like how the quote he posted directly calls it a tax yet he neglected to bold that particular part.

(05-26-2016 10:12 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:02 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:49 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:35 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  A penalty is a punishment for breaking a rule or law.

A tax is something you pay because you are following the rules.

Two very different things.

So you are telling me that you know more than Justice Roberts from the Supreme Court?

Quote:“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penaltyfor not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax . Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

Looks like he agrees with me.

here fitbutt, I fixed it for you. And he doesnt agree with you, you disagree with him.

I like how the quote he posted directly calls it a tax yet he neglected to bold that particular part.

the quote doesn't call it a tax it calls it a penalty.

He says it can be characterizes as a tax but calls it a financial penalty.

Thanks for proving my point.

(05-26-2016 08:29 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:58 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:48 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 07:44 AM)boroeagle2 Wrote:  Everyone's situation is different, but I see many who are pissed about how much they pay for insurance now, why not go off of it and pay the penalty instead?

Actually that is good advice. As a pure economic decision, it makes perfect sense. If/when they get seriously ill at a later date, they can not be denied insurance.

Can't be denied at the next open enrollment. Any medical expenses incurred outside of that is on the uninsured.

I'm playing that game right now.

In a world where one pill can run 75,000 us (although it might be 50 bucks in Canada), that's a real risk if you have any assets

the 75,000$ pill (it was for 100 pills by the way) was not a US medical problem is was a US patent problem. We see similar abuses across industires and they do need to be addressed.

"Martin Shkreli, founder and CEO of Turing Pharmaceuticals, recently purchased the U.S. rights to Daraprim, which was developed in 1953 and is one of the main drugs used to treat toxoplasmos"

By no means should *anyone* be able to own the formula for a pill designed during the Korean War.

(05-26-2016 10:27 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:12 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:02 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:49 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  So you are telling me that you know more than Justice Roberts from the Supreme Court?

Looks like he agrees with me.

here fitbutt, I fixed it for you. And he doesnt agree with you, you disagree with him.

I like how the quote he posted directly calls it a tax yet he neglected to bold that particular part.

the quote doesn't call it a tax it calls it a penalty.

He says it can be characterizes as a tax but calls it a financial penalty.

Thanks for proving my point.

your post is full of fail fitbutt...



but good try!

(05-26-2016 10:27 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:12 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 10:02 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:51 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 09:49 AM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  So you are telling me that you know more than Justice Roberts from the Supreme Court?

Looks like he agrees with me.

here fitbutt, I fixed it for you. And he doesnt agree with you, you disagree with him.

I like how the quote he posted directly calls it a tax yet he neglected to bold that particular part.

the quote doesn't call it a tax it calls it a penalty.

He says it can be characterizes as a tax but calls it a financial penalty.

Thanks for proving my point.

You couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.

The ONLY way Roberts could justify the 'penalty' using the Constitution was to call it a TAX. The basis for the legality of the 'penalty' is that it is in fact a TAX.