SCOTUS Day One.....

[physasst]

They are so not the same thing. I am not defending the plan you are talking about because I do not know enough about it, but to say a tax penalty for "disobedience" is the same as a tax credit for "obedience" is ridiculous. I'll just tell my kids that a spanking for disobedience is the same thing as getting a sucker for obedience- think that'll fly? If my 4 & 6 year olds can understand the difference then I am not understanding why the Tax Policy Center thinks we are too dumb. And not getting a credit is paying the SAME in taxes as you were before- it is not paying more.

 

They are the same thing...if you read more about Ryan's plan...from the article...

Of course, tax credits aren’t free. In effect, what Ryan’s plan does is raise taxes and/or cut services by the cost of his credit and then rebate the difference to everyone who signs up for health insurance. It’s essentially a roundabout version of the individual mandate, which directly taxes people who don’t buy health insurance in the first place.

 

So, it raises taxes, and then offers them back to you as a credit......Economically, it's the same dam thing. You'll pay MORE in taxes if you don't have health insurance. In fact, under Ryan's plan, you'll pay even more, especially as a credit is much easier to implement.

 

One of the hidden things with the ACA penalty that no one talks about, is that there is NO mechanism in place right now to enforce it.

 

One is an overt mandate...the ACA.....One is a covert mandate...Ryan's plan. You can try and spin them anyway you want, but a mandate is a mandate is a mandate....

[CAdamsPAC]

WHOA Nellie!!!!!!!!!!!!! Where is that big ole NO POLITICAL firewall?????????????

[Planteater]

From what I can see, Ryan's plan calls for cutting of services, not raising of taxes on individuals (maybe businesses??). I could be missing something though- it is pretty hard to sort the truth from the fiction on the internet these days. Again, I am not here to debate if either of the plans is good, but I still see a difference in the penalties and the credits. My family (of 4) currently lives below the poverty level (several layoffs and now DH is in nursing school while working as a CNA making the big bucks :heheh:). If we did not purchase health insurance, we would have to pay several hundred dollars that we do not have. Now I do realize you are looking at this from a different (bigger picture) perspective, but for individual families- there is a big difference in a penalty and a credit. At our income level, the credit is much nicer, and would do a lot more to motivate me to purchase insurance. FWIW- we are not freeloaders- we DO have health insurance, but we have family help and student loans that assist us temporarily.

[physasst]

there is a huge difference between a penalty and a tax credit, and you hit the nail on the head when you explained which would be better for your family.

 

No there isn't...not if you are paying higher taxes either way as a result.

 

Conversely, under Ryan’s plan, if you don’t buy insurance, you really don’t get the tax credit, and so you do, in effect, pay a large tax penalty compared to a world in which you did buy insurance — larger, in fact, than the penalty under the individual mandate.

 

You are looking at this from a philosophic point of view on taxation.....philosophy and ideology don't matter. Economically, the end result is the same, in fact...you will pay MORE for not having insurance under Ryan's plan.

 

BTW, you LOSE employer based coverage under Ryan. It severs it completely. So an individual gets a 2300 dollar tax credit (family is 5700) to buy insurance. I can tell you now, that the average per the Kaiser Family Foundation for a single individual is much higher than 2300..

 

Family plan premiums are $15,073 on average, while coverage for single employees is about $5,429.

 

 

Workers contributed an average of $921 toward the premium of single coverage and $4,129 for family plans.

 

SO this means, under the Ryan plan, your single insurance premium will cost you 2,208 MORE per year out of your own pocket at current cost. Family plans will cost you 5,244 MORE per year out of your own pocket.....

 

That's the repeal and replace plan folks.....That's what the House voted on and passed.....That's what Romney endorsed....THAT's the GOP plan...

 

It'll save businesses money, and it's great for corporate america......not so great for the average small family living on 40-45k per year combined income.

[68W2PA]

under the obama plan, my employer would probably sever insurance and pay the fine, so theres enough "either way its..... " to go around.

 

Why wouldn't they just keep providing employer-based insurance in line with what they already do? Why drop anything? Just out of stubborn spite?

Your comment doesn't make much sense to me.

[68W2PA]

it makes a lot of sense. its cheaper for employers to pay a 900 dollar a year penalty to the government than it is to have to offer health insurance that would cost 4k to employees. thats because obamacare has so many loaded requirements that force insurance to cover pet items, or else it doesnt qualify, and they are fined. its not a spite issue, its an employer cost issue. they are fine with chipping in for health insurance right now because its not a huge burdon, and its an employee perk. after the cost skyrockets due to the mandated procedures and items covered, then its something that soaks up more and more of their bottom line. its like the auto industry and legacy costs.

 

I still think your logic is off.

If it was just about saving money, they could just drop you now. Why wait? If they haven't dropped your coverage already, the likelihood they would because of "Obamacare" is dubious.

They could maybe argue that the costs are getting too high, but that is happening with or without the PPACA. Even if the costs did continue to rise (which they probably will regardless of the PPACA), wouldn't they be more likely to just charge the increases to the employee as a higher deduction from your paycheck? Then the employer wouldn't have to pay anything extra at all if they didn't want to.

 

Also, the rules regarding increased coverage and MLR percentages are economically offset by increased aggregate risk pool provided for by the individual mandate.