Obamacare is
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
itsbob
I bowl overhand
So, how much money did you get back??
I guess our Psychologial Operations people are right about propaganda..
Toxick
Splat
Well - now that you put it like that, I'm totally convinced. The logic here is undeniable.
Chris0nllyn
Well-Known Member
I know one thing, I just got hammered in more taxes.
Apparently, the IRS considers employer contributions to your domestic partner's healthcare an "income", and thus subject to state and federal taxes.
Apparently, the IRS considers employer contributions to your domestic partner's healthcare an "income", and thus subject to state and federal taxes.
bcp
In My Opinion
80% or you get a refund?
this just proves that someone has no clue how insurance works.
or maybe they do...
this is going to break private companies, there will be no way to maintain any level of profit by giving back refunds like that.
then, you can just go on the government plan along with the leaches of society.
this just proves that someone has no clue how insurance works.
or maybe they do...
this is going to break private companies, there will be no way to maintain any level of profit by giving back refunds like that.
then, you can just go on the government plan along with the leaches of society.
C
czygvtwkr
Guest
So if I dont go to the dr at all in a year I get it all back?
PsyOps
Pixelated
PsyOps
Pixelated
So, I'm going to root through the massive monstrosity, but where does this rebate actually go… directly to the policy holder, or to the government to be refunded back to the policy holder. If it’s the latter, I guarantee you will only see a portion of it. The rest will go into a coffer to be blown on pet projects and such.
It will be just like social security, money TAKEN from you, intended to be there for YOU, but squandered on other things.
It will be just like social security, money TAKEN from you, intended to be there for YOU, but squandered on other things.
C
czygvtwkr
Guest
Yeah... now WAKE UP!
But boy said!
Tilted
..
This provision of the PPACA was one that was supposed to go into effect fairly quickly, before much of the rest of the legislation was set to go into effect. It may have been delayed some, I don't recall clearly; but it is in effect as of now.
This provision is in Section 2718 of the Public Health Service Act (42 USC § 300gg–18), which was added by Section 1001 of the PPACA. I'm not familiar with the regulations that were put in place to implement this provision of the law, but the rebates ostensibly go to the enrollees (See 42 USC § 300gg–18(b)(1)(A)). They may have set up some system where a government agency somehow facilitates the issuance of the rebates though.
As a side note regarding Social Security, it was intended to take money from you (as a current income earner) to be used to provide benefits to current beneficiaries with whatever extra that might be collected during a given time period being required to be loaned to the general fund (and thus used either for general spending, to decrease the amount that needed to be borrowed from the public to cover general spending, or to increase the current surplus (ha!)). That's how it was set up to work, pretty much from the very beginning.
Tilted
..
This provision of the PPACA is problematic in a number of ways. In the end, it will function to decrease competition in respective insurance markets and for respective plan types and, like other parts of the PPACA, it will tend to consolidate the health care coverage market into the hands of fewer, larger, providers.
PsyOps
Pixelated
'A government agency'. The IRS perhaps? Or one that doesn't exist yet? Through mandate by the government, no private company is going to provide 'rebates' back to customers when they are forced to, of their own volition. To put it another way, the government is not going to trust that this will happen. The government will CONTROL and manage this. Like everything else within this law, it will be a massive accounting undertaking. Who is going to keep track of what is spent and what is not spent and ensure these 'rebates' are properly returned to the customer?
PsyOps
Pixelated
i.e. Single payer!
Tilted
..
I would guess that administrative authority for this particular provision, as is the case with many provisions of the PPACA, is delegated to the Department of Health and Human Services. I'd have to check to confirm that that's the case here though. Let me know if you're curious enough and I'll do some digging when I get a chance.
And certainly, regardless of whether the agency in question is playing an active role in distributing rebates, it or some agency has enforcement authority such that it could effectuate compliance or punish those that don't comply. It's like so much of law, there are potential consequences for disobeying it even if compliance is originally mostly left to the private parties themselves.
PsyOps
Pixelated
You do enough for folks on here. No need to dig. It is what it is. My thought would be that the only way the government can ensure rebates were paid out is if they were paid to the government then 'redistributed' to the customer. And since the IRS is handling the mandates (penalties), why wouldn't they handle this? So, this would essentially be another tax; in a manner of speaking. It's stripping profits from companies.
Last edited:
