America: the land of the fee

  • Thread starter Thread starter livingwordunity
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

livingwordunity

Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
TRICARE and the Affordable Care Act
Click to expand...
The Affordable Care Act, also known as the health care reform law, requires you to maintain basic health care coverage—called minimum essential coverage. Beginning in 2014, if you don’t have minimum essential coverage, you’ll have to pay a fee for each month you aren’t covered.
Click to expand...
Source
Click to expand...
I found this when I was looking up information about my health insurance coverage. This sounds like the government will be getting the long end of the stick while the people get the short end.
 
Starting January 1, 2014, if someone doesn’t have a health plan that qualifies as minimum essential coverage, he or she may have to pay a fee that increases every year: from 1% of income (or $95 per adult, whichever is higher) in 2014 to 2.5% of income (or $695 per adult) in 2016. The fee for children is half the adult amount. The fee is paid on the 2014 federal income tax form, which is completed in 2015. People with very low incomes and others may be eligible for waivers. See “What if someone doesn’t have health coverage in insurance in 2014?” for more information.
Click to expand...
Does this fall under “we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it”?
 
If you really want an eye opener, like googling taxes and fees, The US versus the UK.

It kind of defeats the whole purpose of why the US was created in the first place? I believe it was or founding fathers goal to get away from un fair and the amount of taxes in general, but you will find, in modern day US, we now have more fees, taxes than the UK, this is hilarious IMO, makes the US look pretty stupid.
 
“At times it happens that those who receive aid become subordinate to the aid-givers, and the poor serve to perpetuate expensive bureaucracies which consume an excessively high percentage of funds intended for development.” - Caritas in veritate
 
Inflation is spiking just as this is rolling out, and inflation impacts the poor. What they call “affordable” is in reality “free with purchases”.
 
livingwordunity said:
Inflation is spiking just as this is rolling out, and inflation impacts the poor. What they call “affordable” is in reality “free with purchases”.
Click to expand...
As I understand it the government had offered money to subsidize the cost of coverage for the poor for the next three years. Some states accepted it. Other states refused it.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
As I understand it the government had offered money to subsidize the cost of coverage for the poor for the next three years. Some states accepted it. Other states refused it.
Click to expand...
Ask an American Indian if the government can be trusted.
 
Where is the working alternative to the Affordable Care Act? Not some vague plan that might be put forward someday, when we get around to it. And not “things were fine the way they were,” because clearly the American voters did not share this view! I hope as much energy goes into fixing the problems with the law and moving forward, as seems to be going into loud whining and saying, “I told you so!”
 
The poor already had Medicaid. I know about this because I received free healthcare (MediCal) over 20 years ago when I was nearly penniless. The difference is that Catholics weren’t forced to pay for contraception pills, abortions, and so-called “sex change” operations. This isn’t about free health care. It’s about forcing everyone to pay for the enabling of other people’s sins.
 
livingwordunity said:
Ask an American Indian if the government can be trusted.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure why a trust issue is being raised for the Medicaid expansion or how the treatment of the natives is related. Could you provide information on how the two tie together?
livingwordunity said:
The poor already had Medicaid. I know about this because I received free healthcare (MediCal) over 20 years ago when I was nearly penniless.
Click to expand...
During the time that you had medicaid did you have any experiences that motivated raising the question of trust?
 
ThinkingSapien said:
I’m not sure why a trust issue is being raised for the Medicaid expansion or how the treatment of the natives is related. Could you provide information on how the two tie together?

During the time that you had medicaid did you have any experiences that motivated raising the question of trust?
Click to expand...
I was an agnostic who had an interest in witchcraft back then. So, what I thought back then can’t be compared to what I think now. The point is that America already had free healthcare for the poor, but it was legitimate healthcare that everyone could agree on, didn’t offend anyone’s sense of morality, and didn’t charge people fines for not having it.
 
livingwordunity said:
The poor already had Medicaid. I know about this because I received free healthcare (MediCal) over 20 years ago when I was nearly penniless. The difference is that Catholics weren’t forced to pay for contraception pills, abortions, and so-called “sex change” operations. This isn’t about free health care. It’s about forcing everyone to pay for the enabling of other people’s sins.
Click to expand...
Open your eyes! Years ago, if you had gone into the free clinic, some of which were and continue to be funded by our tax dollars, and requested contraceptives, you would have received them, at all of our expense. You could also get treatment for your venereal disease there, and we all would be paying for the results of sin and promiscuity, Catholics included (not that this would ever happen to you personally :rolleyes:). When I was covered by my employer under the group health plan, the availability of contraceptives and even some abortions were included in every health plan offered, and my money went into the pot along with every one else’s. Some abortions have long been covered by state Medicaid programs, which we all pay for. Knowing this, did you sin by complicity when you received the health care you needed from Medical? No.

Now, is this situation a problem? Yes. Is this such a new problem? I don’t think so.

What should we do about it? Simply abandon or defund the ACA, and let everyone once again fend for themselves? (fine, I suppose, seeing as how you are no longer penniless) Or, work to make the changes we consider necessary, as some are doing in the courts and in Congress now? The latter seems to me the more compassionate choice.
 
christofirst said:
Open your eyes! Years ago, if you had gone into the free clinic, some of which were and continue to be funded by our tax dollars, and requested contraceptives, you would have received them, at all of our expense. You could also get treatment for your venereal disease there, and we all would be paying for the results of sin and promiscuity, Catholics included (not that this would ever happen to you personally :rolleyes:). When I was covered by my employer under the group health plan, the availability of contraceptives and even some abortions were included in every health plan offered, and my money went into the pot along with every one else’s. Some abortions have long been covered by state Medicaid programs, which we all pay for. Knowing this, did you sin by complicity when you received the health care you needed from Medical? No.
Click to expand...
The difference is that the decision is made by someone else *and *the money is paid indirectly, the difference between immediate and remote cooperation.
Now, is this situation a problem? Yes. Is this such a new problem? I don’t think so.
Click to expand...
What should we do about it? Simply abandon or defund the ACA, and let everyone once again fend for themselves? (fine, I suppose, seeing as how you are no longer penniless) Or, work to make the changes we consider necessary, as some are doing in the courts and in Congress now? The latter seems to me the more compassionate choice.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, now the previous system has been to a great extent dismantled, so we can’t simply “go back.” However, the fact that we have turned down the wrong road does not mean we need to continue down that road.
 
St_Francis said:
The difference is that the decision is made by someone else *and *the money is paid indirectly, the difference between immediate and remote cooperation.

Unfortunately, now the previous system has been to a great extent dismantled, so we can’t simply “go back.” However, the fact that we have turned down the wrong road does not mean we need to continue down that road.
Click to expand...
I’m glad you brought this up. Answer me this, if you know. In the countries with single payer, universal healthcare, where abortion is available, is the population guilty of remote or immediate cooperation in sin, or none at all?

I only hope that people here are as eager to help those without access to healthcare as they in blocking the problematic plan we have now.
 
christofirst said:
I’m glad you brought this up. Answer me this, if you know. In the countries with single payer, universal healthcare, where abortion is available, is the population guilty of remote or immediate cooperation in sin, or none at all?
Click to expand...
As far as I can tell, as an amateur internet poster, if a person only pays taxes and the decisions about where the tax money goes is made by others, then the citizen is not guilty as the cooperation is too remote.

However! as a citizen of a representatve democracy, guilt could be incurred through voting. If a person votes for a particular candidate *because *the candidate advocates abortion, objectively guilt is incurred–by objectively I mean in a general sense, not referring to a particular person in a particular situation.

If candidate A advocates abortion, and candidate B opposes abortion, one ought to vote for candidate B unless his advocacy of other issues *outweighs *candidate A’s advocacy of abortion. This is a prudential judgement but does require the Catholic voter to seriously investigate and weigh the issue with a *well-formed *conscience; it is not a matter of how one feeels, iyswim.
I only hope that people here are as eager to help those without access to healthcare as they in blocking the problematic plan we have now.
Click to expand...
I wish that the advocates of the ACA would be as eager to help those with problems as they are to defend a truly ghastly law which helps only a small number of people and does not do anything about the cause of the problem.
 
Thank you, St. Francis, for your answer to my question, and for your caring caveat as well. I appreciate the way you worded that caveat, so much more like the bishops’ own words than the threats I often encounter here.

Let the vitriol over the ACA continue!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top