This practically sounds like some sort of identity theft scam.

The thing I am curious about, is what basis the IRS is using to calculate the fines, and also your eligibility for subsidies. If it is taxable income which is the income you have left after you deduct your exemptions, and exclusions, it will be a much different calculation than using your total income (almost unheard of)

We spent a whole two weeks in tax law learning the definition of income, for tax purposes, and nowhere on the IRS web site can I find a clear explanation of which line on your return will be used to calculate both any subsidy and/ or your fine for opting out.

I suspect they have deliberately obscured this info to make people shopping for insurance go through one of their "navigators". They also may be trying to make the fine seem much more punitive than it actually is.

I think the chaos and lack of transparency is going to backfire on them.

Smells fishy to me. I haven't heard anything about pre existing conditions, driver's licenses suspensions and home liens.

I may be wrong...

Hi Amy,
Thanks for posting this. I am sincerely interested in hearing what people have to say about the Affordable Care Act. It is no skin off of my nose, at least not until they start going after Medicare. I am healthy (knock on wood) and pay very little.

I am concerned for my children and grandchildren and I hope people will honest in their stories about how they are doing.

The persons story at the top really freaked me out, as I have many friends and family who have the same situation and make approx. the same amount of money. I hope people speak up.

While I am no fan of the Unaffordable Care Mandate, I'm fairly suspicious of this man's Obamacare enrollment story. This story seems to have gone viral, shared and re-shared, blogged by many, with little portions changed for further dramatization. Even crazy loonbag, Alex Jones, has glommed onto the tale and posted it to his blog, which further diminishes its credibility.

I'm unable to find any other verified or unverified account of a "repercussions" email threatening liens or bank drafts. The deductible amount mentioned in the story is particularly suspicious, as they are always in round numbers.

For now, I call B.S. on this one.

Still, Obamacare is a disaster on so many levels. It would be nice if those who oppose it would stick to spreading BONAFIDE truths about Obamacare, because it's bad enough, rather than internet lore and hoaxes.

As much as this is painful, so is knowing that a majority of the politicians who voted this in without reading it are still in office pointing fingers at someone, anyone else!

One tiny nit to pick: Not sure why this person is emphasizing the preexisting condition angle. Premiums are based on age and location. Part of Obamacare is that premiums do not fluctuate based on preexisting conditions. So this person's premiums are likely high because of their age. Based on my playing around with the numbers in my state, this person is likely over 55.

That said ... this scenario (if it's true) does point out something I've been railing on for a long time: Those who make even a hair over $45K per year AND are over, say, 50 years old, are so screwed. Not eligible for subsidies, and socked with super high premiums.

http://embed.newsinc.com/Single/iframe.html?WID=2&VID=25219959&freewheel=91074&sitesection=breitbartprivate&height=405&width=540

BASH: But if you can help one child with cancer, why wouldn't you do it?
REID: Why would we want to do that? I have 1100 people at Nellis Air Force Base sitting home. They have problems of their own.

That post was a complete fabrication. First of all, the penalty for
2014 is the higher of $95 or 1 percent of your income. That means
the fine in this scenario would be at most $550 (for a $55K income).
With normal deductions, it would be even lower.

Secondly, even if the government weren't closed, a same-day
response is way faster than the usual bureaucracy.

Third, the driver's license is state-issued and controlled. The
feds can't touch it.

I don't see how anyone could think for a moment that this junk
has any credibility.

Not really off topic; but, I don't care if the story is true or not. I don't care if Obamacare turns out to be "affordable" or not.

What I do care about is the government forcing an individual to buy a product or service whether that individual decides if he needs it or not.

That is the issue to me and it leads to ask what next? What is the next thing that government nannies decide that we need to buy? And where will it stop?

Charles, about the government forcing an individual to buy a product
or service whether that individual decides if he needs it or not...

Yes, it can easily go too far, but it's not as if this were the
first instance.

Most states require you to buy liability insurance if you have a
car. In some states, you must buy (and wear!) a motorcycle helmet.
Some states require you to pay for a car inspection on a regular
basis. Meanwhile, building codes and occupancy permits can require
you to buy things you otherwise wouldn't.

Most states require you to buy liability insurance if you have a car. In some states, you must buy (and wear!) a motorcycle helmet. Some states require you to pay for a car inspection on a regular basis. Meanwhile, building codes and occupancy permits can require you to buy things you otherwise wouldn't. -- Ron at October 2, 2013 9:48 PM

@Ron:

First off, thank you for copying a stale argument from some other website.

Second the operative word in your post is states. So if I think my state's laws suck I can move to another.

In addition, many states have been extorted by the federal government to place and enforce laws like these. For example the reason that all the states have a .08 DUI law is because the federal government has said if you don't change your laws you won't get millions in funding for your state's highways. The seat belt laws are the same way. Even the 55 MPH speed limit was based off that until enough states rebelled.

As far as forcing you to buy something that never occurred prior to now at a federal level. And even the state forcing you to buy something was limited to associated activity. If you live in a major city such as New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago or any other did you have to buy auto insurance? What if you never owned a car, didn't have a driver license and used public transportation did you have to buy auto insurance?

As for occupancy codes and such -- I live so far out in the country that I could literally pull up a class B motor home hook it up to a septic system and well and live there with practically no interference.

So your arguments fall totally flat on me.

"What I do care about is the government forcing an individual to buy a product or service whether that individual decides if he needs it or not."

What I wonder is: Why does anyone think they must always pay for a service they do not get?

The solution is HERE.

"As for occupancy codes and such -- I live so far out in the country that I could literally pull up a class B motor home hook it up to a septic system and well and live there with practically no interference."

And that would be a step UP from many structures found to be perfectly acceptable out of the view of a grasping busybody.

The preexisting thing does not apply until Jan 1 so I am not surprised if he got screwed. Same with most of the benefits. For the penalty, yes it is much lower than stated per person but if he had his family on the plan it adds up fast.

It still smells fishy but it is somewhat possible... until the Forbes stuff, I don't thank any of it is possible.

I still hate the system. People keep comparing it to Canada, UK and Japan but the plans are not even remotely close. Those countries charge it like we charge medicare, on your income tax. They also have no charge or low charge payments for showing up not this 80-90% crap with deductibles.

Jim P: With exactly the same sincerity as your thanks, thank you
for raising the hostility level via a gratuitous accusation. If you
accuse someone of plagiarism, it behooves you to include a cite to
the original source material plagiarized. This is especially true
of material you challenge as copied "from some other website".

If you have noticed my posts in other threads, you'll note that I
have always attributed and cited any quotes.

The preexisting thing does not apply until Jan 1 so I am not surprised if he got screwed.

No, he's implying he bought the plan on the exchange. The plans purchased starting Oct 1 on the health insurance exchanges (federal or state-run, depending on where you live) kick in January 1. So the preexisting things DOES apply to any plans people are now purchasing on the exchanges.

If he were buying an individual plan outside the exchange, then yes, he'd pay more based on his condition. But his mention of "tier 2 silver" and the website malfunctions suggest he IS shopping on the exchange. So the preexisting thing does apply.

The status is obviously fake anyway.

Most states require you to buy liability insurance if you have a car.

Yes, and? your point would be...what? liability insurance is there to make good when you fuck up and hit someone/someone's property. You don't actually have to purchase it, but then you also can't get a license plate for your vehicle[*].

This is more akin to the federal government telling you that you must buy a GM or Chrysler vehicle.

Now tell me why they couldn't do that. They could say that you could opt-out by paying a "tax", and they have the power to tax, and also Interstate Commerce.

[*] there are an awful lot of uninsured motorists, and you'll notice that you probably have an add on to your auto policy called an uninsured motorist coverage. Maybe we can get the Feds to make sure everyone with a car has insurance if they're not too busy feeling up Amy at the airport.

Yup. States issue you a license to drive and therefore, can make that license contingent upon having liability insurance for the protection of others...(although I am pretty sure that not all states do).

On the other hand, the Federal gov't doesn't give you the license to live, so I'm not sure how it justifies mandating that your health be insured.

Completely unconstitutional, Supreme Court's ruling be damned.

the Federal gov't doesn't give you the license to live

Not yet, anyway.

Jim P: With exactly the same sincerity as your thanks, thank you for raising the hostility level via a gratuitous accusation. If you accuse someone of plagiarism, it behooves you to include a cite to the original source material plagiarized. This is especially true of material you challenge as copied "from some other website". -- Ron at October 3, 2013 4:52 AM

You have the unique quality of the first post(s) that I have copied on Amy's blog that looks looks like it was copied because of the line breaks:

Jim P: With exactly the same sincerity as your thanks, thank you<line break>
for raising the hostility level via a gratuitous accusation. If you<line break>
accuse someone of plagiarism, it behooves you to include a cite to<line break>
the original source material plagiarized. This is especially true<line break>
of material you challenge as copied "from some other website"

When I copy and paste it looks something like that was copied off another website. So my sincerest apologies for the disparagement.

So getting back to the the argument that you posted. You are not required to have auto insurance for having a driver's license, only when operating a motor vehicle. So an NYC (or other large metro area) resident can get a driver's license, and not insurance, then rent a car (and the insurance) as needed.

And it still is a state issue. Then there are the no-fault states. Take a guess which has the highest insurance rates.

You also didn't address the federal extortion I mentioned.

So while I may have hurt your feelings, you didn't address the rest of the arguments with facts.

Sosij: "the Federal gov't doesn't give you the license to live . . . Not yet, anyway."

Ahh, perhaps, that is one of the passed, but, yet unread portions of Obamacare - Death panels anyone?

"Then there are the no-fault states. Take a guess which has the highest insurance rates."

Ha. When I lived in Florida, they had a worst-of-all-possible-worlds system: it was sort of no fault, but not really. The deal was that you had to purchase "personal protection insurance" (I think that was what it was called) that, at least in theory, covered your own expenses in an accident. However, it didn't prohibit lawsuits. If you financed a car, you still had to buy liability, and even if you didn't finance, it was not smart to go without liability. And you also had to buy uninsured-motorist coverage, since if someone with PPI-only hit you, their insurance only covered them. The only people who got by on the personal protection insurance were people who were lawsuit-proof: no assets and driving a junker.

The result was that, for a person with conventional insurance, the PPI was an absolutely useless additional expense. Only the lawsuit-proof could buy a PPI-only policy. The knock-on effect of that was that most of the PPI-only policies were sold by fly-by-night companies that would sell a bunch of policies, collect premiums for two years or so, and then when claims started to pile up they'd shift all of their assets to another company and then go bankrupt.

In South Florida, car insurance was outrageous; for most drivers, their insurance premiums were higher than their car payments. When I moved from there to New Jersey, I was stunned at how much lower my insurance premiums were. New Jersey. Think about that.