Refuse 2 Enroll!

[CharlieMurphy]

I am not enrolling either. The system requires a certian percentage to enroll or it fails, so the best way to fight it is non compliance.

They can do a little more than just take your refund. As I understand it, they can put a lien on your house or even suspend you drivers license. There is so much in this law its damn near impossible to know it all. The kicker is most of it has nothing to do with healthcare. Did you know the HHS will have final say in any treatment if they so choose. So even if you and your doctor decide on a treatment, they can put a stop to it if they disagree. Or worse, until you pay your taxes.

 

[okietool]

If most people were smart, they would owe the gooberment at the end of the year instead of getting a refund. Refunds are interest free loans for the government. You lose with a refund.

This!!!!!!!!!

Unfortunately, most people cannot come up with $1000 to pay a tax bill. They also seem to be the same people that procastinate and do not have their tax returns ready as soon as they could.

I can talk about them becuse I was once one of them. Paycheck to paycheck.

 

[Lurkerinthewoods]

The IRS will just sit back and let the fines accumulate and accumulate along with interest and penalties. After a few years when Hillary gets elected, she will push to expand the IRS' ability to collect, then all bets are off as to the ways and means they are allowed to use.

As for now, my family will continue with our employer provided plan. When that becomes too expensive, we will pull out the Indian cards and drop all coverage.

 

[JD8]

They can do a little more than just take your refund. As I understand it, they can put a lien on your house or even suspend you drivers license. There is so much in this law its damn near impossible to know it all. The kicker is most of it has nothing to do with healthcare. Did you know the HHS will have final say in any treatment if they so choose. So even if you and your doctor decide on a treatment, they can put a stop to it if they disagree. Or worse, until you pay your taxes.

Pretty much everything you just posted is completely false. HHS has no final say in any treatment, this is private insurance, they also cannot suspend your driver's license or put a lien on your house. Lose the tinfoil hat, and focus on the facts.

 

[SoonerBorn]

Pretty much everything you just posted is completely false. HHS has no final say in any treatment, this is private insurance, they also cannot suspend your driver's license or put a lien on your house. Lose the tinfoil hat, and focus on the facts.

Lmao.

 

[CharlieMurphy]

Pretty much everything you just posted is completely false. HHS has no final say in any treatment, this is private insurance, they also cannot suspend your driver's license or put a lien on your house. Lose the tinfoil hat, and focus on the facts.

It has nothing to do with a tin foil hat. I guess if you wanted to be technical, the HHS secretary is the one who can override the patient doctor decision. Give me time to find the exact clause again and I will source my information. Have you read the law in its entirety? I admit I haven't but I am attempting to do so.

 

[CharlieMurphy]

Pretty much everything you just posted is completely false. HHS has no final say in any treatment, this is private insurance, they also cannot suspend your driver's license or put a lien on your house. Lose the tinfoil hat, and focus on the facts.

Section 1311(h)(1). Beginning on January 1, 2015, a qualified health plan may contract with
(B) a health care provider only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as
the Secretary may by regulation require.

Now we can look at this and say that it means only requiring better healthcare but that is not how it is interpreted legally. This is not a moral opinion paper, it is a legal bill that gives broad power to select individuals through ambiguous clauses such as this one. I will provide other references when I have more time.

 

[PanhandleGlocker]

Isn't the fine for not doing it like 1% of your income every year? Then the next year it goes to 2% of your income. Then 3%, etc...

 

[JD8]

Section 1311(h)(1). Beginning on January 1, 2015, a qualified health plan may contract with
(B) a health care provider only if such provider implements such mechanisms to improve health care quality as
the Secretary may by regulation require.

Now we can look at this and say that it means only requiring better healthcare but that is not how it is interpreted legally. This is not a moral opinion paper, it is a legal bill that gives broad power to select individuals through ambiguous clauses such as this one. I will provide other references when I have more time.

Yeah.... still don't see an ounce of foundation to what you've said.

 

[CharlieMurphy]

Yeah.... still don't see an ounce of foundation to what you've said.

Ok, let me try and break this down. I got through a few thousand pages of the law but its a difficult for me to remember what is exactly where. How this works is that they can force specific treatments or medications for specific diseases or situations. The doctor does not have to agree with the treatment and can refuse but then that doctor is no longer an approved doctor for the insurance plans we are required to have by law and therefore can no longer see patients using insurance. If they are allowed to keep practicing medicine, then they can continue on a cash basis. So if you want to try a different approach to treating a terminal disease outside the normal treatment, your insurance probably won't cover it after 2015.

The second part to this when they roll out the panels that will decide on based on a cost/benefit type analysis. Older people will not receive the same quality of care as younger people since they allegedly have less to benefit to society. Bill Gates famously commented on this with the question (somewhat paraphrased since I am going from memory but I'm not far off),"would you rather keep a 75 year old on life support so they can survive a few more years or use that money to hire 3 extra teachers?" All this is buried in that law. They don't phrase it in the same way but to understand how it will be interpreted and used you have to study the background and publications from those who wrote the law and those who will enforce it. If they really wanted to improve healthcare for Americans then there are plenty of examples of working systems we could have copied to achieved that goal such as Singapore or the Scandinavian countries.

Bottom line is that the entire thing was sold on lies and deception. Obama himself probably doesn't know half the stuff in this law. He said if you liked your plan and your doctor you could keep them, period. Lie. He said we would have public debates on the law on CSPAN. Lie. All debates were behind closed doors and we were not allowed to see the bill until it passed. Call me a tin foil hatter if you want but that is crazy and should be illegal. Another problem is that the bill gives the President and HHS secretary unlimited power to change the law as they see fit. That is unconstitutional. The Congress cannot lawfully pass a law that delegates the legislative power we give away to the executive branch.

Many of the biggest abuses of this law are not the ones we are debating, it a bunch of devious clauses hidden inside this monster of a law.