PDA

View Full Version : obama care, not nocking it, need help with taxes.



sleek
02-17-2015, 11:25 PM
So, im filling my taxes. I have lived in Oklahoma all of 2014 and been unemployed for almost half of it, maybe a little less. Now when filling our taxes on line I get asked, were you and your dependants insured all of 2014? Well no we werent and I answer the question thusly. It seems ( I havent redo e them and answered yes yet ) I am loosing money ( possibly a large portion ) because I couldnt afford healthcare for portions of 2014 while unemployed. Specifically, for my 8 year old son. My wife and I are covered through the VA for our military service.

Now an important note is I live in Oklahoma. No healthcare exchange. Seems the feds are penalizing me because I couldnt ( and don't want to if I could ) afford the affordable health care act. Anybody got experience in how to deal with my tax situation so im not being charged a substantial ( to be verified, and if im wrong or you know something speak up ) amount of my refund?

RichKrough
02-17-2015, 11:54 PM
I'm no expert on this only what I learned while doing my taxes 2 weeks ago. I have a similar situation from when I was uninsured for 3 months last year . The penalty for me is 3/12's (3 months) of 1% of taxable annual income above the standard deduction. It came to $184 .There are hardship exemptions but none of them applied to me. Healthcare.gov has the information.

ljb5
02-18-2015, 11:36 AM
Also not an expert on this, but I found this page: https://www.healthcare.gov/fees-exemptions/fee-for-not-being-covered/

If your son was without coverage for less than 3 months, no penalty.

If you couldn't afford coverage due to low income, apply for an exemption and see if it is granted.

If you don't get the exemption, the penalty owed is the greater of either $47.50 or .083% of income over the filing threshold for each month not covered. (Threshold is $13,050 for head of household, $20,300 for married, filing jointly).

So if you made $50k in six months, your income over the threshold is about $30~$37k, so you owe about $25 for each month he didn't have insurance, but not less than $47.50.

Norman Bernstein
02-18-2015, 11:38 AM
Anybody got experience in how to deal with my tax situation so im not being charged a substantial ( to be verified, and if im wrong or you know something speak up ) amount of my refund?

Based on the other responses, it seems that any 'penalty' you owe (assuming you don't get an exemption) is going to be miniscule.

John Smith
02-18-2015, 12:06 PM
"Miniscule" is a bit subjective, no?

Norman Bernstein
02-18-2015, 12:19 PM
"Miniscule" is a bit subjective, no?

Compared with WHAT?

You're uninsured, you have some sort of accident at home and have to go to the emergency room and get 20 stitches, a dose of antibiotic, and the usual supplies. The actual cost of that visit: several hundred bucks, and that's NOT an inflated cost. You pay: nothing (although you WILL get a bill, and the bill will be inflated).

So, $100 penalty for not having insurance seems pretty damn small, to me. TOO small.


Seems the feds are penalizing me because I couldnt ( and don't want to if I could ) afford the affordable health care act.

The issue is this: if you really couldn't afford the minimal cost of the cheapest plan, then you'd have gotten a substantial subsidy to pay for it. If you couldn't get a subsidy, then it could only mean that you COULD afford it... but just didn't want to, for whatever reason (political, would be my guess).

It really doesn't matter: the uninsured are gamblers, hoping and praying that they don't get hurt or sick.... and when they WIN that bet, feel somehow justified in arguing that it should have been their choice, all along, whether to insure themselves or not.....

....but when they LOSE the bet, and can't pay the costs of the health care they're going to receive anyhow, it just means that the REST of us pay for it.

Moochers.

switters
02-18-2015, 12:23 PM
Been reading Ayn Rand in the closet?

The poor are now moochers and 20% for profit insurance companies are the good guys.

I see a libertarian in the making.

S.V. Airlie
02-18-2015, 12:27 PM
Inflated! Yup!
Due to a screw-up, I had no insurance for a month. Figured I had 3 blood tests and one 15min. Appointment with my primary. How much could it be?

3 blood tests, 1200.00, one doc visit 118.00!

Keith Wilson
02-18-2015, 12:37 PM
Oklahoma refused Medicaid expansion as well. If you really couldn't afford the almost-certainly-subsidized insurance you could have gotten through the federal exchange, you would have probably qualified for expanded Medicaid, had your state legislature not decided to screw over those without much money.

Todd D
02-18-2015, 12:47 PM
So, im filling my taxes. I have lived in Oklahoma all of 2014 and been unemployed for almost half of it, maybe a little less. Now when filling our taxes on line I get asked, were you and your dependants insured all of 2014? Well no we werent and I answer the question thusly. It seems ( I havent redo e them and answered yes yet ) I am loosing money ( possibly a large portion ) because I couldnt afford healthcare for portions of 2014 while unemployed. Specifically, for my 8 year old son. My wife and I are covered through the VA for our military service.

Now an important note is I live in Oklahoma. No healthcare exchange. Seems the feds are penalizing me because I couldnt ( and don't want to if I could ) afford the affordable health care act. Anybody got experience in how to deal with my tax situation so im not being charged a substantial ( to be verified, and if im wrong or you know something speak up ) amount of my refund?

Go to IRS.gov and download form 8965 and its instructions. Everything you need to know is in the instructions along with work sheets to calculate your penalty or apply for exemptions. It is very easy to complete.

Sky Blue
02-18-2015, 01:14 PM
Coulda, woulda, shoulda, Keith.

Sleek should be upset with his state government because they didn't properly (in your view) respond to a federal law (one passed with fraud, lies and deception, admittedly)? Give me a break.

A properly-drafted law would have avoided these problems. I know sleek is not "knocking it," but I damn sure will. I read the OP and a sense of OUTRAGE comes over me that this has been done to him and probably millions of other people.

How is sleek, who could not get coverage for his son, somehow benefitted by now having to fork over hundreds of additional scarce dollars to the feds in penalties? While millions of others (like me) are paying thousands more for the same coverage. He can't get coverage, and mine costs thousands more. It is an outrage.

"Affordable" Care Act? My butt. The law is a scam. Pure and simple.

Keith Wilson
02-18-2015, 01:27 PM
One major point of the law was to penalize free riders - i.e those who could afford insurance but chose not to, thus transferring their risk to others. The law also includes subsidies for those who don't have much money, which some states chose to sabotage as best they could, once the Supreme Court allowed them to do so. I suggest you take your outrage and put it where it belongs. Refusing Medicaid expansion is one of the most egregious acts of deliberate legislative cruelty that I've ever seen in the US. (And sorry, but 'fraud, lies and deception' is simply bullsh!t - but we've been over this too many times before.)

Norman Bernstein
02-18-2015, 01:33 PM
A properly-drafted law would have avoided these problems.

A 'properly drafted' law? We've seen that the GOP has proposed... if you thought Obama compromised and gave too much away to insurers and big Pharma, you should see what THEY have proposed (although only in decidedly sketchy terms... since they're really NOT interested in doing anything other than overturning Obamacare).


How is sleek, who could not get coverage for his son....

Tha'ts a questionable proposition. If he truly couldn't afford it (and NOT because he is just opposed, on principle) then he would have gotten a very substantial subsidy.... and if he earned too much for the subsidy, then the party at fault is the State of Oklahoma....

...however, we must first decide what is, or what is not, 'affordable'. Different parents may have different attitudes, but as a parent and grandparent, there's virtually NOTHING that I wouldn't give up, if it meant health care for a child.


...somehow benefitted by now having to fork over hundreds of additional scarce dollars to the feds in penalties?

SOMEONE has to pay for the care his child would receive, with no assurance of repayment, at the local emergency room, when he gets sick.


While millions of others (like me) are paying thousands more for the same coverage. He can't get coverage, and mine costs thousands more. It is an outrage.

You object to actually paying for the cost of your own healthcare?


"Affordable" Care Act? My butt. The law is a scam. Pure and simple.

Try living without healthcare for a while... especially, if you get sick, or develop some serious chronic condition.

ljb5
02-18-2015, 01:40 PM
How is sleek, who could not get coverage for his son, somehow benefitted by now having to fork over hundreds of additional scarce dollars to the feds in penalties?

It's not about sleek.

The rest of us benefit from not getting stuck with the bills from a bunch of freeloaders.

Since when do Republicans love freeloaders so much?

The law does everything feasible to make it easy for people to get coverage: tax breaks, premium subsidies, state and federal exchanges, expanded Medicaid, etc, etc, etc....

And these freeloaders say, "Um, no thanks... I'd rather just be a freeloader."

And you support that?

I pay my bills and you should pay yours. I shouldn't have to pay your bills.

That's really been the craziest thing about this whole debate: The individual mandate was a conservative idea intended to protect responsible people from getting stuck paying for freeloaders. And now conservatives are against personal responsibility, they want people to take big financial risks and they approve of transferring the costs from people who don't pay to those who do? That's a farce.

Glen Longino
02-18-2015, 01:45 PM
Oklahoma refused Medicaid expansion as well. If you really couldn't afford the almost-certainly-subsidized insurance you could have gotten through the federal exchange, you would have probably qualified for expanded Medicaid, had your state legislature not decided to screw over those without much money.

I suspect this thread was started by Sleek merely to express his distaste for the Feds in general and Obama Care in particular.

Norman Bernstein
02-18-2015, 01:46 PM
Been reading Ayn Rand in the closet?

The poor are now moochers and 20% for profit insurance companies are the good guys.

I see a libertarian in the making.

The poor are NOT the moochers I'm referring to. The moochers are the ones who refuse to obtain health coverage, even when they can either afford it, or would qualify for subsidies.. If they're not poor, then their refusal, on the basis of some misguided principle, means that their catastrophic illnesses (should they contract one) will be paid for by everyone else.

THOSE are the moochers.

Glen Longino
02-18-2015, 01:48 PM
Coulda, woulda, shoulda, Keith.

Sleek should be upset with his state government because they didn't properly (in your view) respond to a federal law (one passed with fraud, lies and deception, admittedly)? Give me a break.

A properly-drafted law would have avoided these problems. I know sleek is not "knocking it," but I damn sure will. I read the OP and a sense of OUTRAGE comes over me that this has been done to him and probably millions of other people.

How is sleek, who could not get coverage for his son, somehow benefitted by now having to fork over hundreds of additional scarce dollars to the feds in penalties? While millions of others (like me) are paying thousands more for the same coverage. He can't get coverage, and mine costs thousands more. It is an outrage.

"Affordable" Care Act? My butt. The law is a scam. Pure and simple.

Unadulterated Gobbledygook!
You can do better than this and usually do.

sleek
02-18-2015, 06:50 PM
Regardless of comments above about my intention in posting this thread, I went to H&R block today with questions. I tried to make my ignorance known from the start and will again say, im not smart on this part of the law or as many would argue, any of it. That being said, the penalty is small. Less than $100 for the entire year, or a portion of that for every month without insurance. It is indeed small. Next year it goes up however, $300. Incase anyone is wondering my son is now on medicare or as Oklahoma calls it, sooner care. Thank you all for the input. I have my own feelings about Obama care but thats not what this thread was for at all. And for the record, my son does have a hospital bill I haven't been able to afford but will be paying with my taxes. And for another comment I shouldnt add because this will start debate, if I did have Obama care and had a million dollar health bill, who would wind up paying it? Well the way I see it ( I reserve the right to be totally freaking wrong and gracefully accept adequate correction) the government funded by YOUR money is paying for it so what exactly changes other than we are all fee paying free loaders now? You pay my bills with or without government healthcare. I never understood the free loader argument.PS. Even if it doesn't benefit me, I support my states right to do what they do with their own laws and am proud of it.

Keith Wilson
02-18-2015, 06:55 PM
Well, I'm very glad your son now has health insurance. That's the important thing.

The whole point of insurance is that most pay somewhat more in premiums than they receive in benefits. The few with really bad luck get a lot more than they paid. It's a way of spreading risk around, so everybody pays a bit but nobody pays a lot. All the subsidies do is shift the cost a bit toward those with more money. It's not a perfect system, but it's better than many alternatives.

switters
02-18-2015, 07:17 PM
The poor are NOT the moochers I'm referring to. The moochers are the ones who refuse to obtain health coverage, even when they can either afford it, or would qualify for subsidies.. If they're not poor, then their refusal, on the basis of some misguided principle, means that their catastrophic illnesses (should they contract one) will be paid for by everyone else.

THOSE are the moochers.

cow

Todd D
02-18-2015, 07:21 PM
[QUOTE=sleek;And for another comment I shouldnt add because this will start debate, if I did have Obama care and had a million dollar health bill, who would wind up paying it? Well the way I see it ( I reserve the right to be totally freaking wrong and gracefully accept adequate correction) the government funded by YOUR money is paying for it so what exactly changes other than we are all fee paying free loaders now?[/QUOTE]

Here is your correction. The insurance you get through "Obamacare" is through private health insurance companies NOT the government. So if you "have Obamacare" and run up a million dollar medical bill, the insurance company pays it. Of course they pass those costs along to their other subscribers through increased premiums. The government is NOT involved in paying the bills. The federal government is involved for those with incomes between 133% and 400% of the federal poverty level. Those people, when they buy insurance from a private company under "Obamacare" receive a premium subsidy based on their income and the cost of insurance through "Obamacare". Federal payments are limited to the premium subsidies and do NOT include direct payment of medical bills. The only other time the government is involved is if you are in a state that took the Medicaid expansion, then the money comes from tax dollars. However, people on Medicaid are limited to incomes less than 133% of the federal poverty level. Since Oklahoma didn't expand Medicaid, no one who gets insurance through "Obamacare" has any of their medical expenses paid by government.

sleek
02-18-2015, 07:38 PM
Well thanks for that. Got some thinking to do.

Todd D
02-18-2015, 07:40 PM
You are welcome.