Would You Have To Pay The Healthcare Penalty? ETA: Healthcare Impact Quiz

[JakeandEmmasMom]

 I'm curious how many in this group would end up having to pay the penalty for not having insurance.

ETA:  If you are unsure how this will impact you (or you are uninsured right now and just suspect how you will be impacted), I encourage you to take this quiz to see how you will be impacted:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/

[Jambo4]

I was reading an article in the Denver Post about a small business owner (I'll find it if someone wants it), but he said that his company has less than 100 employees and currently pays about 8,000 per employee for their insurance and 16,000 for a family.  The penalty for would be only 2,000 dollars so taking the fine would be cheaper for him than providing insurance. 

[tnmomofive]

Quoting Jambo4:

I was reading an article in the Denver Post about a small business owner (I'll find it if someone wants it), but he said that his company has less than 100 employees and currently pays about 8,000 per employee for their insurance and 16,000 for a family.  The penalty for would be only 2,000 dollars so taking the fine would be cheaper for him than providing insurance. 

Yes and the state of TN tried their own version in the 90's and what happened was so many businesses dropped the insur. on their employees forcing them onto the state insur that the state almost went totally bankrupt...needless to say the program ended.

[JakeandEmmasMom]

 

Quoting Jambo4:

I was reading an article in the Denver Post about a small business owner (I'll find it if someone wants it), but he said that his company has less than 100 employees and currently pays about 8,000 per employee for their insurance and 16,000 for a family.  The penalty for would be only 2,000 dollars so taking the fine would be cheaper for him than providing insurance. 

 That is really high.  I thought that group rates were supposed to be cheaper?  We pay over $14,000 a year for our family of five, but my DH is self-employed so we don't qualify for a group rate.  I'm curious what insurance company he is going through.

[JakeandEmmasMom]

 Would those who don't have insurance share what their plans are if someone gets sick or hurt and needs surgery?  I feel so bad for people who can't afford it.  That must be so stressful.

 

[Jambo4]

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 

Quoting Jambo4:

I was reading an article in the Denver Post about a small business owner (I'll find it if someone wants it), but he said that his company has less than 100 employees and currently pays about 8,000 per employee for their insurance and 16,000 for a family.  The penalty for would be only 2,000 dollars so taking the fine would be cheaper for him than providing insurance. 

 That is really high.  I thought that group rates were supposed to be cheaper?  We pay over $14,000 a year for our family of five, but my DH is self-employed so we don't qualify for a group rate.  I'm curious what insurance company he is going through.

I don't think the article said.  It might have been $14,000.. I'm going off of memory.  I've been trying to pull it up online and can't seem to find it.  I must have tossed the paper too that had it. :(  But anyway... the point being, for him it's more cost efficient to take the penalty.

[JakeandEmmasMom]

 

Quoting Jambo4:

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 

Quoting Jambo4:

I was reading an article in the Denver Post about a small business owner (I'll find it if someone wants it), but he said that his company has less than 100 employees and currently pays about 8,000 per employee for their insurance and 16,000 for a family.  The penalty for would be only 2,000 dollars so taking the fine would be cheaper for him than providing insurance. 

 That is really high.  I thought that group rates were supposed to be cheaper?  We pay over $14,000 a year for our family of five, but my DH is self-employed so we don't qualify for a group rate.  I'm curious what insurance company he is going through.

I don't think the article said.  It might have been $14,000.. I'm going off of memory.  I've been trying to pull it up online and can't seem to find it.  I must have tossed the paper too that had it. :(  But anyway... the point being, for him it's more cost efficient to take the penalty.

 It may be cheaper to take the penalty.  But why would an employer do that?  Currently, it is 100% voluntary for an employer to offer health insurance to employees, and this person (and all the employers who offer insurance) is providing it anyway.  Why, now that there would be a penalty, would they suddenly decide to drop it in favor of paying a penalty?  It doesn't make sense.

[shimamab]

I asked that question of someone before and didn't receive an answer. Will be interesting to see if it gets answered in this thread.

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 

Quoting Jambo4:

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 

Quoting Jambo4:

I was reading an article in the Denver Post about a small business owner (I'll find it if someone wants it), but he said that his company has less than 100 employees and currently pays about 8,000 per employee for their insurance and 16,000 for a family.  The penalty for would be only 2,000 dollars so taking the fine would be cheaper for him than providing insurance. 

 That is really high.  I thought that group rates were supposed to be cheaper?  We pay over $14,000 a year for our family of five, but my DH is self-employed so we don't qualify for a group rate.  I'm curious what insurance company he is going through.

I don't think the article said.  It might have been $14,000.. I'm going off of memory.  I've been trying to pull it up online and can't seem to find it.  I must have tossed the paper too that had it. :(  But anyway... the point being, for him it's more cost efficient to take the penalty.

 It may be cheaper to take the penalty.  But why would an employer do that?  Currently, it is 100% voluntary for an employer to offer health insurance to employees, and this person (and all the employers who offer insurance) is providing it anyway.  Why, now that there would be a penalty, would they suddenly decide to drop it in favor of paying a penalty?  It doesn't make sense.

[motherslove82]

It says I would have to obtain insurance or pay $2,085 in taxes (ahem, penalties).

[1Giovanni]

As of right now my kids are cover through the state. My husband is over 60 so if he wanted to he could be covered by the state. I am screwed, I have health issues and need to see a doctor monthly, but not happening.

My husband is usually out of work for only 3 months and we are covered by his union usually about 3-6 months after he is laid of, depends on the hours he worked. But things are so screwed up right now he has been out of work since Oct.

I do have a question does anyone know if they are not working and then get a job that has insurance that it takes sometimes 2-3 months to receive the insurance would that make it where you might have to pay or penalty or do you have to go all year without insurance? Or would they have to change that all together where they get insurance right away if they start working?

[Jambo4]

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 

Quoting Jambo4:

Quoting JakeandEmmasMom:

 

Quoting Jambo4:

I was reading an article in the Denver Post about a small business owner (I'll find it if someone wants it), but he said that his company has less than 100 employees and currently pays about 8,000 per employee for their insurance and 16,000 for a family.  The penalty for would be only 2,000 dollars so taking the fine would be cheaper for him than providing insurance. 

 That is really high.  I thought that group rates were supposed to be cheaper?  We pay over $14,000 a year for our family of five, but my DH is self-employed so we don't qualify for a group rate.  I'm curious what insurance company he is going through.

I don't think the article said.  It might have been $14,000.. I'm going off of memory.  I've been trying to pull it up online and can't seem to find it.  I must have tossed the paper too that had it. :(  But anyway... the point being, for him it's more cost efficient to take the penalty.

 It may be cheaper to take the penalty.  But why would an employer do that?  Currently, it is 100% voluntary for an employer to offer health insurance to employees, and this person (and all the employers who offer insurance) is providing it anyway.  Why, now that there would be a penalty, would they suddenly decide to drop it in favor of paying a penalty?  It doesn't make sense.

I don't know.. but that's what he said.  Gov can take over covering them and he can save the money.  I'm sure he used it has a hiring incentive, but won't see the need for it after Obamacare is in place.  Just a guess.