So all you have to do is get a utility canceled? That will seem pretty cheap compared to out-year penalties. After all, you can always reinstate with a deposit.
I wonder if that’s a changeable HHS rule, or in the law itself?
17 thoughts on “ObamaCare Penalty Avoidance”
Comments are closed.
Gaming systems is what people do. Morons ‘in control’ never understand that.
Penalty avoidance is even easier than that; just make sure you don’t have a refund coming, and refuse to pay any IRS penalty. The Obamacare law explicitly forbids the IRS from using their usual tricks to collect.
Don’t believe me? Check out the tax experts. Here;s one by Forbes , and there are many, many others.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/07/03/some-tax-few-will-face-obamacare-uninsured-penalty-and-irs-hamstrung-to-collect/
Oh, one thing Forbes and many others overlook; yes, they can only go after a refund in order to enforce a penalty, but it’s not just your refund they can snap up. They can go after a spouse’s, too.
But, if you prefer the utility shutoff notice route, please note that cable TV has been ruled as not a utility for bankruptcy cases, and my guess is that’s apply to this as well.
What does count? gas, electric, water, sewer and telephone companies count. So, one good option might be; get basic phone service and then refuse to pay (Use VOIP for your real phone)
I’m digging into these issues a lot lately; I’m one of the millions who has lost insurance due to the lying fraud in the white house, so I need to make a decision on what to do. Replacing my old coverage would cost a bundle due to all the garbage stuffed in as “required”, so no way in hell will I pay it. And the coverage on the exchanges (the Obamacare “metal” plans) are awful plus expensive. Lousy coverage (high deductibles, limited networks, etc, etc) and their coverage is very fungible. For example, if you get cancer, they might not cover you.
So… What I’m probably going to do is see if I can find a way out of the penalty (Simply by refusing to pay it is my current plan) and go uncovered for the first time in my adult life. I’ll fill out the application for a really top-end Cadillac plan, and keep it ready in case I have need of it. Then, if I get a major health issue with big expenses coming, I just file the application to get insurance and thus rip off the system (On the exchanges, enrollment closes in April for the year. That’s not true of private sellers, like any insurance office). Doing it this way will save me a bundle, plus it’ll be helping destroy this monstrosity.
For example, if you get cancer, they might not cover you.
Do you have any more specifics on this?
Jim asked,
“Do you have any more specifics on this?”
Yes. What Obamacare does, and does not, cover, are fungible by the administration. See their recent diktat of mental health coverage for just one example, and their decisions on grandfathering policies .
Further, the Administration’s guarantees on what is and is not covered is worth every bit as much as the pledge by Obama and his allies; “If you like your plan, you can keep it, period.”
Until someone makes a convincing case that they should be trusted on one aspect and not the other, everything they have claimed, and everything in the law, is at the very least strongly suspect. You’re essentially buying a policy written and approved by a Bernie Maddof level fraud (though that might be unfair to Madoff, who didn’t defraud anywhere near as many people).
Obviously, as they have proven, they cannot be trusted.
So, my statement that Obamacare policies might not cover cancer is exactly true; they might change the coverage rules to dump this very costly provision. Can they do so under the law? Probably, but it doesn’t matter, because they have proven (Such as via the delay in the employer side, which Obama does not have the power to do but did anyway, the exemptions for thousands of corporations, etc) that they don’t follow the law, even one they wrote.
You’re essentially buying a policy written and approved by a Bernie Maddof level fraud
The policies are written by insurance companies. If you buy a policy that says it covers cancer treatment, and the insurer refuses to pay for cancer treatment, you can sue them — same as ever.
{i}”The policies are written by insurance companies. If you buy a policy that says it covers cancer treatment, and the insurer refuses to pay for cancer treatment, you can sue them — same as ever.”{/i}
Sorry, but that’s just not true, and I can prove it.
I had a policy (a contract) that included guaranteed reissue. Can I sue them for not reissuing? Nope, Obamacare lets them off the hook for that.
I had a policy that did not charge me for the ability to add children up to age 26. But even if I hadn’t been cancelled, that was changed. (This is true even for grandfathered plans, as even helathcare.gov states).
I had lifetime caps on coverage, and a low rate that reflected this. This is what I wanted, but they took that away too, and the premium skyrocketed.
Can I sue the insurance company for any of this? Nope… it was mandated by either law, or by promulgated rules from DHHS.
Furthermore, the term of insurance contracts is at most a year. So, if they decide to change it and drop coverage for something at the end of the year, can I sue them? Nope.
So, if DHHS decides to issue a ruling that cancer (or anything else) is no longer covered (and they can do this as easily as they made changes to all existing policies) then I can’t sue, and I’m not covered, regardless of what the policy says.
So what I said is true; they might decide that cancer isn’t covered. After all, whatever they claim to the contrary has the exact same credibility as “If you like your current plan, you can keep it, period. “.
Jim, how do you feel about the House “If you like your plan, you can keep it” bill, that’s getting support from a few Democrats too (Including at least 2 D senators, and probably more out of the 12 up for election this year)? If you oppose it, I’d like to know why.
and I can prove it.
You haven’t yet. None of your examples involve DHHS changing the terms of an insurance policy while that policy was in effect, and none of your examples involve withdrawing a promised benefit. There is no precedent for you getting a private policy with benefits X, Y, and Z, and the government stepping in during the timespan of that policy and giving the insurer legal cover to deny you one of those benefits.
You are basically arguing that because Obamacare (passed in 2010) changed the rules for health insurance policies issued for 2011 and later, you can’t trust the provisions of any private health insurance policy ever again. That’s a ridiculous conclusion to draw.
If you oppose it, I’d like to know why.
I oppose it. Why should a small minority of people get to choose non-ACA-compliant policies, when the rest of us don’t have that choice?
“Why should a small minority of people get to choose non-ACA-compliant policies, when the rest of us don’t have that choice?”
Almost as many people are losing their current insurance as didn’t have insurance in the first place. How come such similar numbers demand such little concern from the advocates for the fraudulent system? One group we will tax every living human in America for and the other group Obama fans tell to pound sand.
And “the rest of us” are not losing their plans right now because of a unilateral extra-judicial decision by the President Barack Obama to delay the implementation of the same requirements that the other rest of us lost our current insurance under. Try living under the same rules as the people who are actually being affected by the law’s implementation.
Also, none of us have a choice. We all have to buy Obama mandated plans.
None of your examples involve DHHS changing the terms of an insurance policy while that policy was in effect, and none of your examples involve withdrawing a promised benefit.
To the contrary, there were above at least two examples. First, the elimination of the “guaranteed reissue” provision which was the very first example that Arizona Cj gave.
Second, was the promise “If you like your current plan, you can keep it, period. “
You are basically arguing that because Obamacare (passed in 2010) changed the rules for health insurance policies issued for 2011 and later, you can’t trust the provisions of any private health insurance policy ever again. That’s a ridiculous conclusion to draw.
And why is it a ridiculous conclusion? ACA did just that. What can be done once can be done again. And there will be considerable incentive to do something to cut health care costs because those will continue to grow.
“The policies are written by insurance companies.”
But the government tells them what to write…
Hey Jim, since you demand it from others, prove this: If you buy a policy that says it covers cancer treatment, and the insurer refuses to pay for cancer treatment, you can sue them — same as ever.
I don’t believe it. In fact, I know NHS and other socialized medical systems have their own system for handling legal disputes. So you claim it is the same as ever, prove it.
What does NHS have to do with it? Today I have insurance from Anthem, and if they refuse to pay for something that was in their plan description, I can sue them. Next year I will have insurance from Anthem, purchased at Healthcare.gov, and if they refuse to pay for something that was in their plan description, I can sue them. ACA or no ACA, it’s a legally binding contract between two private parties, and if Anthem reneges on that contract I can seek relief in civil court.
You’re absolutely right. They cannot be trusted. I am curious what happens if you refuse to pay the penalty? I know the IRS will attempt to take it from your tax refund, but if you have no refund, then what? My fiance wrote this funny song about the penalty, which he calls “The ObamaCare B**chSlap”. Search “obamacare bitchslap” on youtube or you can see it here: http://goo.gl/6eKXCg
This is a reply @ Jim, but I can’t insert it into the chain.
“You haven’t yet. None of your examples involve DHHS changing the terms of an insurance policy while that policy was in effect, and none of your examples involve withdrawing a promised benefit. There is no precedent for you getting a private policy with benefits X, Y, and Z, and the government stepping in during the timespan of that policy and giving the insurer legal cover to deny you one of those benefits.”
They do show exactly that. For example, the negation of the guaranteed issue clause, and the addition of required coverages, all affect a policy that is in force, even a grandfathered one. Therefor, a DHHS change affected a concurrent policy. These are therefor precedents of the government stepping in during the timespan of that policy and giving the insurer legal cover to change the terms. Also, just because something is unprecedented does not mean it won’t happen, so even without these precedents, it certainly could happen.
You are basically arguing that because Obamacare (passed in 2010) changed the rules for health insurance policies issued for 2011 and later, you can’t trust the provisions of any private health insurance policy ever again. That’s a ridiculous conclusion to draw.
Nope. You’re wrong; Obamacare (ACA) changes the rules for *ALL* policies, including the grandfathered ones, even those in force for a decade or more, like mine. Want it right from the horse’s mouth? (Well, in this case, the website has much more in common with the other end of the horse…) here’s a link to healthcare.gov. Go about halfway down the page and you’ll see a list of things that all policies, even grandfathered ones, must now have.
https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-a-grandfathered-health-plan/
What I’m staying is the lies told about what will and will not happen, by the people making them happen, make me highly disinclined to trust anything that they are involved in, for the exact same reasons I wouldn’t invest with Bernie Maddoff – dealing with a proven fraud does not engender trust. Of course you can’t trust the provisions of private insurance when the government has already, repeatedly, changed those terms (and lied about it).
Regarding the keep your old policy bill in the House;
I oppose it. Why should a small minority of people get to choose non-ACA-compliant policies, when the rest of us don’t have that choice?
I suspect you’re talking about the Senate version, the keep-your-promise bill by Democrats Feinstein, Manchin, Hagan, Pryor, Landrueu? Yes, that one does indeed give only some (Those who had policies in force) the ability to choose to continue those non-AC-compliant policies (Why object to that if ACA is so darn good?)
Okay, then let me ask this; would you support a bill that made everyone eligible to choose those policies? If so, Jim, can I assume that you support the Republican bill in the house, which does exactly that, and thus satisfies your stated objection?
the negation of the guaranteed issue clause, and the addition of required coverages, all affect a policy that is in force
No, they don’t. They affect your ability to renew the policy after its expiration, and they affect coverage beyond that time, but they don’t change anything before the policy term runs out.
things that all policies, even grandfathered ones, must now have
It’s a very short list:
End lifetime limits on coverage
End arbitrary cancellations of health coverage
Cover adult children up to age 26
Provide a Summary of Benefits and Coverage (SBC), a short, easy-to-understand summary of what a plan covers and costs
Hold insurance companies accountable to spend your premiums on health care, not administrative costs and bonuses
And that change, ordered in 2010, doesn’t take effect until 2014. It had absolutely no effect on any policy that was in effect in March, 2010, because those policies all ran out in 2011.
would you support a bill that made everyone eligible to choose those policies?
Yes, if everyone could choose those policies — no price discrimination based on health history. But there wouldn’t be any point, because the insurers would immediately cancel all those plans rather than offer them to all comers. Those plans aren’t a good deal because they don’t have to cover stuff mandated by the ACA. They’re a “good deal” because they’re only available to a lucky few.
Jim, I’m not positive on this (I couldn’t find out for certain) but I believe you’re wrong. The mandates for changes were calendar specific, so people like me who paid in advance (6 months) for a period that extended beyond the change date did indeed have policy changes while the policy was in force.
However, if I’m reading you right, you seem to be arguing that a policy, any policy, exists for at most a year. The terms of policies do indeed (or used to until Obamacare) extend past a year; my guaranteed reissue clause being just one example of an aspect of the policy that extended past its renewal cycle.
BTW, there are now six senate Democrats sponsoring Landaue’s bill, and the Republican who write the House version has said that Landaue’s bill might be better than his own.
Landrieu’s bill, the “Keeping the Affordable Care Act Promise” bill, seems to be gaining momentum. I wonder if there’s a procedural way to force it to the floor against Reid’s wishes, or a means to force him to comply? I have a hunch we’re about to find out.
ACA requirements only apply to policies that start on or after 1/1/14. If you renew a policy today, and it runs through November, 2014, it isn’t affected.
Guaranteed reissue just means that the insurer has to offer you a policy — and I assume your insurer has offered you one. It doesn’t mean it will be the same policy, or at the same premium. It just means that they can’t refuse to cover you outright. That guarantee was really worth something in the pre-ACA era, when insurers were otherwise free to turn anyone away. It isn’t as relevant now.