Question on the not tax, tax.

[Freeper]

Does anyone know what happens if a spouse who works, but who is on their spouses insurance from their job, and not on insurance from their own job will be required to pay the non tax, tax?

I was listening to Rush, or Herman Cain on Hannity, I forget which show, and he was saying something about the IRS will be getting the information about coverage from our employers. So naturally I started to wonder if me being on my wife's insurance will end up forcing me to pay the non tax, tax.

[dixierose]

I wouldn't think so, since you ARE covered. Do you get a "credit" from your employer for not getting insurance under their plan. The places I have worked gave a small credit; but you had to prove you were covered under a spouse's plan.

[Bad Dog]

Does anyone know what happens if a spouse who works, but who is on their spouses insurance from their job, and not on insurance from their own job will be required to pay the non tax, tax?

I was listening to Rush, or Herman Cain on Hannity, I forget which show, and he was saying something about the IRS will be getting the information about coverage from our employers. So naturally I started to wonder if me being on my wife's insurance will end up forcing me to pay the non tax, tax.

I'm sure everything will be fine after you fill out the new 1040 MED forms (all 15 pages) & make a few trips in to see one of those 15,000 new IRS agents.  NOTE: the 15 page thing was just a guess. Your results may vary.

[MrsSmith]

All you will have to do is prove to the IRS's satisfaction that you actually have health insurance.  You're probably screwed...

[Freeper]

I wouldn't think so, since you ARE covered. Do you get a "credit" from your employer for not getting insurance under their plan. The places I have worked gave a small credit; but you had to prove you were covered under a spouse's plan.

No, I don't get a credit.

I'm sure everything will be fine after you fill out the new 1040 MED forms (all 15 pages) & make a few trips in to see one of those 15,000 new IRS agents.  NOTE: the 15 page thing was just a guess. Your results may vary.

I don't doubt that.

All you will have to do is prove to the IRS's satisfaction that you actually have health insurance.  You're probably screwed...

We are all screwed under this bill.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Far be it for me to claim liberals make sense but my understanding is: if you have coverage--regardless of its source--you'll be OK. Case in point: adults up to age 26 can be carried up on their parents' plans.

[Bad Dog]

Far be it for me to claim liberals make sense but my understanding is: if you have coverage--regardless of its source--you'll be OK. Case in point: adults up to age 26 can be carried up on their parents' plans.

Sarge, I think the problem is that ,with the notable exception of contraceptives, nobody knows what HHS/IRS will consider to be "adequate" coverage.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Sarge, I think the problem is that ,with the notable exception of contraceptives, nobody knows what HHS/IRS will consider to be "adequate" coverage.

True, but the law also lays out bare minimums of what companies can sell; ergo anything sold is now adequate.

[thundley4]

True, but the law also lays out bare minimums of what companies can sell; ergo anything sold is now adequate.

I thought only the unions insurance plans were grandfathered in and considered adequate.

[BigTex]

In the Obamacare bill bars the IRS from the normal collection tools like criminal prosecution and levies, so even if you ere subject to the tax and didnt pay it there isnt a lot they could do to you.

[Bad Dog]

In the Obamacare bill bars the IRS from the normal collection tools like criminal prosecution and levies, so even if you ere subject to the tax and didnt pay it there isnt a lot they could do to you.

Keep telling your self that Tex. The "law" also doesn't allow a large class of illegal aliens to be given amnesty.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I thought only the unions insurance plans were grandfathered in and considered adequate.

No, they got a waiver to buy-off union support.

Once this kicks in no policy can be offered unless it satisfies Uncle Sugar.

In the Obamacare bill bars the IRS from the normal collection tools like criminal prosecution and levies, so even if you ere subject to the tax and didnt pay it there isnt a lot they could do to you.

I'd be curious to see that in writing.

Last I heard they could garnish wages to collect the tax-that-is-not-a-tax or withhold tax returns.

[thundley4]

No, they got a waiver to buy-off union support.

Once this kicks in no policy can be offered unless it satisfies Uncle Sugar.

I'd be curious to see that in writing.

Last I heard they could garnish wages to collect the tax-that-is-not-a-tax or withhold tax returns.

The way I understood it is that any existing insurance plans made under contract remain in effect until the plan is changed or the contract ends.   As to what would constitute a change in the plan, who knows?

[BigTex]

I'd be curious to see that in writing.

Last I heard they could garnish wages to collect the tax-that-is-not-a-tax or withhold tax returns.

From the Robert's opinion

"The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies." 

[thundley4]

From the Robert's opinion

"The Act, however, bars the IRS from using several of its normal enforcement tools, such as criminal prosecutions and levies." 

I don't see where that would stop a civil case and putting a lien on bank accounts or your paycheck.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I don't see where that would stop a civil case and putting a lien on bank accounts or your paycheck.

Maybe not but seeing how much the libs have ****ed themselves so far...

...even the passage cited by BigTex is a major win, IMHO.

ONE of the reasons we don't want government running our lives is because the people in government are--even with the best intentions--nincompoops.

It'd be glorious to think their nincompoopery worked to our benefit for once if their enforcement provisions were non-existent/unenforceable.

[thundley4]

Maybe not but seeing how much the libs have ****ed themselves so far...

...even the passage cited by BigTex is a major win, IMHO.

ONE of the reasons we don't want government running our lives is because the people in government are--even with the best intentions--nincompoops.

It'd be glorious to think their nincompoopery worked to our benefit for once if their enforcement provisions were non-existent/unenforceable.

I'm still hoping against all reason that the House GOP refuses to provide funding for IRS enforcement.

[Carl]

Far be it for me to claim liberals make sense but my understanding is: if you have coverage--regardless of its source--you'll be OK. Case in point: adults up to age 26 can be carried up on their parents' plans.

In the world of perfect sense you are correct.

However...right now who really knows how the reporting will go.
Freeps employers says he does not have coverage (am presuming that the reporting onus will fall on them) so now it is up to him to provide adequate verification that he does via another source,either self purchase or spouses family plan.
That could be as simple as an ID number off the card or as complicated as a seperate filing document.

Then he has to hope that IRS computers or agents do an adequate job of cross verifying what an employer states versus what an individual declares.

On top of that what do insurance companies have to report

I see an awful lot of money wasted towards complying instead of going to a productive employee.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I'm still hoping against all reason that the House GOP refuses to provide funding for IRS enforcement.

Too late on that one.

I heard local radio show discussing how this provision and that were deemed "appropriated" within the text of the law.

Ergo it would take a legislative act to "un-appropriate."

I don't know if its constitutional to blank-check a law in perpetuity. That might be another good court fight.

I see an awful lot of money wasted towards complying instead of going to a productive employee.

Add in the 2nd half of my sig

[Freeper]

In the world of perfect sense you are correct.

However...right now who really knows how the reporting will go.
Freeps employers says he does not have coverage (am presuming that the reporting onus will fall on them) so now it is up to him to provide adequate verification that he does via another source,either self purchase or spouses family plan.
That could be as simple as an ID number off the card or as complicated as a seperate filing document.

Then he has to hope that IRS computers or agents do an adequate job of cross verifying what an employer states versus what an individual declares.

On top of that what do insurance companies have to report

I see an awful lot of money wasted towards complying instead of going to a productive employee.

That's exactly what I'm worried about.

[BigTex]

I don't see where that would stop a civil case and putting a lien on bank accounts or your paycheck.

Well since it is such a small tax the cost of getting the tax would be more than the money they got. Of course this hasnt stopped the govt before. We still print pennies and nickels even though they cost more to print than their monetary value and there are already enough in circulation to last a century. 

[Freeper]

Well since it is such a small tax the cost of getting the tax would be more than the money they got. Of course this hasnt stopped the govt before. We still print pennies and nickels even though they cost more to print than their monetary value and there are already enough in circulation to last a century. 

They would spend a billion to get a million out of some rich guy.