ObamaCare cap on out-of-pocket costs delayed

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/13/obamacare-cap-on-out-pocket-costs-delayed-in-latest-setback/



The Obama administration has quietly delayed another major provision of the federal health care overhaul, pushing off until 2015 a mandatory cap on out-of-pocket costs for individuals.

The New York Times reported on Tuesday (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/us/a-limit-on-consumer-costs-is-delayed-in-health-care-law.html?smid=tw-nytimeshealth&seid=auto&_r=1&pagewanted=all&)http://global.fncstatic.com/static/v/all/img/external-link.png that the administration is giving some insurers a one-year grace period to adhere to the limit, which otherwise would have capped individual costs at $6,350 a year and gone into effect in 2014. The change means some insurers could set higher limits or set no limit at all on out-of-pocket costs during that period.
The grace period apparently was granted earlier this year, though was buried in reams of regulatory material and was not publicly reported until now.


The decision raises concerns that, at least for next year, the health care law will not save people as much money as President Obama claimed. On the campaign trail, Obama has touted caps on out-of-pocket costs as a selling point.

So far, every delay has benefited business, and dinged the people Obamacare was supposed to help.

[fj1200]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/13/obamacare-cap-on-out-pocket-costs-delayed-in-latest-setback/

So far, every delay has benefited business, and dinged the people Obamacare was supposed to help.

I think that they're just trying to hold off the anti-job growth effects until the job market recovers. Unfortunately temporary relief has no longstanding effect.

[tailfins]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/13/obamacare-cap-on-out-pocket-costs-delayed-in-latest-setback/




So far, every delay has benefited business, and dinged the people Obamacare was supposed to help.




[/COLOR][/LEFT]


Health insurance was a bad deal before Obamacare, and worse after. Let's take the figure $1,500 per month. You can either pay that towards a mortgage and own a $300,000 home in thirty years, or that's what a family health insurance policy costs. What is the cost of a "wrong" bet? If you choose health insurance over a home and stay well, you have nothing. If you choose the home and get sick, you declare Chaper 7 and still have a home free and clear. If you choose insurance and get sick with a $100,000 hospital bill, you are STILL in debt $10K-$20K, the worst of all scenarios!

[KarlMarx]

By their own actions, the Obama administration is admitting that Obamacare is a very bad idea

[red states rule]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/13/obamacare-cap-on-out-pocket-costs-delayed-in-latest-setback/




So far, every delay has benefited business, and dinged the people Obamacare was supposed to help.




[/COLOR][/LEFT]

Did you really expect Obama care to actually help middle class people?

The only fools who believed that crap were the Obama lap dogs and those who want to put private ins companies out of business. This should come as no surprise to anyone. There have been countless articles regarding the total and complete failure of Obamacare

However the Obama lap dogs tend to ignore those facts, make excuses, and try to blame others for the failure of their leader's "crowning achievement"

I would like one of the Obama lap dogs to explain how the President can legally pick and choose what parts of the "law of the land" the government can decide to enforce and which ones they choose not to enforce

[red states rule]

Health insurance was a bad deal before Obamacare, and worse after. Let's take the figure $1,500 per month. You can either pay that towards a mortgage and own a $300,000 home in thirty years, or that's what a family health insurance policy costs. What is the cost of a "wrong" bet? If you choose health insurance over a home and stay well, you have nothing. If you choose the home and get sick, you declare Chaper 7 and still have a home free and clear. If you choose insurance and get sick with a $100,000 hospital bill, you are STILL in debt $10K-$20K, the worst of all scenarios!

You will not have the home free and clear. A discharge under Chapter 7 means the h/o is not liable for the debt, but the lien on the property is enforceable

I run into this all the time. People think they can get a free house by filing Chapter 7 and then are "shocked" when the foreclosure notice arrives

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by tailfins http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=657802#post657802)
Health insurance was a bad deal before Obamacare, and worse after. Let's take the figure $1,500 per month. You can either pay that towards a mortgage and own a $300,000 home in thirty years, or that's what a family health insurance policy costs. What is the cost of a "wrong" bet? If you choose health insurance over a home and stay well, you have nothing. If you choose the home and get sick, you declare Chaper 7 and still have a home free and clear. If you choose insurance and get sick with a $100,000 hospital bill, you are STILL in debt $10K-$20K, the worst of all scenarios!


You will not have the home free and clear. A discharge under Chapter 7 means the h/o is not liable for the debt, but the lien on the property is enforceable

I run into this all the time. People think they can get a free house by filing Chapter 7 and then are "shocked" when the foreclosure notice arrives
It's a little sad that so many do not really understand what can and cannot happen in a Chapter 7.

RSR is correct.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/filing-chapter-7-get-rid-mortgage.html


Chapter 7 Discharge Wipes Out Your Personal Liability for Mortgage Loans When you take out a mortgage, you enter into a contract with your lender promising to pay back your loan in full. You can do this by paying off the loan through regular payments, refinancing through another lender, or selling the house. However, if you stop making mortgage payments (and you can’t refinance or sell your house for enough money to pay off your mortgage), your lender can force the sale of your home through foreclosure to get paid on its loan.

If your house is sold through foreclosure but the sale proceeds are not enough to pay off your mortgage balance, you may be responsible for the difference. This is called a deficiency. Whether your mortgage lender can go after your personal assets to collect a deficiency depends on your state’s laws. However, even within the same state, the result can vary depending on how many mortgages you have, whether your first mortgage lender or a junior lienholder is foreclosing on your home, or if you took out your mortgage to purchase your home or later.
A Chapter 7 discharge (http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/debt-discharged-chapter-7-bankruptcy.html) eliminates your personal liability for mortgage loans. This means that even if you live in a deficiency state, you are no longer in danger of your lender coming after you personally to collect a mortgage deficiency.



HOWEVER...
Chapter 7 Does Not Get Rid of Your Mortgage Lien In addition to your personal liability for the loan, your mortgage lender usually has a lien on your home. If you don’t pay your mortgage, the lender can enforce its lien by foreclosing on the house. As a result, your mortgage lender is classified as a secured creditor in your Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

Even though your Chapter 7 discharge wipes out your personal obligation to pay back the loan, it doesn’t eliminate the mortgage lien. If it did, everyone could file bankruptcy and then own their homes free and clear. When you file for Chapter 7, your mortgage lender still has the right to foreclose on your house if you default on the loan. As a result, if you want to keep your home, you need to continue making timely mortgage payments.




Simple, really.

[logroller]

You will not have the home free and clear. A discharge under Chapter 7 means the h/o is not liable for the debt, but the lien on the property is enforceable

I run into this all the time. People think they can get a free house by filing Chapter 7 and then are "shocked" when the foreclosure notice arrives
http://youtu.be/P36x8rTb3jI

[fj1200]

It's a little sad that so many do not really understand what can and cannot happen in a Chapter 7.

RSR is correct.

True but I think tailfins was presuming the house would be paid off. Of course then you only get to keep your homestead exemption in a chapter 7 which in some states is surprisingly high.

[logroller]

True but I think tailfins was presuming the house would be paid off. Of course then you only get to keep your homestead exemption in a chapter 7 which in some states is surprisingly high.
Homestead exemption? Sounds like a squatter law to me. :laugh:

[red states rule]

I have even had bankruptcy lawyers call/write and bellow how if we complete the f/c process they will sue as the borrower's debt was discharged

Of course, the f/c sale took place and we never heard a thing from the lawyer or the borrower

It is nothing more then the "give me" mentality. People want something for nothing and they believe they are entitled to a "free" house

[red states rule]

BTW, if you ever bought a house you signed 2 key documents

One was the Note and the other was the Security Instrument

If you file bankruptcy and get a discharge, then the Note is worthless. You do not have to pay the debt and the holder of the note can shred it and toss it

HOWEVER, you also signed the Security Instrument (also known as The Mortgage) which protects the lender. It does not matter who pays the lender as long as the lender is paid. If the lender is not paid, then they will exercise their lien and you lose the property