ACA (a.k.a. Obamacare) Upheld

[jstern01]

Then I just do not understand how in Reality this is going to work. Once it's known how to game the system, pretty much Everyone who doesn't have the discretionary income and/or morals to pay for something they use is just going to not pay and be fined, since it's cheaper.

There has to be something to being fined that is bad correct? Such as you don't qualify for transplants, advanced services, chemo, etc. etc.? If my buddy who makes almost $30k a year and is single, and has no health covage, doesn't pay and is fined, and shows up at the docs with cancer, or gurd, or something like that, and the total is more than his fine (which, it absolutely will be with fine amounts being so low), where do they think the $$$ are going to come from to cover the balance???

ACA is a tiered plan then? Because that's the first I've heard of it being tiered (just never heard it mentioned before)....

Chuck

What everyone fails to realize, is that the Dems never wanted a mandate, that was a republican idea from back in 1990's when Hillary Clinton was pushing healthcare reform, and the republicans came up with their counter proposal (think Newt Gingrich).

 

[ichy]

We need a tax that if you dont vote republican you get taxed. Based on this ruling perfectly legal.


Oh wait, democrates might now take that idea and actually run with it, and their sheep here will defend it.

Thanks for that brilliant straw man argument

 

[Pneumothorax]

As far as constitutionality goes SCOTUS made the right ruling all around. As a tax, such a bill is legal. Though I've long had issue with our screwed up tax laws that allow such non-sense to be forced upon us.

I'd also like to add that I believe the bill does nothing to correct issues with our health care industry, it simply shoves more people into the broken system. Every issue we have today will simply be exacerbated along with costs skyrocketing over the next decade.

I want real reform to our nation so we can properly address our healthcare issues, we live in an age of excess and Americans should have affordable access to reasonable healthcare. Yes reasonable healthcare, spending 1m to keep your ass alive so you can't contribute anything doesn't constitute reasonable healthcare. We really need to change the way our society fears death and illness.

You know I can agree with you. This is a lost battle, American's want their free health care, let's give it to them. I want death panels set up yesterday. I want them to pull the plug on the thousands of Alzheimer's patients hooked up the ICU with machines keeping them alive for thousands a day for no reason at all. The last round of experimental chemo? Let's cut that off too as the cost/benefit ratio isn't there. Let's give the health care that america wants for free and what they DESERVE.

 

[Fern]

And that is in the Constitution. OMG the government can tax me. If it can take 10% of my income, what stops it from taking 100%?

Very analogous, isn't it? (For the slow ones - Yes, the government can tax 100% in theory but that has never happened and will not. Why do you think that is?)

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that the government could tax you at 100%. That would certainly be confiscatory and could be found to violate private property rights. I.e., the court could find that it wasn't actually a tax in substance, but rather ploy to confiscate private property.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Tea Party Activists: NOOOOOOOOOO this is the worst day in history

*ironically defends medicare to the death because they personally benefit from it*

I would think it's because they personally paid for Medicare.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

I would think it's because they personally paid for Medicare.

Fern

Although they personally paid in far less than they will get in benefits from it. Were the government to cut benefits so that they just get back their contribution plus interest I think they would be very angry indeed.

 

[nehalem256]

There has to be something to being fined that is bad correct? Such as you don't qualify for transplants, advanced services, chemo, etc. etc.? If my buddy who makes almost $30k a year and is single, and has no health covage, doesn't pay and is fined, and shows up at the docs with cancer, or gurd, or something like that, and the total is more than his fine (which, it absolutely will be with fine amounts being so low), where do they think the $$$ are going to come from to cover the balance???
Chuck

I believe your reasoning is sound. It seems like the better plan would to have made it so as long as you maintained continuous coverage you could not been turned down for insurance. Then there would have been no need for the mandate and it would discourage people from gaming the system.

 

[munkus]

Q: What will happen to my insurance premiums?

A: Most consumers can expect to keep seeing increases in premiums and co-payments because the underlying cost of health care is expected to rise. The law contains a few mechanisms to curb premiums, but it also requires that many insurance providers make their benefits more generous, which will raise their cost. Older people could see their premiums go down because of the new age rating rules insurers will face. People who buy policies without the help of an employer could get a better deal by being able to shop on the exchanges, where comparing plans will be easier than before.

Sounds like the majority of us 99%ers are going to see costs rise regardless. Granted, premiums go up every year no matter what. Just not sure how this helps anyone in the middle class.

 

[nanette1985]

So when do us unfortunate people who don't have health insurance now because we can't afford it get our official notification that there's now health insurance we can afford?

How much is our new mandated required health insurance going to cost?

 

[chucky2]

Do republicans consider all tax deductions Federal Mandates?

I don't have children so I am penalized.

Is the government telling me I have to have children?

The Gov shouldn't be giving tax breaks to people with children in the first place. Reducing your tax obligation because you chose to have a zygote should not be the Fed's problem.

 

[michal1980]

Might not be a bad idea except for that pesky first amendment.

your still free to vote for D's, you just have to pay a tax.

Think of it as a tax credit if you vote republican. not a tax penalty if you vote for the left.

 

[fskimospy]

So when do us unfortunate people who don't have health insurance now because we can't afford it get our official notification that there's now health insurance we can afford?

How much is our new mandated required health insurance going to cost?

If your income is low enough that you can't afford insurance your costs will be subsidized by the government.

 

[fskimospy]

your still free to vote for D's, you just have to pay a tax.

Think of it as a tax credit if you vote republican. not a tax penalty if you vote for the left.

Your childish rage is pretty funny.

You lost a court case, deal with it.

 

[sactoking]

Is that the same as a health savings account? I sure hope not. Self employed with a $10K deductible.

I believe it does cover FSA, HSA, and their ilk, all.

Donut holes exist so that everyone gets some benefit. Then a hole in the middle where you are required to cover yourself. Then catastrophic coverage kicks in.

Ummm... you don't know what you're talking about. People with a high-deductible plan and a FSA/HSA do cover themselves. The problem is that FSA/HSA contributions are tax-deductible (so long as they are used for qualified medical expenses) and now that deductibility threshold is lower. More and more people are having to use high-deductible plans, and now it just became more expensive to do so. This is, in effect, another tax increase under the ACA...

 

[chucky2]

If your income is low enough that you can't afford insurance your costs will be subsidized by the government.

Whhhaaaaaaa???????????

 

[chucky2]

I believe your reasoning is sound. It seems like the better plan would to have made it so as long as you maintained continuous coverage you could not been turned down for insurance. Then there would have been no need for the mandate and it would discourage people from gaming the system.

That might work, except for when people lose their jobs. What happens when you lose your job, are really actively trying to get a job for 14 months, and finally get one?

Obviously once you have your new job you could be expected to get some kind of health insurance, but, while you don't have one, how are you going to pay for it and thus maintain coverage?

 

[Wreckem]

Sounds like the majority of us 99%ers are going to see costs rise regardless. Granted, premiums go up every year no matter what. Just not sure how this helps anyone in the middle class.

Thats because neither party wants to address the root problem, the actual cost of healthcare. We the Dems would like to address that, sorta, but the GOP doesnt give two shits.

We need to focus on healthcare costs, not healthcare insurance costs.

Healthcare costs started skyrocketing in the 1980s when non-profit hospitals switched to for profit. The switch to for-profit healthcare is what has caused runaway costs.

 

[ElMonoDelMar]

your still free to vote for D's, you just have to pay a tax.

Think of it as a tax credit if you vote republican. not a tax penalty if you vote for the left.

Are you serious or just raging?

 

[munkus]

Whhhaaaaaaa???????????

Yep. But the reality is we're already paying for people without insurance who show up at the hospital ER with the sniffles and are required by law to be cared for. This just makes a way for the hospitals to get paid. Hospital stocks jumped way up today after the ruling.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/sector-snap-hospitals-surge-health-143622915.html

 

[Ausm]

your still free to vote for d's, you just have to pay a tax.

Think of it as a tax credit if you vote republican. Not a tax penalty if you vote for the left.

lmfao......Sounds like you need some cheese and crackers for your whine?

 

[sactoking]

Whhhaaaaaaa???????????

Anyone with income below 133% of the Federal Poverty Level will be eligible for Medicaid.

Anyone with income below 400% of the FPL will receive a subsidy to purchase individual insurance on an Exchange.

Anyone whose worst employer-provided insurance or worst Exchange-available insurance costs more than 8% of their income after subsidy will be exempt from the mandate.

 

[munkus]

Thats because neither party wants to address the root problem, the actual cost of healthcare. We the Dems would like to address that, sorta, but the GOP doesnt give two shits.

We need to focus on healthcare costs, not healthcare insurance costs.

Healthcare costs started skyrocketing in the 1980s when non-profit hospitals switched to for profit. The switch to for-profit healthcare is what has caused runaway costs.

Agree 100%.

 

[fskimospy]

Whhhaaaaaaa???????????

If this is news to you, you have no business even talking about this law because you have no clue what's in it.

 

[sactoking]

That might work, except for when people lose their jobs. What happens when you lose your job, are really actively trying to get a job for 14 months, and finally get one?

Obviously once you have your new job you could be expected to get some kind of health insurance, but, while you don't have one, how are you going to pay for it and thus maintain coverage?

You should be able to qualify for medicaid or near-free coverage on the Exchange in that case.

 

[Ausm]

Agree 100%.

I don't think you'll get any Rightist on board for that.