Edited, Jun 28th 2012 6:13pm by Demea
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Well... holy wow. Healthcare Bill Upheld
Well... holy wow. Healthcare Bill UpheldFollow
Without taking the time to read more than the first few posts, here's my two cents (not that any of you give a flying fart):
The individual mandate is a tax! Obama argued heatedly against this notion back in 2010 to avoid breaking his "no new taxes on the middle class" election promise, and I doubt it would have passed through Congress had this been openly admitted at the time. But so long as it allows Obamacare to stand, he's kind of forced to embrace it now.
The individual mandate is not a tax! Or, at least, that's how Roberts interpreted it in regards to the Anti-Injunction Law. Which seems to completely preempt the option to then declare it constitutional under the Taxing Clause. But, you know, whatever. Who expects consistency from this partisan conservative activist court?!
Congress does not have the power to regulate interstate commerce where there is no commerce to which to apply regulation. In other words, they do not have the power to compel commercial activity of the citizens who are not engaged in commercial activity (which is in effect what the individual mandate does, but just ignore that because LOOK AT THE SHINY THING!!).
In regards to one of Joph's points about Roberts writing the majority opinion to limit the scope of the decision, I think the above point is Roberts' attempt to do just that. This decision clearly states that Congress can't compel the citizens to engage in commercial activity where they would otherwise not under the Commerce Clause. Of course, Congress could always "penalize" citizens for failing to engage in commercial activity by imposing a "tax" on them should they elect no to do so. So, yeah, this whole decision is @#%^ed, and I'm honestly flabbergasted, although I agree with Roberts' point that the role of the Court is not to protect the citizens from the consequences of their electoral mistakes (snide shot at Democrats there, methinks).
Edited, Jun 28th 2012 6:13pm by Demea
Edited, Jun 28th 2012 6:13pm by Demea
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
How can they make me pay a "tax" for not buying something?
Taxed when I buy, taxed when I don't. This is seriously cutting into my hookers and blow fund.
Taxed when I buy, taxed when I don't. This is seriously cutting into my hookers and blow fund.
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
My potentially flawed understanding is that, since the administration said it wasn't a tax, the court was unwilling to even hear the motion to block the case based on the AIA. It's entirely possible that if they had they would have ruled it a tax and stopped the case until 2014 but it never got out of the gate.
I'll agree that it's not the most satisfying explanation but it's the best I've heard.
Edited, Jun 28th 2012 6:38pm by Jophiel
I'll agree that it's not the most satisfying explanation but it's the best I've heard.
Edited, Jun 28th 2012 6:38pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Kastigir wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
At the same time though they are expanding Medicaid to cover people up to 133% of the federal poverty line and provide subsidies for insurance via tax credits for people making up to 400% of the poverty line. That's people making around $44k for an individual or $88k for a family of four.
That's a good thing since I fear that premiums will skyrocket once the whole thing goes into effect.
Sorry I usually hold my tongue on politics but where do you get this from? By the end of the year insurance companies are rebating approx 15 billion dollars to customers part of their money that was saved, because, I believe, of rules in this mandate. One of the main reasons this mandate was put into effect is because those who already had insurance were paying more because they had to foot the bill for those who didn't have insurance, this makes it where everyone has to pay for their insurance so no one can skip their bill, forcing hospitals to charge more to those who pay, to break even. Kind of like how they say shoplifting hurts the paying customer by raising the price of other products. Also hospitals were getting money from the government to foot that bill too, so in a way everyone that pays taxes was already paying some of it.
Also I have a question why is this any different then it being illegal to not have car insurance in most states? Other then i can see one being federal vs state law, and if so was that the only difference really is who issued the law?
As for the 'tax' its only a fee you pay if you choose not to have insurance, so its a very very loose definition of tax. Kind of like saying its not a speeding ticket its a speeding tax, if I'm comprehending it right. I could be wrong
Edited, Jun 28th 2012 7:12pm by BeanX
BeanX wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
At the same time though they are expanding Medicaid to cover people up to 133% of the federal poverty line and provide subsidies for insurance via tax credits for people making up to 400% of the poverty line. That's people making around $44k for an individual or $88k for a family of four.
That's a good thing since I fear that premiums will skyrocket once the whole thing goes into effect.
Sorry I usually hold my tongue on politics but where do you get this from? By the end of the year insurance companies are rebating approx 15 billion dollars to customers part of their money that was saved, because, I believe, of rules in this mandate. One of the main reasons this mandate was put into effect is because those who already had insurance were paying more because they had to foot the bill for those who didn't have insurance, this makes it where everyone has to pay for their insurance so no one can skip their bill, forcing hospitals to charge more to those who pay, to break even. Kind of like how they say shoplifting hurts the paying customer by raising the price of other products. Also hospitals were getting money from the government to foot that bill too, so in a way everyone that pays taxes was already paying some of it.
The law also expands the minimum coverage that every policy must offer, and gives away more free/subsidized insurance via the Medicaid program (which, by the way, is not fully funded by Uncle Sam). The trick they used to make this all "deficit neutral" is to promise to find "efficiency savings" in the Medicare/Medicaid programs, and to allow automatic rate reductions to hit both of those programs, which Congress has delayed for as long as I can remember (when was the last time this actually happened? Sometime in the Clinton administration maybe?).
Quote:
Also I have a question why is this any different then it being illegal to not have car insurance in most states? Other then i can see one being federal vs state law, and if so was that the only difference really is who issued the law?
Driving is a privilege, where as emergency medical services are not.
Quote:
As for the 'tax' its only a fee you pay if you choose not to have insurance, so its a very very loose definition of tax. Kind of like saying its not a speeding ticket its a speeding tax, if I'm comprehending it right. I could be wrong
You are wrong. But don't worry; apparently that qualifies you to be a Supreme Court Justice!
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
But we already have a Justice Scalia...
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
This entire day has been worth it if for no other reason than to hear Glenn Beck and his co-hosts shitting their pants live.
someproteinguy wrote:
Quote:
In 2014, the penalty will be $285 per family or 1% of income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it goes up to $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.
If we pay this tax, we should get covered anyways.l
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Also I have a question why is this any different then it being illegal to not have car insurance in most states?
Driving is a privilege, where as emergency medical services are not.
That's true, but it's not an answer to the question. Watching you people communicate is like watching porcupines fuck.
Firstly, states aren't the federal government. Here in the workers paradise, the 'Chussetts, we've had an individual mandate to buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty for years. In the state to our northeast, the libertarian playground of New Hampshire, there is no such mandate. In point of fact, I'm fairly sure you don't have insure a car to drive there either. I'm not really sure, because while I'm there occasionally to buy $4 packs of cigarettes or sales tax free televisions or eat a diners with Presidential candidates, the actual governance of the state doesn't hold much interest. Individual states can pass lots of laws that Congress doesn't necessarily have the power to pass at the federal level. Laws that limit vehicle speed on roads in the states, for instance. Laws against murdering other citizens, that sort of trivial *********
Secondly, and more importantly, there is no legal remedy for those seeking relief from the health care mandate, whereas from the car insurance mandate, people have the option of not owning a car. This makes the health care mandate vastly different.
Driving is a privilege, where as emergency medical services are not.
That's true, but it's not an answer to the question. Watching you people communicate is like watching porcupines fuck.
Firstly, states aren't the federal government. Here in the workers paradise, the 'Chussetts, we've had an individual mandate to buy health insurance or pay a tax penalty for years. In the state to our northeast, the libertarian playground of New Hampshire, there is no such mandate. In point of fact, I'm fairly sure you don't have insure a car to drive there either. I'm not really sure, because while I'm there occasionally to buy $4 packs of cigarettes or sales tax free televisions or eat a diners with Presidential candidates, the actual governance of the state doesn't hold much interest. Individual states can pass lots of laws that Congress doesn't necessarily have the power to pass at the federal level. Laws that limit vehicle speed on roads in the states, for instance. Laws against murdering other citizens, that sort of trivial *********
Secondly, and more importantly, there is no legal remedy for those seeking relief from the health care mandate, whereas from the car insurance mandate, people have the option of not owning a car. This makes the health care mandate vastly different.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Debalic wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Quote:
In 2014, the penalty will be $285 per family or 1% of income, whichever is greater. By 2016, it goes up to $2,085 per family or 2.5% of income.
If we pay this tax, we should get covered anyways.l
You already are, and there's no federal mandate to pay hospitals for treating you. That's kind of the point of the whole cobbled-up mess.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
I've been thinking of all our medical clients, and all but one of them has been hustling to get their systems ready for the full version of the bill, since it required major infrastructure upgrades and large investments for the offices to qualify for tax bonuses from the feds and extra federal funding and such. That one office, with two elderly doctors who are firmly in the Romney camp (I've seen their BMWs and the bumper stickers), is screwed. It's a small practice, but they're going to have to replace their server and their entire medical CRM system in the next month if they want to qualify for the tax incentives in 2013 (meaningful use, I think its called).
Oh well, emergency rate at $125 an hour for us!
Oh well, emergency rate at $125 an hour for us!
Paskil wrote:
This entire day has been worth it if for no other reason than to hear Glenn Beck and his co-hosts shitting their pants live.
Which is somewhat hilarious, as he already said he thinks Obama will win re-election and Romney was a poor candidate months ago. He's a showman out to make money, nothing more.
Smasharoo wrote:
Watching you people communicate is like watching porcupines fuck.
Disturbingly erotic?
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
As erotic as a hamburger giving a corndog a ******* on top of your head.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
As erotic as a hamburger giving a corndog a ******* on top of your head.
Fap fap fap fap fap
Jophiel wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Watching you people communicate is like watching porcupines fuck.
Disturbingly erotic?
lolgaxe wrote:
As erotic as a hamburger giving a corndog a ******* on top of your head.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Jophiel wrote:
At the same time though they are expanding Medicaid to cover people up to 133% of the federal poverty line and provide subsidies for insurance via tax credits for people making up to 400% of the poverty line. That's people making around $44k for an individual or $88k for a family of four.
I suddenly feel poor.
Smasharoo wrote:
Watching you people communicate is like watching porcupines fuck.
Well at least we know what to get you for Christmas now...
Edited, Jun 29th 2012 8:55am by someproteinguy
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Jophiel wrote:
At the same time though they are expanding Medicaid to cover people up to 133% of the federal poverty line and provide subsidies for insurance via tax credits for people making up to 400% of the poverty line. That's people making around $44k for an individual or $88k for a family of four.
Actually, the Medicaid expansion is being left up to states. They can choose to expand, or choose to opt out and do something else. However, if they choose to expand, the feds will give them 90% of the funds for the first few years.
To all the pubbie states like my own who are on the fence about this: You claim to want to run your state like a business. Opting out of Medicaid expansion would be a bad business decision. If you owned a business, and someone came up to you and said, "Oh hey, I see a percentage of your workforce has no health insurance. We'll allow you to give them health insurance at 10% of the cost for a few years if you give them access to it" -- you would be a complete and total fool not to take them up on the offer.
Jophiel wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Watching you people communicate is like watching porcupines fuck.
Disturbingly erotic?
catwho wrote:
To all the pubbie states like my own who are on the fence about this: You claim to want to run your state like a business. Opting out of Medicaid expansion would be a bad business decision. If you owned a business, and someone came up to you and said, "Oh hey, I see a percentage of your workforce has no health insurance. We'll allow you to give them health insurance at 10% of the cost for a few years if you give them access to it" -- you would be a complete and total fool not to take them up on the offer.
Guess I'm a fool them, as my first thought would be "What's it gonna cost us once they stop paying that 90%"?
Never regret.To regret is to assume.
CoalHeart wrote:
catwho wrote:
To all the pubbie states like my own who are on the fence about this: You claim to want to run your state like a business. Opting out of Medicaid expansion would be a bad business decision. If you owned a business, and someone came up to you and said, "Oh hey, I see a percentage of your workforce has no health insurance. We'll allow you to give them health insurance at 10% of the cost for a few years if you give them access to it" -- you would be a complete and total fool not to take them up on the offer.
Guess I'm a fool them, as my first thought would be "What's it gonna cost us once they stop paying that 90%"?
Still a lot less than you footing the bill yourself.
Fox news wrote:
The federal government agreed to pay the full tab for the Medicaid expansion when it begins in 2014. But after three years, states must pay a gradually increasing share that tops out at 10 percent of the cost. That may not sound like much, but it translates to a commitment of billions of dollars at a time when many local officials are still anxious about the slow economic recovery.
So I was mistaken. They'll pay the full bill for three years, and the most a state will pay under the law is 10% of the cost.
Demea wrote:
BeanX wrote:
Also I have a question why is this any different then it being illegal to not have car insurance in most states? Other then i can see one being federal vs state law, and if so was that the only difference really is who issued the law?
Driving is a privilege, where as emergency medical services are not.
Well, you only have to pay for car insurance if you have a car. If you don't want to pay for car insurance, then don't have a car. Likewise, you only have to pay health insurance if you have health. So, if you don't want to pay for health insurance, then don't have health. Everyone's happy, problem solved, next topic.
Seriously though, I don't see what the issue is. From my understanding, only the people who can afford it and choose not to pay for it gets taxed. We live in a civilized nation where most people don't want to overlook somebody having a heart attack, seizure, giving birth, etc. because "they are not insured". However, doing so isn't cost effective. If you truly believe that having a car is luxury and having good health isn't, then you should logically support the necessity of caring for others. And those "others" should have to equally pay for insurance as everyone else do.
The judges decision on the "fine" or "tax" part of the package may have been influenced by overseas tax practise. In Australia, if an individual earns over $80k or a family earns over $160k, and they DON'T have private health insurance, then they must pay an extra 1% tax. The tax surcharge is called the Medicare Levy Surcharge.
In Australia, Medicare is government-funded care that covers everyone regardless of income. Medicare doesn't always cover all costs, sometimes the patient must make a smaller or larger co-payment. The more expensive the procedure, the more likely the government is to cover it all. Poor people qualify for a Health Care Card and in their case co-payments are topped out at $2.00.
In Australia, Medicare is government-funded care that covers everyone regardless of income. Medicare doesn't always cover all costs, sometimes the patient must make a smaller or larger co-payment. The more expensive the procedure, the more likely the government is to cover it all. Poor people qualify for a Health Care Card and in their case co-payments are topped out at $2.00.
For clarification, I hate insurance of all kind but believe it's a necessary evil that could be adjusted.
Almalieque wrote:
For clarification, I hate insurance of all kind...
Any particular reason why?
Quote:
... but believe it's a necessary evil...
Still not following you.
Quote:
... that could be adjusted.
Adjusted how? Do you even understand how insurance works, or is this another "I don't like it, so it must be broken" rant?
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
Recent Visitors: 352
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (352)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Well... holy wow. Healthcare Bill Upheld
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC