Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Well... holy wow. Healthcare Bill UpheldFollow

#52 Jun 28 2012 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,436 posts
It is really interesting that in general this is described as the individual mandate being upheld. Really the verdict as written is largely opposed to the individual mandate idea. I mean they pretty much shoot down the whole notion that the government can force you to buy health care, or really interfere in the markets in any way in this matter. So in that sense any mandate is gone, and seemingly outside of the governments granted powers (as a lot of people suspected I'm guessing). Interestingly I wonder how much this decision get interpreted in the future, there's a lot of negativity about pro-actively interfering in markets. However contrary to that:

Quote:
taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. Some of our earliest federal taxes sought to deter the purchase of imported manufactured goods in order to foster the growth of domestic industry.


What's interesting about this, is that if the language of the bill was written to describe this as a tax, it probably would have never gotten this far. The use of the word "penalty" instead of "tax" seems to have caused a bit of a debate, since one is deemed to be within congresses powers and the other outside of it.

The more of this I read the more interesting this decision becomes. There's really a lot of more traditional/conservative reasoning in there (I suppose this is indicative of Roberts), for justifying a very liberal idea.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#53 Jun 28 2012 at 12:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,436 posts
CSM wrote:
The News Corp. board of directors has approved a plan to split the company into two pieces, one for the company's lucrative entertainment businesses and its not-so-lucrative publishing businesses.

The Wall Street Journal, a News Corp. property joining the publishing side, reports the split will be formally announced on Thursday morning. The Journal, The Times of London, and HarperCollins will all fall under the publishing side, while 20th Century Fox, Fox News Channel, and the Fox broadcasting network will all fall under entertainment.


Smiley: lol
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#54 Jun 28 2012 at 12:53 PM Rating: Good
******
43,179 posts
An extremely loose definition of the word "entertainment," at that.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#55 Jun 28 2012 at 1:20 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I mean they pretty much shoot down the whole notion that the government can force you to buy health care, or really interfere in the markets in any way in this matter. So in that sense any mandate is gone, and seemingly outside of the governments granted powers


What Roberts did say is that a) Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce but not force citizens to engage in it and that b) the healthcare mandate is less of a government mandate than it is a tax on those who choose not to insure themselves. While I'm sure presenting it as a tax is a political hot plate and not at all the intent of Obama and his supporters, the legitimacy of said tax is no longer questionable, at least.

And quite frankly, when presented that way, I tend to agree even more. The origin of the mandate as I understand it was to prevent abuse of emergency care by uninsured individuals. In this way, that goal is accomplished. If you choose to use emergency services as your primary method of care and choose not to retain health care insurance, that's perfectly legal - but you now have to pay an additional to help cover the expense.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#56 Jun 28 2012 at 1:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
MittRomney.com wrote:
As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. These justices hold dear what the great Chief Justice John Marshall called “the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected”: a written Constitution, with real and determinate meaning. The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written. And his nominees will possess a demonstrated record of adherence to these core principles.

lulz
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 Jun 28 2012 at 2:30 PM Rating: Default
***
2,790 posts
Jophiel wrote:
MittRomney.com wrote:
As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. These justices hold dear what the great Chief Justice John Marshall called “the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected”: a written Constitution, with real and determinate meaning. The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written. And his nominees will possess a demonstrated record of adherence to these core principles.

lulz


I'm not seeing what's funny about that. I don't agree with Roberts' decision, but I can clearly see that if he considered the mandate as a tax, it was clearly constitutional. what I can't understand is how he came to see it as a tax when everybody on Obama's side did their best to make it not sound like a tax. It's not like Roberts' majority decision was "wow, this is the best piece of legislation ever and I came on myself an average of once per page".
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#58 Jun 28 2012 at 2:32 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
So what exactly does this mean? Are you people joining the rest of the civilised world now?
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#59 Jun 28 2012 at 2:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I'm not seeing what's funny about that.

That's ok.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#60 Jun 28 2012 at 2:34 PM Rating: Default
***
2,790 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I'm not seeing what's funny about that.

That's ok.


In other words, you can't explain what's funny about it. Gotcha!

Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#61 Jun 28 2012 at 2:35 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
Nilatai wrote:
So what exactly does this mean? Are you people joining the rest of the civilised world now?
It means we all HAVE to have health insurance now, or we get fined taxed!
#62 Jun 28 2012 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
In other words, you can't explain what's funny about it. Gotcha!

You're right, I can't. Explaining a joke never works to make it funny. Either you get it or you don't.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Jun 28 2012 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,436 posts
Nilatai wrote:
So what exactly does this mean? Are you people joining the rest of the civilised world now?


A list of exemptions and a requirement to have a minimal skeleton of health care for most people (I foresee many a religious conversion to 'no-health-care' religions). We're being dragged into the 20th century kicking and screaming I suppose. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#64 Jun 28 2012 at 2:54 PM Rating: Default
***
2,790 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
In other words, you can't explain what's funny about it. Gotcha!

You're right, I can't. Explaining a joke never works to make it funny. Either you get it or you don't.


Or there's just not anything funny about. Again, gotcha!

Smiley: thumbsup Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn
Midgarsormr realm
Eartha Kitty 30 BRD/12 MNK
#65 Jun 28 2012 at 3:01 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
So what exactly does this mean? Are you people joining the rest of the civilised world now?
It means we all HAVE to have health insurance now, or we get fined taxed!


someproteinguy wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
So what exactly does this mean? Are you people joining the rest of the civilised world now?


A list of exemptions and a requirement to have a minimal skeleton of health care for most people (I foresee many a religious conversion to 'no-health-care' religions). We're being dragged into the 20th century kicking and screaming I suppose. Smiley: rolleyes

So, you guys have to have health insurance or be fined. Do insurance companies have to insure you regardless of pre-existing conditions and that sort of thing? That, to me, was always the biggest issue with your healthcare "system". That and the fact you pay over the odds for it.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#66 Jun 28 2012 at 3:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,436 posts
Nilatai wrote:

So, you guys have to have health insurance or be fined. Do insurance companies have to insure you regardless of pre-existing conditions and that sort of thing? That, to me, was always the biggest issue with your healthcare "system". That and the fact you pay over the odds for it.


Linky that describes some of the changes

Quote:
Starting in 2014, the law makes it illegal for any health insurance plan to use pre-existing conditions to exclude, limit or set unrealistic rates on coverage.



Edited, Jun 28th 2012 2:07pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#67 Jun 28 2012 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,262 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Nilatai wrote:

So, you guys have to have health insurance or be fined. Do insurance companies have to insure you regardless of pre-existing conditions and that sort of thing? That, to me, was always the biggest issue with your healthcare "system". That and the fact you pay over the odds for it.


Linky that describes some of the changes

Quote:
Starting in 2014, the law makes it illegal for any health insurance plan to use pre-existing conditions to exclude, limit or set unrealistic rates on coverage.

Smiley: thumbsup

Thanks for the link.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#68 Jun 28 2012 at 3:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
Or there's just not anything funny about. Again, gotcha!

You're right. I wrote "lulz" just for the practice.

Hopefully the ACA covers cases of chronic butthurt in Republicans.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#69Bigdaddyjug, Posted: Jun 28 2012 at 4:11 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I'm not butthurt. This decision is never going to affect me in any negative way. If the Republicans don't win a majority in both houses and the Presidency in November and repeal the ACA, I already work at a job that provides excellent health and wellness, dental, and vision benefits and I don't see myself leaving this company for a long time.
#70 Jun 28 2012 at 4:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,087 posts
The thing is, just because you don't see yourself leaving the company any time soon, doesn't mean your company feels the same way. When I recieved my very first pink slip back in 2005, my naive self was shocked. I had given them seven years of loyalty, working my way of from outbound shclub taking credit card applications over the phone, to lower management of a successful division. The decision to downsize had little to do with my performance; our company had lost the lease on their very cushy, giant building, and they were going to have to move within a year. They went from around 200,000 square feet in an 150 year old four story mill to about a fourth of that in an old grocery store. The rent went down, but they also had to split up the company and consolidate divisions. My division, a boutique inbound call center of relatively highly paid insurance processors, was the first to get merged in with another department. They didn't need four supervisors in the newly combined department, and the other department was a medical division that would require sending me off for two weeks training on the other side of the country. Easy decision to let me go and keep the larger department's three, already trained supervisors, and have them cross trained locally on my stuff.

I've been bitter about how corporate America works ever since. Objectively, I can see why they let me go and kept my coworkers, but on a personal level, I'm still ticked about it. I lost a salaried position with pretty damn good benefits, and I've been trying to make up lost ground ever since to some extent.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#71 Jun 28 2012 at 4:34 PM Rating: Good
***
2,890 posts
Does anyone know what the "Tax" will be if you decided you don't want to pay for insurance?
____________________________
Currently Liltofu playing FFXI, I'M BACK BITCHES!

Formerly Toohotforu of Garuda Server FFXI R.I.P

Nilatai wrote:
I sometimes feel that being good at buttsecks is a wasted talent :/


#72 Jun 28 2012 at 4:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,436 posts
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.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#73 Jun 28 2012 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
***
2,890 posts
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.
Thank you!
____________________________
Currently Liltofu playing FFXI, I'M BACK BITCHES!

Formerly Toohotforu of Garuda Server FFXI R.I.P

Nilatai wrote:
I sometimes feel that being good at buttsecks is a wasted talent :/


#74 Jun 28 2012 at 4:52 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
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.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#75 Jun 28 2012 at 4:58 PM Rating: Default
****
7,803 posts
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.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#76 Jun 28 2012 at 5:04 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
This will make things interesting over the next few months at work. When Doyle was still in office, our state already had a head start on an exchange that was supposed to be a model other states could follow. When Walker got in office early last year and installed Smith at DHS, the money was returned when Wisco jumped on the lawsuit bandwagon. I'm curious as to how this is going to play out now. I can see states like Florida still holding out since the deadline is basically 2014 for the mandate. Not sure how it will be handled here.
#77 Jun 28 2012 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
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
    ____________________________
    Almalieque wrote:
    I'm biased against statistics

    #78 Jun 28 2012 at 5:37 PM Rating: Good
    **
    485 posts
    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.
    ____________________________
    Never regret.To regret is to assume.
    #79 Jun 28 2012 at 5:37 PM Rating: Good
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    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
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #80 Jun 28 2012 at 5:53 PM Rating: Good
    Sage
    ***
    2,157 posts
    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
    ____________________________
    What I Play
    Recently Played
    #81 Jun 28 2012 at 6:49 PM Rating: Decent
    Official Shrubbery Waterer
    *****
    14,021 posts
    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!
    ____________________________
    Almalieque wrote:
    I'm biased against statistics

    #82 Jun 28 2012 at 6:59 PM Rating: Excellent
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    But we already have a Justice Scalia...
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #83 Jun 28 2012 at 7:55 PM Rating: Good
    @#%^ing DRK
    *****
    13,137 posts
    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.
    #84 Jun 28 2012 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
    Prodigal Son
    *****
    19,833 posts
    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.
    #85 Jun 28 2012 at 8:39 PM Rating: Decent
    Lunatic
    ******
    29,166 posts
    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 bullsh*t.

    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 whore. 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.

    #86 Jun 28 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Excellent
    Will swallow your soul
    ******
    28,134 posts
    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.

    #87 Jun 28 2012 at 8:49 PM Rating: Excellent
    Needs More Smut
    Avatar
    ******
    20,087 posts
    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!
    ____________________________
    FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
    Thayos wrote:
    I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

    FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
    #88 Jun 28 2012 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
    Annoying Ass
    ZAM Administrator
    Avatar
    *****
    11,921 posts
    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.
    ____________________________
    Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
    WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
    Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
    #89 Jun 28 2012 at 10:51 PM Rating: Excellent
    Liberal Conspiracy
    *******
    TILT
    Smasharoo wrote:
    Watching you people communicate is like watching porcupines fuck.

    Disturbingly erotic?
    ____________________________
    Belkira wrote:
    Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
    #90 Jun 29 2012 at 7:16 AM Rating: Good
    ******
    43,179 posts
    As erotic as a hamburger giving a corndog a blowjob 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.
    #91 Jun 29 2012 at 7:36 AM Rating: Excellent
    Annoying Ass
    ZAM Administrator
    Avatar
    *****
    11,921 posts
    lolgaxe wrote:
    As erotic as a hamburger giving a corndog a blowjob on top of your head.


    Fap fap fap fap fap
    ____________________________
    Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
    WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
    Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
    #92 Jun 29 2012 at 7:38 AM Rating: Excellent
    Skelly Poker Since 2008
    *****
    15,535 posts
    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 blowjob on top of your head.
    What doesn't quill you, knocks you up.
    ____________________________
    Alma wrote:
    Post and be happy!
    #93 Jun 29 2012 at 9:33 AM Rating: Excellent
    Meat Popsicle
    Avatar
    *****
    11,436 posts
    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. Smiley: frown

    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
    #94 Jun 29 2012 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent
    Needs More Smut
    Avatar
    ******
    20,087 posts
    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.
    ____________________________
    FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
    Thayos wrote:
    I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

    FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
    #95 Jun 29 2012 at 12:22 PM Rating: Excellent
    Sniping Sweetpea
    *****
    18,459 posts
    Jophiel wrote:
    Smasharoo wrote:
    Watching you people communicate is like watching porcupines fuck.

    Disturbingly erotic?
    Smiley: inlove
    ____________________________
    That's the kind of dude
    I was lookin' for
    And yes you'll get slapped
    if you're lookin', ho

    #96 Jun 29 2012 at 2:35 PM Rating: Good
    **
    485 posts
    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.
    #97 Jun 29 2012 at 4:43 PM Rating: Excellent
    Needs More Smut
    Avatar
    ******
    20,087 posts
    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.
    ____________________________
    FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
    Thayos wrote:
    I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

    FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
    #98 Jun 30 2012 at 4:21 AM Rating: Default
    Avatar
    ****
    8,912 posts
    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.
    ____________________________
    Demea wrote:
    Almalieque wrote:

    I'm biased against statistics
    #99 Jun 30 2012 at 5:11 AM Rating: Excellent
    Everyone's Oiran
    Avatar
    *****
    15,894 posts
    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.
    ____________________________
    <3

    http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
    #100 Jun 30 2012 at 3:34 PM Rating: Decent
    Avatar
    ****
    8,912 posts
    For clarification, I hate insurance of all kind but believe it's a necessary evil that could be adjusted.
    ____________________________
    Demea wrote:
    Almalieque wrote:

    I'm biased against statistics
    #101 Jun 30 2012 at 3:51 PM Rating: Excellent
    Official Shrubbery Waterer
    *****
    14,021 posts
    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?
    ____________________________
    Almalieque wrote:
    I'm biased against statistics

    Reply To Thread

    Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

     

    Recent Visitors: 64 All times are in CDT
    Aethien, Aripyanfar, Elinda, Tasera, Xsarus, Anonymous Guests (59)