Affordable Care Act / ObamaCare

[strigori]

Unless I'm way off, the part most doctors did not like, did get struck down. There will not be an increase in Medicaide rolesby states as the original law included.

[krill]

The individual mandate exists because without it you don't get the no preexisting conditions and no dropping sick people. You need the individual mandate so all people are paying into the pools. The alternative is a single payer system (which I'm all for) and kills the insurance industry. Why its so important is many people who do not have coverage just wait till its critical and do to the emergency room, which is legally obligated to treat all comers, and the costs get pushed onto the premiums of people who do have health insurance.

 

I've tried explaining this at least a half dozen times and it doesn't seem to be a concept that sticks. If the $43 billion in unpaid medical bills could be reduced to even half, that would save the average person who does pay for health services over $1,000 / year. It seems to me a lot of the people who don't like the idea of a mandate also don't like freeloaders, so at least from a saving money and incentivizing personal responsibility perspective, that should at least be a consideration...

[huKSer]

If I was one who claimed to be for liberty and freedom, I would sure as hell not rejoice in this ruling. Carl?

Which liberty and freedom are you concerned about? Your hypotheticals or the ACA?

The liberty and freedom I am concerned about is my freedom to choose if I want to purchase health insurance or not, if I want to ingest unhealthy foods or not, if I want to eat vegetables or not. As far as my hypotheticals and the ACA, please explain the difference for me. The ACA law determines that not purchasing health insurance is an inaction that can be taxed. My hypotheticals (which btw I do not feel are too far down the road or farfetched at all) are actions or inactions that can be taxed. Please shed some light on the difference for me. The justices couldn't and didn't include anything in their opinions that would delineate any difference between the ACA and my hypotheticals, maybe you can.

first off, I'm going to go out on a limb and say you already have health Insurance so for you personally its a moot point, as well as you get all the good benefits of the law. No more preexisting conditions, no dropping you as soon as you put in a claim.

 

And you DO have a choice. You can choose not to buy insurance, and end up with an extra tax when you file your tax return. You still have choices, you may just not like all the options.

 

The individual mandate exists because without it you don't get the no preexisting conditions and no dropping sick people. You need the individual mandate so all people are paying into the pools. The alternative is a single payer system (which I'm all for) and kills the insurance industry. Why its so important is many people who do not have coverage just wait till its critical and do to the emergency room, which is legally obligated to treat all comers, and the costs get pushed onto the premiums of people who do have health insurance.

 

You can already be taxed for doing, or not doing some things. Withdrawing money from certain kinds of holdings gets you tax penalties. Its not that radically different.

And the reason Roberts changed his mind and supported Obamacare is that if you do not pay the tax, there is no penalty.

 

Now I see that part of the bill calls for adding 16,000 IRS agents to catch people not paying their fair share - I originally got my info in the first 10 minutes - must have got that wrong, too

Edited June 28, 2012 by huKSer

[JJ Husker]

 

The Constitution specifically states that you can be taxed just for being a citizen. Do you think that is different or worse than taxing alcohol or tobacco at different rates?

 

I'm not sure that it matters if I, or you, feel it is different or worse. The problem I have with it is that they (the Government) apparently have virtually unlimited power to levy taxes to attain the behavior they desire. I don't feel that was, is (even though many SCOTUS rulings would exhibit otherwise), or should be the purpose of the Constitution. the USC was created to protect us from the Government, not to protect us from ourselves. IMO it is primarily nanny state manhandling. The basic problem is that we no longer expect people to suffer the consequences of their choices. If I choose to not purchase health insurance then I think it is reasonable for me to expect to not be able to recieve health care unless I can personally afford it. But, at some point, people determined that bad choices do not equal bad consequences. So, hospitals are forced to provide care to those who have no coverage and no financial resources, pass those cost on others, and subsequently insurance and healthcare costs go through the roof. I realize this legislation is intended to address part of this concern, I just feel forced purchase or a penalty tax is the wrong way to do it. I would rather that we determine how many people we can afford to provide coverage for (medicare), levy tax to cover that, and then let the other people determine if they want to have healthcare coverage and the care that comes with that or, if they want to take their chances and risk not having the care when they need it. My objections are really more philosophical than anything. I personally would not go without health insurance but, it should be my choice. The fundamental shortcoming of the ACA is not that it contains a purchase mandate but that it does not near enough to control runaway insurance or provider costs. I really think that it will only exacerbate those current problems. The only people gaining are those who currently can't afford insurance or care. A small number compared to all of those who will continue to see obscene cost increases. It may solve the problem for some of the most needy (a good thing) but it in no way cures the basic problem. And, as with most all socialized type programs, it will continue to creep up the income ladder and envelope more and more people every year.

 

My example. I am in charge of making the decision for my company to provide health insurance to our employees. It is entirely probable that we will simply decide to quit offering it. 1- We are small enough that we will not be subjected to any penalties. 2- I now know that my employees will be able to attain alternate coverage so I won't have to feel "bad" about eliminating the benefit. 3- This will transfer the bulk of our current expense from my company and our employees to the US taxpayer. Is that really any kind of solution? I do not believe that I am the only business owner mulling this approach. Rather, I think this is one of those unintended consequences of the ACA, one that I am sure the CBO projections and other models have failed to account for.

[carlfense]

I don't feel that was, is (even though many SCOTUS rulings would exhibit otherwise), or should be the purpose of the Constitution. the USC was created to protect us from the Government, not to protect us from ourselves.

That's not quite true. The Constitution also created the government and gave it the powers that it has. If it truly was just to protect us from the government it would have banned government.

 

IMO it is primarily nanny state manhandling. The basic problem is that we no longer expect people to suffer the consequences of their choices. If I choose to not purchase health insurance then I think it is reasonable for me to expect to not be able to recieve health care unless I can personally afford it. But, at some point, people determined that bad choices do not equal bad consequences. So, hospitals are forced to provide care to those who have no coverage and no financial resources, pass those cost on others, and subsequently insurance and healthcare costs go through the roof. I realize this legislation is intended to address part of this concern, I just feel forced purchase or a penalty tax is the wrong way to do it. I would rather that we determine how many people we can afford to provide coverage for (medicare), levy tax to cover that, and then let the other people determine if they want to have healthcare coverage and the care that comes with that or, if they want to take their chances and risk not having the care when they need it. My objections are really more philosophical than anything. I personally would not go without health insurance but, it should be my choice.

The individual mandate encourages personal responsibility. Actually . . . more than that . . . it requires it. I suppose that's why it was a conservative invention.

 

The fundamental shortcoming of the ACA is not that it contains a purchase mandate but that it does not near enough to control runaway insurance or provider costs. I really think that it will only exacerbate those current problems.

I agree. I (and you, apparently) think that it should have went further. I've never said that it was perfect . . . I've just said that it's better than the status quo.

 

My example. I am in charge of making the decision for my company to provide health insurance to our employees. It is entirely probable that we will simply decide to quit offering it. 1- We are small enough that we will not be subjected to any penalties. 2- I now know that my employees will be able to attain alternate coverage so I won't have to feel "bad" about eliminating the benefit. 3- This will transfer the bulk of our current expense from my company and our employees to the US taxpayer. Is that really any kind of solution? I do not believe that I am the only business owner mulling this approach. Rather, I think this is one of those unintended consequences of the ACA, one that I am sure the CBO projections and other models have failed to account for.

What kept you from dropping coverage for your employees before the ACA?

[JJ Husker]

In order, cuz I can't operate this netweb thingy as well you.

 

1- Good point but I still think this is a misuse of the powers that are actually granted.

2- I feel there is a rather large difference between real personal responsibility and mandated responsibility.

3- I'm not sure if I think it should have went further or not or at all. It certainly isn't perfect and it certainly doesn't address the crux of the problem. Time will tell.

4- I was concerned about the ability of my employees to be able to obtain coverage. I am less concerned about that now that I know they will be guaranteed issue with no pre-existing conditions exclusions. Also, to be honest, our financial situation was much better in prior years. The last few years of this economy have sucked and we are scrounging for any number of ways to cut costs.

[krill]

The basic problem is that we no longer expect people to suffer the consequences of their choices. If I choose to not purchase health insurance then I think it is reasonable for me to expect to not be able to recieve health care unless I can personally afford it. But, at some point, people determined that bad choices do not equal bad consequences. So, hospitals are forced to provide care to those who have no coverage and no financial resources, pass those cost on others, and subsequently insurance and healthcare costs go through the roof.

 

When congress passed the emergency medical treatment and active labor act, and Reagan signed it 1986, they realized that emergency services are often not a choice. It's one thing to refuse to obtain insurance and say you'll pass on emergency services, and quite another to follow through with it if you have a life threatening accident or sudden onset of a health emergency (e.g. heart attack). There is also the question of children and what they deserve if their parent refuse or cannot afford health care. I think you're being overly optimistic if you really believe the American public would tolerate regular instances of ambulances driving away and emergency rooms closing their doors to people who will die, even if they made a conscious choice to not obtain insurance.

 

My example. I am in charge of making the decision for my company to provide health insurance to our employees. It is entirely probable that we will simply decide to quit offering it. 1- We are small enough that we will not be subjected to any penalties. 2- I now know that my employees will be able to attain alternate coverage so I won't have to feel "bad" about eliminating the benefit. 3- This will transfer the bulk of our current expense from my company and our employees to the US taxpayer. Is that really any kind of solution? I do not believe that I am the only business owner mulling this approach. Rather, I think this is one of those unintended consequences of the ACA, one that I am sure the CBO projections and other models have failed to account for.

 

It's my understanding that small businesses (up to 25 employees) will be able to get a tax credit for up to 35% of the cost on qualifying plans, on top of existing tax deductions for offering health insurance, and participate in group policy exchanges that will enable better bargaining like large businesses. I am not going to claim to be an expert on taxes or business management, but if the cost of offering health benefits is lower, equal to, or fairly close to not offering benefits, why wouldn't you? The tax deduction and new tax credit already cost taxpayers in lost revenue if your employees turning around and getting subsidized insurance is a genuine concern.

['SkersRule]

So now it's official, Congress, through the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, can now order me to buy healthcare and whatever else they want. How long will it take before all members of Congress, through insider trading, all buy stock in a company, write legislation that we the American people all have to buy something from said company, the stock price shoots up, they make a killing, and then they repeat the process over and over?

 

Anyone still think we live in a democratic republic?

 

[carlfense]

Anyone still think we live in a democratic republic?

I do!

[lo country]

So now it's official, Congress, through the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution, can now order me to buy healthcare and whatever else they want. How long will it take before all members of Congress, through insider trading, all buy stock in a company, write legislation that we the American people all have to buy something from said company, the stock price shoots up, they make a killing, and then they repeat the process over and over?

 

Anyone still think we live in a democratic republic?

 

 

Or pay a "green tax" if you drive an SUV, have a home that is not energy star rated are obese, smoke etc..........

[krill]

So now it's official, Congress, through the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution

 

[carlfense]

A surprisingly thorough breakdown from reddit. With citations.

 

http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm

 

Well worth a read if you'd like to know a bit more.

['SkersRule]

So now it's official, Congress, through the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution

 

 

That's what Pelosi and the rest of the lib elite cited in justifying this lesiglation long before scotus ruled.

 

[huKSer]

Just an observation:

 

Many positive posters to the decision before 5 PM - many more negative posters after they got home from work

[carlfense]

Just an observation:

 

Many positive posters to the decision before 5 PM - many more negative posters after they got home from work

Those peoples' jobs must not require them to wait for hours with only a laptop or phone to keep them connected.

 

 

 

It's hot out there running that shovel. I know. I used to be there.