Affordable Care Act / ObamaCare

[Chaddyboxer]

It strikes me as funny that the people who are going to complain and attack this the most are the people who have health insurance.

Well...health insurers wrote the bill....and I'm pretty sure my premiums will go up.

The "penalty" is a set number and less than premiums. If you get insurance through your employer - get ready to buy your own insurance.

Hmm...we'll have to see how all this shennanigans plays out....I can foresee that "set number" to vary and go up in the future due to the economic route America is on...which isn't gooood.

[Chaddyboxer]

I rarely go see a doctor anymore...

I have to see one every day.

What for man?....If ya don't mind me asking...

Haha. I don't mind you asking. I have to see her because of marriage.

Oooooh.....a bit different than a medical or alternative healthcare provider. lol ; P

[JJ Husker]

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.

[huKSer]

I rarely go see a doctor anymore...

I have to see one every day.

What for man?....If ya don't mind me asking...

Haha. I don't mind you asking. I have to see her because of marriage.

Interesting, Every doctor I've talked to hates Obamacare, and many are threatening to get out of GP because of it.

[carlfense]

Oooooh.....a bit different than a medical or alternative healthcare provider. lol ; P

Well . . . she is a healthcare provider . . . but I don't let her stick needles in me (or anything else).

[carlfense]

Interesting, Every doctor I've talked to hates Obamacare, and many are threatening to get out of GP because of it.

I'm friends with a couple dozen doctors. The ones that I run with are split about 50/50. The really angry docs tend to be older (50s-70s) . . . and to be quite honest many of them don't know what it means.

[carlfense]

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.

 

Ginsburg, p. 29

As an example of the type of regulation he fears, THE CHIEF JUSTICE cites a Government mandate to purchase green vegetables. Ante, at 22–23. One could call this concern “the broccoli horrible.” Congress, THE CHIEF JUSTICE posits, might adopt such a mandate, reasoning that an individual’s failure to eat a healthy diet, like the failure to purchase health insurance, imposes costs on others. See ibid.

 

Consider the chain of inferences the Court would have to accept to conclude that a vegetable-purchase mandate was likely to have a substantial effect on the health-care costs borne by lithe Americans. The Court would have to believe that individuals forced to buy vegetables would then eat them (instead of throwing or giving them away), would prepare the vegetables in a healthy way (steamed or raw, not deep-fried), would cut back on unhealthy foods, and would not allow other factors (such as lack of exercise or little sleep) to trump the improved diet.9 Such “pil[ing of] inference upon inference” is just what the Court re­fused to do in Lopez and Morrison.

 

There is the problem. Sure, we can do a reductio ad absurdum and get to a ridiculous point. That's fine from a hypothetical perspective . . . but it doesn't really get to the heart of this case.

[GM_Tood]

Interesting, Every doctor I've talked to hates Obamacare, and many are threatening to get out of GP because of it.

I'm friends with a couple dozen doctors. The ones that I run with are split about 50/50. The really angry docs tend to be older (50s-70s) . . . and to be quite honest many of them don't know what it means.

The Healthcare company CEO who I work for....which entails a 'few' hospitals in the Omaha and surrounding area...sent out the following message to our employees and made it public a couple hours ago.

 

"Healthcare reform was already well under way, both locally and nationally, while the US Supreme Court was debating the law's details. As a healthcare provider, our organization has continued to prepare for the future, working on how to effectively manage the health of our populations while the law was being reviewed. And while there may continue to be discussions around this topic, the Supreme Court's ruling helps the people we serve who have not had access to insurance coverage. We will continue our Mission to make healthcare easier to access as we work to improve the overall health and well being of our communities."

[knapplc]

I've been away from news until a few minutes ago. Holy crap. I cannot believe they upheld this. Literally amazed by this ruling.

 

 

 

 

Hard to believe that this would change anyone's vote come November, though. I felt this way last week and I feel this way today - if you vote for Obama because of this ruling, or you would have voted against him because it got struck down, I think you're silly.

 

I really don't see this changing much come election time.

[carlfense]

Hard to believe that this would change anyone's vote come November, though. I felt this way last week and I feel this way today - if you vote for Obama because of this ruling, or you would have voted against him because it got struck down, I think you're silly.

 

I really don't see this changing much come election time.

I think that it removes one of Romney's excuses as to why Romneycare is different from Obamacare. Will that matter much? Probably not.

[HSKR]

I've been away from news until a few minutes ago. Holy crap. I cannot believe they upheld this. Literally amazed by this ruling.

 

 

 

 

Hard to believe that this would change anyone's vote come November, though. I felt this way last week and I feel this way today - if you vote for Obama because of this ruling, or you would have voted against him because it got struck down, I think you're silly.

 

I really don't see this changing much come election time.

 

I think it does help energize the Democrat base though. If this would have been turned down, followed by the Holder mess, all the momentum would have been going the Republicans way through the end of summer. Now that the left knows if they can keep enough of their side in Congress, Obamacare can't get voted out, I think it recharges the base enough to get out and vote for their Senator or Representative and helps get Obama more votes from people who may have given up and sat this election out because they thought all was lost. That's my theory anyway.

[Comish]

I've been away from news until a few minutes ago. Holy crap. I cannot believe they upheld this. Literally amazed by this ruling.

 

 

 

 

Hard to believe that this would change anyone's vote come November, though. I felt this way last week and I feel this way today - if you vote for Obama because of this ruling, or you would have voted against him because it got struck down, I think you're silly.

 

I really don't see this changing much come election time.

 

I think it does help energize the Democrat base though. If this would have been turned down, followed by the Holder mess, all the momentum would have been going the Republicans way through the end of summer. Now that the left knows if they can keep enough of their side in Congress, Obamacare can't get voted out, I think it recharges the base enough to get out and vote for their Senator or Representative and helps get Obama more votes from people who may have given up and sat this election out because they thought all was lost. That's my theory anyway.

You could also make the exact opposite case. If more American people dislike the law then approve of it..............it could energize the conservative base to rally against government intrusion. Time will tell.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

There is the problem. Sure, we can do a reductio ad absurdum and get to a ridiculous point. That's fine from a hypothetical perspective . . . but it doesn't really get to the heart of this case.

 

I don't feel that is taking it to an absurd level. For some reason I am unable to copy and paste from the opinion copy I am using but on about pg 28 Roberts uses basically the same hypothetical and it is not absurd at all. Portions of what he had to say; "Indeed the Government's logic would justify a mandatory purchase to solve almost any problem." "...many Americans do not eat a balanced diet. That group makes up a larger percentage of the total population than those without health insurance." "The failure of that group to have a healthy diet increases healthcare costs, to a greater extent than the failure of the uninsured to purchase insurance." "Those increased costs are borne in part by other Americans who must pay more, just as the uninsured shift costs to the insured." "People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society." "Under the Government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use it's commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act." "That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned."

 

Of course, he used this argument in not upholding the commerce clause angle of the Government's argument but, it is entirely logical and possible given the current ACA ruling, that the exact same thing could come to pass about a healthy diet. It gets turned down on the commerce clause but upheld as a tax. No matter the logic, I don't feel that is the country the Framers intended. One that compels you to purchase a private product like health insurance or one that compels you to eat more vegetables and less unhealthy food.

[carlfense]

 

 

There is the problem. Sure, we can do a reductio ad absurdum and get to a ridiculous point. That's fine from a hypothetical perspective . . . but it doesn't really get to the heart of this case.

 

I don't feel that is taking it to an absurd level. For some reason I am unable to copy and paste from the opinion copy I am using but on about pg 28 Roberts uses basically the same hypothetical and it is not absurd at all. Portions of what he had to say; "Indeed the Government's logic would justify a mandatory purchase to solve almost any problem." "...many Americans do not eat a balanced diet. That group makes up a larger percentage of the total population than those without health insurance." "The failure of that group to have a healthy diet increases healthcare costs, to a greater extent than the failure of the uninsured to purchase insurance." "Those increased costs are borne in part by other Americans who must pay more, just as the uninsured shift costs to the insured." "People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society." "Under the Government's logic, that authorizes Congress to use it's commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act." "That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned."

 

Of course, he used this argument in not upholding the commerce clause angle of the Government's argument but, it is entirely logical and possible given the current ACA ruling, that the exact same thing could come to pass about a healthy diet. It gets turned down on the commerce clause but upheld as a tax. No matter the logic, I don't feel that is the country the Framers intended. One that compels you to purchase a private product like health insurance or one that compels you to eat more vegetables and less unhealthy food.

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?

[strigori]

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.