Obamacare has been upheld by the supreme court

Freebase Dali · 06-28-2012, 09:05 AM

The supreme court has upheld the constitutionality of Obama's health care reform. The biggest part of it was the individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance, or else be penalized. Obama has repeatedly stated that it was a penalty, and not a tax. However, the supreme court has ruled in favor of the mandate on the basis of it being a tax. In other words, they said it would be unconstitutional for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance based on commerce, but it would not be unconstitutional to tax individuals who don't purchase health insurance.
So, basically what we have here is a loophole to get around the constitutionality of the individual mandate. You don't HAVE to buy health insurance, but those that don't will be taxed (substituted for penalized).
What's alarming is that the reform law wasn't written as a tax, but a penalty for those who don't buy insurance. The Supreme Court has, in effect, re-written the law, rather than to strike down or uphold the law. Something like this is unprecedented as far as I'm aware. The Supreme Court has basically acted as lawmakers.

I'm all for health care reform, but I worry about whether the tax will be more affordable than the healthcare itself, and people would just end up paying the tax anyway, which would defeat the purpose of the reform.
Also, I wonder how this will affect insurance rates.
Also, I wonder if it's right for the federal government to levy a tax on only some individuals based on the assumption that they "may" place a burden on other tax payers should they be hospitalized without coverage. In some things like car insurance, a person can choose not to drive. But a person cannot choose not to live to avoid being penalized for not buying health insurance.

Paedantic Basterd · 06-28-2012, 10:05 AM

I'm just going to leave this here.

People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare

LoathsomePete · 06-28-2012, 10:11 AM

I wish I could be there to record the look on their faces after they get their first paycheck.

I have to say I agree with Freebase on the whole subject of it appearing as though the Supreme Court more or less rewrote this law, which is not really within their power. That being said though, it's a step towards something better, and comparing it to Canada or the UK's healthcare is kind of invalid considering both those countries have had 70+ years to refine and improve it. Neither's perfect by any means but it sure helped me out in a big way in 2008 when I fractured my foot at work.

duga · 06-28-2012, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoathsomePete

That being said though, it's a step towards something better, and comparing it to Canada or the UK's healthcare is kind of invalid considering both those countries have had 70+ years to refine and improve it.

EXACTLY. This is what I keep saying. It had to start somewhere. Sure, there are faults but we had to get it going.

mr dave · 06-28-2012, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

Also, I wonder if it's right for the federal government to levy a tax on only some individuals based on the assumption that they "may" place a burden on other tax payers should they be hospitalized without coverage. In some things like car insurance, a person can choose not to drive. But a person cannot choose not to live to avoid being penalized for not buying health insurance.

I'd say it's right if the government is also expected to subsidize the hospitals and the healthcare industry as well. It's not really so much a matter of whether or not the individual 'may' place a burden so much as 'when'. In a sense it's similar to what Canada seems to be slowly moving towards as well with some limited private sector healthcare options. Those who can afford to pay for the premium insurance can enjoy the faster service at the private clinic, those who can't, or choose not to, pay their taxes and go to the general hospital. Then again I've never really known anything else. It just seems super selfish to me to not want to pay into that at all even if I don't benefit from it directly there are plenty of people who do, whether they're friends, family or strangers it doesn't really matter. More healthy people = more healthy society I'd say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I'm just going to leave this here.

People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare

I want to see the look on their faces when they're told just how long the wait time for their procedure will be up here and that there's little to no option to pay for faster service throughout most of the country.

Wait wait wait... holy sh!t the 3rd dude on that page -

Quote:

Originally Posted by some moron

I'm moving to Canada, the United States is entirely too socialist.

too... socialist?

On the plus side this person will obviously never be able to properly fill out the necessary paperwork to get citizenship.

Trollheart · 06-29-2012, 03:02 AM

I'm not well up with politics, even less with US (we have enough of our own problems here!) but why did that one idiot on the news yesterday say "Communism has come to America" and when challenged say "Well, what woud you call it?"

What has this got to do with communism, and isn't that mostly gone anyway?

Is McCarthy turning in his grave?

(genuinely)

Burning Down · 06-28-2012, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I'm just going to leave this here.

People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare

Haha! Wow. Let's not tell them that we have universal healthcare and other socialist institutions in place here. Let's also not tell them that the second most powerful party in government is a socialist one.

We don't need or want them here! I already have a huge problem with the current Prime Minister Harper, so we gotta get rid of him first.

TheBig3 · 06-28-2012, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

The supreme court has upheld the constitutionality of Obama's health care reform. The biggest part of it was the individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance, or else be penalized. Obama has repeatedly stated that it was a penalty, and not a tax. However, the supreme court has ruled in favor of the mandate on the basis of it being a tax. In other words, they said it would be unconstitutional for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance based on commerce, but it would not be unconstitutional to tax individuals who don't purchase health insurance.
So, basically what we have here is a loophole to get around the constitutionality of the individual mandate. You don't HAVE to buy health insurance, but those that don't will be taxed (substituted for penalized).
What's alarming is that the reform law wasn't written as a tax, but a penalty for those who don't buy insurance. The Supreme Court has, in effect, re-written the law, rather than to strike down or uphold the law. Something like this is unprecedented as far as I'm aware. The Supreme Court has basically acted as lawmakers.

I'm all for health care reform, but I worry about whether the tax will be more affordable than the healthcare itself, and people would just end up paying the tax anyway, which would defeat the purpose of the reform.
Also, I wonder how this will affect insurance rates.
Also, I wonder if it's right for the federal government to levy a tax on only some individuals based on the assumption that they "may" place a burden on other tax payers should they be hospitalized without coverage. In some things like car insurance, a person can choose not to drive. But a person cannot choose not to live to avoid being penalized for not buying health insurance.

Well since I'm already being effected by this, and have been for some time, let me tell you this was basically an insurance bailout. As I recall, there are no cost-controlling measures, and don't be concerned about the tax being too small, be concerned about it being too big.

Obama himself, going after Hilary Clinton, said that its unfair to saddle the poor with more debt because they can't afford something you make them buy.

Without cost-control, this will be a feeding frenzy for the Insurance companies.

Edit: http://www.npr.org/2012/05/25/153709...ose-yet-so-far

anticipation · 06-28-2012, 01:34 PM

and people wonder why no one watches the news anymore.

Freebase Dali · 06-28-2012, 05:10 PM

I wonder if anyone has any figures in regard to how much burden current individuals without coverage are placing on the tax base due to hospitalization and care, versus how much of our taxes are being used for Medicare and Medicaid.
Also, I wonder how much more of those taxes will be used by a sudden mandate that all low-income individuals enroll in Medicare, versus the amount of tax penalty income by all who decide not to get coverage?

06-28-2012, 09:05 AM	#1 (permalink)
Freebase Dali Partying on the inside Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,584	Obamacare has been upheld by the supreme court The supreme court has upheld the constitutionality of Obama's health care reform. The biggest part of it was the individual mandate that requires all Americans to purchase health insurance, or else be penalized. Obama has repeatedly stated that it was a penalty, and not a tax. However, the supreme court has ruled in favor of the mandate on the basis of it being a tax. In other words, they said it would be unconstitutional for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance based on commerce, but it would not be unconstitutional to tax individuals who don't purchase health insurance. So, basically what we have here is a loophole to get around the constitutionality of the individual mandate. You don't HAVE to buy health insurance, but those that don't will be taxed (substituted for penalized). What's alarming is that the reform law wasn't written as a tax, but a penalty for those who don't buy insurance. The Supreme Court has, in effect, re-written the law, rather than to strike down or uphold the law. Something like this is unprecedented as far as I'm aware. The Supreme Court has basically acted as lawmakers. I'm all for health care reform, but I worry about whether the tax will be more affordable than the healthcare itself, and people would just end up paying the tax anyway, which would defeat the purpose of the reform. Also, I wonder how this will affect insurance rates. Also, I wonder if it's right for the federal government to levy a tax on only some individuals based on the assumption that they "may" place a burden on other tax payers should they be hospitalized without coverage. In some things like car insurance, a person can choose not to drive. But a person cannot choose not to live to avoid being penalized for not buying health insurance.

06-28-2012, 10:11 AM	#3 (permalink)
LoathsomePete Cardboard Box Realtor Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Hobb's End Posts: 7,648	I wish I could be there to record the look on their faces after they get their first paycheck. I have to say I agree with Freebase on the whole subject of it appearing as though the Supreme Court more or less rewrote this law, which is not really within their power. That being said though, it's a step towards something better, and comparing it to Canada or the UK's healthcare is kind of invalid considering both those countries have had 70+ years to refine and improve it. Neither's perfect by any means but it sure helped me out in a big way in 2008 when I fractured my foot at work. __________________ Last.FM 101 Albums That May Not Change Your Life, But I Really Like And You Might Too

06-29-2012, 03:02 AM	#6 (permalink)
Trollheart Born to be mild Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: 404 Not Found Posts: 26,996	I'm not well up with politics, even less with US (we have enough of our own problems here!) but why did that one idiot on the news yesterday say "Communism has come to America" and when challenged say "Well, what woud you call it?" What has this got to do with communism, and isn't that mostly gone anyway? Is McCarthy turning in his grave? (genuinely) __________________ Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

06-28-2012, 10:05 AM	#2 (permalink)
Paedantic Basterd Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 5,184	I'm just going to leave this here. People Who Say They're Moving To Canada Because Of ObamaCare

06-28-2012, 01:34 PM	#9 (permalink)
anticipation Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,565	and people wonder why no one watches the news anymore.

06-28-2012, 05:10 PM	#10 (permalink)
Freebase Dali Partying on the inside Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,584	I wonder if anyone has any figures in regard to how much burden current individuals without coverage are placing on the tax base due to hospitalization and care, versus how much of our taxes are being used for Medicare and Medicaid. Also, I wonder how much more of those taxes will be used by a sudden mandate that all low-income individuals enroll in Medicare, versus the amount of tax penalty income by all who decide not to get coverage?