HEALTH CARE LAW UPHELD
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
It's law, the Supreme Court held that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is valied under the taxing authority.
Yes, I know healthcare is one word....
However, states can opt out with the Medicaid portion. Now what?
I am 100% AGAINST the government requiring the people to purchase healthcare or face a penalty. I am also against the federal government forcing the states to provide healthcare for those that aren't covered by private insurance.
America became the great nation we were because of the free enterprise system. We are now on a course of becoming a socialist country. The working class will be taxed more and more to cover those that do not want to work, and provide for themselves. The government run healthcare system will be like every other government program, overpriced and impossible to access.
We are already paying billions of dollars in California in medical expenses for released convicts (because we can't afford to keep them in prison and 40,000 were released), sexual predators, drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. Why should the working taxpayers be required to pay more to cover those that choose not to work?
It's not even the direct penalties, etc. for the working class should they opt out of insurance. The entire system needs reformed. The liberals have expanded disability, healthcare, etc. to such extremes, that soon there will be no business left in California to create the tax base necessary to suport it. You can only tax people and business so much, and when there's more taking than giving, the country collapses, and we become Greece!
I'll stand for a free country, with personal choice, and a free enterprise system, and forego Big Brother thank you.
True, get it or pay the tax penalty, but don't tell anyone, the penalty doesn't allow a penalty to be taxed on the penalty unpaid. This is still an issues seen by some. Maybe Charles could chime in on the collection issues.
Also, this will throw a huge burden on small to mid size businesses to help fund this program. Wouldny be surprised if unemployment goes up as companies look to lessen the impact and a way to pay for it.
Medicare and Medicaids financial issues are worsening/not getting fixed.
Now this
Question is(or not) who is going to pay for this?
Plus as Jim pointed small business will have a hard time with this.. so ?more unemployment
Jim, that's Fox crap, 90% of the small businesses in the country have fewer than 25 employees so they are exempt from compliance. That argument will only apply to those hiring the 25th employee and most all employers who have 24 employees already offer some sort of health insurance. That is simply an inflated rally cry for the uninformed.....IMO
As a non-religious person, all I can say is that God would be proud -- Matthew 10:8.
That said, the health care edict seems unconstitutional to me...but, I guess that's why I haven't yet been appointed to the Supreme Court... :)
Tax, penalty, fee...Whatever they call it, is only important from a legal standpoint. And apparently Obama and his people called it the by the correct name.
My basic understanding is that if you can't show proof of payment for health insurance, at the end of the year you will have to give some money to Uncle Sam. That money (fee, tax, penalty, whatever you want to call it) will likely cost orders of magnitudes less than a health insurance premium would. But the goal is to have everybody paying into the pool (including young and healthy people who currently do not) to lower the overall cost for everyone.
We will see if it works. There have been some grand experiments in the history of this country that have worked out quite well, though. Including the country itself.
Really?? I own a family retail store and we have about 40 employees. The health care financial burden that will be dumped on me will be a serious issue for us. Plus its not too hard to have over 25 employees. You can own a business with two locations and easily exceed 25 employees. To pay the extra $$ for healthcare, we will have to lay off an existing employee. Ans that just ultimately increases my unemployment insurance rate. And BTW, we do offer a health care plan but most of my employees choose not to participate. If its not free of almost free then they don't want it.
And if its so great ...why did the President and Congress exempt themselves from it?
Really?? I own a family retail store and we have about 40 employees. The health care financial burden that will be dumped on me will be a serious issue for us. Plus its not too hard to have over 25 employees. You can own a business with two locations and easily exceed 25 employees. To pay the extra $$ for healthcare, we will have to lay off an existing employee. Ans that just ultimately increases my unemployment insurance rate. And BTW, we do offer a health care plan but most of my employees choose not to participate. If its not free of almost free then they don't want it.
And if its so great ...why did the President and Congress exempt themselves from it?
Jim S,
As a businessman involved in real estate and retail, I would think you could be more creative than just laying people off as an answer to a challenge.
First, everyone will have to particate now, which should lower your premium some.
Second, rather than laying off an employee, you have options. You can accept less profit and be happy that everyone has health insurance. Or, if you don't want to take that hit and you don't want to lay off 1 of your 40 employees, just have an across the board paycut of 1/40, or 2.5%. If you are only paying minimum wage, well, you might not have that as an option. But then, I don't have much sympathy for employers paying minimum wage...
Starbucks pays health insurace to employees that only work 12 hours per week and its some of the best healthcare out there. And if you want to argue about scaleability, ask Walmart why they can't compete with Starbuck's benefits? This is largely a matter of people resisting change just for the sake of resisting change. Use your talent and intelligence to find a way to make it work. Starbucks does.
There is a large difference in my profitability especially in the last 3 years in retail vs a multinational chain like Starbucks who has monster profit margins per sale on a private label product that they brand.
Not only is business down due to the economy but the federal & state govts refusal to impose a fair sales tax on internet purchases has hurt local brick and mortar stores. Why would anyone buy a product from their local store when can save up to 10% in sales tax depending on where they live?
As we watch all the Euro govt struggle in debt, we are walking down the same path. These social benefits are great as long as someone else foots the bill.
Jim, then you fall into a small fraction of business owners that may very well have a financial burden, but that could be initially as you could shop around and since insurance can now go across state lines and pools can be established your costs in the end should be less, we will see. That may not help you now.
As I said, most who have 24 emps already provide some coverage, those who are married may have better coverage under their spousal policy, probably why they don't participate, and then there are the young and healthy who don't want to pay any premium and they don't understand that they could be hit by the bus!
As to the act, I think there are many issues that need to be tweeked, but the overall idea of having access to coverage at an affordable rate is a good one. If I were King, I'd hit the costs at the sources, hospitals and doctors from charging a grand a minute and the pharmacy bills at 5K for a shot when they sell the same shot in other countries for a few hundred bucks....we have been gouged IMO.
The health care law, on the surface, is pretty cool. The theory is that everybody pays in, or gets taxed for not taking part. The less fortunate get their health insurance subsidized or completely paid for. Sure, there is some redistribution of wealth going on, but it doesn't seem too bad or egregious with this bill.
That's on the surface.
The real problem is that the country is facing rapidly rising health care costs. This is attributed to a couple reasons. One, most people in this country do not take care of themselves. They don't eat right, they don't work out, they don't exercise, etc. Secondly, pharmaceutical companies, in pursuit of profit, continually pump out new drugs to replace older ones. However, since they have the FDA in their back pocket, Big Pharma is able to put out these new, more expensive drugs even though they are NOT more effective than the older ones they are replacing (in many cases). Yes, it is sickening. Finally, our health care system is focused on curing symptoms, not the underlying problem. I guess part of the reason for this is because of our country's horrible health culture.
Democrats and Republicans offer no solutions to fight the real problem of rising health care costs.
I think this is such an important issue that I'm going to let this discussion stand, despite the politics
Again, Walmart chooses to provide less benefits than Starbuck's and I feel pretty confident they have more ability to do better. I don't even think Starbuck's has better values. I think they know they attract better talent with those benefits. They don't pay much per hour, but those bennies bring in HIGHLY qaulified and talented employees. It is a matter of different business models, not a matter of "poor me, I can't change".
Rather than addressing my points about possible lower premiums, possiblly accepting less profit or possible across the board paycuts as alternatives to laying that employee off (which was your reason for being against the healthcare bill) you have now changed the subject about internet sales and the economy.
The funny thing is, internet sales are no new thing. As a brick and mortar store owner, you should have been finding ways to address that concern a decade ago. If changes in life, the world, technology or economy have made your business model obsolete, change your business model or close the doors. What other options do you have? Why should Jim S have the priveledge of doing business as usual and not be compelled to adjust and change as everyone else must?
Back to the internet thing; I now have to pay taxes, as a Texas resident, if I order something from Amazon. Doesn't mean I will not use Amazon. In fact, i just bought Kindle and am using them more than ever (business model change high five to Amazon). In fact, in most cases, the savings on sales tax on internet orders is offset or even superceded by shipping costs - so I refute your argument that internet competition is connected with your self stated inability to comply with the new healthcare laws...
And how are we being like Europe in forcing people to be accountable for their health insurance? Your employees will still have to pay a portion of the bill just like I do and most people do with privately funded health insurance.
Europe's problems are not simply due to others "footing the bill" mentallity. Greece wasn't collecting taxes, Spain has a real estate collapes (sound familiar?), Germany is actaully doing just fine and then there is also the fact that many different countries with different languages and cultures and values are tied to a single monetary policy by being in the Euro Zone. So, first of all, you oversimplify with sweeping statements about "Europe" as if it was one homogenous country. Second, socialized healthcare is NOT the foundation behind any of the individual European country's financial woes..
I feel for you that your retail store might not be doing that well. But your store not doing well is not a reason why the healthcare law is a bad thing for millions of other Americans.
That's on the surface.
The real problem is that the country is facing rapidly rising health care costs. This is attributed to a couple reasons. One, most people in this country do not take care of themselves. They don't eat right, they don't work out, they don't exercise, etc. Secondly, pharmaceutical companies, in pursuit of profit, continually pump out new drugs to replace older ones. However, since they have the FDA in their back pocket, Big Pharma is able to put out these new, more expensive drugs even though they are NOT more effective than the older ones they are replacing (in many cases). Yes, it is sickening. Finally, our health care system is focused on curing symptoms, not the underlying problem. I guess part of the reason for this is because of our country's horrible health culture.
Democrats and Republicans offer no solutions to fight the real problem of rising health care costs.
You are correct that the FDA does make some questionable decisions. My wife is a physician with the FDA. She reviews adverse drug events. Drug side effect reports are created by Dr's, hospitals, individuals and lawyers etc. The FDA used to contract out the job of coding the adverse reactions to private companies who would build a database. This information was instrumental in deciding recalls. The FDA 2 years ago chose to virtually eliminate these subcontractors and now allow the pharmaceutical companies to code their own adverse reactions. A small amount are QC ed by my wife and her peers. Its a joke. A patient could die from their drug and the pharmaceutical company would not code death but some other minor issue.
Joshua Dorkin,
I was digging into my last post before I saw your post. I will bow out at this point just to make sure I don't get too...heated. Thank you for letting this one stand and I hope everyone can keep it clean. Hard to do with politcs sometimes.
Thanks Josh, we discuss other Acts that sometimes touch on politics, I didn't start it to be political at all, but guess it gets there in many ways. Not about who won or lost, I'm just hoping for a better country!
I doubt this would have ever happened if insurance companies and helath providers had not been so greedy, I see it as their falure to provide for the public good of our country, had they, we wouldn't be talking about it. It's nearly a third of our economy.....
Just keep it civil guys.
The problem with this country's health care system is that all the Big Corporations lose too much money with a healthy country.
1. We are addicted to 4000+ lb. cars. From an engineering standpoint, it is absolutely ridiculous that people (think single women) who weight 110 lbs. need an 8000 lb. SUV to do the same thing (get from point A to point B) that the footmobile or a 50 lb bike allows one to do.
Almost all automakers had no problems selling these profit machines, along with NO intention of a fuel efficient alternative.
This addiction if further fueled by the oil companies who are basically the "Wal-Mart" of energy; if they get 50M drivers to buy "acceptable" gas at $3/gallon, then they make a small (relative) profit on a high volume of consumption.
Couple that with the groundwork the automakers laid many years ago by essentially killing anything that resembled a halfway decent public transportation system, and here we are today.
2. There is a pill (cure) for everything. Someone said it a LONG time ago, that "an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure" - yet as a society we have yet to embrace it.
I won't dive too deeply into the fact that Big Pharm and the gov't would rather have you take a pill (with its 20 side effects) for pain instead of something like cannabis, and that's why it's still illegal.
3. Then, of course, is "American cuisine" - fast food. There is a lot of money there as well, and the results speak for themselves. Ketchup being classified a serving of vegetable? C'mon. The profit margins made from taking leftover animal meat and cardboard and calling them hamburgers, or by flavoring french fries with meat (and ungodly amounts of salt) is too much for any corporation to turn down.
There is another old saying "Good Diet - Medicine Not Necessary, Bad Diet - No Medicine Can Help".
2 Branches of our Corporate Ownership (Pharm and Food) squashed that one.
Under the Bush Admin., Congress passed the Medicare Part D Drug Program. If you don't join when first eligible you get a penalty and that penalty goes back to the date you first became eligible and then you are charged an extra amount.
I support the new law.
I am 100% AGAINST the government requiring the people to purchase healthcare or face a penalty. I am also against the federal government forcing the states to provide healthcare for those that aren't covered by private insurance.
America became the great nation we were because of the free enterprise system. We are now on a course of becoming a socialist country. The working class will be taxed more and more to cover those that do not want to work, and provide for themselves. The government run healthcare system will be like every other government program, overpriced and impossible to access.
We are already paying billions of dollars in California in medical expenses for released convicts (because we can't afford to keep them in prison and 40,000 were released), sexual predators, drug addicts, alcoholics, etc. Why should the working taxpayers be required to pay more to cover those that choose not to work?
It's not even the direct penalties, etc. for the working class should they opt out of insurance. The entire system needs reformed. The liberals have expanded disability, healthcare, etc. to such extremes, that soon there will be no business left in California to create the tax base necessary to suport it. You can only tax people and business so much, and when there's more taking than giving, the country collapses, and we become Greece!
I'll stand for a free country, with personal choice, and a free enterprise system, and forego Big Brother thank you.
Karen M.
One of the big questions that is out there is 'what do you do with the person who NEEDS healthcare but can't afford it?'
Now, what if that person NEEDS healthcare, can afford it, but choose NOT to buy it? To expand on that, what if that person doesn't have enough assets to cover their bill? What are you going to do? Garnish their wages?
I personally believe the only socialist programs that need to exist are the police and fire departments, the military, infrastructure departments (building code, roads, highways, etc.), and public assistance only for the TRULY sick and disabled.
I also believe that people have 4 responsibilities to themselves and their dependents: (1) roof over their head, (2) food on their table, (3) clothes on their back, and (4) healthcare coverage.
It looks like the Healthcare Act has become firmly ingrained for better or worse. Time will tell if this was really a good thing.
Some things are certain - it will be quite costly. The IRS has hired 1000s of agents just to administer many of the provisions of the Act. The insurance industry and states have already spent significant dollars in implementing many of the provisions.
I honestly hope that healthcare leads to better access to quality healthcare. Hopefully 10 - 20 years from now I can look back on this and say it was a positive event or at least neutral.
Makes me curious what will eventually happen to Health Savings Accounts.