HEALTH CARE LAW UPHELD
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
HEALTH CARE LAW UPHELD
Most Popular Reply
Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes
14yI 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.
271 Replies
- Investor · San Ramon, CA · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 569 votes14y
Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Nathan Emmert:
But at the same time, I don't believe hospitals should have to serve people who don't have insurance or proof of adequate assets to pay for care.There's absolutely nothing wrong with that belief...
That said, I'm glad that we live in a country where (for the most part), the majority opinion prevails, and I'm glad the majority of people in this country disagree with you on this.
Out of curiosity... where did you get that info?
Regarding Obamacare... the last poll I saw showed more people wanting it overturned than wanting it to stand, though neither were over 50% to declare a majority. I haven't seen a poll on hospitals treating people regardless of cost or ability to pay.
- Investor · Mission Viejo, CA · Member since 2012 · 627 posts · 204 votes14y
Just imagine if health insurance was like car insurance, life insurance, professional liability insurance, or house insurance:
1) Bought by people, not their employers; and,
2) Easy to buy from numerous sellers competing to offer the best value and variety to fit various needs.
3) When their is a claim, you shop for the best value to peform the needed work (car and property insurance).
Before I had my gallbladder removed, I had an untrasound for $350 from the palce my GP recommended. Just before the surgery, the surgeon's office wanted another one, so my wife called the place they suggested to schedule it and they wanted $800. When she objected, they said "why do you care, your insurance will pay?" Not true in our case, as we have $7,000 deductibles and HSAs. I went back to the $350 place, which has modern equipment and well-trained people.
People wanting insurance to cover cut pinkies and colds is also a big part of the problem. If they buy it themselves, I suspect few would want such excessive coverage.
If you had bothered to do even two minutes of research before putting out such stuff, you would learn that people in teh USA are champions with regard to donations to charities. What a warped, unhappy view of the world you have!Originally posted by Nathan Emmert:
Americans are far from compassionate - Investor · Fort Worth, TX · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 450 votes14y
Nathan Emmert, I agree with much of what you have to say. But some of this self made man stuff is a little overbloated. And some of what you claim is a little (a lot) Utopian. First of all, it's a fact that not all people have your abilities. It does not necessarily mean that they need to die in a Darwanistic fashion simply because their skillset does not appeal to the values of current society. Are you a highly talented artist? Well, if not, be glad you didn't live during the Renaissance. Did you not have a short sale not too long ago? Did you do that on purpose? Or, rather, were their unforseeable events of which you had little control that affected decisions you had to make in your life? How about cancer? Can you control 100% whether or not you get that with lifestyle? I like you. I don't want you to die if there is a way we can all pitch in a little to help you live.
Stephen Masek, I have considered the same thing. The problem is, you have a choice to drive or not (not really, but you do in theory). But you cannot control that you were born and, to a large extent, exist, here in this country. For that matter, you can't control that about me and I about you. So how are we going to make the best out of this situation where we are thrust together without much say in the matter?
This Affordable Care Act is not the total answer. It is a step in the right direction (IMO). I believe it needs to be accompanied with either negative or positive incentives for people to be more healthy. Insurance plans have already started doing this in antication of this legislation. Coexisting with each other does not have to be a zero sum game. There will be winners and loosers in most things and that makes life worth living. But we do not need to have that competition when it comes to health and life.
I knoww I bowed out earlier, but I'm on good behavior right now, lol!
- Realtor, General Contractor, and Developer · Redding, CA · Member since 2009 · 7k+ posts · 4k+ votes14y
Nathan Emmert Americans ARE compassionate, and donate more money to other countries, charities, etc. than any other country on earth by a huge margin. In addition, to money, we've shed our blood for others.
It is our generosity and unselfishness that have put us where we are today. If our borders were closed (as other countries) and we didn't give aid to other countries, America could EASILY sustain ourselves and a very high standard of living. Many countries don't allow foreigners to buy property in their countries, America does.
In regard to the comment someone made about making government smaller, I'm all for that. However; Social Security is a program that people actually pay into, and deserve.
The truth is, churches used to fill the space taken over by government services, taking care of those in need.
But... this has totally gotten away from the healthcare issue. My thoughts are that WE NEED LESS GOVT. NOT MORE.. we have NEVER before been taxed for NOT doing something! It's wrong.
- Landlord · Seattle, WA · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes14y
Originally posted by K. Marie Poe:
Originally posted by Bill Gulley:
K. Marie Poe, I knew I liked you for some reason, now I know! lolThat's good info! $95!
In the first year (2014) the minimum penalty/tax is $95 or the percentage of income (with cap) whichever is greater. CNN and Fox News have failed to deliver details on the penalty/tax that would really help people put this in perspective. But why bother with facts in an election year. Outrage in your audience is good for ratings and good for advertising. This is true even for the "liberal" media.
It would help if citizens would/could read and understand the primary source material. It's just a little harder to find than Fox News.
The first year the penalty is $95 or 1% of income. The penalty phases up to $695 or 2.5% of income by 2016.
To begin with the penalty won't be to steep, but it will become considerably more pain for those that even make even a modest income by 2016.
- Residential Landlord · Chicago, IL · Member since 2012 · 356 posts · 81 votes14y
That sounds like a reasonable amount providing it holds. My biggest issue with the reform is that I don't see how it addresses the biggest concern in healthcare which is cost containment. It appears that this will be another run away government program that we will all be forced to pay for - either via additional debt or taxes.
- Landlord · Seattle, WA · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes14y
Forgot to mention it is the higher of.
An income of 50,000 will mean a $500 tax penalty and in 2016 it will go to $1,250.
- Investor · Fort Worth, TX · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 450 votes14y
Originally posted by Charles Perkins:
Forgot to mention it is the higher of.An income of 50,000 will mean a $500 tax penalty and in 2016 it will go to $1,250.
To be honest, this does not sound like a rallying cry for me. For those who make 50K a year and choose not to use health insurance (putting us at risk of them abusing the emergency room), it might seam like a real tear jerker.
For me, who's employer sponsored health care plan costs up to 550/month ($6,600 per year), paying a fee of $1,250 to sounds like a a darn good deal. The individual plan is around $250/month - still higher than the big scary fee.
Heck, my wife renewed her Army Reserve contract recently specifically for the Tri-Care Health insurance. I have had no problems using it with private practicing doctors. They don't all accept it, but then again, your PPO may not work well where your HMO does and vica versa. This is a government plan and we pay $200/month for the whole family (spouse and children). And this is still more expensive than the big scary fee by about 30 percent!
And why shouldn't people who don't have insurance, who will almost certainly abuse the emergency room not have to pay a tax fee to subsidize their lack of financial ownership of their health care? If you hate the ideas of illegals using the system for free, why should subcontractors or small business people or anybody else be able to use it for free?
If you think an independently employed individual making less than 100K a year is going to pay cash for a catastrophic incident like a car crash that breaks multiple bones, you are kidding yourself. Maybe there is that ONE exception or two, but are we legislating for one or two people? Or are we legislating for millions?
- Real Estate Investor · Audubon, PA · Member since 2009 · 13k+ posts · 8k+ votes14y
Charles - how dare you refer to this as a penalty, when they clearly have labeled it as a "tax" :(
To me it's clearly a penalty and that is the intent, but the semantics are what they are ...
- Investor · Fort Worth, TX · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 450 votes14y
Originally posted by Dave Meyer:
That sounds like a reasonable amount providing it holds. My biggest issue with the reform is that I don't see how it addresses the biggest concern in healthcare which is cost containment. It appears that this will be another run away government program that we will all be forced to pay for - either via additional debt or taxes.
I think cost containment will be key as well. If we have a system in place where everyone is in the same boat, I think there will be more monolithic motivation to make this a reality. We will need tort reform and incentives for regular check-ups and other good health practices.
- Landlord · Seattle, WA · Member since 2010 · 3k+ posts · 1k+ votes14y
I would call it a penalty since they are not getting anything for it. The supreme court and others can choose to call it what they like.
- Residential Landlord · Chicago, IL · Member since 2012 · 356 posts · 81 votes14y
Originally posted by Brian Hoyt:
If you hate the ideas of illegals using the system for free, why should subcontractors or small business people or anybody else be able to use it for free?I agreed with each of your points except this one. Subcontractors or small business people are typically tax payers, illegals are typically not.
I currently have no insurance. When I go to the doctor/dentist/hospital I pay my bill. If I don't they send me to collections, how am I using the system for free?
- Investor · Fort Worth, TX · Member since 2011 · 1k+ posts · 450 votes14y
Originally posted by Dave Meyer:
Originally posted by Brian Hoyt:
If you hate the ideas of illegals using the system for free, why should subcontractors or small business people or anybody else be able to use it for free?I agreed with each of your points except this one. Subcontractors or small business people are typically tax payers, illegals are typically not.
I currently have no insurance. When I go to the doctor/dentist/hospital I pay my bill. If I don't they send me to collections, how am I using the system for free?
You may be able to afford your routine visits or when you get a sinus infection. Can you foot the bill when starflight airlifts your barely alive body and transports it to a hospital for a major surgery. How about when you get cancer? Pneumonia? Back problems?
Also, not to get off topic, That illegals don't pay taxes is a bit of a misnomer. Far more than half of them use false identification to present to employers. Taxes get withheld but no refunds are to be had. If the taxes aren't getting to the IRS, then the employer is pocketing them. Plus, there are probably as many citizens who work under the table in some form or fashion as there are "illegals" working under the table.
- Residential Landlord · Chicago, IL · Member since 2012 · 356 posts · 81 votes14y
Originally posted by Brian Hoyt:
You may be able to afford your routine visits or when you get a sinus infection. Can you foot the bill when starflight airlifts your barely alive body and transports it to a hospital for a major surgery. How about when you get cancer? Pneumonia? Back problems?Also, not to get off topic, That illegals don't pay taxes is a bit of a misnomer. Far more than half of them use false identification to present to employers. Taxes get withheld but no refunds are to be had. If the taxes aren't getting to the IRS, then the employer is pocketing them. Plus, there are probably as many citizens who work under the table in some form or fashion as there are "illegals" working under the table.
I'm rolling the dice, assuming (hoping) I won't incur a major medical expense. I have often considered getting major medical or biting the bullet and buying a full blown policy. I welcome others' thought on this too, PS. But I realize the downside of major illness is loss of assets and/or bankruptcy.
I realized when I brought immigration into this it was a whole other can of worms, but what bothers me is the perception of those who consume without contributing. And that is regardless of the individual's citizenship.
- Multi-family Investor · Morton Grove, IL · Member since 2011 · 59 posts · 8 votes14y
No one knows when they will need health insurance...and you hope that nothing major catastrophe happens. It is good planning to plan for the major expenses, just as you plan for your retirement. Without this planning you may not have a retirement. Anyway, I know people (young and Old) who have been in terrible accidents that have crippled them for life. There are those then that when they have blood work done, they are told to see an Oncologist or Neurolgist for something major. It is just good planning to plan to take care of your healthcare needs in case you need real major medical care.
- Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes14y
I think this is going to turn out alot like social security, now that it is law, and you are being forced to comply, now you will learn what the heck it is all really about, as most have not really looked into the bill. After you study it and find the benfits, more will go aboard with it, they will dee the ebneifts as opposed to what they had (or didn't have). It was the same with social secuirty, being called a socialist ploy and unamerican. Now look at it, not only is it accepted, but it is demanded!
I have lived overseas and seen socilized medicine, it's much better than what we have, where insurance companies have their death pannels, where ins. companies denie coverage for profit and where providerers are always holding up someone for a buck before they save them from death. It's the very worst of a capialistic system. IMO
- Investor · Mission Viejo, CA · Member since 2012 · 627 posts · 204 votes14y
It seems quite odd that any would suggest that a problem created by government could be solved with still more government. Back in WWII, the feds manipulated and controlled everything, and decided that companies should offer "benefits" such as paying for employee's health insurance. This was done by making those expenses deductible, while not allwing pay to increase. Medicare is a vast manipulator of the health care system. Going back to people buying their own major medical (or more coverage as they want)from a wide variety of sellers, a high risk pool (as is done for auto insurance), and strong incentives for all to be insured would solve the problem.
- Lender · Tyngsboro, MA · Member since 2009 · 3k+ posts · 2k+ votes14y
I don't see how costs and premiums can do anything but go up:
1. If there are no annual limits, that means increased payouts
2. If there are no exclusions for pre existing conditions, that means increased payouts
3. If everyone is covered, that means increased payoutsOk, so we're increasing the number of people paying premiums, too.
But to my mind, if everyone is paying in, and everyone is covered, we are simply inserting a layer of administration between us and our health care providers. We are essentiallying paying the insurance companies to pay our health care costs. Which spreads the cost more evenly across the population, except for the profit taken by the insurance company.
If anyone would like to volunteer to have me pay their bills, please do the following:
1. Calculate how much you pay each year in bills
2. Send me that plus 20%In return, I'll pay your bills and renegotiate your services so you actually get less than you were getting before but paying more for it. I, however, will be sitting pretty.
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Nathan Emmert:
Originally posted by J Scott:
That said, I'm glad that we live in a country where (for the most part), the majority opinion prevails, and I'm glad the majority of people in this country disagree with you on this.Out of curiosity... where did you get that info?
Regarding Obamacare... the last poll I saw showed more people wanting it overturned than wanting it to stand, though neither were over 50% to declare a majority. I haven't seen a poll on hospitals treating people regardless of cost or ability to pay.
During the last election, the majority of voters in this country determined that they wanted a President who believes it is the right of every person to have access to health care.
We live in a country where the citizens determine who they want representing them, and if they think they've made a bad choice, they have the opportunity to change that decision every four years. We'll see in November if the country has decided that they made a bad choice or not, and this health care bill will likely be a key determining issue in that decision.
- Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes14y
Originally posted by Nathan Emmert:
Yep, you're absolutely right... but then that's why I have insurance. That's why I choose to get 3 college degrees... so I could demand insurance from my employer. I empowered myself with a skill set which allows me to demand from the market the perk of insurance.What would have happened if you had gotten a serious illness or had been in an accident while you were in college?
Assuming you weren't *lucky* enough to have had parents who could provide you insurance, do you think that you should have been turned down for medical care? Or had you somehow saved enough money before college to cover any major medical expenses that might have come up while you were earning those degrees that would allow you to get insurance?
- Real Estate Investor · Gainesville, GA · Member since 2009 · 241 posts · 34 votes14y
My take on this is simple and from a different angle.
Our voice and freedom are diminishing right before our eyes..You can clearly see that at airports, by this healthcare crap that most americans don't want but must have because they say so or........., by them having the right to detain someone for as long as they want without being convicted, etc.
I guess we were promised changes..there you have it!!! - Real Estate Investor · Audubon, PA · Member since 2009 · 13k+ posts · 8k+ votes14y
Originally posted by J Scott:
Originally posted by Nathan Emmert:
Originally posted by J Scott:
That said, I'm glad that we live in a country where (for the most part), the majority opinion prevails, and I'm glad the majority of people in this country disagree with you on this.Out of curiosity... where did you get that info?
Regarding Obamacare... the last poll I saw showed more people wanting it overturned than wanting it to stand, though neither were over 50% to declare a majority. I haven't seen a poll on hospitals treating people regardless of cost or ability to pay.
During the last election, the majority of voters in this country determined that they wanted a President who believes it is the right of every person to have access to health care.
...
Sorry, but that is only INDIRECT evidence. Many voters may have voted for this President in spite of their disagreement with his position on health care - they may have liked him for other reasons. No, I don't have any data that indicates one way or the other, but your evidence does not have that data either.
Now, I'd like to see Nathan Emmert show his source of data, and then we can see who has legitimate evidence to back their position.
- Real Estate Investor · Audubon, PA · Member since 2009 · 13k+ posts · 8k+ votes14y
Brandy Y. - thanks for the data. It looks like it's close in most of the polls. A slight margin to the group opposed to the Obama health care plan in many of them. Those results may not be conclusive, since poll margins for error could shift things just a bit in the other direction.
- Investor · Omaha, NE · Member since 2011 · 475 posts · 211 votes14y
Brandy Y.You forgot one of the most telling polls : Investor's Business Daily 9/24/09 found 65% of physicians oppose Obamacare. As a physician I and others see the profound negative impact this will have on the delivery of healthcare in this country. I have seen gov't run healthcare at the VA. I have a tremendous number of patients that get their drugs from the VA, because it's free, but, come to me for actual healthcare because they see the lousy care given in a gov't facility. Most people on this thread are clueless as to what will happen to them in 10 yrs. after this takes hold . The costs will be contained by the denial of care by making people wait for care and they'll either get better on their own or die. It's cheap to die,but, expensive to try to live. Access to care will be severely curtailed and that's how the costs will be controlled by the gov't.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.