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.
Can you point to a reputable and non-partisan source that agrees with you on this?
Can you point to a reputable and non-partisan source that agrees with you on this?
Google it and you'll find a plethora. Economics 101 would teach you that the least efficient way to spend money is to have someone else pay for what you want. Here I've even done that for you: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=3rd%20party%20payer&cp=33&gs_id=3t&xhr=t&q=3rd+party+payer+health+care+costs&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=3rd+party+payer+health+care+costs&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=48ce95a733504573&biw=891&bih=726
Can you point to a reputable and non-partisan source that agrees with you on this?
Google it and you'll find a plethora...Here I've even done that for you: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=3rd%20party%20payer&cp=33&gs_id=3t&xhr=t&q=3rd+party+payer+health+care+costs&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=3rd+party+payer+health+care+costs&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=48ce95a733504573&biw=891&bih=726
Okay, wait...perhaps I misunderstood your original post...
I thought you were saying that the fact that uninsured were using health care resources was escalating health care costs. But, now I realize that you may have been saying the fact that we have third-party payers (primarily employers) is the problem.
Is that what you were saying? If so, sorry I misunderstood you earlier...
And if so, I completely agree with you. But, I don't believe a single-payer system must have the same downsides -- and cost implications -- as the currently popular third-party payer system.
Certainly, if the single-payer system were implemented in a similar fashion to today's insurance infrastructure, we'd have escalating costs and waste. But, the goal should be to replace the current (broken in my opinion) system with something that is more efficient and allows everyone to receive at least adequate health care without an increase in costs. In fact, it should be possible to significantly reduce costs with a more efficient system.
Given the currently flow of profit through the insurance industry, there is little incentive for any of the major players to reform or streamline their processes (they'd make less money), which is why it needs to be done in a centralized and legislative fashion. If done correctly, everyone wins -- health care for all at lower prices.
Sure, it's less capitalistic and more socialistic, but I don't assign good and evil to those words, so who cares. Ultimately, it's better for society as a whole, even the "rich."
Btw, if you want to read about some GREAT ways to streamline health care and reduce costs, check out "The Innovator's Prescription," by Clayton Christensen, a Harvard professor and author of "The Innovator's Dilemma," (one of the most influential books in the technology world from the past 20 years).
Dividends would be still treated as ordinary income. Dividends only help you avoid payroll taxes.
Then go ahead and contribute to a charity to provide care for the uninsured, but don't steal from the rest of us. Government is not a charity and should not be. It's purpose is to protect our rights and freedoms.
Government is just to protect our rights and freedoms? I guess you've never called 911? You've never benefitted from police services, fire services, EMT services, etc? What about the FBI, CIA or NSA? Those government services are NOT designed to protect our rights and freedoms -- they are designed to protect our health and safety. Have you used them?
Or do you not believe that the government should be protecting our health and safety as well as our rights and freedoms?
J Scott Well, I am on your side, thus, I should point out our health and safety are apart of our rights in the USA. The government does have the responsibility to keep the population above a baseline threshold of health and security or in other words, promote our welfare.
Johanthan Krohn, the kid that is growing up, he was a right wing type and is maturing, an intersting kid that was dogmatic is conservative views and is a really smart kid, now at only 17, he makes alot of sence. Goggle him!
Let's face it, Romeny is not going to be ble to repeal OC on the first day, that's just BS.
All I'm seeing is how niave so many people are.....
Charles Perkins I really want to understand what type of income will be taxed at the 3.8 surtax starting in 2013. I get that individuals with an AGI of $200K and couples with an AGI of $250K will be taxed on 3.8% on non wage income. But what counts as none wage income? What's your understanding of the types of income that will be taxed at this surtax rate?
The 3.8% is an add to the capital gains rate for those making more than 250K.
The income qualifying for capital gains treatment would include any gains on long term positions in stocks, bonds and commodities and some alternative investments. A personal residence held more than one year but for some reason doesn't qualify or the 121 exemption or does qualify and exceeds the exemption amount. Real estate held long term as an investment such as rental property and then later sold at a gain.
I need to review how this bill treats capital gains on real estate and personal property. Under current law buildings and other real property held long term are taxed at 25% and almost never subject to depreciation recapture. Personal property held long term is subject to depreciation recapture meaning part of the gain is taxed at ordinary income rates and part of the gain is taxed at the 10 or 15% capital gains rate.
Please check that out would you Charles Perkins, that's not sounding good, thank you! Geez, on each deal....?
I guess installment sales would still be amortized with principal as received, not such a bite as one time shot...
Some facts to ponder from Monday's IBD:
"In March, the Congressional Budget Office said the law would cost $1.76 trillion from 2013 to 2022, nearly double the $900 billion Obama quoted in September 2009. That's only a partial picture. Beginning in 2014, the next 10 years of ObamaCaere - through 2023- will cost more than $2 trillion. ...
As we reported in April, the CBO estimates that as many as 20 million Americans will be foreced out of their plans as employers toss workers into government health exchanges to avoid ObamaCare's costs.
A survey by McKinsey and Co. found that nearly one-third of employers will likely drop coverage for their workers once ObamaCare kicks in..
An analysis by the Medicare actaury found that ObamaCare's attacks on Medicare's private insurance options will force nearly 8 million senoirs out of the coverage they've chosen."
There's much more but I got tired of typing.
I thought you were saying that the fact that uninsured were using health care resources was escalating health care costs. But, now I realize that you may have been saying the fact that we have third-party payers (primarily employers) is the problem.
Is that what you were saying? If so, sorry I misunderstood you earlier...
And if so, I completely agree with you. But, I don't believe a single-payer system must have the same downsides -- and cost implications -- as the currently popular third-party payer system.
Certainly, if the single-payer system were implemented in a similar fashion to today's insurance infrastructure, we'd have escalating costs and waste. But, the goal should be to replace the current (broken in my opinion) system with something that is more efficient and allows everyone to receive at least adequate health care without an increase in costs. In fact, it should be possible to significantly reduce costs with a more efficient system.
No problem, yes that's what I was saying. Right now most people are at least two jumps from paying for their health care. The insurance company pays the doctor etc., their employer pays for the insurance, and the person taking the services has almost no connection to the cost. That's wrong and will not work for long. Your also absolutely right that single payer has the same problem which is why it would only make the system worse since even the insurance companies wouldn't be there to limit costs. My proposal is to eliminate employers from the equation and in fact limit the deductability of insurance, but rather encourage direct payments from consumers to providers through beefed up medical savings accounts and possibly making directly paid medical expenses deductable. People should be buying major medical insuance only. That limits the big bad insurance companies and reintroduces the only cost controls that will work which is when people are actually watching what they're getting. On the other hand, your proposal for a single payer system and government efficiencies will only increase costs and limit the control that people have over their own care. Since when has government ever, in the history of the world, been efficient at delivering services. Your proposal increases government control and necessarily limits freedom. It's unAmerican and wrong in my opinion.
That's utterly ridiculous. Rights protected by our constitution require nothing from anyone else. We have rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, religion, speech, and the like. None of these require anything from anyone else. We don't have rights to food, housing, or healthcare. You cannot have a right to something someone else has. If you did, the other person's rights to their property, work, and liberty would be infringed. If you want access to the other person's time or products, you must pay or otherwise convince them to provide their services. Besides, health and security are illusions that can never be guaranteed. At some point, we're all going to die no matter how big you grow the government.
So, what you're saying is that we could take less than 30% of our military budget and use it to ensure that every person in this country had access to health care, and we'd still have a military budget that is 3 times bigger than the next largest militarized country in the world (and still larger than the next 7 largest militarized countries combined!).
Wow, if I wasn't previously convinced that universal health care was the right way to go, you've now convinced me, Dennis...thank you!
from the net, re RE and 3.8 tax
Charles Perkins should be able to help us decipher more
Or do you not believe that the government should be protecting our health and safety as well as our rights and freedoms?
Police and fire absolutely protect our rights to our lives and property. The FBI falls into the category of police and the police are a necessary role of government. I'd categorize the CIA and NSA as contribution to national defense and international relations (state department) which are also the proper role of government. Naturally, you cannot have a liberty or property if a foreign country is attacking. EMT services are generally provided by private parties. If a local municipality decides to offer those services, that's their perogative and I have no trouble with it. On the other hand, if the Federal government insisted on any role in this I'd have huge concerns. The federal government has certain duties as explicitly expressed in the constitution. Everything else is explicitly left to the states. Heath insurance is not something required or specified as a role for the federal government in the constitution. It should simply be left to the states. Get rid of the federal intrusions (business deductions for health insurance, federal health insurance mandates, medicaid, medicare, etc.) currently in force and the states can solve this.
Alan Mackenthun,
You previously said we should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines. Then, you say the fed should remain out of it. You want to let out like you are a strict constructionist, but you don't appear to understand exactly where the role of the federal government belongs even in your own model of constitutional interpretation (hint: the federal government has a role in interstate commerce).
Secondly, what is with the 17th century state's rights rhetoric, anyways? Do you really think that the needs of one state, in regards to health and welfare of its people, really vary that much?
Third, since you and your people want to be okay with theft of healthcare from the emergency room (not requiring people to have health insurance and not fining them when they don't), I prefer the federal government to step in and hold you and your people accountable by taxing you to subsidize your unlawful actions in the interest of protecting my and my country's financial security. You have healthcare you say? That is moot. You are pissed because now you will be required to have it or pay a fee (whether you want to have it or not). You think you should be able to choose whether or not you put the financial system at risk (by not having health insurance) and believe that it is your prerogative to burden the system with unexpected and unplanned and uncovered expenses and that government should mind their own business and let you play. You think this is a question of free market, yet free market has us where we are. So since people like you and the politicians you vote for want things to stay the same, other people and the politicians they vote for need to act to force change through legislation.
So, protecting our lives is the responsibility of the government?
How is that protection different based on whether the threat is fire, another person, disease, etc.
And if the government's role is different based on the threat, what are you using as a guideline to determine when the government is and is not responsible?
Guys. Please keep the discussion to the Health Care law. If you want to debate the role of Government or whether or not the law is one that should have passed, please start a new thread in our Political group.
--------
That said, here is an article from Chris Clothier on the BiggerPockets Blog that contains some important info about the affect of the law on real estate investment:
Are You Prepared For The ‘Obamacare’ Real Estate Investment Tax?
Alan Mackenthun,
In regards to your take on direct pay, I say there is some merit to that. But on the other hand, I don't agree with your solution.
"People should be buying major medical insuance only. That limits the big bad insurance companies and reintroduces the only cost controls that will work which is when people are actually watching what they're getting."
So what your saying is we should pay out of pocket for regular visits. I agree that this is not a bad ideological approach. But, when it costs 80 to 200 bucks to visit the doctor for a head ache or stomach pay, people don't pay for a visit. Especially people without insurance. That's why they end up in the emergency room a week too late with an appendicitis or a severe sinus infection. People are just not going to behave properly because we do not have a society that really and truly values health and well being. The whole situation is out of control and some oversight and regulation is needed to make the costs more predictable.
Sheesh...that would mean we'd actually have to read the damn thing...and I'm pretty sure none of us (including me) want to do that... :)
Sheesh...that would mean we'd actually have to read the damn thing...and I'm pretty sure none of us (including me) want to do that... :)
lol!
I read it. Pretty comforting article and not that long!
Alan Mackenthun said "We need free market reforms like those that Romney and many Republicans have proposed."
This health care law IS what Romney and many Republicans have proposed! Romney implemented it! Jim Demint said we should do this for the whole country in 2007! Heritage thought of it, tons of republicans have endorsed it, and the current Ryan budget carries the principle to medicare and social security. It's when the left gave up on something stronger and passed it that Republicans turned against "Obamacare".
Karen M. said something along the lines "we have never been taxed for not doing anything". If you don't have babies and don't get a mortgage- you will be paying the IRS more money. The Government attempts to influence our behavior to do/not do all kinds of things through the tax code.
Taxpayers and premium payers are already paying for free riders. EMTALA is a federal law passed in '86 that guarantees care in emergency rooms (same law that got COBRA started).
I believe it was Nathan Emmert who said we should be able to not pay and bear the consequences- I admire that intellectual honesty.
But if we changed the law back... The first viral video of a cute white 8 yr old girl bleeding and dying on the steps of a hospital that refused care would cause a firestorm and cry of "something must be done!"
Sheesh...that would mean we'd actually have to read the damn thing...and I'm pretty sure none of us (including me) want to do that... :)
lol!
I read it. Pretty comforting article and not that long!
I think Jason Scott meant to read the actual LAW, not some blog about the law ...
You previously said we should be able to purchase health insurance across state lines. Then, you say the fed should remain out of it. You want to let out like you are a strict constructionist, but you don't appear to understand exactly where the role of the federal government belongs even in your own model of constitutional interpretation (hint: the federal government has a role in interstate commerce).
Secondly, what is with the 17th century state's rights rhetoric, anyways? Do you really think that the needs of one state, in regards to health and welfare of its people, really vary that much?
Third, since you and your people want to be okay with theft of healthcare from the emergency room (not requiring people to have health insurance and not fining them when they don't), I prefer the federal government to step in and hold you and your people accountable by taxing you to subsidize your unlawful actions in the interest of protecting my and my country's financial security. You have healthcare you say? That is moot. You are pissed because now you will be required to have it or pay a fee (whether you want to have it or not). You think you should be able to choose whether or not you put the financial system at risk (by not having health insurance) and believe that it is your prerogative to burden the system with unexpected and unplanned and uncovered expenses and that government should mind their own business and let you play. You think this is a question of free market, yet free market has us where we are. So since people like you and the politicians you vote for want things to stay the same, other people and the politicians they vote for need to act to force change through legislation.
The feds can regulate interstate commerce. The purpose is to protect internstate commerce and prevent states from charging tariffs for goods imported to the state. Instead, the states generally ban shopping for health insurance across state lines and the Feds do nothing. The state and feds cooperate in this so they can both regulate the market to death. Thus there really is no free market for health insurance.
I absolutely do think that there is merit in states rights and the laboratories of democracy. That's the fundamental idea this country was founded on. Different states have different problems and may approach solutions in different ways. Viva la difference. So called libs only like diversity when it suits them. States can learn from each other to find optimal solutions. If the Feds do it, it's one size fits all.
Finally, I don't even know where you're going with that last paragraph. I have insurance through my employer. I'm not costing anybody anything. I'd much prefer to own my own insurance so I could keep it when I change jobs. Rather than the Feds regulating everything to death, I'd rather go back to charitable hospitals providing care for those who can't afford it. I give plenty to charity and that's how it should be handled. As stated before there hasn't been a free market for health care since WWII. We need less gov't meddling rather than more. Why do you think cosmetic surgery is so much cheaper than regular medical care? How is it that Lasix can cost so little? Even dental care is much cheaper than regular medical care. Why is that? Free up the provision of health care, lose most of the middle men and the costs will fall dramatically.