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.
Kama Ward I said this is the first time in our history that we are being taxed for not buying a product, and it is.. we are not sent a bill for a set amount from the IRS when we take out a mortgage, etc. as you cited in your example.
What's going to stop the government from saying in order to keep the burgeoning medical costs down, that from now on everyone has to pay to join a gym, as it's been shown to lower medical costs. It's a can of worms that shouldn't have been opened.
There is a long, long, list of things that can be done to create competition and lower prices, stop fraud, etc. I know most investors, buying and selling real estate, believe in the free market system, I know I do! I want much, much smaller government, less regulations, etc. not more.
Is your employer forcing you to keep or pay for health coverage through the company?
What's stopping you from getting your own private insurance that you can keep from job to job (and as long as you don't leave the state :)?
You will not be sent a bill because you didn't get health ins.
*warning boring gobbledygook*:
For the purposes of the law, “individuals who can afford health-care insurance” is defined as people for whom the minimum policy will not cost more than 8 percent of their monthly income, and who make more than the poverty line.
In terms of logistics, the Treasury Department handles the mandate. The penalty gets assessed as a federal tax liability, on the income tax returns that Americans already file yearly. Starting in 2014, federal tax returns will include a new form where Americans will detail their source of health insurance. If they don’t carry coverage—and fall within the mandate— then they’ll get hit with the penalty.
What happens if you don’t buy insurance and you don’t pay the penalty? Well, not much. The law specifically says that no criminal action or liens can be imposed on people who don’t pay the fine.
Who is exempt: About 24 million Americans would be exempt from the requirement to carry insurance, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis. That includes those who can’t afford insurance, as well as members of certain religious groups, Native American tribes, undocumented immigrants (who aren’t eligible for subsidies under the law), those in jail and people whose incomes are so low that they don’t have to file taxes (currently $9,500 for individuals and $19,000 for married couples).
*gobbledygook over*
It becomes clear that this is another way that the feds use the tax code to attempt to influence you to do something (buy ins). Just like they want people to buy homes.
By the way,
Under this law: the best thing for many people would be to not buy ins. until they need it. The penalty will be phased-in according to the following schedule: $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014,
2.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016.
Since you can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions, this is a seriously good deal.
Here is the best link I have that shows the nuts and bolts of the new health reform law. It's detailed, brief, and dry. Sorry, don't know how to make the link hot:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf
there are one or two things out of date (ex. CLASS is now gone)
Since you can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions, this is a seriously good deal.
Yup, this is a seriously good deal. The CA Pre Existing Condition insurance in effect until the federal law takes over allows you to apply by the 15th of the for coverage starting 45 days later. All it takes is letter from a health care provider saying you have a condition. You no longer have to have been turned down by other insurers. The plans are not cheap but they have decently low deductibles. It won't help with a major accident or emergency hospitalization as you can't usually plan for that 45 days in advance. But you could get pregnant or find out you need back surgery and be totally covered in time for the major expenses.
I'll be curious to see what the Treasury dept. ends up requiring as "evidence" of insurance. Will it be for the coming year or the past tax year? What if you can show evidence that you have insurance but let it lapse the next month. Are insurance companies going to start reporting to the feds when our insurance lapses like home and car insurers inform our lenders? If it's going to involve self reporting, it's going to be abused to no end.
Since you can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions, this is a seriously good deal.
Yup, this is a seriously good deal. The CA Pre Existing Condition insurance in effect until the federal law takes over allows you to apply by the 15th of the for coverage starting 45 days later. All it takes is letter from a health care provider saying you have a condition. You no longer have to have been turned down by other insurers. The plans are not cheap but they have decently low deductibles. It won't help with a major accident or emergency hospitalization as you can't usually plan for that 45 days in advance. But you could get pregnant or find out you need back surgery and be totally covered in time for the major expenses.
I'll be curious to see what the Treasury dept. ends up requiring as "evidence" of insurance. Will it be for the coming year or the past tax year? What if you can show evidence that you have insurance but let it lapse the next month. Are insurance companies going to start reporting to the feds when our insurance lapses like home and car insurers inform our lenders? If it's going to involve self reporting, it's going to be abused to no end.
This is a very likely scenario that could cause health care premiums to rise by a lot for those who hold policies. These are the details that need to be addressed. I think when people start sceaming in pain about the costs, which very well could happen, there will be some stop gaps put place. I am down to get this social experiment on, but I think It will could very well be a rocky couple of years to get it ironed out. The scaries part, I think, will be the politcal hostage taking that will prolong the agony.
I've talked to a # of physicians from Canada and elsewhere in the last couple of days who now live here because they couldn't stand practicing in a gov't controlled healthcare environment . They are as discouraged as me and agree that the vast majority of people don't have a clue what they're in for in healthcare delivery after ObamaCare takes full effect. Unfortunately most of you will get what you ask for.
Is your employer forcing you to keep or pay for health coverage through the company?
What's stopping you from getting your own private insurance that you can keep from job to job (and as long as you don't leave the state :)?
Well I'm not an idiot. My employer pays a substantial portion of the cost and if I got my own insurance it wouldn't be deductible. I was just as opposed to cash for clunkers as I am Obamacare, but I took advantage of it at the same time. Like the vast majority of people, if i end up without insurance and this atrocity is in effect I'll wait till I need it before I go get it. There's just too many layers of disincentives here to be sustainable.
Tell us someting factual without your political opinions....Dennis Tierney
All that means is`that there are greedy bastarrrrrr, in Canada who want to go to the greener side of the border, says nothing about their compensation...
Well I'm not an idiot. My employer pays a substantial portion of the cost and if I got my own insurance it wouldn't be deductible.
So, what you're saying is, you really want private (non-company paid) health insurance, but the cost is prohibitive? :)
Welcome to world about 50 million other people in this country live in! The difference being, you do have another option...they don't.
And as for the whole deductibility thing, I pay for my own health insurance (about $15K per year for the whole family), and luckily I make enough in income that I can deduct the whole thing. But, another family with the same costs who make less in income may not be able to deduct nearly as much of those same health care costs. Don't assume everyone has the ability to get their health care paid for and/or can get a deduction for the costs.
J Scott, lol, no employer pays any part of mine either!!!!!!
If it keeps going, I might consider a sign;
WILL WORK FOR HEALTH CARE
My costs are more than my earnings when I started working waaay back!
Bill GulleyYour bias is again showing in that you impune people's motives for work. It isn't about income it's about working conditions and being a gov't lackey, not an independent practicioner who can make a decision along with a patient in their care instead of a faceless beauracrat in DC making the decisions.
It's laughable that you think your sample size of 1 (the radiologist ,as the perfusionist is highly trained but not an MD) is more accurate that the survey of 24,000+ Drs. from accross the country. The hubris that takes is amazing.
No Dennis, I don't mean to imply that and I'm in agreement that the two I mentioned are at the top of the game, skewing the population.
I don't want to see the relationship between doctor and patient being controlled either, as they are by insurance companies so what's the solution? Better communication, preventive care?
Where's the meat, without assumptions ?
I see a lot of wants and pseudo facts being thrown around in this thread on both sides. To those advocating for the bill, I want to point out the flaws in some of your statements.
There is no free market in health care. Hasn't been for quite some time. Employer paid health coverage was the result of wage freezes implemented by the govt during WWII. The govt did allow employers to offer health insurance in lieu of increased wages. This is a market distortion. The people receiving the coverage have very little say in the type of plan they get. Worse yet, you have a disinterested third party (the employer) providing the bulk of the cost of the coverage. It's not wonder premiums continue to rise at a rate roughly triple that of inflation.
The health care needs of populations from state to state may not in reality be all that different but the mandates required of some insurers by the states varies widely. A policy in New York or CA will cost drastically more than in other states due to the many mandates required. Again, the individual is given very little choice in designing a policy to suit their specific needs because the state has made that determination for them. This is another market distortion.
OC mandates "dollar one" coverage from providers. That means the insurer has to pay a percentage of even the most routine care. How will that not necessarily increase costs? You are adding another moving part to the equation and taking choice away from the individual. Yet another market distortion
The Kaiser Foundation did a pretty exhaustive study on cost shifting from the uninsured to the insured. In short, there is no credible evidence or causation that the uninsured are the reason for higher premiums for the insured. There are similar studies showing similar findings with ER care as well. The facts just don't support those making the claim that premiums are higher because of the uninsured.
I would like to know how adding 30MM people to a strained system is going to bring costs down. If you have a limited supply (doctors) then why wouldn't they simply jack up costs due to all the demand (additional patients)? This says nothing of the fact that there are roughly 120 medical schools in this country that don't have a snowballs chance in hell of producing anywhere near the amount of additional doctors that will be needed in the near term.
For those arguing for a single payer system, the US has the best outcomes (cancer survival, etc.) of any country in the world and it's frankly not close in many regards. That would seem to indicate that our system, fractured as it may be, is still superior to single payer systems.
For those that think that rationing couldn't happen here in the US, it already is with Medicare. They recently decided that 65 is too young to get a PSA test for males, despite studies from the American Cancer Institute showing quite the opposite.
Lastly, I would like for someone to explain to me how healthcare is a right. The Constitution of this country is a system of negative rights, that is a list of what the govt or others can not do to you. For an individual to receive any type of healthcare, another individual must be compelled in one manner or another to provide it. That is by definition a positive right.
Very good points Brian. I never looked at government as a positive or negative right. What was meant by "the right to persue happiness" what is "for the general welfare" ? Does the government have any obligation to defend the people against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
Any society is judged by how it treats the elderly and sick (someone famous said that, they just aren't known to me). If there is an obligation to provide for the general well being or welfare of a nation it seems logical that to do so that it would be necessary to do so at a micro level as the foundation of that society. Doing otherwise, say only providing for the general well being of the upper class is one of the reasons we broke away from England, the King taking resources from the lower class through taxation and confiscations.
Citizens who are sick or otherwise not healthy are not productive citizens. If you can make someone well and keep them in good health they are more likely to care for themselves and contribute economically. Not everyone can be made healthy and there will always be slackers, but if reasonable care is restricted that means fewer participants in that economy.
As mentioned, about one third of young people can not pass a health examination for military service. After 9/11, I was on the list of retired Army Officers to be recalled to active service (and would have gone in a heart beat,but my age put me at the back of the line) so I know that in the matter of national defense it is not an option to have a healthy population from which to draw for service.
SoI do see healthcare as more than a political issue, it is a national issue to ensure the well being of government, public safety and health and there is an obligation on government for oversight.
I too am all for free enterprise, the economic persuit of happiness by all. Healthcare has been provided in the past with a growing degree of greed, if insurance companies and related helthcare companies had not abused the general welfare of all for greater profitability regulation could have continued to be accomplished within the industry, but that has not been the case. The healthcare industry, like others, will not operate for the benefit of government interests nor soley as a benefit to society. The industry simply can not be allowed to run wild increasing costs and reducing access to meet profitability requirements. The industry has failed in it's obligation to all of society and therefore must be regulated to ensure for the general welfare of the national interests.
I really don't care what system is invoked, so long as it is affordable and provides quality care equally for all and that is not to say that those who desire better medical attention are free to pay for it, but the basic healthcare should be sufficent to cure or relieve any illness for any citizen allowing them to participate in society.
LOL, no one buys that argument, that we need a healthy nation?
It's not that I don't buy it, but rather that there is nothing in the bill that will make us healthier. The community rating is a perfect example. What we will now have is people paying the same price for insurance regardless of how well they take care of themselves. Obesity is already a problem in this country and is the #1 long term driver of health care costs and we are "rewarding" that behavior by saying you can pay the same as someone who is the same height and age, but weighs 100 lbs less. Better put, those that choose to remain healthy (relatively speaking) will be subsidizing those that choose not to.
And there are many who may like to be healthier but can't see a doctor. Diets won't work in all cases, it's not always a matter of choice, especially for kids. Those issues are addressed in the OC package and broadening the base of the insured population.... :)
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.
I'm fine with what you believe, but on the contrary if you study economics, the government concerns itself with promoting our welfare. Weather expressly written as a right or enforced socially, in America we have the right to healthcare, a baseline amount of money, food, and yes, our natural rights. And if anyone (such as a civil servant) denies anyone from it, they can very much so face stiff punishment. This includes healthcare. Do you believe the contrary Alan Mackenthun?
Sorry, I was up in the BWCA for a while and wasn't able to respond promptly. As I said before. I believe your assumptions are total and complete hogwash. No one has a right to food, housing or health care. The government, especially at the Federal level, has no business taking money - taxes - from one to give to another. These robin hood schemes are immoral and wrong. Doing so conflicts with the fundamental principles this country was founded upon. That is an individuals rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Specifically, if my happiness and liberty are confiscated through taxes to give to another, then I no longer have my rights. If someone needs food or shelter, they can go to freinds, relatives, charities or strangers. I've helped plenty of people along the way, but charity should not be the business of government especially of the federal government.
I too am all for free enterprise, the economic persuit of happiness by all. Healthcare has been provided in the past with a growing degree of greed, if insurance companies and related helthcare companies had not abused the general welfare of all for greater profitability regulation could have continued to be accomplished within the industry, but that has not been the case. The healthcare industry, like others, will not operate for the benefit of government interests nor soley as a benefit to society. The industry simply can not be allowed to run wild increasing costs and reducing access to meet profitability requirements. The industry has failed in it's obligation to all of society and therefore must be regulated to ensure for the general welfare of the national interests.
I really don't care what system is invoked, so long as it is affordable and provides quality care equally for all and that is not to say that those who desire better medical attention are free to pay for it, but the basic healthcare should be sufficent to cure or relieve any illness for any citizen allowing them to participate in society.
I agree with you that Bill had some good points. Beyond that I don't see much clarity in your comments. You say you're for free enterprise, but proceed to advocate for a system without risks. You state "but the basic healthcare should be sufficient to cure or relieve any illness ..." That's fairy tail reasoning. We're all going to die some day. I can gaurantee that any system private or public will fail that standard for 100% of the people. Either you've got free markets or you've got government distortions neccesarily requiring rationing. I stand with private markets and freedom.
Sorry, I was up in the BWCA for a while and wasn't able to respond promptly. As I said before. I believe your assumptions are total and complete hogwash. No one has a right to food, housing or health care. The government, especially at the Federal level, has no business taking money - taxes - from one to give to another. These robin hood schemes are immoral and wrong. Doing so conflicts with the fundamental principles this country was founded upon. That is an individuals rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Specifically, if my happiness and liberty are confiscated through taxes to give to another, then I no longer have my rights. If someone needs food or shelter, they can go to freinds, relatives, charities or strangers. I've helped plenty of people along the way, but charity should not be the business of government especially of the federal government.
That's a great opinion Alan Mackenthun but it's not whether you think it's the Feds job to do this or not that matters, what matters is these are the facts presently in America. I, along with everyone else do have these rights to food, healthcare (even before Obamacare), money, etc... You are correct, on housing though, but I never said that.
I was never arguing what your opinion is, I'm arguing what the facts are. These aren't assumptions, they are facts. So please stop assuming this.
I think its undeniable that the government plays a far more active role in our lives than simply protecting some very basic stripped down prerogatives. This is due to the prevailing loose constructionist interpretation of the constition over the decades. Anybody who is alive right now has no memory of any time where strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution and role of governmnent prevailed or was even relevant in regards to what the governments role in our lives is. To claim to be a strict constructionist and know how you would prosper in such a system, which is what Alan is doing, is like saying you know with certainty a life that you never existed in. That is why strict constructionist arguments fall flat on their face in my mind.
In regards to healthcare, any one of these items " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" that Alan Mackenthun so covets as his secluded and only rights, could all be indirectly affected/protected by the health care bill or lack thereof. That goes for many other laws.
This debate, in a way, boils down to two camps: Those of us who are afraid of what we will loose if nothing gets done about the situation (myself and others) and those of us who are afraid with what they loose by the bill being enforced. You, see, either way, people both lose or gain a degree of pure "rights". Its a matter of where priorities are. I don't think arguing the bill on its legal merits will change anybody's priorities. The legal merits have been hashed out by the supreme court and the bill deamed legal. So why are amature political pundits on a RE investing forum claiming to know better?