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.

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?

bob. · 06-28-2012, 05:34 PM

damn....this means i'm gonna have to listen to my gun loving tea party redneck co-worker bitch tonight

TheBig3 · 06-28-2012, 05:58 PM

In Massachusetts its:

The 2011 tax year penalties are:

Income and Age 150.1-200% FPG 200.1-250% FPG 250.1-300% FPG Above 300% FPG
Age 18-26 Above 300% FPG
Age 27+
Tax penalty $19 per month
$228 per year $38 per month
$456 per year $58 per month
$696 per year $72 per month
$864 per year $101 per month
$1212 per year

Or for a chart that isn't ****ed up: http://www.massresources.org/health-...howmuchpenalty

TheBig3 · 06-28-2012, 05:58 PM

In Massachusetts its:

The 2011 tax year penalties are:

Income and Age 150.1-200% FPG 200.1-250% FPG 250.1-300% FPG Above 300% FPG
Age 18-26 Above 300% FPG
Age 27+
Tax penalty $19 per month
$228 per year $38 per month
$456 per year $58 per month
$696 per year $72 per month
$864 per year $101 per month
$1212 per year

Or for a chart that isn't ****ed up: http://www.massresources.org/health-...howmuchpenalty

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

06-28-2012, 05:34 PM	#8 (permalink)
bob. Still sends his reguards. Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Trying to get out of the cat town.... Posts: 5,039	damn....this means i'm gonna have to listen to my gun loving tea party redneck co-worker bitch tonight __________________ A kiss is the beginning of cannibalism. Reach out, pierce the fine fabric of the sheltering sky, take repose.

06-28-2012, 05:58 PM	#9 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	In Massachusetts its: The 2011 tax year penalties are: Income and Age 150.1-200% FPG 200.1-250% FPG 250.1-300% FPG Above 300% FPG Age 18-26 Above 300% FPG Age 27+ Tax penalty $19 per month $228 per year $38 per month $456 per year $58 per month $696 per year $72 per month $864 per year $101 per month $1212 per year Or for a chart that isn't ****ed up: http://www.massresources.org/health-...howmuchpenalty __________________ I've moved to a new address

06-28-2012, 05:58 PM	#10 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	In Massachusetts its: The 2011 tax year penalties are: Income and Age 150.1-200% FPG 200.1-250% FPG 250.1-300% FPG Above 300% FPG Age 18-26 Above 300% FPG Age 27+ Tax penalty $19 per month $228 per year $38 per month $456 per year $58 per month $696 per year $72 per month $864 per year $101 per month $1212 per year Or for a chart that isn't ****ed up: http://www.massresources.org/health-...howmuchpenalty __________________ I've moved to a new address

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	#6 (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	#7 (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?