SCOTUS-HealthCare Reform

[danefan]

I definitely think it hurts Obama because people in the country need everything dumbed down for them.

You want to be pissed about taxes? Be pissed about taxes on your income.

Being pissed all of a sudden because this penalty falls under Congress's Taxing power is stupid and ignorant. The penalty is no more or less of a tax today than it was 2 years ago.

But, from a political perspective, if calling it a tax was politically palatable, they would have called it a tax from the git-go.

I think the label matters to enough people to make the label matter. (inspired by Yogi Berra).

I understand. The dumbing down started with how the wonks drafted this bill and presented it to Congress. They should have just been clear at this point that the mandate was being implemented through the tax code to ensure Congress has the Constitutional authority to implement it.

[Ibanez]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... not-a-tax/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion

[danefan]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... not-a-tax/

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion

He should have been more clear and said that it is absolutely not an income tax increase.

Most people won't pay an additional dime because of this "tax."

[GannonFan]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... not-a-tax/

He should have been more clear and said that it is absolutely not an income tax increase.

Most people won't pay an additional dime because of this "tax."

Then what's the purpose of it if it's not supposed to raise revenue to pay for the Act itself? The whole rationale behind it was that people need to be paying into the system to support it and without the mandate/tax, people wouldn't. So what gives? It was sold that without the mandate/tax that we couldn't afford this.

[GannonFan]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... not-a-tax/

He should have been more clear and said that it is absolutely not an income tax increase.

Most people won't pay an additional dime because of this "tax."

The further confusing of the matter is that the penalty will be based on the greater of either a flat-fee per person or one a percentage of their income. So I'm not sure how you can say it is "absolutely" not an income tax when one of the methods to determine what you would pay - and this is paid while filing your income taxes - would be based on your income. I'm sure there is some nuance in the language that can technically make this not an income tax, but again, to the "stupid and ignorant" out there, as you called them, it'll be hard to understand that when they're multiplying a percentage of their income to calculate their payment.

And the CBO estimates that 4 million people will pay this in 2016, so it certainly affects some people directly, and there are certainly indirect ways this will cost people. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing, per se, there's plenty to like in what this pays for. Problem is it was sold as a package we wouldn't have to pay for and plenty of people believed that.

[Baldy]

He should have been more clear and said that it is absolutely not an income tax increase.

Most people won't pay an additional dime because of this "tax."

Really? Then who will?

[CitadelGrad]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/20 ... not-a-tax/

He should have been more clear and said that it is absolutely not an income tax increase.

Most people won't pay an additional dime because of this "tax."

Everyone will as costs rise. No, it won't be a "tax" tax, but it will function as a tax from an economic perspective.

[JoltinJoe]

He should have been more clear and said that it is absolutely not an income tax increase.

Most people won't pay an additional dime because of this "tax."

Really? Then who will?

Anyone who already has insurance through work or a spouse aren't affected. It is possible that those of us who pay privately for insurance might, in time, see rates drop.

[JoltinJoe]

He should have been more clear and said that it is absolutely not an income tax increase.

Most people won't pay an additional dime because of this "tax."

Everyone will as costs rise. No, it won't be a "tax" tax, but it will function as a tax from an economic perspective.

Why will private insurance cost necessarily rise? One of the goals of universal health care is to stabilize the cost of care by having more people pay into the system. I'm not sold that it's going to work out that way, but on the other hand, I see no reason to believe costs will necessarily rise either.

[CitadelGrad]

Really? Then who will?

Anyone who already has insurance through work or a spouse aren't affected. It is possible that those of us who pay privately for insurance might, in time, see rates drop.

Where did you get a crazy idea like that?

[JoltinJoe]

Anyone who already has insurance through work or a spouse aren't affected. It is possible that those of us who pay privately for insurance might, in time, see rates drop.

Where did you get a crazy idea like that?

From what has happened in Massachusetts. Private rates have stabilized.

More to the point, I have private insurance. Why don't you explain how am I affected?

[CitadelGrad]

It's really simple. Healthcare cost will continue to rise, probably at a faster rate should the entire law be implemented in 2014. The healthcare system creates artificial demand and artificially restricts supply. I thought everyone understood that by now. Whether you have private insurance or not, the cost filter through.

[JoltinJoe]

It's really simple. Healthcare cost will continue to rise, probably at a faster rate should the entire law be implemented in 2014. The healthcare system creates artificial demand and artificially restricts supply. I thought everyone understood that by now. Whether you have private insurance or not, the cost filter through.

These are assumptions. But what about the Mass experience?

[Baldy]

Really? Then who will?

Anyone who already has insurance through work or a spouse aren't affected. It is possible that those of us who pay privately for insurance might, in time, see rates drop.

Aren't affected?

Maybe...if my spouses employer (who is a small business) doesn't now decide to drop her company's health insurance. Even if he does decide to keep it, the rates will now explode.

[Baldy]

It's really simple. Healthcare cost will continue to rise, probably at a faster rate should the entire law be implemented in 2014. The healthcare system creates artificial demand and artificially restricts supply. I thought everyone understood that by now. Whether you have private insurance or not, the cost filter through.

Quit being silly...dumping 40 million people who don't pay into the system and new taxes on pharmaceuticals and medical device manufacturers aren't going to have an affect on costs. The insurance, pharmaceutical, and device manufacturing companies are going to swallow those costs and not pass it on to the consumers.

[GannonFan]

It's really simple. Healthcare cost will continue to rise, probably at a faster rate should the entire law be implemented in 2014. The healthcare system creates artificial demand and artificially restricts supply. I thought everyone understood that by now. Whether you have private insurance or not, the cost filter through.

These are assumptions. But what about the Mass experience?

Costs have continued to increase, even in the Mass experience. Massachusetts isn't immune to the general nationwide trend, i.e. that health care costs continue to rise. Just the state-related portion of covering the subsidies for those who qualifed in Mass doubled in the last 5 years. Someone's paying for that, and that doesn't even look into what companies and individuals paid in increases in their premiums from year to year. You may say that rates have stabilized, but all that's stabilized there potentially is the growth - people with private plans are still paying a certain percentage more each year. Bottom line, no matter the system we're in, we are paying more. The unfortunate part of this whole debate is that we haven't done anything really to bring down the costs.

[danefan]

He should have been more clear and said that it is absolutely not an income tax increase.

Most people won't pay an additional dime because of this "tax."

The further confusing of the matter is that the penalty will be based on the greater of either a flat-fee per person or one a percentage of their income. So I'm not sure how you can say it is "absolutely" not an income tax when one of the methods to determine what you would pay - and this is paid while filing your income taxes - would be based on your income. I'm sure there is some nuance in the language that can technically make this not an income tax, but again, to the "stupid and ignorant" out there, as you called them, it'll be hard to understand that when they're multiplying a percentage of their income to calculate their payment.

And the CBO estimates that 4 million people will pay this in 2016, so it certainly affects some people directly, and there are certainly indirect ways this will cost people. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing, per se, there's plenty to like in what this pays for. Problem is it was sold as a package we wouldn't have to pay for and plenty of people believed that.

See - even I fall into the ignorant category every once in a while.

I didn't realize there was a minimum based on income. I thought it was solely a flat fee.

Yup - its an income tax penalty to most people.

[JoltinJoe]

These are assumptions. But what about the Mass experience?

Costs have continued to increase, even in the Mass experience. Massachusetts isn't immune to the general nationwide trend, i.e. that health care costs continue to rise. Just the state-related portion of covering the subsidies for those who qualifed in Mass doubled in the last 5 years. Someone's paying for that, and that doesn't even look into what companies and individuals paid in increases in their premiums from year to year. You may say that rates have stabilized, but all that's stabilized there potentially is the growth - people with private plans are still paying a certain percentage more each year. Bottom line, no matter the system we're in, we are paying more. The unfortunate part of this whole debate is that we haven't done anything really to bring down the costs.

In the first years of the Mass experience, insurance rates increased at a reported rate slightly higher than the national average. In 2008, Mass passed some amendments to the Act intended to address factors increasing cost, and there has been a stabilization observed thereafter.

This is a pretty neutral summary:

http://fredbauerblog.blogspot.com/2012/ ... emium.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This is from a more biased source:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... _mass.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In any event, to claim that costs will necessarily increase because people are being added to the insurance pool overlooks that new payers are also being added. The argument that costs will absolutely exponentially increase is highly speculative and is, in my judgment, not supported by the Mass experience.

[CitadelGrad]

It's really simple. Healthcare cost will continue to rise, probably at a faster rate should the entire law be implemented in 2014. The healthcare system creates artificial demand and artificially restricts supply. I thought everyone understood that by now. Whether you have private insurance or not, the cost filter through.

These are assumptions. But what about the Mass experience?

Assumptions my ass. Healthcare costs have been rising at a greater rate than inflation since the 60s.

[OL FU]

I don't know if any one else has posted but...............................the right and some others is taat Roberts was trying to protect the integrity of the court. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt. you had 4 justices tat wanted to throw the entire thing out and that wanted to keep the whole thing in. I am going suppose that Roberts wanted simply to throw out the mandate and had to side with one group of the four judges and made his selection.

[kalm]

This issue was made complicated because of campaign finance and nothing else. Not everything has to be for a profit - especially health insurance and war. The system is an ass. So is the SCOTUS.

[kalm]

And despite the fact I'm not a big fan of this act (or Obama), please provide a reasoned argument against this:

First, if you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance - this law will only make it more secure and more affordable. Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive. They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. They can no longer drop your coverage if you getsick. They can no longer jack up your premiums without reason. They are required to provide free preventive care like check-ups and mammograms - a provision that's already helped 54 million Americans with private insurance. And by this August, nearly 13 million of you will receive a rebate from your insurance company because it spent too much on things like administrative costs and CEO bonuses, and not enough on your health care.

There's more. Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans - a provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans. And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs - a discount that's already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each.

Today, the Supreme Court also upheld the principle that people who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance. This is important for two reasons.

First, when uninsured people who can afford coverage get sick, and show up at the emergency room for care, the rest of us end up paying for their care in the form of higher premiums.

And second, if you ask insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions, but don't require people who can afford it to buy their own insurance, some folks might wait until they're sick to buy the care they need - which would also drive up everybody else's premiums.

http://www.mercurynews.com/presidentele ... ealth-care" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1) If this is true, it makes total sense. We all get sick and require medical attention which we can't afford on our own.

2) Being proactive about healthcare saves money in the long run.

But please...spin away.

[JohnStOnge]

Good for me personally in the short term because I can cover my pregnant daughter with my insurance but bad for the Country.

I really do think it's time for us to drop the pretense of being governed by a Constitution. I mean, really. And I'm not even talking about the Court alone. Elected officials are to blame. Stuff like FDR facilitating a law that said a farmer can't grow wheat on his own land for his own use. Yeah, a court upheld that but an elected official first had to do it and propose the "Constitutional" argument for the authority. Now this.

None of the branches of our government have any intention of following the Constitution and it's been that way for a while. So, really, I think it's time to quit playing games about what's "Constitutional" or not and just admit that the Constitution itself doesn't matter.

[JohnStOnge]

What gets me is that people think health insurance cuts health care costs. That makes no sense at all.

[kalm]

What gets me is that people think health insurance cuts health care costs. That makes no sense at all.

For profit healthcare insurance doesn't necessarily cut costs, but in general, spreading the risks cut costs.

As for your previous post, the constitution has failed ever since we came to the realization that whites also descended from apes.