SCOTUS upholds Obamacare

[GH2001]

Seriously, from what I have read and understand, it will not affect 90% of people.  Who it will affect, will be very specific entities like Chad mentioned above...and poor people.  The poor people who can't afford or choose not to get insurance will be placed in a bigger hole when they are penalized.  Vicious circle, and ironic considering that is the targeted democrat demographic.

Keep spinning it for the Kenyan Mr. Crystal Ball Lawyer . You know nothing about the inner workings of the financial and insurance industries. If you did, you would know this is going to affect everyone. Do you really think your rates are about to remain the same? If you do, then you are on some serious crack.

[AUChizad]

I'm starting to think the individual mandate has become a bit of a red herring.  I'm not sure I really care if the government forces those without health insurance to buy it.  There are the slippery slope fears and black helicopter conspiracies, but the individual mandate doesn't affect me because I have healthcare insurance.

What I think is being miscommunicated to the public (most importantly to me) is exactly how this new bill affects me personally.  Is my insurance cost going to go up?  Is my quality of healthcare going to go down?  I am able right now to go to the doctor and get treatment for a minor sinus infection; I usually don't have to wait very long.  Will I still have access to that?  Are doctors going to get paid less?  Are less qualified prospects going to become doctors to meet the needs of the 30 million new patients?

This is pretty much exactly where I'm at with it.

Philosophically, I have a bit of a problem with government forcing itself in here.

On a practical level? I'm not seeing how anything changes for me, besides possibly health insurance premiums. I doubt very seriously the quality of care diminishes. I can see premiums going up, but that may all be factored out with the other regulations. I guess it's still an unknown.

[GH2001]

This is pretty much exactly where I'm at with it.

Philosophically, I have a bit of a problem with government forcing itself in here.

On a practical level? I'm not seeing how anything changes for me, besides possibly health insurance premiums. I doubt very seriously the quality of care diminishes. I can see premiums going up, but that may all be factored out with the other regulations. I guess it's still an unknown.

If you only look at how it affects you personally in the here and now, then you are missing most of the picture. It expands gov't massively. Its unprecedented and creates a slippery slope. As you just said, its a gov't intrusion. I could go on and on.....but won't. There's no point in it. People will sit around long enough discussing this to the point where they will talk themselves into supporting it and/or compromising. Fucking sad.

[Iwannaplay]

Art. I sec. 8 of the constitution gives congress their enumerated powers. One of them is to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the US. That's how they got it through.

[bottomfeeder]

The 2010 election swing was considered a referendum on Obamacare.  This will do nothing but fan the flames and bring the conservative vote out in droves. 

Time will tell.

On third thought, it makes sense that Roberts would vote in favor for political reasons (Election 2012). I believe this does set the stage for a conservative landslide victory in 2012.

[bottomfeeder]

Not necessarily.  But overall, you can argue that this is providing a service.  Similar to mandatory automobile liability insurance for drivers, etc...

Taxation without representation is what it'll turnout to be. No benefit, because it's a tax PENALTY for not having insurance. How is one to opt for the gubermint plan and what is gubermint healthcare plan?

[GH2001]

Art. I sec. 8 of the constitution gives congress their enumerated powers. One of them is to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the US. That's how they got it through.

Can you show me where it is defined as a "tax" in the law?

(b)(1) Section 5000A(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1501(b) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:

‘(1) IN GENERAL- If a taxpayer who is an applicable individual, or an applicable individual for whom the taxpayer is liable under paragraph (3), fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months, then, except as provided in subsection (e), there is hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty with respect to such failures in the amount determined under subsection (c).’.

Roberts redefined the law on the fly. That's all there is to this.

[GH2001]

Taxation without representation is what it'll turnout to be. No benefit, because it's a tax PENALTY for not having insurance. How is one to opt for the gubermint plan and what is gubermint healthcare plan?

NO...its a Penalty in the LAW as it's written. Totally different meaning on face value. If it is told it can stand as a tax, it should have to go back through voting in the House. Roberts just made a decision on a bill (mandate as a "tax") that didn't really exist.

[bottomfeeder]

NO...its a Penalty in the LAW as it's written. Totally different meaning on face value. If it is told it can stand as a tax, it should have to go back through voting in the House. Roberts just made a decision on a bill (mandate as a "tax") that didn't really exist.

Where and when can I expect CFR title 26 code to contain the taxpayer information concerning this law? And, I haven't read the  obamacare law yet, but I will. Does anyone here know when the law is suppose to take affect?

[AWK]

Can you show me where it is defined as a "tax" in the law?

Roberts redefined the law on the fly. That's all there is to this.

He interpreted the law.  Which is the job of the Supreme Court... Just because you do not like something doesn't mean it was not done correctly.

[bottomfeeder]

He interpreted misinterpreted the constitutionality of said law.  Which is the job of the Supreme Court... Just because you do not like something doesn't mean it was not done correctly.

FTFY.

[GH2001]

He interpreted the law.  Which is the job of the Supreme Court... Just because you do not like something doesn't mean it was not done correctly.

Yeah, sure. Let me interpret red as yellow. And VandyVol as straight.

Penalty and Tax are not the same thing. He redefined penalty to mean tax. The law says PENALTY.

Oh, look - it says penalty. I think I am going to think this means tax. If you can show me where the definitions of tax and penalty are the same, I will agree with you. I don't have anything to worry about though because you can't. If it says penalty, it might actually mean penalty.

[Vandy Vol]

1. But was that fine passed as a tax? No, it wasn't.

The Supreme Court can rule that it operates as a tax, even if no one intended it to be a tax.

While this may seem like bullshit to allow the Court to do such a thing, just imagine if this were a law that should be legally upheld.  You'd want to give the Court the power to rule that the law is upheld as an X law even though it was passed with the intention of being a Y law.

Never though I would ever say this but.....

Mitt Fucking Romney 2012!!!!! We have to repeal this entire fucking piece of shit.

Que?

This decision came from the Supreme Court, not Obama.  A Supreme Court that is made up of five Republican-appointed justices and four Democrat-appointed justices.  And the swing vote came from a justice appointed by Bush.

I understand that Obama got this whole debacle rolling, but someone needs to point the finger of blame at the Court as well for fucking this one up majorly.

[Vandy Vol]

From my understanding, until SCOTUS got involved, this wasn't supposed to increase taxes on the middle class, and it wasn't supposed to be required.

There was going to be a fine.  Obama didn't want it to be a "tax."  The legislation, to my knowledge, was not passed so that it would be a "tax."  But it is SCOTUS that ruled (and has the ability to rule) that while legislators may not have intended for it to be a "tax," the legislation is worded so that it can be interpreted as a tax, and thus the government can impose a tax on people who don't have healthcare.

I don't know how they concluded that it can be placed in the form of a tax, but whether it was a fine or a tax, the end result is that someone without healthcare would have to pay something to the government.

I'm not sure why you were okay with the proposal when it was a fine, but not when it's a tax?  It has the same end result.

[Townhallsavoy]

I'm still confused about a couple of things:

The bill was supposed crafted to help poor people get healthcare.  I keep hearing people celebrate it as "now everyone gets healthcare!" 

But doesn't this cripple poor people even more?  Now, more money is leaving their paycheck (if they have one) to purchase healthcare or pay a tax.  How exactly does this help them? 

Also, will it be cheaper for some people to pay a 2.5% tax than to purchase healthcare?

Also also, if small businesses have less than 50 employees, wouldn't it be cheaper to not provide any healthcare thus forcing the employees to buy their own?  The boss gets a bit richer and the lowly employees get a bit poorer.

Also also also, if this is a tax, like most taxes, aren't there exemptions?  Who gets exempted from this tax? 

Which leads to this...

Also also also also, how much do you wanna bet that poor minorities aren't subjected to paying the tax at all?

[AUChizad]

Saw at least 20 people in my Twitter timeline saying threatening to move to Canada due to the ruling. People I know in real life.

 


Others who said the same:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

[AUJarhead]

Also also, if small businesses have less than 50 employees, wouldn't it be cheaper to not provide any healthcare thus forcing the employees to buy their own?  The boss gets a bit richer and the lowly employees get a bit poorer.

I wonder the same thing about big companies.  Say your employer is paying 15k a year for your insurance, but the fine is only 2k if they don't offer it to you.  Which do you think will happen?

All of the numbers I saw come out of the CBO didn't take any of that into account.

[bottomfeeder]

I wonder the same thing about big companies.  Say your employer is paying 15k a year for your insurance, but the fine is only 2k if they don't offer it to you.  Which do you think will happen?

All of the numbers I saw come out of the CBO didn't take any of that into account.

Most smaller companies pay half the single rate and that is all, unless of course you belong to a union. Then you may have the entire amount paid for by the employer as part of an labor agreement. Otherwise, if you have a family health insurance policy through your employer, most likely the company is only contributing half the single rate towards your policy. You are paying the other $350+ a month. The employer contribution wouldn't even approach $1500 per year.

[AUJarhead]

Most smaller companies pay half the single rate and that is all, unless of course you belong to a union. Then you may have the entire amount paid for by the employer as part of an labor agreement. Otherwise, if you have a family health insurance policy through your employer, most likely the company is only contributing half the single rate towards your policy. You are paying the other $350+ a month. The employer contribution wouldn't even approach $1500 per year.

I know for a fact that my company with ~500 employees pays at least 10k a year for health insurance for each employee that wants it.  If you chose not to take it, they will put the 10k into your 401(k).

[Iwannaplay]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost

This is a link showing what the law will mean to you.

I actually pay far less keeping my own Individual Blue policy.