SCOTUS upholds Obamacare

[RWS]

I like my insurance the way that it is. The municipality that I work for is self insured, and the plan is administered by BCBS of Alabama. It works out great. I've had two knee surgeries in the past two years, and I have paid a total of $200. That's a bunch of MRIs, appointments at the orthopaedic doctor, etc. I paid a $100 co-pay for each surgery. That's it. I pay less than $200 monthly to cover 4 people. Maybe I just don't understand, but I don't forsee that the government will be able to outdo that. But I will still be forced to pay for something that I don't need, because I have it through somebody other than the government.

I think the government has bitten off more than they can chew here. While the private sector hasn't really done the health care system any favors, I don't see how the government is all of a sudden going to step in and fix that with Obamacare. I guess since welfare, social security, Medicare, etc. are doing SO well, it's a good idea to create another government program? It's like they're creating something else to have a crisis over 10 years from now. And then the discussion will be "Well, should it be privatized?" Leave it the fuck alone, or create a system that actually solves more problems than it causes.

[Iwannaplay]

But I will still be forced to pay for something that I don't need, because I have it through somebody other than the government.

Wrong. You'll never see a change.  BTW you work for a municipality so your plan is already being subsidized by taxes.

[RWS]

BTW you work for a municipality so your plan is already being subsidized by taxes.

......and I use that plan. I also pay a premium myself to use that plan, and I pay taxes as well. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I don't mind paying for something I'm using, and that I have a choice to use. What I do mind paying for is something through the government that I'm not using, only because I'm using the alternative to that government system. Maybe I'm not understanding something, but how are you certain that I won't see a change? 

My salary, health care, benefits, etc are subsidized by taxes. Sure. The people paying those taxes are those that use city services, buy things inside the city, rent lodging inside the city, etc etc. Myself included. Nobody is forced to do any of those things. You can stay in some other city. You can buy things in some other city. You can reside anywhere you want.

[Kaos]

So I'll never have more than 50 employees.  Figured that out.  Every time I get close, I'll just create another company and employ new folks through that entity.   

And as of next week I'm ditching health coverage.  No need for me to pay for that bullshit for my employees.  On their own now. 

Idiot government.  Moron Obama. Shit-eating SC.  Fuck them all.

[AUChizad]

I like my insurance the way that it is. The municipality that I work for is self insured, and the plan is administered by BCBS of Alabama. It works out great. I've had two knee surgeries in the past two years, and I have paid a total of $200. That's a bunch of MRIs, appointments at the orthopaedic doctor, etc. I paid a $100 co-pay for each surgery. That's it. I pay less than $200 monthly to cover 4 people. Maybe I just don't understand, but I don't forsee that the government will be able to outdo that. But I will still be forced to pay for something that I don't need, because I have it through somebody other than the government.

I think the government has bitten off more than they can chew here. While the private sector hasn't really done the health care system any favors, I don't see how the government is all of a sudden going to step in and fix that with Obamacare. I guess since welfare, social security, Medicare, etc. are doing SO well, it's a good idea to create another government program? It's like they're creating something else to have a crisis over 10 years from now. And then the discussion will be "Well, should it be privatized?" Leave it the fuck alone, or create a system that actually solves more problems than it causes.

You can't read.

[RWS]

You can't read.

As I asked before, what am I missing?

[RWS]

Similar to mandatory automobile liability insurance for drivers, etc...

But the federal government isn't in the auto insurance business, and you're not paying a tax to the government for an auto policy either. That's the difference. Plus, technically, you have a choice not to drive a vehicle. States aren't forcing people who don't drive, or don't own a vehicle to pay for liability insurance.

I know that some are saying that this isn't going to matter to those who currently have insurance, but I just don't see how that can be true. The government is going to mandate that private providers offer certain types of insurance and coverages that they may not necessarily already offer. The government is also going to tax those providers based on their market share. Do you think those companies are going to absorb the added cost, or pass it on to the consumer? One way or another, every tax paying American will be paying for this program. Last time I checked, we don't have a huge surplus of cash on hand to otherwise fund the program. The premiums that the government collects isn't going to be enough to fund the program. There will also more than likely be a large portion of people who won't have to pay period due to their income, or rather the lack thereof.

I just don't see how the government can fund this thing without totally fucking it up. The money has to come from somewhere.

[GH2001]

But the federal government isn't in the auto insurance business, and you're not paying a tax to the government for an auto policy either. That's the difference. Plus, technically, you have a choice not to drive a vehicle. States aren't forcing people who don't drive, or don't own a vehicle to pay for liability insurance.

I know that some are saying that this isn't going to matter to those who currently have insurance, but I just don't see how that can be true. The government is going to mandate that private providers offer certain types of insurance and coverages that they may not necessarily already offer. The government is also going to tax those providers based on their market share. Do you think those companies are going to absorb the added cost, or pass it on to the consumer? One way or another, every tax paying American will be paying for this program. Last time I checked, we don't have a huge surplus of cash on hand to otherwise fund the program. The premiums that the government collects isn't going to be enough to fund the program. There will also more than likely be a large portion of people who won't have to pay period due to their income, or rather the lack thereof.

I just don't see how the government can fund this thing without totally fucking it up. The money has to come from somewhere.

Don't present the resident know it alls with any facts. Its fucks up their man lovefest for the kenyan.

They still fail to see that the gov't has no place in this business nor do they have any right to FORCE people to buy a product. They are telling citizens what to buy whether they like it or not. Anything past this is simply trying to muddy the waters.

And no, Federal income taxes are NOT going to pay for your municipal health insurance. The part that the county or city picks up for you is part of your total compensation package just like anywhere else. Sure, it is funded mainly by the taxpayers of the municipality but that is what that money is for in any city/county. Many states even have Municipal workers plans you can opt into such as Conn:

MEHIP was legislated in July 1, 1996 to help cities and towns provide health coverage for municipal employees. The plan requires no additional state funding, as all costs are paid through members’ premiums

BTW.  I am more angry about this at Obama and the House of Reps than Roberts. He would have never had to rule on it if it had not even been created in the fashion it is.

[GH2001]

Also, I found a very interesting read and I kind of buy into this some. AWK, as an atty what do you think? Kaos, as a business owner, what say you?

http://www.libertarian-examiner.com/2012/06/chief-justice-john-roberts-is-genius.html

Chief Justice John Roberts is a Genius!

Before everybody burns the Chief Justice in effigy, it is important to see the genius behind the move the Chief Justice made with the decision by the Supreme Court.

Yes, it would have been nice and easy if the court had just struck down the Affordable Care Act that was passed by Congress and signed by the President.  But the Chief Justice won the battle of the over powering Congress that has developed in the past years.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care through in the first place. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

"Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals preciselybecause they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Roberts have been on a vengeance ever since he became the Chief Justice of the court to take down Congress's ability to compel the American people to do certain actions they deem necessary. This is why he has been a member of the Federalist Society for a long time.

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

People in this country are too quick to pass judgement based on what they hear on the news. It is important to read what happened and see the logic behind a decision like this one. The Chief Justice did not commit treason, but rather he opened the door for a slew of challenges to the Congress' authority to control the American people.

He is protecting Liberty!

[AUChizad]

They still fail to see that the gov't has no place in this business nor do they have any right to FORCE people to buy a product. They are telling citizens what to buy whether they like it or not. Anything past this is simply trying to muddy the waters.

Then stick to that. Not you, specifically, but conservatives in general.

Because, I agree, this part of the legislation is a troublesome precedent. If conservatives could cooly, calmly, measuredly make this argument, it would go much further than "OMG THAT KENYAN SOCIALIST IS DESTROYING AMERICA FROM WITHIN!!!1 FREEDOM AS WE KNOW IT DIED TONIGHT!!!1!" It's Chicken Little. No one believes you when the sky is actually falling. It's become white noise.

I also am not sure that it's really helping those it's designed to help. It's not free healthcare that everyone else is paying for, as is frequently said in every other facebook status and tweet in my feed. It's not coming out of your pocket in taxes, as RWS believes. But it is forcing people to pay for health care that may not want it. And if they don't want it? They have to pay a "penalty" (tax). I don't see how this is really helping poor minimum wage Sally that is living paycheck to paycheck, gets cancer, and can't afford the treatment. Now she's living less than paycheck to paycheck and may not even be getting anything out of it all.

[RWS]

Then stick to that. Not you, specifically, but conservatives in general.

Because, I agree, this part of the legislation is a troublesome precedent. If conservatives could cooly, calmly, measuredly make this argument, it would go much further than "OMG THAT KENYAN SOCIALIST IS DESTROYING AMERICA FROM WITHIN!!!1 FREEDOM AS WE KNOW IT DIED TONIGHT!!!1!" It's Chicken Little. No one believes you when the sky is actually falling. It's become white noise.

I also am not sure that it's really helping those it's designed to help. It's not free healthcare that everyone else is paying for, as is frequently said in every other facebook status and tweet in my feed. It's not coming out of your pocket in taxes, as RWS believes. But it is forcing people to pay for health care that may not want it. And if they don't want it? They have to pay a "penalty" (tax). I don't see how this is really helping poor minimum wage Sally that is living paycheck to paycheck, gets cancer, and can't afford the treatment. Now she's living less than paycheck to paycheck and may not even be getting anything out of it all.

I'm telling you now, one way or another, it will come out of everybody's pocket at some point. Whether it is taxes, "penalties", cost to private insurers passed on to consumers, etc. They aren't going to be able to fund it on premiums and premium taxes from private insurers.

[GH2001]

Then stick to that. Not you, specifically, but conservatives in general.

Because, I agree, this part of the legislation is a troublesome precedent. If conservatives could cooly, calmly, measuredly make this argument, it would go much further than "OMG THAT KENYAN SOCIALIST IS DESTROYING AMERICA FROM WITHIN!!!1 FREEDOM AS WE KNOW IT DIED TONIGHT!!!1!" It's Chicken Little. No one believes you when the sky is actually falling. It's become white noise.

I also am not sure that it's really helping those it's designed to help. It's not free healthcare that everyone else is paying for, as is frequently said in every other facebook status and tweet in my feed. It's not coming out of your pocket in taxes, as RWS believes. But it is forcing people to pay for health care that may not want it. And if they don't want it? They have to pay a "penalty" (tax). I don't see how this is really helping poor minimum wage Sally that is living paycheck to paycheck, gets cancer, and can't afford the treatment. Now she's living less than paycheck to paycheck and may not even be getting anything out of it all.

I concede I was pissed as hell when it was first announced. I've calmed some since then and come to the belief that this was by design as more part of a long term roadmap (see Roberts is a Genius). Although I still don't like the fact that this bill was even passed in the first place. This was rammed down our throats (1.00 to ) in an almost illegal fashion in how it was passed.

Actually taxes are increasing here shortly, on the middle class and wealthy. Can't be directly tied to Obamacare but in a single payer system, it doesn't matter. It's all part of the big pot we put into and dip out of. 

Also, Obamacare's Insurance Provisions alone will cost 1.5 TRILLION bucks over the next 10 years. That will have to be paid for by someone.

[GH2001]

They aren't going to be able to fund it on premiums and premium taxes from private insurers.

BINGO was his name-o.

That's why the CBO projects a COST of 1.5 trillion. It it was self sustaining there wouldn't be a net cost.

[AUChizad]

The reason they're forcing all healthy people to have insurance is because it will offset the cost of accepting people with preexisting conditions. Healthy people who don't think they need insurance having insurance will, in theory, balance out the cost of covering chemo, etc. for Joe Cancerpatient.

And actually, before this, if a poor uninsured person needs medical attention, who do you think pays for that? The taxpayers. They don't just let people bleed out and die in the hospital parking lot because they don't have insurance. So I don't see how forcing people to buy into coverage would require us (the already insured) to pay more money in taxes.

[GH2001]

The reason they're forcing all healthy people to have insurance is because it will offset the cost of accepting people with preexisting conditions. Healthy people who don't think they need insurance having insurance will, in theory, balance out the cost of covering chemo, etc. for Joe Cancerpatient.

And actually, before this, if a poor uninsured person needs medical attention, who do you think pays for that? The taxpayers. They don't just let people bleed out and die in the hospital parking lot because they don't have insurance. So I don't see how forcing people to buy into coverage would require us (the already insured) to pay more money in taxes.

But the people who don't have it now or can't afford it? Its gonna be subsidized. Same difference really. Different means to the same end. The bill still misses the point of what the root problem is with healthcare.

[Kaos]

Also, I found a very interesting read and I kind of buy into this some. AWK, as an atty what do you think? Kaos, as a business owner, what say you?

http://www.libertarian-examiner.com/2012/06/chief-justice-john-roberts-is-genius.html

tl;dr

Impeach Obama.

[Token]

And actually, before this, if a poor uninsured person needs medical attention, who do you think pays for that? The taxpayers. They don't just let people bleed out and die in the hospital parking lot because they don't have insurance. So I don't see how forcing people to buy into coverage would require us (the already insured) to pay more money in taxes.

Then what the fuck is the point of this?  The people who are without insurance now, are without it because they can't afford it.  So how can they be forced to pay for it when they don't have the money?  They won't.  We'll (tax payers) be paying for it.  Same as before.

They didn't fix a goddamn thing. 

[GH2001]

Then what the fuck is the point of this?  The people who are without insurance now, are without it because they can't afford it.  So how can they be forced to pay for it when they don't have the money?  They won't.  We'll (tax payers) be paying for it.  Same as before.

They didn't fix a goddamn thing.

You got a nice way with words. I like them.

[AUChizad]

Then what the fuck is the point of this?  The people who are without insurance now, are without it because they can't afford it.  So how can they be forced to pay for it when they don't have the money?  They won't.  We'll (tax payers) be paying for it.  Same as before.

They didn't fix a goddamn thing.

So if nothing is changing whatsoever, why the outrage? Why does at least trying to fix the problem make Obama a heretic?

Can't say enough that I disagree with the philosophical aspect of the government forcing people to pay for something they don't want, but there's definitely some hyperbole and blind rage coming from opponents.

[GH2001]

So if nothing is changing whatsoever, why the outrage? Why does at least trying to fix the problem make Obama a heretic?

Can't say enough that I disagree with the philosophical aspect of the government forcing people to pay for something they don't want, but there's definitely some hyperbole and blind rage coming from opponents.

Because it causes more gov't oversight than before. It creates tons of costs to the states. It creates new agencies and requires a ton of people administering it at the Federal Level. If we are going to run around in circles, I at least would rather have less gov't doing so. And I know you may just be playing devils advocate and thats ok, it helps to get to the bottom of things. I just see no advantage to this bill. Not one. Ive combed through this whole thing with a fine tooth comb and I see nothing. I've looked at the budgets, revenue, medicare/caid, CBO, the bill itself - and I just don't see it. We will be the same off if not worse with a lot more money spent and gov't intrusion.