Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) ruled constitutional - strong reactions abound

[Duelist925]

Is there anyone here arguing against the SCOTUS decision or what it is? We know what the act is, we just disagree with it.

I believe in universal healthcare. I just wish this was what they are doing.

As do we all. But this is better than what we currently have, and the individual mandate is one of the more important parts, as thats what actually funds it.

It has to be paid for--the individual mandate assures that it is, either through a massive pool of new insurence buyers lowering premiums simply for there being so many, or a tax (or penalty, or whatever, its semantics) for those who do not purchase health care or receive it in some way, as many will inevitably find a need for it, but not have it, and thus, cost the state money.

[Andara Bledin]

Just an FYI for those who haven't done their homework and take the word of journalists with agendas:
~42% of the estimated cost is to be funded by fees assessed directly against insurers.
~42% will be funded by an excise tax assessed against the wholesale purchase of medical equipment.
~18% will be an import tax on brand name drugs.

That's already more than the estimated cost, so I'm really not sure where the idea that the ACA is going to be paid by tax assessed against the citizenry is coming from; the only tax people will be hit with is if they choose not to participate and thus will have their money put into a fund to cover the uninsured that have to go to the hospital despite them thinking they could beat the odds.

Source

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

And unfortunately NJ isn't one of them. I mean, if you are going to tax/fine/whatever me, at least give me something in return. Why should I pay for something I don't receive?

Better training for doctors. Better training for nurses. Cheaper medicine. A bunch of grants to research as well.

Of course all that in addition to the normal things that you get when you pay taxes...

Also, you haven't really explained why you don't need health insurance. Are you immune to mistakes?

[KnitShoni]

There are a lot of people who assume that just because they haven't needed health insurance, it automatically follows that they won't. I didn't need health insurance before I turned 18, when I had my first major accident. You can bet I was damned sure glad I had it.

[Panacea]

As someone who spent the first 25 years of his life in a country that had universal healthcare, I respectfully disagree with that statement.

I beg your pardon. It's the only way to pay for it short of a single payer system, which will not happen in this country for a couple more decades.

And now that this is getting through as a "tax"... It really makes me wonder just how much control they can exert over the population.

Sure I know the "government mandated broccoli" comment over on fox may sound a bit farfetched but... I dunno. If they claim it's to lower healthcare costs, what new taxes, or "tax discounts" will they create in order to force the populace to live and eat the way certain individuals feel they should?

Attempts to ban things almost always turn out badly. Alcohol . . . total bust. Drugs, likewise. Tobacco, no go.

The government isn't going to try to compel people to eat healthy. I wouldn't be surprised if they try to tax the hell out of unhealthy foods at some point. Which is just fine by me. Many unhealthy foods are as cheap as they are because of corporate welfare; subsidies for things like sugar and corn.

And if this is a tax now... they may need to explain why so many groups (aside from non-profit groups etc) have gotten themselves exempt from this tax.


although... now that they've declared it a tax, they may have shot themselves in the foot with trying to order religious groups around on healthcare. cos, if it's a tax then... isn't it violating federal law to impose such tax laws on non-profit groups?

Yes and no. Religious groups are already exempt from many provisions of the law. The only ones held to it are employees of organizations OWNED by religious groups; ie Catholic colleges and the like. I don't think places like Notre Dame should be exempt from the law since these schools take students and employees of any religion.

I'm not arguing over whether it's legal or not. The Supreme Court already answered that question. I'm just pointing out that Obama just added a huge tax on a lot of us.

No, he didn't. First of all, the number of people who will actually pay the penalty is actually quite small. The penalty itself is quite small, only slightly more than what an insurance premium is likely to be once the exchanges take place. The "tax" or penalty can be avoided by getting insurance.

And many more people effectively get a tax CUT now that the Medicaid expansion is out.

Actually, unless you live in a state run by assholes who choose to not adopt the expanded Medicaid rules, everyone who makes less than 133% of the poverty level qualifies. That's about 15-20% of the nation covered right there. From 133% to 250% gets assistance, and 200% to 400% gets tax cuts (I forget the exact term). For perspective about 50% of the country is below 400% of the poverty level.

^-.-^

I live in just such a state. North Carolina has not done anything to set up an exchange, and has openly said it will not do so. I think they will also opt out of the Medicaid expansion.

I'm just amused at all the people threatening to move to Canada because of the ruling.

Canada? Jeez, what did the Canadians do to deserve that?

Is there anyone here arguing against the SCOTUS decision or what it is? We know what the act is, we just disagree with it.

I believe in universal healthcare. I just wish this was what they are doing.

I wish we could have single payer in this country. However, I am a realist, and I realize it is not politically feasible right now.

This country was founded in response to foriegn powers forcing taxes on us in the name of corporations, of government being permitted to force its way into our homes for use as barracks or to find evidence of crimes against us for specious reasons. Our Bill of Rights addresses directly the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence.

We have taken our distrust of government to the point where we no longer want our government to do anything that is actually to our benefit, and we now glorify the same kinds of corporations who were part of the problem at the time of the American Revolution (look up the real story of the Boston Tea Party to understand why).

That being said, I have problems with Roberts' decision. I think he made the right one for the country. But I think Scalia is right in saying Roberts essentially rewrote the mandate section of the PPACA. It's a thin argument.

[HYHYBT]

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding.

Would that not, logically, also mean they can't use the same tactic to, for example, force all states to have the same drinking age? That was done by threatening highway funding.

With 26+ states suing the Federal Gov't over this, you can bet those and probably more, will 'opt out'.

I doubt that will last long. State politicians have to please their voters, and once this has been up and running a couple years (if not sooner) those voters are going to be thinking like this:

I mean, if you are going to tax/fine/whatever me, at least give me something in return. Why should I pay for something I don't receive?

[Greenday]

My ideal universal health care system is tax everyone, provide everyone the same health care. This way, even though we are stuck paying, we actually get something from it.

[Hyena Dandy]

Aside from the better doctors and cheaper medicine, you mean?

[Greenday]

Aside from the better doctors and cheaper medicine, you mean?

How do the doctors suddenly because better? Do they level up like video games or something? I mean, the current crop of doctors can't magically get better.

And cheaper medicine? How do the prices change? Pharmaceutical companies won't suddenly charge less.

[Andara Bledin]

My ideal universal health care system is tax everyone, provide everyone the same health care. This way, even though we are stuck paying, we actually get something from it.

Until we get our shit together and stop trying to turn 30% of the populace into indentured servants, that's not even feasible much less something that would actually happen.

That, and the American ideal usually has a lot about people being able to have better because they have more money; considering that it's the people with the money that most influence the laws, the ability to pay more for better/faster service won't be going away, either. And, with the ability for people to choose to pay more comes the likelihood of higher level doctors choosing to practice medicine in this country rather than heading off to somewhere that they can make a significant amount more.

^-.-^

[Nyoibo]

My ideal universal health care system is tax everyone, provide everyone the same health care. This way, even though we are stuck paying, we actually get something from it.

That's basically what we have in Australia, everybody pays a medicare levy, taken from your tax return, you're exempt from the medicare levy if you earn less than the tax free threshold, your only income is some from of government payment or you have your own private health care.

[Rapscallion]

This is fascinating. It truly is.

From what I've gathered from watching all of this from afar is that Obama went down the route of forcing people to purchase health insurance as a promotional tool - how could the right wingers protest if corporations were having income thrust upon them? Well, they found a way. It was to give something halfway acceptable to the Republican party, but they demanded everything with his head as a garnish. Whatever he does, they're going to be decisively against it. Sure, that's the job of the opposition party, but with this amount of vehemence?

The GOP may as well run campaign ads that read, "We're not willing to let you get health care until we get this guy out."

It's not about the health of the people. If they cared, they'd at least go along with it to get healthcare for a swathe of the population who cannot afford it and then turn it into something they can accept when it's their turn. It's about their hatred for Obama. They're willing to let 'my fellow Americans' go into ill health (or debt to alleviate it) to get rid of the person they hate.

For those discussing the insurance side of it, I think I need to point out that the UK system - whilst it does have flaws - is not just a safety net. The NHS is pro-active in attempting to educate people to help them avoid future complications. They do it because it's the right thing to do and part of their mandate. It's not because it generates more profits for the shareholders.

I've seen economic arguments brought up. How many think that having a less-ill population will harm the economy more than it assists it? How many businesses are forced to make less profit when their employees are missing work?

Rapscallion

[powerboy]

I would rather have Health Insurance and not need it, than not have it and need it, like how it is right now.

[Greenday]

The GOP may as well run campaign ads that read, "We're not willing to let you get health care until we get this guy out."

It's not about the health of the people. If they cared, they'd at least go along with it to get healthcare for a swathe of the population who cannot afford it and then turn it into something they can accept when it's their turn. It's about their hatred for Obama. They're willing to let 'my fellow Americans' go into ill health (or debt to alleviate it) to get rid of the person they hate.

The main argument against universal health care is being able to spend our own money the way we want. I earned my money so why does someone else get to spend it the way they want?

[Rapscallion]

My ideal universal health care system is tax everyone, provide everyone the same health care. This way, even though we are stuck paying, we actually get something from it.

The main argument against universal health care is being able to spend our own money the way we want. I earned my money so why does someone else get to spend it the way they want?

I cannot combine these two statements of yours as being anything other than contradictory. One says you're for a system where you think there's an ideal situation, and yet that actually goes against what you say now.

I am confused.

Rapscallion