Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Scotus upheld healthcare law.

profile picture
Amadeus.
Posts: 3050 - Karma: 382
Obama, "suck it".

Jun 28 2012 10:20AM
0 0
profile picture
theline
Posts: 1507 - Karma: 92
like a boss
Click for larger image
Jun 28 2012 10:34AM
0 0
profile picture
howlongcanausern
Posts: 4982 - Karma: 1,737
american logic: can afford iphone and car payment but can't afford health insurance
Jun 28 2012 10:39AM
0 0
profile picture
Sno.
Posts: 12155 - Karma: 6,152

no that's black people logic.

inb4 racist!

Jun 28 2012 10:43AM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31054 - Karma: 29,232
inb4 butthurt conservat.... nevermind
Jun 28 2012 10:47AM
0 0
profile picture
Funkadelic
Posts: 1967 - Karma: 391
I don't think most people understand that this just gives fire power to Romney in the election. By John Roberts saying it's a tax it completely undermines the Obama administration who said it's under the Interstate Commerce Clause. Obama was very clear that this was not a tax. Romney will be able to have a field day with how the Obama administration lied.
Jun 28 2012 10:54AM
0 0
profile picture
EastCoast315
Posts: 3136 - Karma: 137
It's funny that this is the case, being that SCOTUS used the line "nothing is certain save for death and taxes" in their decision, calling the mandate a "tax" (which pragmatically, it is).

Frankly, I'm disgusted that this was upheld.
Jun 28 2012 11:03AM
0 0
profile picture
Mike-O
Posts: 14593 - Karma: 1,089
Penalty for not buying what? Haven't been following this thing too much.

As for the companies firing people as to not "provide" health care, am I misunderstanding something here that this universal update would be provided to each and every US citizen employed or not, not through companies as has been prevalent until today?
Jun 28 2012 11:03AM
0 0
profile picture
EastCoast315
Posts: 3136 - Karma: 137
2% is what I heard, which is worse. It will go up.

People forget that taxation is theft: what percent of your labor value is stolen from you to be spent on you - and others - at the end of a gun or the threat of imprisonment? 30%? 40? 60? When will it stop? 100? This isn't a free market, it's a command economy.

also inb4 098234 page thread.
Jun 28 2012 11:06AM
0 0
profile picture
Sno.
Posts: 12155 - Karma: 6,152
health insurance
Jun 28 2012 11:06AM
0 0
profile picture
Rachy
Posts: 4355 - Karma: 2,761
I had a long chat with someone who sells health insurance about this.

It's hard to call it a tax, it's hard to call it a fine. It's more of a fee, but that's really just a euphemism.

With the new law, the only people that would really end up paying this fee is anyone who can afford to get hurt and pay out of their pocket, or anyone who is going to be out of the country pretty much the entire year and will therefor be purchasing through an international supplier for trip insurance.

Otherwise, if you make below a certain wage, you will be given insurance. At around 20k you have to start paying for it, but it comes out to being no more than around $600 a year in which it would be better to pay that $600 than not. If you make more than 40k a year, you are likely provided health insurance by your employer.

For those of us who are self employed and making around 35 to 45k a year, we have around a 150 a month max and it's a tax deduction.

So really, it's the richest of the rich and the people out of the country that will pay the fee.

Or people who think they can beet the system. What I mean by that, is the people who are going to wait until they get cancer to buy insurance since they can no longer raise rates for pre existing conditions. But, these people are stupid, cause if they pay the $95 and then get knocked out and put into a coma, they are pretty much fucked and the $95 helps cover the fact that they will likely need to file bankruptcy.

There needs to be better regulation on the fee. Something like if you wait more than a year after turning 26 or moving back into the country, coming off unemployment (in which you would likely get medicade), it takes 3 months for it to become effective. Something to keep people from thinking they can pay the fine until they get their leg chopped off and call on the way to the hospital.
Jun 28 2012 11:07AM
0 0
profile picture
Sno.
Posts: 12155 - Karma: 6,152

yes, once a tax is implemented it's so easy for them to raise it...and they will.

I already lose about 40% of my paycheck. Taxes make me depressed.

On a semi-related note, how stupid is it that you have to pay sales tax on your used car purchase in Washington state. Clearly the sales tax on the vehicle was already paid when bought new. If a $2000 car is bought and sold two hundred times, the state would collect $48,000.00 in tax on the $2000 car.

Jun 28 2012 11:11AM
0 0
profile picture
pbandj
Posts: 5610 - Karma: 28
i think you fail to understand that romney instituted the same fucking policy while he was governor of massachusetts, but the fine for not purchasing health insurance is significantly more than 1% of you income.

fuck romney. fuck obama.. our candidates for this election season are fucking terrible.
Jun 28 2012 11:14AM
0 0
profile picture
elemeno89
Posts: 1582 - Karma: 79
Click for larger image

lol @ foxnews
Jun 28 2012 11:15AM
0 0
profile picture
Rachy
Posts: 4355 - Karma: 2,761
How about this, the hospital wont treat you unless you can pay out of pocket or have health insurance.

How does that sound?

I think that's a great way to do it if health insurance is made affordable (which the health care act does).

But then some bitch is going to be like.. well sir, i changed jobs and was unemployed for a month between and just wasn't able to do it in time. as they have their arm hanging on by a tendon.


Jun 28 2012 11:17AM
0 0
profile picture
howlongcanausern
Posts: 4982 - Karma: 1,737
lol i totally agree with you on the used car tax thing....buuuuut thank god our state doesn't have an income tax.
Jun 28 2012 11:17AM
0 0
profile picture
Funkadelic
Posts: 1967 - Karma: 391
True, and I'm by no means defending his actions because frankly, I despise Romney just slightly less than I despise Obama, but what Romney did was at the state level, not the national level. So what Romney did fell under what would be considered states' rights, not what is constitutional for the federal government.
Jun 28 2012 11:19AM
0 0
profile picture
Sno.
Posts: 12155 - Karma: 6,152
haha, your scenarios have some pretty gnarly injuries.
Jun 28 2012 11:20AM
0 0
profile picture
Rachy
Posts: 4355 - Karma: 2,761
just thinking of things you really would need to go to the ER for.

And I've been watching a lot of horror movies lately cause they always seem to be on on one of the 8 English channels I have.
Jun 28 2012 11:30AM
0 0
profile picture
EastCoast315
Posts: 3136 - Karma: 137
Actually, that sounds like a bad idea. The fundamental concept of insurance is logically sound, I'm not saying that we ought to pay up front as one might for a hotel room or a sandwich. The issue is that we're - as usual - solving problems caused by government interference with more government interference. It's stupid.
Take the example of corn subsidies and their relationship to obesity. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of the 1930's started as a way to give farmers security of their quality of life during hard farming years. It blew up into the US running the biggest state-backed glut of artificially cheap corn in the world. Eventually, we got creative with this cheap, sweet food, and started using High Fructose Corn Syrup on a wide scale (directly following the sugar tariffs of the 1970's). As a result, public health has been in shambles, and almost no one sees the connection. The issue of health care is hardly different.
During WWII, the government pushed employers to provide health care for their employees rather than, as was previously done, have the individual employees insure themselves. This created the expectation that healthcare would be built-in to most jobs, thus outsourcing the drive of individuals to insure themselves on their own terms. Additionally, the widespread implementation of medicare and medicaid drove prices up - simultaneously increasing the idea (among a large segment of the public, the poor and old) that some entity larger than the individual would subsidize the injured and sick, as opposed to self-obtained insurance. These facts spun the system out of control and into what we have today.
The answer, then, is to revert to the free market - imploring citizens to insure themselves and assess their own risks. Sure, this isn't a sure fire way to cover everyone, but it gets government out of the equation and makes more sense.

Of course, that's all a lot harder to understand than "the government will just take care of me with my own money"; so it won't fly. It's hard out there for a proponent of the free market.
Jun 28 2012 11:36AM
0 0
profile picture
Amadeus.
Posts: 3050 - Karma: 382
I think we should just be happy that we joined the rest of the modern world when it comes to healthcare.

Because, according to the CBO the health care laws gonna help the economy in a variety of ways.

1) Obamacare will reduce the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2011 that Obamacare will reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the next decade. The law is expected to save about $1 trillion over its second decade, according to other CBO analyses. The CBO found that repealing the law, as Republicans attempted to do in 2011, would increase the deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years.
2) Health care costs for young Americans won’t skyrocket. More than 3.1 million young Americans have insurance thanks to Obamacare. Without the law, the cost of acquiring an equivalent health care plan would have risen dramatically at a time when young people are still struggling with the effects of the Great Recession.
3) Millions of jobs will be created. Health reform will help create roughly 4 million jobs over the next decade, according to a 2010 Center for American Progress report, by reducing the cost of health care and making it cheaper for businesses to hire. The law will create between 250,000 and 400,000 jobs a year, and they will be spread across sectors: according to the study, the law will help create more than 200,000 manufacturing and 900,000 in the service sector by 2016.
4) It will be cheaper for employers to provide health care. American businesses are under tremendous pressure thanks to rising health care costs, and these costs are often passed on to customers (one study estimates that each car sold by General Motors contains $1,200 in built-in health costs). The ACA, however, will make it cheaper for businesses to provide care, and not just by reducing the cost of care. Small businesses are already receiving tax credits contained in the law to help insure their employees, and it has already offered more than $4.7 billion in reinsurance payments to companies that are providing health care to retirees who aren’t yet eligible for Medicare.
Jun 28 2012 11:41AM
0 0
profile picture
DERS.
Posts: 6299 - Karma: 1,293
damn is that a crowd outside of the white house? i coulda been there, if i had my dentist appt today not yesterday. another win for obama. sending a big FU to the GOP before november.
Jun 28 2012 11:47AM
0 0
profile picture
Rachy
Posts: 4355 - Karma: 2,761
Although sounding intelligent, you made no actual point as to why that was a bad idea.

I know it's a bad idea because suzy is going to be left with no arm and probably bleed out and die. And that sucks. We don't want that. So we really do need to treat her. But she can't afford it cause she has no savings and didn't think $100 a month for health insurance was a better idea than $100 a month in starbucks. So, my taxes end up paying for her. So I got to pay for my health insurance, and her treatment. THAT'S NOT FAIR!

So, suzy pays $200 incase she's going to be a bother to society and get her arm chopped off. Hopefully enough people pay that $200 and only 1 actually loses an arm.

That 1% is like a group insurance for the uninsured so that less of my tax dollars go to suzy.

...It would be a great idea if we were moral less angry assholes.
Jun 28 2012 11:47AM
0 0
profile picture
theline
Posts: 1507 - Karma: 92
apparently this applies to NS as well
Click for larger image
Jun 28 2012 12:08PM
0 0
profile picture
accualyisdolan
Posts: 3295 - Karma: -192
KAPOW
Jun 28 2012 12:26PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
Threads for entertainment and to lose a little more faith in America.
Jun 28 2012 12:33PM
0 0
profile picture
KRASHED
Posts: 7803 - Karma: 466
Welcome to the modern world!
Jun 28 2012 12:43PM
0 0
profile picture
accualyisdolan
Posts: 3295 - Karma: -192
that being said, im over giving a shit about obamacare. so whatever
Jun 28 2012 12:44PM
0 0
profile picture
EastCoast315
Posts: 3136 - Karma: 137
It's unfortunate you weren't able to discern my argument, perhaps I'll express it more directly: Our problems with healthcare were caused by the state meddling in the market. We solve that problem by getting the government out of the market. The notion that the solution to a problem is to add more of what caused the problem to the equation (government interference) - rather than taking it out - is insanity.

That's the difference between the free market and the "cradle to grave" state socialism: in the free market, there would be no room for Suzy to gratify herself with consumption (Starbucks) had she not first assessed the risks involved in not insuring herself. With the passing of this bill, we shift accountability from the individual - where it should be, out of respect for the individual - and onto the collective. This is bad principle and bad precedent.
Additionally, why have Suzy pay "$200 in case she's going to be a bother to society" in getting injured, when you could shift the accountability from society and onto her?

And I know it makes me a miserable, hateful person if I am to say it, but we all know it's true: if you don't want to take accountability, that's fine, but you must live with the consequences as a result. If that includes septicemia from your broken arm, so be it. But your example is a bad one: most of the time, those that go without insurance aren't conspicuously making that choice; allocating the same income elsewhere. Usually, people go without insurance because they cannot afford it. Why? Because government programs have driven the costs of medical procedures and equipment so high, that insurance must be correspondingly high. Undo the subsidization of healthcare for the poor and the old, prices go down, and insurance is more affordable for everyone.

For those that still are unable to afford the insurance despite the costs going down? That number would be small enough to be met by the services offered by private charities. Feel bad about the poor going without? Lobby the wealthy to allocate funds to the cause, take some initiative rather than slagging it off onto the government.
Those that could afford it (most) would ultimately receive not only cheaper care, but better quality care, because as the market would have it, medical technologies companies would be more competitive, and ultimately design better technologies. It would be a win-win-win for everyone, providing only one thing: that we as a culture can re-embrace the value of the individual, or, dare I say it, rational self interest, and choose to forgo the state-as-paternal-shepherd role it plays today.

As I said in my last post, this is all much harder to understand than "free health care, wooo!", and as a result, won't work without some serious adjustments in how we think as a people.
Jun 28 2012 12:55PM
0 0
profile picture
Rachy
Posts: 4355 - Karma: 2,761
Link related. FUCKING HILARIOUS.



I think they meant one of those other countries, like Namibia, or Laos. You know, the desirable places to live where you aren't required to get healthcare/ have it by default.


Jun 28 2012 1:06PM
0 0
profile picture
XtRemE11
Posts: 5680 - Karma: 246
can you educate me on how the healthcare law applies to and effects smaller healthcare providers?
Jun 28 2012 1:18PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
You really shouldn't
Jun 28 2012 1:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Rachy
Posts: 4355 - Karma: 2,761
Click for larger image
Jun 28 2012 2:13PM
0 0
profile picture
howlongcanausern
Posts: 4982 - Karma: 1,737
>implying the ACA is anywhere close to a single payer/universal health care system
Jun 28 2012 2:17PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
lol cnn

Click for larger image
Jun 28 2012 2:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Huck_Norris
Posts: 11487 - Karma: 18,627

I can't even tell you how much it has gone up in Mass since they started doing this a few years ago.  As soon as the insurance companies weren't in competition for your business rates skyrocketed.  My monthly premium is $750, and I've never had a major claim or health problem, but if my business were to drop my coverage, we'd get his with a big fat penalty. 

We are incredibly fucked is what I'm getting at. 

Jun 28 2012 2:23PM
0 0
profile picture
cobra_commander
Posts: 16909 - Karma: 4,686
I wonder what caused the Boston Tea Party? I heard it was something along the lines of being forced to buy stuff...


Jun 28 2012 2:26PM
0 0
profile picture
Rachy
Posts: 4355 - Karma: 2,761
false, unless you make more than about 45k a year as an individual.

And your monthly premium as an individual is $750 or as a family? And your insurance company will need to prove it is spending 80% of that on insurance premiums. So once more things kick into gear, you will get to pay less.
Jun 28 2012 2:26PM
0 0
profile picture
PJS.
Posts: 11943 - Karma: 895
Well go grab your facepaint and feathers cobra, we'll see you in the harbor.
Jun 28 2012 2:27PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
woozy... Going all Ron Swanson on us again... haha.

I have no problem with people having to pay a 1% penalty on healthcare. Seeing as it's mandatory for a hospital not to refuse service to somebody, why should it not be mandatory for someone not to purchase health insurance?

If I was stubborn enough to not want health insurance, I'd be off-grid and under the table anyways and probably not paying taxes to begin with... so I don't see that seriously effecting anyone.
Jun 28 2012 2:33PM
0 0
profile picture
EastCoast315
Posts: 3136 - Karma: 137
Therein lies the flaw. Instead of using service mandates as justification for insurance mandates, why not do away with the original problem: requiring hospitals to serve those without a means to pay?

It sounds sick and harsh, but people will work in their own interest. The collectivists/new liberals have a sickening lack of faith in the individual.
Jun 28 2012 2:39PM
0 0
profile picture
roddy116
Posts: 10627 - Karma: 7,423
i like cows

Jun 28 2012 2:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Ben.
Posts: 21463 - Karma: 683
So if you get in a car accident, and dont have your insurance card with you, are they just supposed to let you die? Its not really that simple.


"Sorry sir, you were unconscious and didn't have your wallet with you, so you lost both your legs."
Jun 28 2012 2:47PM
0 0
profile picture
shibby
Posts: 7088 - Karma: -19

stop repeating this as if it means something.

from reddit

Click for larger image

Jun 28 2012 2:47PM
0 0
profile picture
Huck_Norris
Posts: 11487 - Karma: 18,627

Um, no. 

Unless you'd like to come over and battle with the insurance companies and government on my behalf, you're really going to have to take my word for it.  Yes, $750 a month for ME. 

This whole "tax penalty for not having insurance" may be a hot issue elsewhere because it's new, but it's been going on here for several years and it isn't going down.  Kind of funny that it's in the same state as MassHealth, where an ex-junkie friend of mine can get two cat scans and three specialist visits so he can go to the dentist- all paid for 100% by the state with $0 copay.  Even his methodone is covered.  He's also on disability because his addiction destroyed his heart.  So yeah, fuck me while I work 60 hour weeks so junkies can spend a half million plus on care for their fuckup.  Sounds great, where can I sign up? 

So where am I wrong again???  I am sort of lost and if you think you can save me money I'm all ears. 

Jun 28 2012 2:58PM
0 0
profile picture
Huck_Norris
Posts: 11487 - Karma: 18,627

I'd eat my fucking hat in ecstasy if this was the case in Massachusetts. 

Jun 28 2012 3:01PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Here's a scenario.

Some guy walking down the sidewalk. Knows he has no health insurance, but doesn't give a fuck because he's stubborn. Some drunk fucker peels out and runs the dude over. He's now unconcious, bleeding to death internally, has broken bones, etc and needs emergency surgery.

He doesn't have healthcare but nobody knows. It's not like he's gotta show a card that says he refuses to pay for healthcare or something and they should just leave him to die - which is fucking inhumane in the first place...

So onlookers call for an ambulance, which comes, picks him up and takes him to emergency surgery. The hospital doesn't know he doesn't have insurance... They're not going to poke his dying body, hoping he wakes up, and leave him to die if he doesn't wake up out of his coma and tell them he has insurance.

2 days later, he wakes out of a coma, in a full body cast, in a bed. Shit... Now they find out he doesn't have health insurance... and that surgery cost like 19 grand to perform. Homie doesn't have that kinda dosh just lying around. Who's going to pay the hospital? The government? SO much shit-outta-luck happening here.

Point is, if you don't require hospitals to serve those without pay... then what the fuck's the point anyways? They can refuse to help you? That's going to put a lot of dead carcasses on their back doorstep...
Jun 28 2012 3:07PM
0 0
profile picture
Mike-O
Posts: 14593 - Karma: 1,089
It does sound a bit morally contradicting. But I was also going to say the same as Polarpeak, how would you yourself solve the current issue of taxation if you consider it all a theft?

Roads, schools, traffic control, sewer systems, electricity companies - what you don't use, you don't have to pay for, is that it? Where in your life would you right now come to a situation where you would fall outside the grid completely (being a hermit doesn't count)? Pay for what you use, then? Who would control that?

I'm all ears.
Jun 28 2012 3:09PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
I know you do, Ron Swanson. Why don't you just go off grid and start a collective farm or something if you hate the government so goddamn much. Or would that be too hippie-shit for you? haha.

It increases to 2.5% by 2016. I'm aware of that.

Also, those idiots in congress already force me to pay for shit I'm opposed to. You know... like a 3 trillion dollar war overseas, which has a cost that just keeps on going up, and will for years to come. At least this is constructive rather than destructive.
Jun 28 2012 3:14PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
Jun 28 2012 3:16PM
0 0
profile picture
PacificRimJob
Posts: 24725 - Karma: 29,944
I'm tickled pink that you actually think that's the extent of my knowledge on your flawed ideology. Shows how easily you make assumptions.

And yeah, money is fungible... which means it's equivalent to a good or commodity. In this case, being healthcare. Something everyone in this modern day needs to be healthy. Including you. So unless you DON'T want to by healthcare, I don't see what you're bitching about this so much for.


Jun 28 2012 3:28PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)