Obamacare Mandate Upheld By Supreme Court

• Bigdogg

  O-Trap;1214256 wrote:Fair enough. I find it odd that such a lengthy document, and a new one at that, will provide for less time spent, but if you honestly think that to be the case, it is indeed your own business to run as you see fit.
  
  
  
  Apparently not, but that is a basic contingency to the new policy, no? In order for some to exercise their right to healthcare, the rights of others to what they've earned is inhibited.
  
  It's the idea of swinging a fist at my nose. Apparently, the Supreme Court has decided that your right to swing your fist at my face supersedes my right to not get hit in the nose. I'll survive, of course, just as most people in this country will, but don't expect me to not be upset or feel as though my rights have been infringed.

  I specifically said that there will be a lot more work for my CFO but overall a savings realized by my company. By the way, if Belly's company is under 50 FTE employees this law dose not apply to him at all.
• stlouiedipalma

  Con_Alma;1214306 wrote:There must be plenty of people. Wasn't that the whole point of putting this legislation in?

  Yes, there are plenty. My question dealt with those on this site who complain about a tax they won't have to pay.
  
  
  I had to edit this so as not to offend those who haven't complained about this new "tax".
• Con_Alma

  stlouiedipalma;1214320 wrote:Yes, there are plenty. My question dealt with those of you on this site who complain about a tax they won't have to pay.

  Ahhh, I better understand now. Thank you.
  
  Is it not O.K. for them to complain about such a tax? There are taxes I don't pay that I don't think are appropriate. Should we really only complain about those things that directly impact us?
  
  That's an interesting position if so.
• stlouiedipalma

  You make a good point, Con. I guess it's like "sin taxes". I don't use the products which are taxed, so I don't pay it. I can still be upset about the tax in the first place, but my sense of "personal responsibility" says I shouldn't complain about what is essentially a user tax.
• Con_Alma

  stlouiedipalma;1214329 wrote:You make a good point, Con. I guess it's like "sin taxes". I don't use the products which are taxed, so I don't pay it. I can still be upset about the tax in the first place, but my sense of "personal responsibility" says I shouldn't complain about what is essentially a user tax.

  We complain about what we individually deem as unfairly taxing those who we believe are unworthy of such a levy all the time....different circumstances mind you. This seems to be just one more case. It's also pretty significant with regards to the belief in what could be and how the three branches of government play into those potential scenarios based on the ideology in control.
• WebFire

  One thing I am confused about after seeing people on the internet and Facebook discuss it...if a person chooses to not get healthcare and pays the "tax", they are still uninsured, correct? Or do they pay the tax to be covered under some plan?
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats;1214077 wrote:I'm not "dude". And apparently you are not listening, nor watching, as every year more and more of your liberties and freedoms are being taken, or eroded, on an incremental basis, sometimes not discernable (but in this instance, quite easily recognizable), but nevertheless falling by the wayside. When you have been around as long as some of us, it is easier to see and understand perhaps, but if you think this latest power grab by the radical left is not important enough to fight for its reversal, then that is too bad. Good luck.

  
  Sure thing chicken little. I'll enjoy missing those freedoms that I am apparently losing...

  fan_from_texas;1214112 wrote:^^^This.
  
  The government already encourages some behaviors and discourages others based on its taxing power. That's nothing new. Whether it's a good idea or not is a policy question, not really a legal question.
  
  I don't have strong feelings on the opinion, as I didn't care much either way about ObamaCare. But this opinion, by itself, does not mean the sky is falling. If anything, I read it as opening up doors for Commerce Clause challenges against numerous other laws--sort of a "lose the battle, win the war" type of decision. It'll take awhile for the full impact to shake out.

  I'm largely of the same view. It is a large decision, but in the grand scheme of things, not that big a deal. The larger issue of real health care reform is still out there to be figured out. Also, I see the states taking more portions of the law to court.
  

  fan_from_texas;1214196 wrote:Leading libertarian scholar weighs in:

  Interesting, and I saw the decision by Roberts in the light that hey, you voted for the Congress, they made this law under the tax realm, and that is the nature of the beast of the Congress.
  
  I will say it did elevate my opinion of Roberts. He is a fine judge who does not get mired in political discussions often.
• tk421

  

  WebFire;1214388 wrote:One thing I am confused about after seeing people on the internet and Facebook discuss it...if a person chooses to not get healthcare and pays the "tax", they are still uninsured, correct? Or do they pay the tax to be covered under some plan?

  the tax is if you don't have insurance/get insurance under one of these exchanges, I understand. I'd imagine a lot of people who already can afford health insurance but don't have it for whatever reason will just pay the tax. It will be a lot cheaper than a 5,000+ plan. So, this bill isn't going to do a whole lot for those people who can afford insurance and don't have it. The people who can't afford insurance are the big winners here, the government already pays everything for them anyway, I guess insurance doesn't make any difference.
• WebFire

  Good summary of the bill here. Worth the read to get a better understanding of it.
  
  http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm
• WebFire

  tk421;1214415 wrote:the tax is if you don't have insurance/get insurance under one of these exchanges, I understand. I'd imagine a lot of people who already can afford health insurance but don't have it for whatever reason will just pay the tax. It will be a lot cheaper than a 5,000+ plan. So, this bill isn't going to do a whole lot for those people who can afford insurance and don't have it. The people who can't afford insurance are the big winners here, the government already pays everything for them anyway, I guess insurance doesn't make any difference.

  But paying the tax doesn't gain them any government paid coverage, right? After reading the link I posted, I say no. But in discussion, people talk as though that is the case.
• WebFire

  I was also surprised by the number of taxes in the bill. The author of the article tries to downplay the significance of the .09% tax on anyone making over $200,000.
• Con_Alma

  ptown_trojans_1;1214404 wrote:...
  Interesting, and I saw the decision by Roberts in the light that hey, you voted for the Congress, they made this law under the tax realm, and that is the nature of the beast of the Congress.
  
  ...

  I tend to agree with this as it relates to most things. Our votes are really, really important. It reinforces my desire to have a congress do much less int he future and let the people stabilize things.
• tk421

  

  WebFire;1214418 wrote:But paying the tax doesn't gain them any government paid coverage, right? After reading the link I posted, I say no. But in discussion, people talk as though that is the case.

  3
  
  No, paying the tax doesn't get anyone coverage. Not everyone needs or wants coverage, though. I know there is this idea that everyone on the planet consumes some kind of healthcare during their lives, but that's just not true. Plenty of people go there whole lives without nothing except regular checkups, and those can be paid for out of pocket.
• WebFire

  tk421;1214445 wrote:3
  
  No, paying the tax doesn't get anyone coverage. Not everyone needs or wants coverage, though. I know there is this idea that everyone on the planet consumes some kind of healthcare during their lives, but that's just not true. Plenty of people go there whole lives without nothing except regular checkups, and those can be paid for out of pocket.

  Ok, that's what I thought. But I wanted to be sure!
• Con_Alma

  tk421;1214445 wrote:3
  
  No, paying the tax doesn't get anyone coverage. Not everyone needs or wants coverage, though. I know there is this idea that everyone on the planet consumes some kind of healthcare during their lives, but that's just not true. Plenty of people go there whole lives without nothing except regular checkups, and those can be paid for out of pocket.

  For not contributing premiums/cash flow to the costs of paying for others' benefits the government penalizes you with a "tax".
• WebFire

  Con_Alma;1214468 wrote:For not contributing premiums/cash flow to the costs of paying for others' benefits the government penalizes you with a "tax".

  But if only premium payers are covered, who are the "others" that we are paying for. I don't see how it's different than now other than the mandate.
• Con_Alma

  WebFire;1214498 wrote:But if only premium payers are covered, who are the "others" that we are paying for. I don't see how it's different than now other than the mandate.

  
  That's true. The difference is the penalty for not contributing to the pool. Lower numbers, especially a reduction in healthy individuals listed above is detrimental to the actuarial tables predicting payout expectations.
• Footwedge

  Now all the dead beats will be forced to pony up!!. Right wingers should be elated with the news!.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  I haven't read the Roberts opinion yet, but I think a lot of Libertarian/Conservative commentators/legal scholars who I presume have read it are dismissing the possible expansion of the tax power. Certainly, the government subsidizes behavior in the tax code (mortgage interest deduction, tax credit) that some citizens may not take advantage of if they don't engage in certain subsidized behaviors. But that's a subsidy, not a tax. When has the government ever passed a tax for someone that chose NOT to engage in a certain behavior? How far could Congress go to mandate citizens' behavior or else face a "tax"? This could be a very dangerous precedent.
• jhay78

  

  BoatShoes;1214200 wrote:Jhay,
  
  1. Insurance companies will not fail because healthy people are required to be in the risk pool. Your scenario only happens if the mandate is struck down.

  Unless enough people decide that paying the fine is cheaper and makes more sense than paying insurance premiums and participating in the risk pool.
  

  BoatShoes;1214234 wrote:In the long run I think this is a win for conservatives.
  
  1. A healthcare law that is socialist only in imaginationland is upheld as a tax that doesn't expand federal power beyond what it already was.
  
  2. Commerce clause is limited
  
  3. States are given more power
  
  4. Conservatives get a market based health reform while destroying liberal political capital

  I see George Will made a similar argument in today's Washington Post. I don't know . . .
• BGFalcons82

  

  So what, manhattan? The federal government owns General Motors, it picks some winners and mostly losers in green energy by torching future taxpayer funds, they supply satan's army with FREE weapons to kill American border agents, they announce with vigor which laws they want to enforce and which ones they'll ignore, and they tax taking a shit.
  
  This country, in its unyielding desire for fairness, equality of outcomes, and faux security in lieu of liberty will do anything and everything to attain these utopian goals until we are completely broke. That day is sooooo close to arriving.
• WebFire

  jhay78;1214627 wrote:Unless enough people decide that paying the fine is cheaper and makes more sense than paying insurance premiums and participating in the risk pool.

  But they can do that now for free and they don't. So I don't think this will happen.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  WebFire;1214664 wrote:But they can do that now for free and they don't. So I don't think this will happen.

  Do you think so? I think there is a large (and lucrative) system out there for the ultra-wealthy and doctors and other medical professionals that don't want to deal with the middle man. If I'm worth US$100M or so, I think I could arrange a private doctor and just pay out of pocket. Does anyone think Bill Gates has an Anthem card?
• Con_Alma

  WebFire;1214664 wrote:But they can do that now for free and they don't. So I don't think this will happen.

  Think Michael Jackson's death doctor was being paid through his major medical company? Think he even had major medical coverage?
• WebFire

  I wasn't talking about the ultra-rich. I was talking about the normal everyday folk. I assumed that's who he was referring to. For the people that already go without insurance, of course they will just pay the fine. So there will be no real shift of insured vs. uninsured.