Archive

Obamacare Mandate Upheld By Supreme Court

  • Sage
    I wish this was IRL so I could have you guys explain your pejoratively named "ObamaCare" to me, because it would be fucking hysterical. Hey dipshits, we already do this with car insurance.
  • Sage
    bigdaddy2003;1215407 wrote:You talk a lot of **** Sage but you never seem to say anything with any substance.
    sounds like more whining from a cracker to me.
  • sleeper
    Sage;1216956 wrote:I wish this was IRL so I could have you guys explain your pejoratively named "ObamaCare" to me, because it would be fucking hysterical. Hey dipshits, we already do this with car insurance.
    You have a choice not to drive. You don't have a choice not to breath.
  • Sage
    No, but you do have a choice not to go to a hospital.
  • Sage
    also, im not a fan of "obamacare" only because it's not universal, single-payer health care.
  • WebFire
    Sage;1216956 wrote:I wish this was IRL so I could have you guys explain your pejoratively named "ObamaCare" to me, because it would be fucking hysterical. Hey dipshits, we already do this with car insurance.
    You only get "taxed" if caught. And you don't have to own a car.
  • jhay78
    Roberts was against it before he was for it:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/roberts-switched-health-care-reform-vote-cbs-reports/story?id=16695570
  • O-Trap
    Sage;1216956 wrote:Hey dipshits, we already do this with car insurance.
    And it's equally as idiotic, though to its credit, at least it can be seen as protecting the rights of OTHERS. If I'm at fault in a collision, and I damage someone else's vehicle, then my insurance pays for their repairs.

    It's still idiotic to be mandated, but it has a leg up on this mandate in at least that one regard.
  • cruiser_96
    Sage;1216956 wrote:...Hey dipshits, we already do this with car insurance.
    The only problem I have with this example is that if people choose not to purchase car insurance (for a few reasons) they are not taxed because of it! For your example to fit this instance, those who didn't even have a car would be taxed for not owning car insurance!

    I contend that this has very little to with health care.
  • jmog
    Sage;1216956 wrote:. Hey dipshits, we already do this with car insurance.
    Only the uninformed use this correlation. You most certainly do NOT have to buy car insurance.

    1. If you do not own a car, you do not have to have car insurance. You can make the conscience choice to use public transportation or ride a bike to work and you do NOT have to buy car insurance. This law does not provide any choice at all.
    2. Even if you do own a car, if you can show you have the personal funds to be "self liable" you do not have to buy car insurance. There is no such exemption in Obamacare.
  • cruiser_96
    jmog;1217002 wrote:Only the uninformed use this correlation. You most certainly do NOT have to buy car insurance.

    1. If you do not own a car, you do not have to have car insurance. You can make the conscience choice to use public transportation or ride a bike to work and you do NOT have to buy car insurance. This law does not provide any choice at all.
    2. Even if you do own a car, if you can show you have the personal funds to be "self liable" you do not have to buy car insurance. There is no such exemption in Obamacare.
    Concerning point number 2... Isn't congress and a number of "Friends of Obama" exempt??? :D ;) :D
  • O-Trap
    cruiser_96;1217004 wrote:Concerning point number 2... Isn't congress and a number of "Friends of Obama" exempt??? :D ;) :D
    I know of someone who does this. I don't know if there are earning or net worth qualifications, but I do think it's more than just "friends" of his, as this guy is politically apathetic.
  • bigdaddy2003
    Sage;1216957 wrote:sounds like more whining from a cracker to me.
    Since when is calling someone out for being a big mouth who doesn't bring much to an argument whining? Cracker? Right.
  • Con_Alma
    jmog;1217002 wrote:Only the uninformed use this correlation. You most certainly do NOT have to buy car insurance.
    ...You can make the conscience choice to use public transportation or ride a bike to work and you do NOT have to buy car insurance. This law does not provide any choice at all.
    2. Even if you do own a car, if you can show you have the personal funds to be "self liable" you do not have to buy car insurance. There is no such exemption in Obamacare.

    You are not required to have insurance but rather "proof of financial responsibility".

    Financial Responsibility Requirements
    There are several ways a motorist can meet FR law requirements. Only one of the following proofs of financial responsibility must be maintained.
    • An auto liability insurance policy. Motorists choosing to comply through insurance will receive ID cards from their insurance company that indicate FR requirements have been met.
    • A certificate issued by the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) indicating that money or government bonds in the amount of $30,000 is on deposit with the Treasurer of the State.
    • A certificate issued by the BMV showing a bond secured by real estate having equity of at least $60,000.
    • A certificate of self insurance issued by the BMV, available to those with more than 25 vehicles registered in their name or a company's name.
  • queencitybuckeye
    jmog;1217002 wrote:Only the uninformed use this correlation. You most certainly do NOT have to buy car insurance.

    1. If you do not own a car, you do not have to have car insurance. You can make the conscience choice to use public transportation or ride a bike to work and you do NOT have to buy car insurance. This law does not provide any choice at all.
    2. Even if you do own a car, if you can show you have the personal funds to be "self liable" you do not have to buy car insurance. There is no such exemption in Obamacare.
    3. State governments may enact laws that the federal government may not.
  • BoatShoes
    It's not a mandate that everyone who breathes has to meet. Its properly viewed substantively as a tax on those individuals with incomes that can afford insurance. If u qualify for Medicaid you won't be taxed if u don't purchase health insurance for instance. So, if u sit on your ass all day the gubmint can't enforce the tax against you if u don't have health insurance. Thus, the courts decision on the Medicaid expansion could have negative ramifications on the overall regulatory scheme
  • sleeper
    ccrunner609;1217654 wrote:This may have been asked but What happens now if you dont have insurance and you go to the hospital? You still get treated on the dole of everyone else. Nothing changes right?

    Or do they turn you away now? Everyone was told they have to have it.

    Or do people actually have to pay their bill plus the tax penalty?
    Like most things in this country, it depends on how much money you make. If you make more than 50k, you are considered rich by Obama and the left and should be able to pay out of pocket for a 60k surgery. If you make $49,999 or less you are poor and the tax payers should not only cover your $800k surgery but your food, housing, and iPads; or whatever else it is you need to feel like you are rich. That is the America that Obama wants and it needs to end in November.
  • QuakerOats
    ccrunner609;1217654 wrote:This may have been asked but What happens now if you dont have insurance and you go to the hospital? You still get treated on the dole of everyone else. Nothing changes right?

    Or do they turn you away now? Everyone was told they have to have it.

    Or do people actually have to pay their bill plus the tax penalty?

    The producers will pay, for themselves, and for all the takers. There will just be 36 million more 'official' takers, but fewer doctors. Costs will either skyrocket or serious rationing will occur, innovation will be retarded, and care will certainly diminish substantially. It's going to be great.

    Change we can believe in ...
  • QuakerOats
    Excellent piece:

    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/07/01/placebo.html
  • believer
    ccrunner609;1218213 wrote:yeah good read. Sad that most Obama lovers will read that and wither call it lies or flat out ignore it.
    Kool Aid addiction will do that to ya.
  • Abe Vigoda
    Because the Dispatch always writes fair and non-partisan articles LOL
  • queencitybuckeye
    Those incapable of attacking the message attack the messenger.
  • QuakerOats
    Sage;1216963 wrote:also, im not a fan of "obamacare" only because it's not universal, single-payer health care.

    So you are an advocate of lousy health care?
  • Footwedge
    queencitybuckeye;1218880 wrote:Those incapable of attacking the message attack the messenger.
    I read it and I feel pretty confident in attacking the messenger...because the messenger spews opinions without a single reference as to what is actually written in the 2700 pages.

    Where are the footnotes? The references? Maybe Obamacare is awful...but so far, not this journalist...or any other has shown a thing.

    All hokey pokey political grandstanding at this point.
  • georgemc80
    WebFire;1214416 wrote:Good summary of the bill here. Worth the read to get a better understanding of it.

    http://www.reddit.com/tb/vbkfm

    After reading this, I have a hard time finding something negative about this bill. Hardly the freedom sucking legislation that some are crying about.

    According to the Washington Post, I have little to no change in my life. The only changes involve lifetime benefits and my kids being insured until 26 if necessary.

    Again, I am middle class public employee. The crap they do in Washington regardless of Republican or Democrat do not affect me.

    Why wouldn't someone who could afford it, not buy health insurance?