Obamacare watch...Supreme Court Decision - Page 5

whatdidyousay! · 06-29-2012, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

no

Thanks! I know this law is going to be useless with the people that really need health care, the homeless people. We have a homeless man in my city that was found lying on the ground by some driving by the park. The homeless man had to have a foot removed and go to rehab . He had no address, so how will Obamacare help the homeless people when the government does not know where they're?

Steinhauer · 06-29-2012, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

just because you asked a question doesn't mean it's a good question. or even coherent.

Or even understood by you (which happens quite often).

Steinhauer · 06-29-2012, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Perhaps you should check your dictionary on definition of "deflect" because your'e not using it correctly.

Perhaps you should check your dictionary for "insolent"

diehardbiker · 06-29-2012, 11:44 AM

There is guideline that comes in with income, it is called affordablity, if you really can't afford one, governmetn will foot in the cost of insurance just like medicaid. Simple as is. Point here is that whenever one really can afford insurance refuses to buy insurnace, that is where the problem started.

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatdidyousay!

Thanks! I know this law is going to be useless with the people that really need health care, the homeless people. We have a homeless man in my city that was found lying on the ground by some driving by the park. The homeless man had to have a foot removed and go to rehab . He had no address, so how will Obamacare help the homeless people when the government does not know where they're?

Steinhauer · 06-29-2012, 11:45 AM

And the problem now is Congress bypassed the Commerce Clause and is ordering people to purchase something by calling a penalty a tax.

(Maybe we should make it a law for foreign born students of English to buy an American English Dictionary?)

**Foxrac** · 06-29-2012, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

And the problem now is Congress bypassed the Commerce Clause and is ordering people to purchase something by calling a penalty a tax.

(Maybe we should make it a law for foreign born students of English to buy an American English Dictionary?)

Bold - not related to topic, you silly.

**Foxrac** · 06-29-2012, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diehardbiker

There is guideline that comes in with income, it is called affordablity, if you really can't afford one, governmetn will foot in the cost of insurance just like medicaid. Simple as is. Point here is that whenever one really can afford insurance refuses to buy insurnace, that is where the problem started.

Of course, I agree with you.

**saywhatkid** · 06-29-2012, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

A wet dream since you espoused such positive things about having a nearly non-existent tax burden, lots of time for Facebook, AllDeaf, outdoor activities, and other things. You held them up like a trophy. That's a definition of a liberal wet dream.

I was rubbing your face in it, because I can. I could create several online personalities, just forming them to fit the situation. Who knows the real me? Certainly not you.

And since I need to repeat this every week or two, I am far from being a Liberal. Compared to an Aryan Warrior, I look like a hippie. Got it? I don't lean so far to the side that there is never a doubt of my alignment. I like things from both sides, but the arrogance of the Right is something that keeps me in the middle.

**saywhatkid** · 06-29-2012, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

Yeah, I saw that too.

"Me too!" he says to his big internet brother. I rub your face into my Liberal feces as well.

kokonut · 06-29-2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saywhatkid

I was rubbing your face in it, because I can. I could create several online personalities, just forming them to fit the situation. Who knows the real me? Certainly not you.

And since I need to repeat this every week or two, I am far from being a Liberal. Compared to an Aryan Warrior, I look like a hippie. Got it? I don't lean so far to the side that there is never a doubt of my alignment. I like things from both sides, but the arrogance of the Right is something that keeps me in the middle.

Um, sure. Ok. We'll keep that wet dream of yours a secret.

Steinhauer · 06-30-2012, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Um, sure. Ok. We'll keep that wet dream of yours a secret.

Lets go in the backroom and give all the other conservatives high fives!!!

Ooops .. I said that out loud didn't I?

Steinhauer · 06-30-2012, 01:27 AM

Insurance News - Supreme Court Rules Congress Can Tax; Also Repeal Tax

Quote:

WASHINGTON, June 28 -- Rep. Elton W. Gallegly, R-Calif. (24th CD), issued the following news release:

U.S. Rep. Elton Gallegly (R-CA) released the following statement today after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld President Obama's health care tax on the American people.

"By ruling that the individual mandate is a tax and that the president and Congress have the right to tax, the U.S. Supreme Court exposed President Obama and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's predisposition to tax the American people to pay for big government programs that kill jobs and place unreasonable burdens on all Americans.

"But just as Congress can tax, it can repeal taxes. A recent Reuters poll found that 56 percent of respondents oppose Obamacare and 61 percent oppose the individual mandate tax. I will continue to work with my colleagues to rescind Obamacare and its burdensome taxes and regulations. Then Congress can take a strong look at the health insurance system and our overall health care system, analyze where it can be made more efficient and responsive to patients and health care professionals, and take the steps necessary to make it more accessible and affordable for all Americans without big government taxes."

**Jiro** · 06-30-2012, 01:51 AM

don't even know why ya'all are hyperventilating when people haven't been taxed for it yet. just because Congress can tax it doesn't mean they will. calm down. deep breath.

**Foxrac** · 06-30-2012, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

don't even know why ya'all are hyperventilating when people haven't been taxed for it yet. just because Congress can tax it doesn't mean they will. calm down. deep breath.

The republicans will STFU about ACA eventually like they did to SS and Medicare in past.

"Repeal and Replace" is nothing to us and it is extremely difficult to repeal the ACA now.

ACA will be safe, despite any negative comments from conservatives and republicans. I have serious question - why republicans didn't pass the health care reform during Bush Admin?

rolling7 · 06-30-2012, 09:07 AM

I actually found something to like about Obamacare. The ERs all over America will be empty of unnecessary medical cases. Since everyone will be required to have personal insurance, people, even children, with the flu and other non-life threatening issues will no longer be able to go to the ER. The ERs can go back to only seeing real life threatening cases and all others will have to get a regular doctor appointment like I've been doing all my life. Instead of insurance companies paying a very high cost for a ER visit, they would pay for a regular doctor office visit which is a hella lota cheaper.

diehardbiker · 06-30-2012, 09:09 AM

The problem with those people who are oppising that I am seeing is just the fear of unknown. No one likes the changes, and afraid of the changes. We have been waiting too long for the change to happen.

Steinhauer · 06-30-2012, 09:11 AM

It is not fear of the unknown - it is the fact that people will be "penalized" for not purchasing a product. This has set a precedence that Congress can force citizens to do whatever they wish now.

It is putting the Federal Government between you and your Doctor.

rolling7 · 06-30-2012, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diehardbiker

The problem with those people who are oppising that I am seeing is just the fear of unknown. No one likes the changes, and afraid of the changes. We have been waiting too long for the change to happen.

We really need to wait FOREVER for the government to tell us what to do and what to buy. Don't you agree?

kokonut · 06-30-2012, 10:45 AM

Supreme Court says the mandate is a tax in order for it to be constitutional. The Obama team is now trying to spin that it is not a tax. Wait...what?

**Foxrac** · 06-30-2012, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

It is not fear of the unknown - it is the fact that people will be "penalized" for not purchasing a product. This has set a precedence that Congress can force citizens to do whatever they wish now.

It is putting the Federal Government between you and your Doctor.

If you have health insurance so you will be all good and stop being whining.

No health insurance, even if you can afford so don't seek medical care so we don't want pay to treat you like irresponsible and stubborn brat child.

**Foxrac** · 06-30-2012, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Supreme Court says the mandate is a tax in order for it to be constitutional. The Obama team is now trying to spin that it is not a tax. Wait...what?

See #139.

Not having a health insurance is very irresponsible.

**Jiro** · 06-30-2012, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steinhauer

It is not fear of the unknown - it is the fact that people will be "penalized" for not purchasing a product. This has set a precedence that Congress can force citizens to do whatever they wish now.

It is putting the Federal Government between you and your Doctor.

actually.......... it falls on your state government since it's more of an expansion of Medicaid program.

**Jiro** · 06-30-2012, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Supreme Court says the mandate is a tax in order for it to be constitutional. The Obama team is now trying to spin that it is not a tax. Wait...what?

because it isn't.

Chief Justice Roberts is only saying that Congress can but Obama won't do it. It is you and Conservative pundits who are frothing and hyperventilating over certain keyword like "tax" that didn't even happen.

In case you forgot, you are already paying for Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security taxes automatically withdrawn from your income.

**Jiro** · 06-30-2012, 01:06 PM

Harlan Green: Obamacare -- What Loss of Freedom?

Quote:

Hallelujah. The Supreme Court of our land has given Obamacare a clean constitutional bill of health, thanks to Chief Justice Roberts, who says government does have the power to tax those who can afford to buy health insurance, but won't.

Republicans framed Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, as a loss of individual freedom. But the only freedom lost is the freedom to be treated without having to pay for it, which is what the uninsured do when they have to go to emergency rooms. Most of us have health care, of course, if we have family and children to care for. Individual responsibility really means one should have to pay for their own health care, rather than taxpayers or the already insured.

So why are Republicans so adamantly against it, when they claim to believe in individual responsibility, and the constitution? It is because they might be taxed more, and of course they maintain all taxes are fundamentally evil. They say they abhor any kind of government aid or regulation as if they lived 100 years ago, when everyone had to take care of themselves -- or suffer the consequences. But that was when birth and death rates were far worse than today, and we lived shorter lives. Are there any Republicans who would like to return to those days? Please stand up!

More Americans will be healthy, both physically and financially, since medical bankruptcies will become rarer and serious disease rates should drop, since preventative health care will be encouraged. And simple math tells us that with some 30 million more insured due to the mandate requirement, health care costs will be spread among more users of health care.

So know that health care premiums will drop, since as with Medicare, administrative costs will be severely restricted -- 85 percent of premiums have to be spent on health care -- so that providers cannot as they currently do use more than 25 percent of their premiums just for marketing, which means overselling all those medicines (like erectile dysfunction aids) that choke our daily television screens.

Actually, the real results of what is not yet a universal health care system with 20 million are not being openly discussed, at least yet. It should release a surge of consumer spending, for instance, according to economists such as Robert Shiller. Consumers will no longer have to put so much aside for those sick days because they no longer have to worry so much about budget busting medical bills. They might even enjoy more vacation days to spend with their families, if they take advantage of available preventative care measures for such things as obesity and bad diets.

Yale Economist Robert Shiller has been advocating just such universal insurance for years in books such as The New Financial Order, Risk in the 21st Century, and Finance and the Good Society. It is part of his thesis that with the information age's ability to collate huge amounts of information we can level the playing field against risky outcomes, such as loss of income, or value in one's home, or even serious illness, by insuring against such outcomes.

Quote:

"If firms and individuals cannot insure themselves against bad outcomes, they will be necessarily cautious; the economy will grow more slowly than it should," says a New York Times book review of Finance and The Good Society. "A company will not invest in a new factory if it cannot hedge against swings in exchange rates that might render its investment unprofitable. An individual will not consume to the full extent of his capacity if he cannot insure his house or health."

o at least we are on the way to a better health care system. It's a start.

**Jiro** · 06-30-2012, 01:11 PM

FactCheck.org : How Much Is the Obamacare ‘Tax’?

Quote:

Q: How much will the “tax” penalty be for going without health insurance?

A: The minimum assessment will be $695 per person (but no more than $2,085 per family) in 2016, when fully phased in. The amount can be higher depending on income. But there are exemptions for low-income persons and others.

Quote:

Is It a Tax or a Penalty?

We will be using the terms interchangeably from now on. Whatever you call it, it’s the functional equivalent of a tax, and the Supreme Court has ruled that it is an exercise of the taxing power of Congress.

The law labels the assessment a “penalty” (see Section 5000A) and avoids using the term “tax.” But Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the five justices in the majority, said the penalty can be considered a tax that is within the power of Congress to impose.

His reasons are set out starting on page 33 of the opinion. Among other things, Roberts concluded that the penalty was not intended to be a criminal fine, because those who choose to pay it, rather than honor the mandate to obtain health insurance, would be in full compliance with the law. He also noted that the amount is not prohibitively high:

Quote:

Chief Justice John Roberts: [F]or most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more.

Quote:

How Much?

The minimum amount — per person — will be $695 once the tax is fully phased in. But it will be less to start. The minimum penalty per person will start at $95 in 2014, the first year that the law will require individuals to obtain coverage. And it will rise to $325 the following year.

Starting in 2017, the minimum tax per person will rise each year with inflation. And for children 18 and under, the minimum per-person tax is half of that for adults.

However, the minimum amount per family is capped at triple the per-person tax, no matter how many individuals are in the taxpayer’s household. So, for example, a couple with one child over 18 (or two children age 18 or under), and no coverage, would pay a minimum of $285 in 2014, $975 in 2015 and $2,085 in 2016. And that would be the minimum no matter how many uninsured dependents a taxpayer has.

The tax would be more for persons with higher taxable incomes. When phased in, it will be 2.5 percent of household income that exceeds the income threshold for filing a tax return. For 2011, those thresholds were $9,500 for a single person under age 65, and $19,000 for a married person filing jointly with a spouse. So, to give a rough calculation, a couple with $100,000 of income might pay a tax of $2,025 if they choose to go without coverage.

But the penalty can never exceed the cost of the national average premiums for the lowest-cost “bronze” plans being offered through the new insurance exchanges called for under the law. We have no way of knowing what that average rate might turn out to be in 2014, but there is reason to think it could be quite high. For example, the total cost of a basic Government Employees Health Association plan currently offered through the Federal Employee Health Benefit program (the model for the state insurance exchanges) totals $9,459 per year for a family plan, and $4,159 for individual coverage.

Update, June 29: The cost of a “bronze” plan could be higher, however. In January 2010 the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued this estimate:

Quote:

CBO, Jan. 11, 2010: Overall, CBO estimates that premiums for Bronze plans purchased individually in 2016 would probably average between $4,500 and $5,000 for single policies and between $12,000 and $12,500 for family policies.

Quote:

Who Collects?

The penalty will be collected by the Internal Revenue Service, which is one reason the chief justice cited for considering it to be a tax. In fact, the penalty is spelled out in Title 26 of the U.S. Code — the “Internal Revenue Code” — under Subtitle D — “Miscellaneous Excise Taxes.”

Quote:

Partial Coverage

A tax is assessed for each month that a person is not covered. It is pro-rated, so that a person who is not covered for only a single month would pay 1/12th of the tax that would be due for the full year.

So, for example, the minimum tax per person for failing to get coverage would be $7.92 for each month of 2014, $28.75 for each month of 2015, and $57.92 for each month of 2016, when fully phased in.

Quote:

Refusal to Pay

The law prohibits the IRS from seeking to put anybody in jail or seizing their property for simple refusal to pay the tax. The law says specifically that taxpayers “shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty” for failure to pay, and also that the IRS cannot file a tax lien (a legal claim against such things as homes, cars, wages and bank accounts) or a “levy” (seizure of property or bank accounts).

The law says that the IRS will collect the tax “in the same manner as an assessable penalty under subchapter B of chapter 68” of the tax code. That part of the tax code provides for imposing an additional penalty “equal to the total amount of the tax evaded, or not collected.” It also requires written notices to the taxpayer, and provides for court proceedings.

So it may turn out that the IRS will be suing those who fail to pay the tax for double the amount. But so far, the IRS has not spelled out exactly how it will enforce the new penalty with the limited power the law gives it.

Quote:

Who’s Exempt?

The law makes a number of exemptions for low-income persons and hardship cases.

“Individuals who cannot afford coverage”: If an employer offers coverage that would cost the employee more than 8 percent of his or her household income (for self-only coverage) that individual is exempt from the tax.

“Taxpayers with income below filing threshold”: Also exempt are those who earn too little to be required to file tax returns. For 2011 — as previously mentioned — those thresholds were $9,500 for a single person under age 65, and $19,000 for a married person filing jointly with a spouse, for example. The thresholds go up each year in line with inflation, so those cut-offs will be higher in 2014, when the tax first takes effect.

“Hardships”: The Secretary of Health and Human Services is empowered to exempt others that she or he determines to “have suffered a hardship with respect to the capability to obtain coverage.”

Other exemptions: Also exempt are members of Indian tribes, persons with only brief gaps in coverage, and members of certain religious groups currently exempt from Social Security taxes (which as we’ve previously reported are chiefly Anabaptist — that is, Mennonite, Amish or Hutterite).

Quote:

How Many Will Pay?

In his opinion, Chief Justice Roberts cited an estimate from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office that 4 million would pay, and cited that as a further reason to consider the assessment a tax rather than a penalty. “Congress did not think it was creating four million outlaws,” he suggested.

However, since then, CBO has increased its estimate. In an estimate released in March of this year, CBO projected that the tax would yield $6 billion for the government, up from the $4 billion it estimated two years earlier. That’s a 50 percent higher total, and would seem to imply that CBO now expects about 6 million will be paying. But CBO didn’t give a specific figure for the number of persons it now expects to pay.

**Foxrac** · 06-30-2012, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

because it isn't.

Chief Justice Roberts is only saying that Congress can but Obama won't do it. It is you and Conservative pundits who are frothing and hyperventilating over certain keyword like "tax" that didn't even happen.

In case you forgot, you are already paying for Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security taxes automatically withdrawn from your income.

Also, in Alabama, the Medicaid got funds from state income tax and sale tax, addition to federal funds.

**Reba** · 06-30-2012, 01:41 PM

"Also exempt are members of Indian tribes, persons with only brief gaps in coverage, and members of certain religious groups currently exempt from Social Security taxes (which as we’ve previously reported are chiefly Anabaptist — that is, Mennonite, Amish or Hutterite)."

Interesting.

rolling7 · 06-30-2012, 02:01 PM

Much more interesting is....

"For most Americans the amount due will be FAR less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more."

In other words, the insurance industry will go broke having to cover the cost while receiving less than the cost.

Sock It To Me!!!!!!

**Jiro** · 06-30-2012, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Much more interesting is....

"For most Americans the amount due will be FAR less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more."

In other words, the insurance industry will go broke having to cover the cost while receiving less than the cost.

Sock It To Me!!!!!!

*shrug* so?

karma, you know? they have gone far too long screwing people to bankruptcies.

rolling7 · 06-30-2012, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

*shrug* so?

karma, you know? they have gone far too long screwing people to bankruptcies.

Nice try to point the blame in another direction, which you are now famous for.

Nope, karma is the American people waking up to realize they should have had insurance coverage when they were spending money on cell phones, movies, fast food, having kids they could not insure nor feed, etc. Yes, karma has caught up with these folks.

06-30-2012, 01:51 AM	#133 (permalink)
Jiro Aparecium Deletrius Legil Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 60,540	don't even know why ya'all are hyperventilating when people haven't been taxed for it yet. just because Congress can tax it doesn't mean they will. calm down. deep breath. __________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

06-30-2012, 09:09 AM	#136 (permalink)
diehardbiker Registered User Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: In back of Superduty Posts: 11,284	The problem with those people who are oppising that I am seeing is just the fear of unknown. No one likes the changes, and afraid of the changes. We have been waiting too long for the change to happen. __________________ J-MAC's quote: "People who try and fail are more superior than people who don't try at all" "If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as the souls who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson (1778) Avatar picture is Cape Hatteras light house in OBX.

06-30-2012, 10:45 AM	#139 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Supreme Court says the mandate is a tax in order for it to be constitutional. The Obama team is now trying to spin that it is not a tax. Wait...what? __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

06-29-2012, 11:45 AM	#125 (permalink)
Steinhauer Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 8,191 Blog Entries: 1	And the problem now is Congress bypassed the Commerce Clause and is ordering people to purchase something by calling a penalty a tax. (Maybe we should make it a law for foreign born students of English to buy an American English Dictionary?)

06-30-2012, 09:07 AM	#135 (permalink)
rolling7 Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,340	I actually found something to like about Obamacare. The ERs all over America will be empty of unnecessary medical cases. Since everyone will be required to have personal insurance, people, even children, with the flu and other non-life threatening issues will no longer be able to go to the ER. The ERs can go back to only seeing real life threatening cases and all others will have to get a regular doctor appointment like I've been doing all my life. Instead of insurance companies paying a very high cost for a ER visit, they would pay for a regular doctor office visit which is a hella lota cheaper.

06-30-2012, 09:11 AM	#137 (permalink)
Steinhauer Banned Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 8,191 Blog Entries: 1	It is not fear of the unknown - it is the fact that people will be "penalized" for not purchasing a product. This has set a precedence that Congress can force citizens to do whatever they wish now. It is putting the Federal Government between you and your Doctor.

06-30-2012, 01:41 PM	#147 (permalink)
Reba Granny Terp Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: South Carolina Posts: 39,191	"Also exempt are members of Indian tribes, persons with only brief gaps in coverage, and members of certain religious groups currently exempt from Social Security taxes (which as we’ve previously reported are chiefly Anabaptist — that is, Mennonite, Amish or Hutterite)." Interesting.

06-30-2012, 02:01 PM	#148 (permalink)
rolling7 Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,340	Much more interesting is.... "For most Americans the amount due will be FAR less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more." In other words, the insurance industry will go broke having to cover the cost while receiving less than the cost. Sock It To Me!!!!!!