Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Politics and Current Affairs All things political.

Like Tree8Likes

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old June 28th, 2012, 10:37 AM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default Individual Healthcare mandate upheld

The Supreme Court has upheld the individual mandate of Obamacare that requires all individuals to purchase health insurance or face penalties. This is beyond ludicrous. Never before has our government REQUIRED, under penalty of law, that citizens purchase a product.

Advertisements
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 28th, 2012, 12:31 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

I'm starting to understand the ruling though.

Consider buying a home...you get a tax deduction for your mortgage interest. You pay less in taxes if you buy something.

The health insurance mandate and penalty...er...uh...tax is the flip of that. You pay more in taxes if you do not buy something.

Personally, I find both of them to be philosophically wrong.
ylexot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2012, 01:00 PM   #3 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 58
 
Device(s): Samsung Fascinate
Carrier: Page Plus

Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Am I wrong in believing that this ruling effectively gives the government the ability to force you to do anything it wants. As long as it is presented as a tax then it is constitutional?

So regarding the hypothetical broccoli situation. The government passes a law that says all people must buy broccoli. If they do not buy broccoli then a penalty tax can be issued.

If I am interpreting that correctly, this is one of the scariest things I have ever seen.
persim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2012, 01:09 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Pretty much.
ylexot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2012, 02:10 PM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
Am I wrong in believing that this ruling effectively gives the government the ability to force you to do anything it wants. As long as it is presented as a tax then it is constitutional?

So regarding the hypothetical broccoli situation. The government passes a law that says all people must buy broccoli. If they do not buy broccoli then a penalty tax can be issued.

If I am interpreting that correctly, this is one of the scariest things I have ever seen.
This is my understanding. The SC has said it has no jurisdiction to rule on the fairness of a tax and this is a tax according to them.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2012, 03:44 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ylexot View Post
I'm starting to understand the ruling though.

Consider buying a home...you get a tax deduction for your mortgage interest. You pay less in taxes if you buy something.

The health insurance mandate and penalty...er...uh...tax is the flip of that. You pay more in taxes if you do not buy something.

Personally, I find both of them to be philosophically wrong.
Soon after you were conceived you were consuming this service. All the mandate does is discourage freeloading for a service you will use if you like it or not.

Those who have health insurance have been paying this "tax" to the insurance company. The mandate makes this tax explicit and broadens the tax base.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OutofDate1980 For This Useful Post:
dr g (June 28th, 2012), Gmash (June 28th, 2012)
Old June 28th, 2012, 06:11 PM   #7 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 58
 
Device(s): Samsung Fascinate
Carrier: Page Plus

Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Soon after you were conceived you were consuming this service. All the mandate does is discourage freeloading for a service you will use if you like it or not.

Those who have health insurance have been paying this "tax" to the insurance company. The mandate makes this tax explicit and broadens the tax base.
This ruling is an extremely slippery slope.

Having listened to the almost 6 hours of arguments, the government's contention was that insurance is now the default method payment for medical services, I personally disagree with this as I have not had health insurance for 5 years and have paid all my medical bills in full with cash. The uninsured were supposedly freeloading off the rest of the insured public. Once again not exactly sure how that happens considering I have always been given a bill after a doctor visit and paid for the bill.

What is to prevent the government from saying at some point in the future that cell phone service is the default method for communicating emergency services. Every square inch of the US must be covered in cell towers so that people in rural areas can communicate for emergency service purposes. These people have been reaping the benefits of emergency services for years but have not payed anything to the cell phone companies for the purpose of building their networks. The government now institutes a yearly tax on those without cell phone service. This tax increases every year to a point where the tax costs more than the cell phone service itself. The only way to stop paying the tax is to buy cell phone service.

This is just one example of possibly anything the government now has the power to mandate with this ruling. Very worrisome in my opinion.
persim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2012, 06:37 PM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
Soon after you were conceived you were consuming this service. All the mandate does is discourage freeloading for a service you will use if you like it or not.

Those who have health insurance have been paying this "tax" to the insurance company. The mandate makes this tax explicit and broadens the tax base.
Yes, but my parents were paying for it either out of pocket or with their own insurance. This is a regressive tax on the poor who weren't paying for insurance before and is one of the largest tax increases in recent memory. Let's not forget the middle class and wealthy either already have insurance or can afford to pay for medical costs out of pocket.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2012, 08:44 PM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
... I personally disagree with this as I have not had health insurance for 5 years and have paid all my medical bills in full with cash. ...
Then become self insured. All you need is sufficient assets to prove you will not become a ward of the state in the event you encounter serious medical bills.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2012, 09:02 PM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Clementine_3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Down in the park where the Machmen meet the machines and play 'kill by numbers'
Posts: 2,449
 
Device(s): Moto X developer edition
Carrier: Over-priced stooopid Verizon

Thanks: 519
Thanked 704 Times in 578 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
...as I have not had health insurance for 5 years and have paid all my medical bills in full with cash. The uninsured were supposedly freeloading off the rest of the insured public. Once again not exactly sure how that happens considering I have always been given a bill after a doctor visit and paid for the bill.
Most who don't have insurance don't pay their bills. They get picked up by Medicaid or just go unpaid. Either way, those with insurance do end up paying for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
The government now institutes a yearly tax on those without cell phone service. This tax increases every year to a point where the tax costs more than the cell phone service itself.
Substitute almost anything for 'cell phone' and welcome to America. I pay school taxes and have no kids in school. Same difference. Federal or state or city/town, we all pay taxes for things we don't want or need.
I work for a health insurance company and the rates are too high while the coverage is too low. It, like everything else, has changed dramatically over the past years. The good ol' days are over, the government and insurance companies can no longer afford to pick up the tab for the uninsured.
I'm not saying I'm for it, but I can see why it's here.
Clementine_3 is online now  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 28th, 2012, 09:09 PM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
... This is a regressive tax on the poor who weren't paying for insurance before and is one of the largest tax increases in recent memory. Let's not forget the middle class and wealthy either already have insurance or can afford to pay for medical costs out of pocket.
If you're poor, there is no penalty. At $695.00 per year, this is a great deal for the lower and middle class.

https://www.aetna.com/health-reform-connection/questions-answers/individual-mandate.html

"What is the penalty for noncompliance?
The penalty is the greater of:
  • For 2014, $95 per uninsured person or 1 percent of household income over the filing threshold,
  • For 2015, $325 per uninsured person or 2 percent of household income over the filing threshold, and
  • For 2016 and beyond, $695 per uninsured person or 2.5 percent of household income over the filing threshold.
There is a family cap on the flat dollar amount (but not the percentage of income test) of 300 percent, and the overall penalty is capped at the national average premium of a bronze level plan purchases through an exchange. For individuals under 18 years old, the applicable per person penalty is one-half of the amounts listed above.

Beginning in 2017, the penalties will be increased by the cost-of-living adjustment.

Who will be exempt from the mandate?

Individuals who have a religious exemption, those not lawfully present in the United States, and incarcerated individuals are exempt from the minimum essential coverage requirement.

Are there other exceptions to when the penalty may apply?
Yes. A penalty will not be assessed on individuals who:
  1. cannot afford coverage based on formulas contained in the law,
  2. have income below the federal income tax filing threshold,
  3. are members of Indian tribes,
  4. were uninsured for short coverage gaps of less than three months;
  5. have received a hardship waiver from the Secretary, or are residing outside of the United States, or are bona fide residents of any possession of the United States."
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2012, 11:01 PM   #12 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 58
 
Device(s): Samsung Fascinate
Carrier: Page Plus

Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980
Then become self insured. All you need is sufficient assets to prove you will not become a ward of the state in the event you encounter serious medical bills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post

Who will be exempt from the mandate?

Individuals who have a religious exemption, those not lawfully present in the United States, and incarcerated individuals are exempt from the minimum essential coverage requirement.

Are there other exceptions to when the penalty may apply?
Yes. A penalty will not be assessed on individuals who:
  1. cannot afford coverage based on formulas contained in the law,
  2. have income below the federal income tax filing threshold,
  3. are members of Indian tribes,
  4. were uninsured for short coverage gaps of less than three months;
  5. have received a hardship waiver from the Secretary, or are residing outside of the United States, or are bona fide residents of any possession of the United States."
Did I miss something? Is that even an option to prove you have sufficient assets to avoid paying this tax? I am self-employed and don't own a small business?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clementine_3
I pay school taxes and have no kids in school. Same difference. Federal or state or city/town, we all pay taxes for things we don't want or need.
I work for a health insurance company and the rates are too high while the coverage is too low. It, like everything else, has changed dramatically over the past years. The good ol' days are over, the government and insurance companies can no longer afford to pick up the tab for the uninsured.
I have heard the school tax argument and can not agree that it is the same. You knew that if you bought a house that is how the school taxes were levied. You had a choice not to purchase. This is essentially a tax for breathing and there are no other options.

One of the main problems with medical insurance is that it is not used the way insurance is designed. Nobody has car insurance for oil changes or homeowners insurance for a hole in the wall. People are not supposed to be paying $10 for an office visit or $5 for the latest name brand prescription. Insurance is mostly designed for large loss situations. If people actually had to pay the real cost of doctor visits I guarantee there would be less people running to the doctor for minor things.



I also find the judgement upsetting in regards to the fact the law was passed as a penalty, not a tax. I do agree with you that the government has the right to collect taxes and use them for stuff I don't want them to. But this law was specifically passed by congress not as a tax.

The decision essentially allows the court to change the bill without congress and that is unconstitutional. The constitution only allows for congress to pass bills regarding taxes. In that case the bill should have been ruled unconstitutional.

If the wording had been changed to all people will be taxed then it would be valid in my opinion. We cannot have judges essentially rewriting bills to find them valid, that is not their job.
persim is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to persim For This Useful Post:
atljatl (July 5th, 2012)
Old June 29th, 2012, 04:33 AM   #13 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Saw some coverage of this last night on state TV, both sides were so determined, it was ridiculous. I always love the way our reporters talk to them and the crazies say "How is this not Communist?!?", to which the reporter replies with a blank stare and the old "the rest of the developed world has this, we aren't Communist". I think a few million Americans need access to a dictionary

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Yes, but my parents were paying for it either out of pocket or with their own insurance. This is a regressive tax on the poor who weren't paying for insurance before and is one of the largest tax increases in recent memory. Let's not forget the middle class and wealthy either already have insurance or can afford to pay for medical costs out of pocket.
A regressive tax on the poor? Tell that to all those who have sold their assets due to being beset with illness.
__________________
Sign up for Minus online storage and get 10 GB of Free Space today! Sign up Here!
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ElasticNinja For This Useful Post:
Gmash (June 29th, 2012), OutofDate1980 (June 29th, 2012)
Old June 29th, 2012, 06:56 AM   #14 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clementine_3 View Post
The good ol' days are over, the government and insurance companies can no longer afford to pick up the tab for the uninsured.
I'm not saying I'm for it, but I can see why it's here.
Why not have a little personal responsibility and have people pick up the tab for their own health insurance or do without? But then personal responsibility and government dependence don't go hand and hand so that's out of the question.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to A.Nonymous For This Useful Post:
Clementine_3 (June 29th, 2012)
Old June 29th, 2012, 07:00 AM   #15 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
I also find the judgement upsetting in regards to the fact the law was passed as a penalty, not a tax. I do agree with you that the government has the right to collect taxes and use them for stuff I don't want them to. But this law was specifically passed by congress not as a tax.
The judges don't rule on how the law is presented to the public. They rule on how the law actually is. Sure it was presented to the public as a penalty, but the reality is that it is a tax. They didn't re-write the law. They just looked at it and interpreted it.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 07:39 AM   #16 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,676
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 610
Thanked 798 Times in 637 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Why not have a little personal responsibility and have people pick up the tab for their own health insurance or do without?
Isn't this what the mandate is about? Having everyone pay for their healthcare insurance, and the very pooor will be subsidized. Currently, those who do without, if something happens, they goto the ER, which we the taxpayers pay for anyway.

This is similar to how the auto insurance is setup, if you own a vehical, you have to have some type of insurance or face a stiff fine, may have license revoked and/or goto jail.

Just my thoughts.
__________________
If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything! - Sly Stone
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saptech For This Useful Post:
ElasticNinja (June 29th, 2012), Gmash (July 5th, 2012)
Old June 29th, 2012, 08:06 AM   #17 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saptech View Post
Isn't this what the mandate is about? Having everyone pay for their healthcare insurance, and the very pooor will be subsidized. Currently, those who do without, if something happens, they goto the ER, which we the taxpayers pay for anyway.

This is similar to how the auto insurance is setup, if you own a vehical, you have to have some type of insurance or face a stiff fine, may have license revoked and/or goto jail.

Just my thoughts.
It's FORCING people to buy a product. Completely different from auto insurance. If I don't own a car, I don't have to buy auto insurance. The auto insurance I have to buy protects the OTHER driver, not me. If I smash into someone and my car gets totaled and I've only got the legally mandated insurance, I'm up a creek.

This is making stupidity illegal which makes no sense at all.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 09:22 AM   #18 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 58
 
Device(s): Samsung Fascinate
Carrier: Page Plus

Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
They rule on how the law actually is.
They can only rule on what is written. It is congress's job to write and present the law. The law was not written as a tax. If it had been, there is a very strong possibility it could not have been passed in congress. As I previously said if the law had been written as a tax, I believe it would have been legal. If this is the way the court interpreted it, then the law needed to be rewritten and passed again with the correct nomenclature.
persim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 10:06 AM   #19 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
They can only rule on what is written. It is congress's job to write and present the law. The law was not written as a tax. If it had been, there is a very strong possibility it could not have been passed in congress. As I previously said if the law had been written as a tax, I believe it would have been legal. If this is the way the court interpreted it, then the law needed to be rewritten and passed again with the correct nomenclature.
The law was written as a tax. It was not pitched to the people as a tax, but it was written that way. That is the Supreme Court ruling. How you pitch something to Congress or your constituents is completely different in how something is actually written.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 10:23 AM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
The law was written as a tax. It was not pitched to the people as a tax, but it was written that way. That is the Supreme Court ruling. How you pitch something to Congress or your constituents is completely different in how something is actually written.
...and since most people nor Congress actually read the legislation...
ylexot is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 29th, 2012, 11:53 AM   #21 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ylexot View Post
...and since most people nor Congress actually read the legislation...
You act like it's their job to know what they're voting on. That's crazy talk.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 11:59 AM   #22 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ylexot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Saint Inigoes, MD
Posts: 2,336
 
Device(s): VZW Galaxy S3, Transformer Prime, Droid X (ret)
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 17
Thanked 403 Times in 324 Posts
Default

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
- James Madison
ylexot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 12:10 PM   #23 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
It's FORCING people to buy a product. Completely different from auto insurance. If I don't own a car, I don't have to buy auto insurance. The auto insurance I have to buy protects the OTHER driver, not me. If I smash into someone and my car gets totaled and I've only got the legally mandated insurance, I'm up a creek.

This is making stupidity illegal which makes no sense at all.
Yeah, I mean its not like people even need healthcare, I mean I'm pretty sure it isnt a basic human necessity that is needed to run an economy or anything.

Healthcare is more necessary than anything probably apart from nutrition. That people go without it and then are forced to rely on others is absolute madness that does not occur in ANY OTHER COUNTRY. The US does not exist in a seperate universe, it is bound by the same laws of nature, economics, etc as anywhere else.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ElasticNinja For This Useful Post:
Gmash (July 5th, 2012), OutofDate1980 (June 29th, 2012)
Old June 29th, 2012, 01:07 PM   #24 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Yeah, I mean its not like people even need healthcare, I mean I'm pretty sure it isnt a basic human necessity that is needed to run an economy or anything.

Healthcare is more necessary than anything probably apart from nutrition. That people go without it and then are forced to rely on others is absolute madness that does not occur in ANY OTHER COUNTRY. The US does not exist in a seperate universe, it is bound by the same laws of nature, economics, etc as anywhere else.
So you'd be ok with the government FORCING you to buy healthy foods and fining you if you didn't?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 01:17 PM   #25 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
The Supreme Court has upheld the individual mandate of Obamacare that requires all individuals to purchase health insurance or face penalties. This is beyond ludicrous. Never before has our government REQUIRED, under penalty of law, that citizens purchase a product.
I can hardly wait until those invoices for "free" health care start arriving. Unless the bill is killed and replaced by something else, expect large bills each year for your free band aids, pills, unguents and other things.

Part of me wants it gone and part of me wants Americans to first rejoice that their HC is free then suffer the bills and invoices they get at year's end.

I think we will see lots of mad people when the bills arrive and they know that the government--because the IRS is involved--will be collected. No big secret why the IRS was selected to collect.

The IRS is tasked (they are hiring thousands of new employees) with collection and they can take payment from your bank account. Not paying is not an option.

God Bless Us Everyone.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 01:24 PM   #26 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
Am I wrong in believing that this ruling effectively gives the government the ability to force you to do anything it wants. As long as it is presented as a tax then it is constitutional?

So regarding the hypothetical broccoli situation. The government passes a law that says all people must buy broccoli. If they do not buy broccoli then a penalty tax can be issued.

If I am interpreting that correctly, this is one of the scariest things I have ever seen.
Yup. Apparently it does. We should all be frightened. We could once depend on the SC but apparently, they are ignoring the constitution. If anyone thinks the SC's ruling was a win, they need to read a freaking book.

The ruling is so very dangerous, I wonder what is next? Some state decides to ban guns and the SC agrees?
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 01:25 PM   #27 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
So you'd be ok with the government FORCING you to buy healthy foods and fining you if you didn't?
Is that not completely different? Besides, you dont force people to eat, as they have insincts. The instincts to get healthcare cover aren't as strong

Also healthy foods is debatable, its probably better to eat tons of biscuits than to consume so much red meat. Anyway, there are tons of ways to get nutrition reasonably, not so with healthcare. Hopefully some states will see the advantage of mandated healthcare and go the whole hog with full universal healthcare for everyone, but I wouldn't be particularly optimistic.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 02:23 PM   #28 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Is that not completely different? Besides, you dont force people to eat, as they have insincts. The instincts to get healthcare cover aren't as strong

Also healthy foods is debatable, its probably better to eat tons of biscuits than to consume so much red meat. Anyway, there are tons of ways to get nutrition reasonably, not so with healthcare. Hopefully some states will see the advantage of mandated healthcare and go the whole hog with full universal healthcare for everyone, but I wouldn't be particularly optimistic.
So because people choose to do something that is stupid, they should be penalized?
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 02:51 PM   #29 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
Did I miss something? Is that even an option to prove you have sufficient assets to avoid paying this tax? I am self-employed and don't own a small business? ...
You don't pay the penalty if you have health insurance.

By your question, you don't have the assets to be self insured, so by 2014 you will need to gain employment by a entity that provides health insurance or pay a penalty.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 02:56 PM   #30 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
So you'd be ok with the government FORCING you to buy healthy foods and fining you if you didn't?
There's a long history of taxing you for unhealthy consumption, think tobacco, alcohol, etc.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 29th, 2012, 03:30 PM   #31 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 58
 
Device(s): Samsung Fascinate
Carrier: Page Plus

Thanks: 1
Thanked 14 Times in 13 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
You don't pay the penalty if you have health insurance.

By your question, you don't have the assets to be self insured, so by 2014 you will need to gain employment by a entity that provides health insurance or pay a penalty.
I have plenty of assets to buy health insurance or self insure. I choose not to purchase health insurance because I see it as an extreme waste of money and pay for exactly what medical services I use in cash.

So your claim that I could prove financial security and self insure was completely made up.
persim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 03:42 PM   #32 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
It's FORCING people to buy a product. ...
It's FORCING people to pay for a product.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OutofDate1980 For This Useful Post:
jhtalisman (July 5th, 2012)
Old June 29th, 2012, 03:49 PM   #33 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
I have plenty of assets to buy health insurance or self insure. ...
Great to know you can self insure, get started on the paper work, you will need to transfer assets to a third party and you won't need to worry about a penalty.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 05:25 PM   #34 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
There's a long history of taxing you for unhealthy consumption, think tobacco, alcohol, etc.
Yes, but you can opt out of those taxes by not buying those products. No one forces you to buy those products. Here the feds are taxing you for NOT buying something.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 08:58 PM   #35 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

International - Laurie Garrett - The U.S. Promotes Universal Health Care, but Only in Other Countries - The Atlantic

"The Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act opens the possibility that the United States may now begin to domestically implement policies that foreign aid agencies and the Department of Defense have long supported, both politically and economically, as elements of U.S. foreign policy. It may now be possible to harmonize longstanding U.S. foreign and domestic policies regarding healthcare access for poor and middle class peoples."
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 09:30 PM   #36 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
Yes, but you can opt out of those taxes by not buying those products. No one forces you to buy those products. Here the feds are taxing you for NOT buying something.
You can't opt out of services provided by the military, police, fire department, etc., even if you never intend to use the product or have the means to pay.

Heath care is a product that you will use, regardless of your intent or means to pay.

One cannot opt out, so the question is if one can be forced to pay within one's means for this product that will be consumed at some point in time.

The majority position of S.C. is that it is constitutional, but five of the Justices agreed it was not justified under the Commerce Clause.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 10:10 PM   #37 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
You can't opt out of services provided by the military, police, fire department, etc., even if you never intend to use the product or have the means to pay.

Heath care is a product that you will use, regardless of your intent or means to pay.

One cannot opt out, so the question is if one can be forced to pay within one's means for this product that will be consumed at some point in time.

The majority position of S.C. is that it is constitutional, but five of the Justices agreed it was not justified under the Commerce Clause.
It was ruled constitutional because they ruled that it is a tax. And it's an insane tax at that. Look at something like homeowners insurance. Should I be required by law to have it? If a tornado comes through and wipes out my house (and I live in tornado alley) and I have no insurance is it reasonable for me to expect the government to pay to rebuild my house? Of course not. Should I then be required by law to carry home owner's insurance? Of course not. Yet we're making the same identical argument with health insurance.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 11:10 PM   #38 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,676
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 610
Thanked 798 Times in 637 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
I have plenty of assets to buy health insurance or self insure. I choose not to purchase health insurance because I see it as an extreme waste of money and pay for exactly what medical services I use in cash.

So your claim that I could prove financial security and self insure was completely made up.
You must have plenty of money. I hope all the times you've been to the hospital/doctor, things were minor.

What happens if you have a serious situation, such as emergency surgery, and spend 30 days or more in hospital? What happens if you need important medical attention for the rest of your life? Will you continue to be able to pay yourself?

I'm just curious.
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to saptech For This Useful Post:
Gmash (July 5th, 2012)
Old June 29th, 2012, 11:13 PM   #39 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,676
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 610
Thanked 798 Times in 637 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
It's FORCING people to buy a product. Completely different from auto insurance. If I don't own a car, I don't have to buy auto insurance. The auto insurance I have to buy protects the OTHER driver, not me. If I smash into someone and my car gets totaled and I've only got the legally mandated insurance, I'm up a creek.

This is making stupidity illegal which makes no sense at all.
It's still some form of gov't FORCING you to buy it, like it or not.
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 29th, 2012, 11:24 PM   #40 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Before this law passed you paid more for medical care to take care of all the freeloaders.

Now you will pay more for your insurance to pay for the freeloaders to have insurance.
metz65 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old June 30th, 2012, 08:56 AM   #41 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saptech View Post
It's still some form of gov't FORCING you to buy it, like it or not.
No, it's not. If I don't own a car I'm not forced to buy car insurance.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2012, 12:06 PM   #42 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
No, it's not. If I don't own a car I'm not forced to buy car insurance.
Just Waite, at the present course our government is on you may be forced to even if you don't own a car. That way the freeloading ones who don't have it will be able to have it subsidized and handed to them.
metz65 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2012, 01:49 PM   #43 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by persim View Post
I have plenty of assets to buy health insurance or self insure. I choose not to purchase health insurance because I see it as an extreme waste of money and pay for exactly what medical services I use in cash.
Self insuring is not an adequate solution for 90%+ of the population, especially when it would seem the vast majority of self insuring folks in the US are the poorest, and when they do find themselves ill they do not have the liquid assets to cover the costs of treatment and are forced to sell their home, car, etc. Certainly not a workable situation for a developed economy, it also increases dependence on charity, reduces quality of life, decreases worker productivity, increases cost to the state, etc.

The way I see it, everyone should have to take out their own insurance, insurance should be regulated extensively by the state, and premiums should be subsidised for those on lower incomes.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2012, 02:16 PM   #44 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by metz65 View Post
Before this law passed you paid more for medical care to take care of all the freeloaders.

Now you will pay more for your insurance to pay for the freeloaders to have insurance.
Damn freeloaders! Why dont they just earn more despite the fact that wages have stagnated for 30 years??
saptech likes this.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2012, 03:37 PM   #45 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 17
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElasticNinja View Post
Damn freeloaders! Why dont they just earn more despite the fact that wages have stagnated for 30 years??
More excuses less personal responsibility.
metz65 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2012, 04:13 PM   #46 (permalink)
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by saptech View Post
It's still some form of gov't FORCING you to buy it, like it or not.
You're not FORCED to do anything...someone made a comment about how most haven't read the law...I guess that includes everyone in this thread, too? Read the law---neither the government nor any of its agents or potential contractors have ANY method, legal means nor provision whatsoever to collect on the "fine" for not buying insurance. Not only is it a very small fee for almost all Americans (less than $100 in most cases), but the law specifically states that the gov't can't do anything to collect if you don't pay...that means no leins, no suing, no nothing. The law specifically outlaws them from using any of the methods that the IRS and other public and private entities use to collect delinquent fines and fees. You can scoff at the "fine" for not buying insurance and do so with total impunity.

Where I come from (the English-speaking, politically objective/pragmatic and rationally thinking world), that's not much of a MANDATE at all, now is it? You don't want to buy insurance? So don't. Nothing will happen to you as a result of the government...you'll just be subject to your own stupidity and/or lack of financial resources when you inevitably get sick.

People need to stop misrepresenting the truth...anyone bitching about the fake mandate is probably sharing a damaged brain with Glenn Beck. We pay nearly twice as much for healthcare in the US compared to every other industrialized 1st-world country, and yet tens of millions are un- or under-insured. Those people don't go to the doctor at all..if they have to, they go to the emergency room--and then the rest of us subsidize it, and of course E-room treatment is the most expensive form of care of all.

Anything that gets a large chunk of those folks getting preventative care instead of waiting till defcon 5 and going to the emergency room with no insurance is at least a step in the right direction.
smb282 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2012, 04:49 PM   #47 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
ElasticNinja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Cork City, IMF, EU
Posts: 4,488
 
Device(s): Galaxy S3 Mini, ZTE Blade
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 811
Thanked 460 Times in 408 Posts
ciaranhurley0@gmail.com
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by metz65 View Post
More excuses less personal responsibility.
Well I guess you could say that many of those people should stop voting against their interests, I'm not sure where else personal responsibility comes into it.
ElasticNinja is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2012, 06:09 PM   #48 (permalink)
Senior Member
Thread Author (OP)
 
A.Nonymous's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,061
 
Device(s): Motorola Razr M, Galaxy Tab 10.1 I/O edition
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 66
Thanked 971 Times in 704 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smb282 View Post
You're not FORCED to do anything...someone made a comment about how most haven't read the law...I guess that includes everyone in this thread, too? Read the law---neither the government nor any of its agents or potential contractors have ANY method, legal means nor provision whatsoever to collect on the "fine" for not buying insurance. Not only is it a very small fee for almost all Americans (less than $100 in most cases), but the law specifically states that the gov't can't do anything to collect if you don't pay...that means no leins, no suing, no nothing. The law specifically outlaws them from using any of the methods that the IRS and other public and private entities use to collect delinquent fines and fees. You can scoff at the "fine" for not buying insurance and do so with total impunity.

Where I come from (the English-speaking, politically objective/pragmatic and rationally thinking world), that's not much of a MANDATE at all, now is it? You don't want to buy insurance? So don't. Nothing will happen to you as a result of the government...you'll just be subject to your own stupidity and/or lack of financial resources when you inevitably get sick.

People need to stop misrepresenting the truth...anyone bitching about the fake mandate is probably sharing a damaged brain with Glenn Beck. We pay nearly twice as much for healthcare in the US compared to every other industrialized 1st-world country, and yet tens of millions are un- or under-insured. Those people don't go to the doctor at all..if they have to, they go to the emergency room--and then the rest of us subsidize it, and of course E-room treatment is the most expensive form of care of all.

Anything that gets a large chunk of those folks getting preventative care instead of waiting till defcon 5 and going to the emergency room with no insurance is at least a step in the right direction.
None of this is true. The fine goes up to $695 in 2017 (unless I'm mistaken) so it is a significant fine. Plus, the IRS is given the ability to collect said fine. So yes, the feds have the ability to collect it.

My source - http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/29/pf/taxes/health_insurance_mandate/

Edit: I was wrong about the fine. By 2016, the penalty is $2085 per family or 2.5% annual income whichever is greater. For a single adult it's $625.
A.Nonymous is offline  
Last edited by A.Nonymous; June 30th, 2012 at 07:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2012, 09:58 PM   #49 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 261
Thanked 128 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A.Nonymous View Post
No, it's not. If I don't own a car I'm not forced to buy car insurance.
The analogy to car insurance fails. Your body is not a car.

Hospitals must treat you, regardless of your ability to pay.

The mandate will lower costs to those who have health insurance.
One, by treating people prior cost escalation.
Two, by making those that can afford insurance, but gambled and lost, pay, rather than filing for bankruptcy.
OutofDate1980 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2012, 10:23 PM   #50 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
saptech's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 3,676
 
Device(s): Motorola Moto G, Samsung Stratosphere, Galaxy Tab 2 SE.
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 610
Thanked 798 Times in 637 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OutofDate1980 View Post
The analogy to car insurance fails. Your body is not a car.

Hospitals must treat you, regardless of your ability to pay.

At a certain point it does. If you don't own a car you will not need auto insurance.
If you don't have health insurance, the only way you won't need medical attention is if you die before reaching the hospital.

@metz65, what happens to the thousands, if not millions, who have been laid off their jobs and lost their insurance and can't afford to pay? Are they freeloaders?
saptech is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Forums Community > The Lounge > Politics and Current Affairs
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.