1. Download the #1 Android News App:   EarlyBird - News for Android
    Dismiss Notice

Individual Healthcare mandate upheld

Last Updated:

  1. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    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.

  2. ylexot

    ylexot Well-Known Member

    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.
  3. persim

    persim Well-Known Member

    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.
  4. ylexot

    ylexot Well-Known Member

    Pretty much.
  5. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    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.
  6. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    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.
    dr g and Gmash like this.
  7. persim

    persim Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    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.
  9. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    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.
  10. Clementine_3

    Clementine_3 Well-Known Member

    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.
    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.
  11. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    If you're poor, there is no penalty. At $695.00 per year, this is a great deal for the lower and middle class.


    "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."
  12. persim

    persim Well-Known Member

    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?

    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.
    atljatl likes this.
  13. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    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

    A regressive tax on the poor? Tell that to all those who have sold their assets due to being beset with illness.
    OutofDate1980 and Gmash like this.
  14. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    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.
    Clementine_3 likes this.
  15. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    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.
  16. saptech

    saptech Well-Known Member

    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.
    Gmash and ElasticNinja like this.
  17. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. persim

    persim Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    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.
  20. ylexot

    ylexot Well-Known Member

    ...and since most people nor Congress actually read the legislation...
  21. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    You act like it's their job to know what they're voting on. That's crazy talk.
  22. ylexot

    ylexot Well-Known Member

    “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
  23. ElasticNinja

    ElasticNinja Well-Known Member

    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.
    Gmash and OutofDate1980 like this.
  24. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    So you'd be ok with the government FORCING you to buy healthy foods and fining you if you didn't?
  25. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    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.

Share This Page