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

    It really doesn't fail. The legally required car insurance covers the other guy, not you. I'm not required to have insurance that covers my car. If I wrap my car around a tree, I'm up a creek. I'm not required to have insurance that covers me. With health insurance, the feds are requiring you to cover yourself.

    Show me another example where you are taxed for NOT doing something.

  2. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Not necessarily, autopsies are often performed to determine cause of death.​
  3. Bob Maxey

    Bob Maxey Well-Known Member

    The SC made its ruling and that DOES NOT mean the next President cannot kill it off. My fear is the next El-presidente will not kill the bill. God help us if it is Obama.

    Second, read the 2600 page bill and get back to me. There are things hidden in the bill that should scare you. No matter what Congress or Obama says, what is written down is all that matters.

    i think there is a provision in the bill that says if your employer makes the slightest change to your coverage, it goes away. Some will be exempt but most will pay lots at the end of the year. Those new RS hires will be very busy and the public will likely learn that when you get what you ask for, it is sometimes not what you think you want.
  4. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    i think there is a provision in the bill that says if your employer murders you your coverage goes away and your employer's action is justified homicide in that it was a reduction in force.

    Read the 2600 page bill and get back to me.:p
  5. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Payment for health insurance covers everybody else that would otherwise have to pay for the uninsured, i.e. harm to those that have health insurance.

    I guess it depends on how the question is framed. If you fail to do something within your ability to do and this inaction causes harm to others, can the government impose sanctions ?

    Is the government promoting personal responsibility ? Is this a bad thing ?

    The government imposes penalties for NOT doing the following:

    Failure of 18 year old males to register for the draft.​
    Failure to maintain your property.​
    Failure to maintain your vehicle.​
    Failure to file tax returns.​
    Failure to care for your children.​
    Failure to maintain a safe working environment.​
    Failure to have health insurance. (Effective 2014)

    The list is very extensive.​
  6. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Those are crimes under the law. Failure to have health insurance isn't a crime. It's a cause for a tax. Big difference. There's a big difference between punishing someone for something that is a criminal act under the law and taxing someone for not purchasing a product.
  7. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

  8. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    So your argument is that not having health insurance should be a crime ?

    Throw the freeloaders under the jail ?
  9. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    No. My argument is the feds shouldn't force you to buy a product. I can't think of any other situations where you are taxed for not buying something.
  10. jhtalisman

    jhtalisman Well-Known Member Contributor

    So everyone thinks that having the uninsured being a burden without penalty on the insured's health insurance premiums and hospital/doctor's bills is ok? We (the insured) have shouldered the responsibility long enough and frankly I am tired of it. The new law should lower premiums paid by employer/employee and allow the difference to be put towards increasing wages, other benefits, etc. The preventative care mandate alone is reason for it, as most major health issues can be caught early and therefore cost of treatment is drastically reduced. Most people do not go to the doctor until it is too late, and preventative care costs are a major reason why. Diagnostic tests are expensive.

    My employer currently pays ~ $15,000 a year for my family's healthcare coverage. If others were forced to take personal responsibility for their healthcare costs and coverage, that amount would go down significantly along with the billed costs.
  11. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    The new law won't lower premiums though. The logic behind this is sheer insanity. It kind of goes like this.

    1. There are a bunch of people who are uninsured.
    2. They are uninsured because they either choose to not buy insurance or they can't afford it with the majority falling in the second category.
    3. The solution is to pass a law requiring that everyone buy insurance and we'll subsidize those who can't afford to.

    How does that make sense? Would it not make more sense to address the problem of why it costs so much more to provide healthcare in this country than it does elsewhere? That is the root of the problem. Of course that involves politicians being the pockets of various lobbies so we don't want to talk about that. I had several clients who were healthcare providers. None of them were fans of this bill as they all claimed it would drive their costs up. Who do you think they're going to pass those costs along to?
  12. saptech

    saptech Well-Known Member

    Yes, let's make this about anything BUT health insurance companies practices, which are squeezing the actual health care providers (you know, the ones who actually do the medical work). It's why doctors have less and less time to spend with each patient. And why health insurance costs quadruple over the last few decades. And why, as costs for services rise, insurance companies increasingly make money by denying healthcare coverage instead of providing it.
  13. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    But Congress can't address those problems because those same health insurance companies are lining their pockets.
  14. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    OK, now we're talking cost efficiency. My understanding is health cost is about 18% of US GDP, so I believe Obama/Romney care is a small step in cost containment.

    Concentrated insurance companies have a vested financial interest. Do we replace them with a single payer system ? Tough battle, as their leaders will finance public officials that will protect pricing power.​
  15. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I find it extremely hard to believe that the feds getting involved in anything is going to make it more cost efficient.
  16. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    CBO projects net saving of $138 billion over 1st 10-year period and $1.2 trillion over the following 10 year period.
  17. ylexot

    ylexot Well-Known Member

    Has the CBO ever gotten an estimate right?
  18. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    I find that extremely difficult to believe given that the business managers that I've spoken to said the opposite. These are people who are in the business of making money by providing healthcare services and they're telling me they are going to make less money under Obamacare.
  19. OutofDate1980

    OutofDate1980 Well-Known Member

    Estimates are predictions, therefor not perfect.

    How nonpartisan is the Congressional Budget Office? - Slate Magazine

    "A study in the journal Polity examined the accuracy of economic forecasts made by the White House, the Federal Reserve, and the CBO between 1979 and 1997. During that time, the administration's forecasts were the least accurate and the CBO's were the most accurate. (The Fed forecasted inflation as accurately as the CBO but wasn't as good on gross-national-product growth and unemployment.) The study also found partisan bias in the White House forecasts: Republican administrations tend to exaggerate inflation while Democratic ones exaggerate unemployment. Neither of these tendencies shows up in the CBO's projections."
  20. Darkencypher

    Darkencypher Well-Known Member

    $$$$$ that's why it costs so much here. When corporations can buy our reps we get f***ed. Obamacare is a small step in the right direction that hopefully ends with universal healthcare!
  21. ylexot

    ylexot Well-Known Member

    They may be the most accurate government estimates, but they are still absolute garbage. I'll put it to you again...have they ever even been close?
  22. jhtalisman

    jhtalisman Well-Known Member Contributor

    Insanity? Not quite.

    The more insured people there are, the less the cost will have to be divided up onto everyone's medical bills.

    The high cost of healthcare is directly related to the uninsured who go to the hospital and do not pay their medical bills. Those "losses" are put into the insured's bills by way of higher charges.

    And the same group, doctors, also claim they will be put out of business by this law, when, in fact, they will most likely make more money due to the increased likelihood of receiving payment.

    Common sense is not so common.

    My wife went to the ER for abdominal pain in May. The billed amount from the hospital was just shy of $10,000. With the in-network discount, the total amount paid by my health insurance was $3400.

    In the past 2 years, my family has used $80,000+ of billed services (not counting the surgery I had this past Friday), but after the in-network discount was applied, the paid amount by the insurance company was a hair over $40,000 (not counting the surgery I had this past Friday).

    No wonder the uninsured can't pay their bills if they are 2-3x what an insured person's would be, yet they can't see how this benefits them! Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

    High costs are also related to undetected conditions that are not found until they have reached an advanced stage, requiring extensive and expensive treatment. How does the Affordable Care Act counteract this? Preventative screenings are at no out of pocket cost to the patient. The reason for these conditions not being detected is simple: diagnostic screenings cost thousands of dollars, which many people simply cannot afford if their out of pocket maximum costs have not been met. An EKG, which detects heart abnormalities, recently cost $4000 billed, $2400 paid, for my 5 month old daughter who was born with a heart murmur. This was her 2nd EKG since leaving the hospital after birth, thankfully this one came with the news that the murmur had closed up and is no longer present.
  23. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    More insured people means less cost just ignores the question of who is going to pay for those insured people.
  24. jhtalisman

    jhtalisman Well-Known Member Contributor

    The insured and/or taxpayers already do. It's something the GOP will not come out and say, because they are afraid to admit that little will change in that aspect.

    As far as premiums go, they have averaged a 14-20% increase year over year regardless. That is why full fledged healthcare reform is needed. This is a stepping stone to get there.
  25. A.Nonymous

    A.Nonymous Well-Known Member

    Logically, creating more demand for a product of limited availability is going to drive prices up, not down.

Share This Page