Obamacare Stands/Insurance Mandate, er, Tax Upheld

I am really surprised that you push for this corporate money grab vs. government coverage as most of the other "civil" countries have.

I am really surprised that you feel the need to co-opt my sig/handle to fight your anonymous battle...

I don't converse with cowards.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

pineinthegrass wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: How would this be the "largest tax" in history? It only applies to a very small percentage of the population, that is, it only appliies to those individuals WITHOUT insurance, which is at most 15 - 20%, and then only to those who could afford the insurance, which will probably be around 5% (picking that number out of the air), and then it is only a modest amount, no more than .025 of an individuals taxable income beginning at a max of $95 in 2014 and capping at $645 or so by 2016. It may be that no one is subject to the penalty, and at most only a small percentage and then only a modest amount. Hardly the "largest tax" in history. Further, lower income individuals will be given credits towards premiums, and small business owners will be given substantial tax credits towards employee health insurance.

Also, as I recall, the law does not give the IRS the power to enforce collection of the penalty. They cannot attach your wages or collect from your bank account. They can only hold back your refund, but you could adjust your withholding to withhold less tax and avoid a refund.

Serious question, I wonder if the premiums you are required to pay are considered a tax? I'm not clear on that part. If so, it would be a huge tax increase for those who did not already have insurance.

The premiums you pay for insurance go solely to the private insurance companies. Why would they be considered a tax?

According to the CBO, the mandate will affect only about 7 million out of over 250 million individuals.

Since the decision just came today, I was just asking a question. I'm guessing you are probably correct regarding premiums.

The mandate wasn't considered a tax by the Dems, but now the Supreme Court has ruled it is one. But the mandate was to be collected by the IRS which makes it seem more of a tax.

The insurance premiums do go to the insurance companies. But if you didn't have insurance before, but now get it because of the demand from the federal health care law, in effect isn't that like a tax too? Probably not, but just asking.

The one other thing which hasn't been mentioned here is the subsidy mid to high income people would have to pay beyond their insurance bill. This subsidy (up to $2200 in 2016 as I recall) is to reduce premiums for lower income people. I think the subsidy would be paid to the federal government, but not certain. If so, that sure sounds like a tax, and it's a pretty hefty one.

Again, this is just for discussion and I'm not making any conclusions at this point. I'm not sure it's all clear at this point.

Lady Jazzer wrote: But as I pay more for my insurance and my sister needs help because she and my nephew just had their apartment burned and have no where to live, where do I get money to help her? Do I call my senator or will you help.

I had all the money I needed to get by and enough to help others, like my family and friends, but you forced me to spend extra on insurance for your family and friends and now I don't have extra (remember this is not the first time you reallocated my money, it's like the 678th this year alone).

But I rather expect that that's outside of your head. Have you even offered one person in need even $10 towards their health insurance in the last week, you seem so willing to spend millions of other people's money for your good cause (risk insurance to cover medical expenses), how about just paying $10 more per week than those that don't want to but will anyway? These are your morals. regardless of the laws, I assume you would help anyone you found in need till you were in need yourself, right? or is that outside of your head to as you figure out how to make me work more hours for no return, aka servitude.

I once had a state rep that told me that if I could pay my bills, he was not taxing me enough, looking for a mate? I could give you his #.

Also today there are states you can move to and get cancer coverage the day after you get there for <$200 a month even if you show up with no arms and already riddled with cancer, using no federal laws, even if you live in CO and just hit your lifetime limit. But that's outside your state, let alone head.

Popcorn eater, very funny. Change it back.

Lady Jazzer is finally saying stuff that makes sense. Pretty much everyone I know who is in favor of Obamacare fits into two catagories-

(1) They expect somthing for nothing- they think they will wind up ahead because someone else will be paying their expenses. Basically these are your typical freeloader looter types. These are the people who either can't pull their own weight to pay for their own medical expenses or health insurance- or are just too lazy to do it because it's easier to let people who actually work for a living pay for it.

OR
(2) They have some personal experience with a health care expense that either they or a family member could not afford- so they advocate for a socialized system to get society to pay for it. My son had cancer- or my husband had a heart attack. They recieved care worth thousands of dollars- accepted the care but not the responsibility of paying for it.

And they have no problem expecting me to pay for it.

This is what we have become here in the USSA- no longer do we take personal responsibility for our own expenses- we now look to the government to take care of us- a task that they are all too happy to take on, but completely unqualified to deliver. They will screw it up big time.

Sorry if that sounds harsh- but it's the real truth, and someone has to say it. I read through the thread on healcare on that other site this morning too- every person for this law has some personal sad sob story about why they support it.

No sad stories about those of us who have to pay for it.

BearMtnHIB wrote: Lady Jazzer is finally saying stuff that makes sense. Pretty much everyone I know who is in favor of Obamacare fits into two catagories-

(1) They expect somthing for nothing- they think they will wind up ahead because someone else will be paying their expenses. Basically these are your typical freeloader looter types. These are the people who either can't pull their own weight to pay for their own medical expenses or health insurance- or are just too lazy to do it because it's easier to let people who actually work for a living pay for it.

OR
(2) They have some personal experience with a health care expense that either they or a family member could not afford- so they advocate for a socialized system to get society to pay for it. My son had cancer- or my husband had a heart attack. They recieved care worth thousands of dollars- accepted the care but not the responsibility of paying for it.

And they have no problem expecting me to pay for it.

This is what we have become here in the USSA- no longer do we take personal responsibility for our own expenses- we now look to the government to take care of us- a task that they are all too happy to take on, but completely unqualified to deliver. They will screw it up big time.

Sorry if that sounds harsh- but it's the real truth, and someone has to say it. I read through the thread on healcare on that other site this morning too- every person for this law has some personal sad sob story about why they support it.

No sad stories about those of us who have to pay for it.

The only individuals that I know who oppose ACA are those who have never bothered to read it and have no understanding of how it actually will work. No one is asking you to pay for their insurance, only that you have it yourself.

Got me there, I don't know anyone who has read and digested those 2700 pages.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

BearMtnHIB wrote: Lady Jazzer is finally saying stuff that makes sense. Pretty much everyone I know who is in favor of Obamacare fits into two catagories-

(1) They expect somthing for nothing- they think they will wind up ahead because someone else will be paying their expenses. Basically these are your typical freeloader looter types. These are the people who either can't pull their own weight to pay for their own medical expenses or health insurance- or are just too lazy to do it because it's easier to let people who actually work for a living pay for it.

OR
(2) They have some personal experience with a health care expense that either they or a family member could not afford- so they advocate for a socialized system to get society to pay for it. My son had cancer- or my husband had a heart attack. They recieved care worth thousands of dollars- accepted the care but not the responsibility of paying for it.

And they have no problem expecting me to pay for it.

This is what we have become here in the USSA- no longer do we take personal responsibility for our own expenses- we now look to the government to take care of us- a task that they are all too happy to take on, but completely unqualified to deliver. They will screw it up big time.

Sorry if that sounds harsh- but it's the real truth, and someone has to say it. I read through the thread on healcare on that other site this morning too- every person for this law has some personal sad sob story about why they support it.

No sad stories about those of us who have to pay for it.

The only individuals that I know who oppose ACA are those who have never bothered to read it and have no understanding of how it actually will work. No one is asking you to pay for their insurance, only that you have it yourself.

Who pays for the catastrophic preexisting condition patients that need rather expensive care? And who pays for those people who can't have it for themselves?

Well Dog, I read it, at least all the detailed summaries on various news sites. Another broad brush?

It's constitutional. Bitches.

That is a funny line too. We didn't hear that when the Citizens United decision was passed though. Haha

Enjoy your victory for now. Good luck.

Democracy4Sale wrote:

Martin Ent Inc wrote: No illegals already get free care.

You're a liar... Non-citizens are not covered... Of course, they are still free to go to emergency rooms, where their expenses will STILL be passed on to taxpayers in the form of higher premiums. So, even though covering them would result in lower overall costs, you can lay your sociopathic head down tonight secure in the knowledge that they won't be covered....

What part of "emergency rooms" are you having trouble with?

We should be able to do away with the "must be treated regardless of ability to pay" federal law now that we have a new, more restrictive law, which says that you must participate in commerce of the government's choosing or be taxed for failing to do so, right?

Will the federal government next say that you don't have to buy a 50 mpg vehicle but you will be taxed if you don't? Or how about you don't have to install solar panels on the roof of your home at your expense, but the federal government will tax you if you fail to do so? At what point, or is there any point, at which the government can now compel economic participation by the populace or levy a tax if they choose not to participate?