Supreme Court rules- INDIVIDUAL MANDATE IS LEGAL, AND IS A TAX

[SkyPilot]

A strong positive note is that this decision does not stand on the "Commerce Clause" but rather on the federal government ability to impose tax. The Commerce Clause argument would seem to be a deadly issue. However, I may be mistaken and this clause is still argued as justification, but at this point it seems not. The reason I say this is tax policy can be changed, and taxes repealed whereas the power for a government to impose it's will by saying all of existence is commerce and therefore available to be controlled by government is a frightening proposition for me. However, I may be drawing a distinction without a difference. In any regard, this is a powerful move towards socialism, and a great day for those who hold in high regard a socialist central government ideal.

 

[tsptalk]

Re: High court upholds key part of Obama health law

Here's the breakdown on the penalty / tax for adults not insured:

2014 - The greater of 1% of your income or $95

2015 - 2% or $325

2016+ - 2.5% or $695


(keep it civil)

 

[MaStA]

Re: High court upholds key part of Obama health law

Here's the breakdown on the penalty / tax for adults not insured:

2014 - The greater of 1% of your income or $95

2015 - 2% or $325

2016+ - 2.5% or $695


(keep it civil)

Supposedly the supreme court stated that you do not have to legally pay those penalties though...maybe I'm not understanding something though...at least this is what msnbc stated that the supreme court had said...

My biggest question is...for someone like myself in the military who gets health insurance as part of my benefits; will I be paying more tax out of my check to insure people who don't work/don't want to work so they can have insurance as well?

 

[kam]

Re: High court upholds key part of Obama health law

Health care industry rep saying on CNBC that this will bring about $2T more into the industry than was coming before. Good for the industry growth. Girth? Did anyone check with the lenders on this? I wonder where that $2T comes from? Infrastructure?

If this were true, some of that $2T will be reduced by the amount that Affordable Care Act requires Insurance companies to reduce their Admin costs to 20% of premiums.

Personally, I look forward to the parts of the Act that require getting our medical records into some unified system. This has to create efficiency for the both the care delivery and healthcare we receive.

I think people with pre-existing conditions are just left out in the cold without this law. If I had COBRA, and it was going to run out in 2014, and I were in the middle of chemotherapy, and this law were in not in effect, I would have to stop my treatment. I am on chemotherapy right now, and with my guaranteed Federal employement insurance, this is something huge I don't worry about unlike a friend of mine who was dying of ovarian cancer and while waiting for SSD, her COBRA ran out. She had to take money out of her home and bank on the fact that she was terminal (unknown date, though) and wouldn't need the house much longer. She was willing to get insurance, but no one would insure her.

 

[tsptalk]

Re: High court upholds key part of Obama health law

Supposedly the supreme court stated that you do not have to legally pay those penalties though...maybe I'm not understanding something though...at least this is what msnbc stated that the supreme court had said...

My biggest question is...for someone like myself in the military who gets health insurance as part of my benefits; will I be paying more tax out of my check to insure people who don't work/don't want to work so they can have insurance as well?

I don't think you will get taxed more, but I assume insurance premiums will increase to help cover those without. Same result I guess. The tax is for those who don't want to get insurance, but you said that people won't be required to pay that - so I don't know. Confusing.


(keep it civil)

 

[MaStA]

Re: High court upholds key part of Obama health law

I don't think you will get taxed more, but I assume insurance premiums will increase to help cover those without.

Gotcha...thank you for the response.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Re: High court upholds key part of Obama health law

Here's the breakdown on the penalty / tax for adults not insured:

2014 - The greater of 1% of your income or $95

2015 - 2% or $325

2016+ - 2.5% or $695


(keep it civil)

Maybe I'll give up my healthcare insurance and just pay the fine. It's cheaper than my current premiums! And if they deny me care, I'll claim discrimination because I'm 1/64 Cherokee!

 

[kam]

Re: High court upholds key part of Obama health law

I don't think you will get taxed more, but I assume insurance premiums will increase to help cover those without. Same result I guess. The tax is for those who don't want to get insurance, but you said that people won't be required to pay that - so I don't know. Confusing.


(keep it civil)

But if everyone is covered under the Affordable Care Act, hospital costs to the insured should go down because our premiums won't be covering the uninsured. This Act is really about Personable Responsibility....requiring those that can afford health insurance to buy it, so those of us who do pay aren't paying medical bills that reflect the cost of subsidizing those without coverage.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

A strong positive note is that this decision does not stand on the "Commerce Clause" but rather on the federal government ability to impose tax. The Commerce Clause argument would seem to be a deadly issue. However, I may be mistaken and this clause is still argued as justification, but at this point it seems not. The reason I say this is tax policy can be changed, and taxes repealed whereas the power for a government to impose it's will by saying all of existence is commerce and therefore available to be controlled by government is a frightening proposition for me. However, I may be drawing a distinction without a difference. In any regard, this is a powerful move towards socialism, and a great day for those who hold in high regard a socialist central government ideal.

So, when Obama wants us to buy more GM cars, he can require us to buy a Chevy Volt and say it's part of the Gasoline Tax!

 

[kam]

So, when Obama wants us to buy more GM cars, he can require us to buy a Chevy Volt and say it's part of the Gasoline Tax!

This was argued in this case:

Here's why health insurance is not like broccoli [or GM cars]
Here’s why health insurance is not like broccoli | The Great Debate

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Re: High court upholds key part of Obama health law

Careful with those negative thoughts. They aren't covered.

What I fear is that what is covered for those affiliated with the Party in power will not be the same as what is covered for those afiliated with the minority party. One need only look at who benefitted from the takeover of GM and Chrysler (Unions) and who got the shaft (investors) to see where this is headed.

All in all it's just another brick in the wall.

 

[nnuut]

The only important thing is that this puts us on our way to insolvency just like the other countries in Europe that are now failing for the same reason. We should learn from history, in this case we are ignoring it.

 

[kam]

I see $250 million in anti-Affordable Care Act television advertising has done a good job.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

This was argued in this case:

Here's why health insurance is not like broccoli [or GM cars]
Here’s why health insurance is not like broccoli | The Great Debate

That would be correct under the commerce clause. The SCOTUS said Obamacare amounted to a tax. Obamacare was not voted on as a tax. Congress made clear that it was not a tax. It's only after the lawsuits came that the administration argued it was a tax. What will stop them from doing the same with GM or Chrysler cars?

 

[Intrepid_Timer]

Re: High court upholds key part of Obama health law

If we get hurt now with no insurance, do we get a ticket just like being involved in an accident with no car insurance? :nuts:

 

[kam]

Fortuneately, for the sake of the Affordable Care Act, this is just a technicality. The Individual Mandate was ruled Constitutional, no matter what the justfication by Roberts et al.

The only hope for those against the Act is to repeal. That is unlikely given the Senate, even if Romney wins. Once the provisions go into place, the rest of them, it will be extremely hard to undo. People are exhausted with this subject anyway.

 

[tsptalk]

Re: High court upholds key part of Obama health law

If we get hurt now with no insurance, do we get a ticket just like being involved in an accident with no car insurance? :nuts:

Not a ticket but you'll hear from the IRS. I'd rather get a ticket.

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Re: High court upholds key part of Obama health law

But if everyone is covered under the Affordable Care Act, hospital costs to the insured should go down because our premiums won't be covering the uninsured. This Act is really about Personable Responsibility....requiring those that can afford health insurance to buy it, so those of us who do pay aren't paying medical bills that reflect the cost of subsidizing those without coverage.

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. The reason premiums are going up across the board is directly related to MILLIONS of uninsured are now being insured and WE are paying for them. How are they going to pay their "fine" when they can't afford to pay for food? The fact is, the "poor" will get waivers of the tax and those of us who have more, will pay more as is the modus operandi of a socialist dictator.

 

[MaStA]

Fortuneately, for the sake of the Affordable Care Act, this is just a technicality. The Individual Mandate was ruled Constitutional, no matter what the justfication by Roberts et al.

The only hope for those against the Act is to repeal. That is unlikely given the Senate, even if Romney wins. Once the provisions go into place, the rest of them, it will be extremely hard to undo. People are exhausted with this subject anyway.

Exhausted? I, as a citizen don't even understand fully what this new "law" is doing. Maybe it is my fault for not reading the over 2,000 page document on it. There is too much government dictating the lives of citizens these days and the question is...when will it stop?

 

[tsptalk]

Repeat:

This is like deja vu all over again - ala 2009.

Just a reminder, let's not get all politically partisan over this - it never ends well.

I'm more interested in discussing the details and how this might affect the stock market.

Negative rep will be given for any less than civil posts.


If you want to discuss the political aspects, please go to Jim's Beltway Talk Forum

Thanks