Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Ogre on June 28, 2012, 10:22:49 AM
-
Chief Justice Roberts was the swing vote. Big victory for the Obama administration in the short term, but I can see this actually hurting his chances for re-election.
Discuss.
-
Fucking bullshit. I'm pissed beyond belief. Mandate is now a TAX??? Fuck me.
And fuck you John Roberts you fucking worthless Bush wannabe pond scum. I hate a fucking trader.
-
Chief Justice Roberts was the swing vote. Big victory for the Obama administration in the short term, but I can see this actually hurting his chances for re-election.
Discuss.
I disagree. This will be his victory parade. Just watch. He will ride this to reelection...
-
I disagree. This will be his victory parade. Just watch. He will ride this to reelection...
YEP.....
Hey John Roberts, :fu:
-
Obama for four more years.
Will Rush Limbaugh even make it on air? I bet he pops.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/2Gw8n.jpg)
These news networks are such uninformed dickheads.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/2Gw8n.jpg)
These news networks are such uninformed dickheads.
Yep, then 5 minutes later the headline is "Upheld." They are so quick to jump the gun they are wrong all the fucking time.
-
Full opinion, Enjoy:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/28/health.care.pdf
-
Full opinion, Enjoy:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/28/health.care.pdf
(http://mob284.photobucket.com/albums/ll36/Bigsteve87/Gifs/2zpt4sl.gif?t=1306434511)
-
Serious question about small businesses -
How common is it for businesses of 50+ employees to not offer healthcare?
-
The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax
Roberts
That about sums it up.
-
The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.
Why? And where is this in the constitution?
Could they also say this:
The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without ________________.
-
Roberts
That about sums it up.
2 things:
1. But was that fine passed as a tax? No, it wasn't.
2. And what kind of tax exists for inactivity?? Even with Ad Valorum tax there is a tangible product like value of car or gasoline. This is a tax on nothing, lack of something. Total BS.
So now can they tax us for NOT buying other things too such as electric cars or solar panels? This is a bad bad precedent. We (as a nation) will be TAXED for not buying something. I don't know how anyone can say this makes any sense.
Never though I would ever say this but.....
Mitt Fucking Romney 2012!!!!! We have to repeal this entire fucking piece of shit.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U&
-
I disagree. This will be his victory parade. Just watch. He will ride this to reelection...
The 2010 election swing was considered a referendum on Obamacare. This will do nothing but fan the flames and bring the conservative vote out in droves.
Time will tell.
-
We are screwed. Officially.
Need to get rid of every single motherfucker in washington and start over.
-
To repeat -
Is it common for businesses of 50+ employees to not offer health insurance benefits?
I ask because with this healthcare bill passing, why would businesses ever grow more than 49 people? And if businesses are refusing to grow past 49 employees or are downsizing below 50 employees to avoid being forced to pay for healthcare, won't that obliterate any decrease in unemployment rates?
-
We are screwed. Officially.
Need to get rid of every single motherfucker in washington and start over.
I like the way you think.
(http://images.tutorvista.com/content/feed/u1006/Atomic%20Bomb.gif)
Question to the lawyers though, if the fine was not passed as a TAX - would it not have to go back through a congressional vote? It sounds like judicial activism has just occured. CJ Roberts just altered the law so it could survive.
-
To repeat -
Is it common for businesses of 50+ employees to not offer health insurance benefits?
I ask because with this healthcare bill passing, why would businesses ever grow more than 49 people? And if businesses are refusing to grow past 49 employees or are downsizing below 50 employees to avoid being forced to pay for healthcare, won't that obliterate any decrease in unemployment rates?
You nailed it. This thing has all kind of ripple effects that the naive aren't considering. Most sheep don't think the way you are thinking. And let's face it, most of the supporters of this are sheep. Dey juz want dey free healf care.
So much wrong in the below, I don't even know where to begin.
The Affordable Care Act will extend health insurance to some 30 million Americans who currently lack coverage. It will also guarantee the availability of insurance for those with pre-existing conditions and ensure those people don’t pay more than healthy people. Anyone earning up to 133% of the federal poverty level will get free coverage through Medicaid and those earning 133% to 400% (but without access to employer or government insurance) will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them buy policies
:facepalm:
-
I try not to go Glenn Beck with politics, but I am worried about this one. How does this not shift our country closer to a police state?
You're not doing something we, the government, want you to do? Here's a finetax. How are we going to chase you down and get our money? Well, included in this new bill is a few thousand more IRS workers.
Small businesses aren't going to hire more workers? Well, that means more people can't afford health care, so they'll need to pay the tax. And that means more people needing to pay the tax will require more people hired in the IRS.
More people in the IRS? More money needs to go to the government to pay those people in the IRS. More taxes.
-
I agree.
I'll be honest, prior to today, I was ok with what I thought would end up being Obamacare.
From my understanding, until SCOTUS got involved, this wasn't supposed to increase taxes on the middle class, and it wasn't supposed to be required. I was/am of the belief that the system definitely is in need of some reform, and I wasn't hearing any ideas from the right (unless you count Romneycare, which was essentially the same thing but on a state level.) The version we were told this was supposed to be sounded very reasonable to me, despite the right "crying wolf" about socialism, etc.
What we're seeing today, is not that relatively moderate bill.
I'm with you, it's a very scary precedent to have the Government require you to do something like purchase health care.
-
SCOTUS is unconstitutional in and of itself. I don't fucking need anyone to tell me what is and isn't constitutional. I can do that myself. It's obvious John Roberts voted his wallet versus his obligation to the American people. Too many laws fucking in this country, and I'm sick of it. This should now become a state's rights issue.
-
I don't like the Healthcare Law. But, you guys act as if this is something brand new. This started in the 1930's and has continued through today.
Why? And where is this in the constitution?
Could they also say this:
Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
and millions of cases of precedent/The U.S. Constitution that I don't feel like looking up.
-
SCOTUS is unconstitutional in and of itself. I don't fucking need anyone to tell me what is and isn't constitutional. I can do that myself. It's obvious John Roberts voted his wallet versus his obligation to the American people. Too many laws fucking in this country, and I'm sick of it. This should now become a state's rights issue.
That's what we need...312 million people interpreting the United States constitution differently...
Derp.
-
So the 16th amendment defines not purchasing healthcare as income?
-
That's what we need...312 million people interpreting the United States constitution differently...
Derp.
No we need a direct democracy if we are going continue to let the lobbyist interpret the constitution. Let the people vote on what they think is or isn't constitutional. There is no mention of a Supreme Court in the constitution. Several amendments need to be either repealed or rewritten to support the will of the people. It's passed time to secede.
-
So the 16th amendment defines not purchasing healthcare as income?
No, the 16th amendment is the basis (along with the bill of rights) that allows congress to tax. The thousands of cases after wards lay the precedent.
-
I still share the concern about forcing you to buy something or pay a tax, but from what I understand, only people who do not have insurance will see any tax increase. Is this correct? I don't see how that's possible, but that's what I'm gathering. Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
I still share the concern about forcing you to buy something or pay a tax, but from what I understand, only people who do not have insurance will see any tax increase. Is this correct? I don't see how that's possible, but that's what I'm gathering. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It's hard to say because one side says that no one's taxes will go up except for those making more than $250,000. The other side says that everyone's taxes must go up to pay for the bill and those refusing to purchase healthcare will go up even higher because they'll have to pay a fine through their taxes.
-
No, the 16th amendment is the basis (along with the bill of rights) that allows congress to tax. The thousands of cases after wards lay the precedent.
But taxes are taken to provide a service, right? The government taxes you to pay for the military, to pay for roads, to pay for education.
The government isn't providing healthcare in this bill. It's simply forcing you to purchase something in the private sector or pay a tax.
-
This seems to be a pretty fair assesment.
http://politic365.com/2012/06/28/obamacare-primer-who-wins-who-loses-if-healthcare-is-upheld-or-repealed/
Obamacare Primer: Who Wins or Loses if Law is Upheld, Repealed
16 hours ago | Also Featured in National
Obamacare Primer: Who Wins or Loses if Law is Upheld, Repealed
Jeneba Ghatt
The Affordable Care Act:
1. Expands healthcare coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans,
2. Requires many health insurance plans to cover prevention and wellness benefits with no co-pay or deductibles for 54 million Americans that have private insurance,
3. Eliminates the lifetime coverage limit for 105 million Americans already insured,
4. Gives 2.3 million elderly Medicare patients access to annual wellness checkups,
5. Provides prescription care “donut hole†coverage for 5.1 million seniors, and
6. Requires insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions, including 17 million of the 74.9 million children ages 0-17 years old residing in the U.S., according to recent US Census figures.
Most people only know about three portions of the law that have already gone into effect: 1. The part that closes the donut hole for prescription drug coverage;
2. The provision that has enabled 2.5 million kids up to the age of 26 to piggy back off their parents’ insurance; and,
3. The part which stops health insurers form denying coverage for children and other people with preexisting conditions.
Little is known about the other parts of the law but it may be helpful to go through a primer on who may benefit and who will lose if the law is upheld or struck down.
WHO BENEFITS FROM THE LAW:
Infants, Babies, Children and Teens: Under the Act, insurers cannot charge a co-pay for preventiative health services including immunizations, pediatrician visits, vision and hearing screenings, counseling to address childhood obesity, flu shots and other preventative health services for infants, children and adolescents. Also, low-income families whose children qualify for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, administered through States, can’t be cut until 2019 even if a state has a budget shortfall. The CHIP provides for doctor visits, emergency care, hospital care, vaccinations, prescription drugs, vision, hearing and dental care for babies, children and teenagers.
Nineteen to 26-year olds: About 24 million young people who have not been fortunate enough to secure a job that offers them health insurance will be able to remain on their parents’ health insurance.
Babies, children, and teens with pre-existing medical conditions: Kids who contracted a condition for six months before their parents tried to get medical coverage cannot be denied care based on that condition.
Families that already have insurance: New health plans will have to cover, without charge, a co-pay for adult preventative services such as annual check ups, breast and colon cancer screenings, screenings for vitamin deficiencies during pregnancy, high cholesterol, and high blood pressure. Smoking cessation programs are also covered.
Medicare patients: Free Annual Wellness visits: Beginning this year, those on Medicare will be able to get an annual checkup. As is known, it is during annual visits that many diseases and conditions are diagnosed. If caught early, treatment can extend a patient’s life and prevent an early death.
Additional options of doctors and surgeons: Primary Care doctors and general surgeons who service Medicare patients will get a 10% bonus payment which could perhaps encourage more doctors offices to take Medicare patients. In turn, Medicare patients would get the benefit of a place to go to get a second and third opinion if they wish. Further, those who may have had to travel farther to get to a doctor that does accept Medicare patients may be able to get access to one closer to his or her home.
Prescription drug rebate: Some Medicare drug beneficiaries who have spent $2700 on drugs can fall into what is called a “doughnut hole†— meaning their drug plan no longer pays a subsidized portion of their drugs. That subsidy makes prescription drugs affordable for many seniors. Those enrollees must pay the full costs of their prescriptions until they have spent $6,154 on their own out-of-pocket. After that time, they get their coverage returned and eventually start paying a small co-pay again. Those in that “doughnut hole†will get a $250 check to help pay for their prescriptions, which can get costly. Nearly 4 million seniors who would benefit are beginning to receive these payments.
Small businesses: Small businesses are given a tax credit to offset costs of having to get health insurance for employees. This provides more incentive for companies to offer health care to more families. Approximately 6 million small businesses would qualify for the tax credit.
Early Retirees: Grandparents who may want to retire between the ages of 55 and 64 because of their age, illness or an interest in spending more time with their families would have the option of having their employers continue to cover them as part of a temporary reinsurance program. With most ailments and conditions on setting during advanced years, it would be a risk to go without insurance until Medicaid kicks in.
Uninsured adults with pre-existing conditions: Those suffering from chronic or depilating diseases or illnesses and cannot get insurance will be able to get heath care through a new program that starts this year. This coverage could help them live longer lives and give them more time to spend with their spouses and children rather than them having to live without getting treatment and risk deteriorating rapidly and eventually dying an early or untimely death.
Hospitals: Beginning in 2012, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which oversee the government programs, begin tracking hospital readmission rates and will put in place financial incentives to reduce preventable readmissions. The idea is to reward institutions for doing their best to treat people and keep them healthy versus providing the basic and minimal care only to have those same patients readmitted for the same or related causes.
Taxpayers: Beginning in 2013, the threshold for claiming medical expenses on itemized tax returns is raised to 10 percent from 7.5 percent of income though it would remain at 7.5 percent for the elderly through 2016.
WHO MAY WANT REPEAL
Pharmaceutical companies: Beginning in 2014, the law imposes an annual fee on them based on their share of the drug market. The fee does not apply to those small companies that have sales of $5 million or less. The delayed start date of the fee was part of the a negotiated compromise between the industry and lawmakers before the bill passed.
Indoor tanning services: Indoor tanning salons will be assessed a 10% tax on their use of ultraviolet lamps. The provision was included to discourage the skin-cancer causing service while seeking to raise $2.7 billion dollars from the industry by 2019.
Health Insurers: Starting last year, health insurers were banned from;
1. excluding children from coverage because of pre-existing conditions;
2. dropping people from coverage when they get sick;
3. instituting lifetime limits; and
4. dropping dependents from plans after they turn 19 or finish college.
Insurance companies will begin paying a fee based on their share of the insurance industry in 2014.
Employers: Those companies that may not want to provide insurance to early retirees through the temporary reinsurance programs may prefer a repeal. Also, employers with 50 or more works who do not offer coverage face a fine of $2,000 for each employee if any worker receives subsidized insurance on the exchange. The first 30 employees are counted for the fine.
Medical Device Industry: Beginning in 2013, a 2.9% excise tax will be imposed on the sale of medical devices though anything generally purchased at the retail level by the public is excluded from the tax. There doesn’t appear to be anything stopping that industry from passing on that tax to consumers via a higher price for the devices, however. This provision won’t go into effect for a couple of years which, in of itself, was also a compromise before the bill passed into law in 2009.
Those who do not want insurance: Beginning in 2014, all American adults will be required to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a fine of $325 if they don’t. Arguably, this provision is one of the most controversial and one which may indeed be undone, one way or another. The government did provide for a healthcare tax credit to help those with incomes up to 400 percent of the poverty level purchase coverage.
In a nutshell, while the law is in no way perfect and may have provisions that may not be ideal, the most objectable provisions by the health industry doesn’t get phased in this year anyway. That delay was part of the compromise they agreed to. The bottom line is that more families, babies, infants and children would benefit from it, including those who have insurance, as well as those who do not.
A do-over may not be worth it. It shouldn’t be the first priority at a time when the most important thing on most American’s minds is jobs and the economy.
Part of this article was published previously at The Politics of Raising Children blog that Jeneba authors at The Washington Times Communities last January 2011.
-
It's government telling you what to do no matter which way you cut it.
-
Chad, that assessment is not right. What it fails to tell you point blank is that because of all those things your premiums are going to skyrocket. For a fatass who smokes to get the same rate as you is going to require your current rate to go up. How else can they hedge for that high risk patient who smokes and has 10 other ailments without making their premium any higher than yours?
Sani nailed it plain and simple.
-
It's government telling you what to do no matter which way you cut it.
And thats the way some want it.
-
But taxes are taken to provide a service, right? The government taxes you to pay for the military, to pay for roads, to pay for education.
The government isn't providing healthcare in this bill. It's simply forcing you to purchase something in the private sector or pay a tax.
Not necessarily. But overall, you can argue that this is providing a service. Similar to mandatory automobile liability insurance for drivers, etc...
-
Not necessarily. But overall, you can argue that this is providing a service. Similar to mandatory automobile liability insurance for drivers, etc...
Which is at a state level.
-
Which is at a state level.
Yes, but I'm sure that you know, it still has to be constitutional under the United States Constitution. FYI: the South lost the Civil War. :) :sarcasm:
-
Not necessarily. But overall, you can argue that this is providing a service. Similar to mandatory automobile liability insurance for drivers, etc...
I'm starting to think the individual mandate has become a bit of a red herring. I'm not sure I really care if the government forces those without health insurance to buy it. There are the slippery slope fears and black helicopter conspiracies, but the individual mandate doesn't affect me because I have healthcare insurance.
What I think is being miscommunicated to the public (most importantly to me) is exactly how this new bill affects me personally. Is my insurance cost going to go up? Is my quality of healthcare going to go down? I am able right now to go to the doctor and get treatment for a minor sinus infection; I usually don't have to wait very long. Will I still have access to that? Are doctors going to get paid less? Are less qualified prospects going to become doctors to meet the needs of the 30 million new patients?
-
I'm starting to think the individual mandate has become a bit of a red herring. I'm not sure I really care if the government forces those without health insurance to buy it. There are the slippery slope fears and black helicopter conspiracies, but the individual mandate doesn't affect me because I have healthcare insurance.
What I think is being miscommunicated to the public (most importantly to me) is exactly how this new bill affects me personally. Is my insurance cost going to go up? Is my quality of healthcare going to go down? I am able right now to go to the doctor and get treatment for a minor sinus infection; I usually don't have to wait very long. Will I still have access to that? Are doctors going to get paid less? Are less qualified prospects going to become doctors to meet the needs of the 30 million new patients?
Seriously, from what I have read and understand, it will not affect 90% of people. Who it will affect, will be very specific entities like Chad mentioned above...and poor people. The poor people who can't afford or choose not to get insurance will be placed in a bigger hole when they are penalized. Vicious circle, and ironic considering that is the targeted democrat demographic.
-
Yes, but I'm sure that you know, it still has to be constitutional under the United States Constitution. FYI: the South lost the Civil War. :) :sarcasm:
Yeah, the 10th amendment means nothing. :facepalm:
Besides, auto insurance is not required of every citizen technically. Only if you drive an automobile in THAT state. Obamacare mandates every citizen of the US have health insurance....PERIOD.
-
Seriously, from what I have read and understand, it will not affect 90% of people. Who it will affect, will be very specific entities like Chad mentioned above...and poor people. The poor people who can't afford or choose not to get insurance will be placed in a bigger hole when they are penalized. Vicious circle, and ironic considering that is the targeted democrat demographic.
Keep spinning it for the Kenyan Mr. Crystal Ball Lawyer . You know nothing about the inner workings of the financial and insurance industries. If you did, you would know this is going to affect everyone. Do you really think your rates are about to remain the same? If you do, then you are on some serious crack.
-
I'm starting to think the individual mandate has become a bit of a red herring. I'm not sure I really care if the government forces those without health insurance to buy it. There are the slippery slope fears and black helicopter conspiracies, but the individual mandate doesn't affect me because I have healthcare insurance.
What I think is being miscommunicated to the public (most importantly to me) is exactly how this new bill affects me personally. Is my insurance cost going to go up? Is my quality of healthcare going to go down? I am able right now to go to the doctor and get treatment for a minor sinus infection; I usually don't have to wait very long. Will I still have access to that? Are doctors going to get paid less? Are less qualified prospects going to become doctors to meet the needs of the 30 million new patients?
This is pretty much exactly where I'm at with it.
Philosophically, I have a bit of a problem with government forcing itself in here.
On a practical level? I'm not seeing how anything changes for me, besides possibly health insurance premiums. I doubt very seriously the quality of care diminishes. I can see premiums going up, but that may all be factored out with the other regulations. I guess it's still an unknown.
-
This is pretty much exactly where I'm at with it.
Philosophically, I have a bit of a problem with government forcing itself in here.
On a practical level? I'm not seeing how anything changes for me, besides possibly health insurance premiums. I doubt very seriously the quality of care diminishes. I can see premiums going up, but that may all be factored out with the other regulations. I guess it's still an unknown.
If you only look at how it affects you personally in the here and now, then you are missing most of the picture. It expands gov't massively. Its unprecedented and creates a slippery slope. As you just said, its a gov't intrusion. I could go on and on.....but won't. There's no point in it. People will sit around long enough discussing this to the point where they will talk themselves into supporting it and/or compromising. Fucking sad.
-
Art. I sec. 8 of the constitution gives congress their enumerated powers. One of them is to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the US. That's how they got it through.
-
The 2010 election swing was considered a referendum on Obamacare. This will do nothing but fan the flames and bring the conservative vote out in droves.
Time will tell.
On third thought, it makes sense that Roberts would vote in favor for political reasons (Election 2012). I believe this does set the stage for a conservative landslide victory in 2012.
-
Not necessarily. But overall, you can argue that this is providing a service. Similar to mandatory automobile liability insurance for drivers, etc...
Taxation without representation is what it'll turnout to be. No benefit, because it's a tax PENALTY for not having insurance. How is one to opt for the gubermint plan and what is gubermint healthcare plan?
-
Art. I sec. 8 of the constitution gives congress their enumerated powers. One of them is to lay and collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the US. That's how they got it through.
Can you show me where it is defined as a "tax" in the law?
(b)(1) Section 5000A(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by section 1501(b) of this Act, is amended to read as follows:
‘(1) IN GENERAL- If a taxpayer who is an applicable individual, or an applicable individual for whom the taxpayer is liable under paragraph (3), fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months, then, except as provided in subsection (e), there is hereby imposed on the taxpayer a penalty with respect to such failures in the amount determined under subsection (c).’.
Roberts redefined the law on the fly. That's all there is to this.
-
Taxation without representation is what it'll turnout to be. No benefit, because it's a tax PENALTY for not having insurance. How is one to opt for the gubermint plan and what is gubermint healthcare plan?
NO...its a Penalty in the LAW as it's written. Totally different meaning on face value. If it is told it can stand as a tax, it should have to go back through voting in the House. Roberts just made a decision on a bill (mandate as a "tax") that didn't really exist.
-
NO...its a Penalty in the LAW as it's written. Totally different meaning on face value. If it is told it can stand as a tax, it should have to go back through voting in the House. Roberts just made a decision on a bill (mandate as a "tax") that didn't really exist.
Where and when can I expect CFR title 26 code to contain the taxpayer information concerning this law? And, I haven't read the obamacare law yet, but I will. Does anyone here know when the law is suppose to take affect?
-
Can you show me where it is defined as a "tax" in the law?
Roberts redefined the law on the fly. That's all there is to this.
He interpreted the law. Which is the job of the Supreme Court... Just because you do not like something doesn't mean it was not done correctly.
-
He interpreted misinterpreted the constitutionality of said law. Which is the job of the Supreme Court... Just because you do not like something doesn't mean it was not done correctly.
FTFY.
-
He interpreted the law. Which is the job of the Supreme Court... Just because you do not like something doesn't mean it was not done correctly.
Yeah, sure. Let me interpret red as yellow. And VandyVol as straight.
Penalty and Tax are not the same thing. He redefined penalty to mean tax. The law says PENALTY.
Oh, look - it says penalty. I think I am going to think this means tax. If you can show me where the definitions of tax and penalty are the same, I will agree with you. I don't have anything to worry about though because you can't. If it says penalty, it might actually mean penalty.
-
1. But was that fine passed as a tax? No, it wasn't.
The Supreme Court can rule that it operates as a tax, even if no one intended it to be a tax.
While this may seem like bullshit to allow the Court to do such a thing, just imagine if this were a law that should be legally upheld. You'd want to give the Court the power to rule that the law is upheld as an X law even though it was passed with the intention of being a Y law.
Never though I would ever say this but.....
Mitt Fucking Romney 2012!!!!! We have to repeal this entire fucking piece of shit.
Que?
This decision came from the Supreme Court, not Obama. A Supreme Court that is made up of five Republican-appointed justices and four Democrat-appointed justices. And the swing vote came from a justice appointed by Bush.
I understand that Obama got this whole debacle rolling, but someone needs to point the finger of blame at the Court as well for fucking this one up majorly.
-
From my understanding, until SCOTUS got involved, this wasn't supposed to increase taxes on the middle class, and it wasn't supposed to be required.
There was going to be a fine. Obama didn't want it to be a "tax." The legislation, to my knowledge, was not passed so that it would be a "tax." But it is SCOTUS that ruled (and has the ability to rule) that while legislators may not have intended for it to be a "tax," the legislation is worded so that it can be interpreted as a tax, and thus the government can impose a tax on people who don't have healthcare.
I don't know how they concluded that it can be placed in the form of a tax, but whether it was a fine or a tax, the end result is that someone without healthcare would have to pay something to the government.
I'm not sure why you were okay with the proposal when it was a fine, but not when it's a tax? It has the same end result.
-
I'm still confused about a couple of things:
The bill was supposed crafted to help poor people get healthcare. I keep hearing people celebrate it as "now everyone gets healthcare!"
But doesn't this cripple poor people even more? Now, more money is leaving their paycheck (if they have one) to purchase healthcare or pay a tax. How exactly does this help them?
Also, will it be cheaper for some people to pay a 2.5% tax than to purchase healthcare?
Also also, if small businesses have less than 50 employees, wouldn't it be cheaper to not provide any healthcare thus forcing the employees to buy their own? The boss gets a bit richer and the lowly employees get a bit poorer.
Also also also, if this is a tax, like most taxes, aren't there exemptions? Who gets exempted from this tax?
Which leads to this...
Also also also also, how much do you wanna bet that poor minorities aren't subjected to paying the tax at all?
-
Saw at least 20 people in my Twitter timeline saying threatening to move to Canada due to the ruling. People I know in real life.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
Others who said the same:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare
-
Also also, if small businesses have less than 50 employees, wouldn't it be cheaper to not provide any healthcare thus forcing the employees to buy their own? The boss gets a bit richer and the lowly employees get a bit poorer.
I wonder the same thing about big companies. Say your employer is paying 15k a year for your insurance, but the fine is only 2k if they don't offer it to you. Which do you think will happen?
All of the numbers I saw come out of the CBO didn't take any of that into account.
-
I wonder the same thing about big companies. Say your employer is paying 15k a year for your insurance, but the fine is only 2k if they don't offer it to you. Which do you think will happen?
All of the numbers I saw come out of the CBO didn't take any of that into account.
Most smaller companies pay half the single rate and that is all, unless of course you belong to a union. Then you may have the entire amount paid for by the employer as part of an labor agreement. Otherwise, if you have a family health insurance policy through your employer, most likely the company is only contributing half the single rate towards your policy. You are paying the other $350+ a month. The employer contribution wouldn't even approach $1500 per year.
-
Most smaller companies pay half the single rate and that is all, unless of course you belong to a union. Then you may have the entire amount paid for by the employer as part of an labor agreement. Otherwise, if you have a family health insurance policy through your employer, most likely the company is only contributing half the single rate towards your policy. You are paying the other $350+ a month. The employer contribution wouldn't even approach $1500 per year.
I know for a fact that my company with ~500 employees pays at least 10k a year for health insurance for each employee that wants it. If you chose not to take it, they will put the 10k into your 401(k).
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/what-health-bill-means-for-you/?Post+generic=%3Ftid%3Dsm_twitter_washingtonpost
This is a link showing what the law will mean to you.
I actually pay far less keeping my own Individual Blue policy.
-
I like my insurance the way that it is. The municipality that I work for is self insured, and the plan is administered by BCBS of Alabama. It works out great. I've had two knee surgeries in the past two years, and I have paid a total of $200. That's a bunch of MRIs, appointments at the orthopaedic doctor, etc. I paid a $100 co-pay for each surgery. That's it. I pay less than $200 monthly to cover 4 people. Maybe I just don't understand, but I don't forsee that the government will be able to outdo that. But I will still be forced to pay for something that I don't need, because I have it through somebody other than the government.
I think the government has bitten off more than they can chew here. While the private sector hasn't really done the health care system any favors, I don't see how the government is all of a sudden going to step in and fix that with Obamacare. I guess since welfare, social security, Medicare, etc. are doing SO well, it's a good idea to create another government program? It's like they're creating something else to have a crisis over 10 years from now. And then the discussion will be "Well, should it be privatized?" Leave it the fuck alone, or create a system that actually solves more problems than it causes.
-
But I will still be forced to pay for something that I don't need, because I have it through somebody other than the government.
Wrong. You'll never see a change. BTW you work for a municipality so your plan is already being subsidized by taxes.
-
BTW you work for a municipality so your plan is already being subsidized by taxes.
......and I use that plan. I also pay a premium myself to use that plan, and I pay taxes as well. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I don't mind paying for something I'm using, and that I have a choice to use. What I do mind paying for is something through the government that I'm not using, only because I'm using the alternative to that government system. Maybe I'm not understanding something, but how are you certain that I won't see a change?
My salary, health care, benefits, etc are subsidized by taxes. Sure. The people paying those taxes are those that use city services, buy things inside the city, rent lodging inside the city, etc etc. Myself included. Nobody is forced to do any of those things. You can stay in some other city. You can buy things in some other city. You can reside anywhere you want.
-
So I'll never have more than 50 employees. Figured that out. Every time I get close, I'll just create another company and employ new folks through that entity.
And as of next week I'm ditching health coverage. No need for me to pay for that bullshit for my employees. On their own now.
Idiot government. Moron Obama. Shit-eating SC. Fuck them all.
-
I like my insurance the way that it is. The municipality that I work for is self insured, and the plan is administered by BCBS of Alabama. It works out great. I've had two knee surgeries in the past two years, and I have paid a total of $200. That's a bunch of MRIs, appointments at the orthopaedic doctor, etc. I paid a $100 co-pay for each surgery. That's it. I pay less than $200 monthly to cover 4 people. Maybe I just don't understand, but I don't forsee that the government will be able to outdo that. But I will still be forced to pay for something that I don't need, because I have it through somebody other than the government.
I think the government has bitten off more than they can chew here. While the private sector hasn't really done the health care system any favors, I don't see how the government is all of a sudden going to step in and fix that with Obamacare. I guess since welfare, social security, Medicare, etc. are doing SO well, it's a good idea to create another government program? It's like they're creating something else to have a crisis over 10 years from now. And then the discussion will be "Well, should it be privatized?" Leave it the fuck alone, or create a system that actually solves more problems than it causes.
You can't read.
-
You can't read.
As I asked before, what am I missing?
-
Similar to mandatory automobile liability insurance for drivers, etc...
But the federal government isn't in the auto insurance business, and you're not paying a tax to the government for an auto policy either. That's the difference. Plus, technically, you have a choice not to drive a vehicle. States aren't forcing people who don't drive, or don't own a vehicle to pay for liability insurance.
I know that some are saying that this isn't going to matter to those who currently have insurance, but I just don't see how that can be true. The government is going to mandate that private providers offer certain types of insurance and coverages that they may not necessarily already offer. The government is also going to tax those providers based on their market share. Do you think those companies are going to absorb the added cost, or pass it on to the consumer? One way or another, every tax paying American will be paying for this program. Last time I checked, we don't have a huge surplus of cash on hand to otherwise fund the program. The premiums that the government collects isn't going to be enough to fund the program. There will also more than likely be a large portion of people who won't have to pay period due to their income, or rather the lack thereof.
I just don't see how the government can fund this thing without totally fucking it up. The money has to come from somewhere.
-
But the federal government isn't in the auto insurance business, and you're not paying a tax to the government for an auto policy either. That's the difference. Plus, technically, you have a choice not to drive a vehicle. States aren't forcing people who don't drive, or don't own a vehicle to pay for liability insurance.
I know that some are saying that this isn't going to matter to those who currently have insurance, but I just don't see how that can be true. The government is going to mandate that private providers offer certain types of insurance and coverages that they may not necessarily already offer. The government is also going to tax those providers based on their market share. Do you think those companies are going to absorb the added cost, or pass it on to the consumer? One way or another, every tax paying American will be paying for this program. Last time I checked, we don't have a huge surplus of cash on hand to otherwise fund the program. The premiums that the government collects isn't going to be enough to fund the program. There will also more than likely be a large portion of people who won't have to pay period due to their income, or rather the lack thereof.
I just don't see how the government can fund this thing without totally fucking it up. The money has to come from somewhere.
Don't present the resident know it alls with any facts. Its fucks up their man lovefest for the kenyan.
They still fail to see that the gov't has no place in this business nor do they have any right to FORCE people to buy a product. They are telling citizens what to buy whether they like it or not. Anything past this is simply trying to muddy the waters.
And no, Federal income taxes are NOT going to pay for your municipal health insurance. The part that the county or city picks up for you is part of your total compensation package just like anywhere else. Sure, it is funded mainly by the taxpayers of the municipality but that is what that money is for in any city/county. Many states even have Municipal workers plans you can opt into such as Conn:
MEHIP was legislated in July 1, 1996 to help cities and towns provide health coverage for municipal employees. The plan requires no additional state funding, as all costs are paid through members’ premiums
BTW. I am more angry about this at Obama and the House of Reps than Roberts. He would have never had to rule on it if it had not even been created in the fashion it is.
-
Also, I found a very interesting read and I kind of buy into this some. AWK, as an atty what do you think? Kaos, as a business owner, what say you?
http://www.libertarian-examiner.com/2012/06/chief-justice-john-roberts-is-genius.html
Chief Justice John Roberts is a Genius!
Before everybody burns the Chief Justice in effigy, it is important to see the genius behind the move the Chief Justice made with the decision by the Supreme Court.
Yes, it would have been nice and easy if the court had just struck down the Affordable Care Act that was passed by Congress and signed by the President. But the Chief Justice won the battle of the over powering Congress that has developed in the past years.
Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care through in the first place. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.
"Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals preciselybecause they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.â€
Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.
Roberts have been on a vengeance ever since he became the Chief Justice of the court to take down Congress's ability to compel the American people to do certain actions they deem necessary. This is why he has been a member of the Federalist Society for a long time.
Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.
People in this country are too quick to pass judgement based on what they hear on the news. It is important to read what happened and see the logic behind a decision like this one. The Chief Justice did not commit treason, but rather he opened the door for a slew of challenges to the Congress' authority to control the American people.
He is protecting Liberty!
-
They still fail to see that the gov't has no place in this business nor do they have any right to FORCE people to buy a product. They are telling citizens what to buy whether they like it or not. Anything past this is simply trying to muddy the waters.
Then stick to that. Not you, specifically, but conservatives in general.
Because, I agree, this part of the legislation is a troublesome precedent. If conservatives could cooly, calmly, measuredly make this argument, it would go much further than "OMG THAT KENYAN SOCIALIST IS DESTROYING AMERICA FROM WITHIN!!!1 FREEDOM AS WE KNOW IT DIED TONIGHT!!!1!" It's Chicken Little. No one believes you when the sky is actually falling. It's become white noise.
I also am not sure that it's really helping those it's designed to help. It's not free healthcare that everyone else is paying for, as is frequently said in every other facebook status and tweet in my feed. It's not coming out of your pocket in taxes, as RWS believes. But it is forcing people to pay for health care that may not want it. And if they don't want it? They have to pay a "penalty" (tax). I don't see how this is really helping poor minimum wage Sally that is living paycheck to paycheck, gets cancer, and can't afford the treatment. Now she's living less than paycheck to paycheck and may not even be getting anything out of it all.
-
Then stick to that. Not you, specifically, but conservatives in general.
Because, I agree, this part of the legislation is a troublesome precedent. If conservatives could cooly, calmly, measuredly make this argument, it would go much further than "OMG THAT KENYAN SOCIALIST IS DESTROYING AMERICA FROM WITHIN!!!1 FREEDOM AS WE KNOW IT DIED TONIGHT!!!1!" It's Chicken Little. No one believes you when the sky is actually falling. It's become white noise.
I also am not sure that it's really helping those it's designed to help. It's not free healthcare that everyone else is paying for, as is frequently said in every other facebook status and tweet in my feed. It's not coming out of your pocket in taxes, as RWS believes. But it is forcing people to pay for health care that may not want it. And if they don't want it? They have to pay a "penalty" (tax). I don't see how this is really helping poor minimum wage Sally that is living paycheck to paycheck, gets cancer, and can't afford the treatment. Now she's living less than paycheck to paycheck and may not even be getting anything out of it all.
I'm telling you now, one way or another, it will come out of everybody's pocket at some point. Whether it is taxes, "penalties", cost to private insurers passed on to consumers, etc. They aren't going to be able to fund it on premiums and premium taxes from private insurers.
-
Then stick to that. Not you, specifically, but conservatives in general.
Because, I agree, this part of the legislation is a troublesome precedent. If conservatives could cooly, calmly, measuredly make this argument, it would go much further than "OMG THAT KENYAN SOCIALIST IS DESTROYING AMERICA FROM WITHIN!!!1 FREEDOM AS WE KNOW IT DIED TONIGHT!!!1!" It's Chicken Little. No one believes you when the sky is actually falling. It's become white noise.
I also am not sure that it's really helping those it's designed to help. It's not free healthcare that everyone else is paying for, as is frequently said in every other facebook status and tweet in my feed. It's not coming out of your pocket in taxes, as RWS believes. But it is forcing people to pay for health care that may not want it. And if they don't want it? They have to pay a "penalty" (tax). I don't see how this is really helping poor minimum wage Sally that is living paycheck to paycheck, gets cancer, and can't afford the treatment. Now she's living less than paycheck to paycheck and may not even be getting anything out of it all.
I concede I was pissed as hell when it was first announced. I've calmed some since then and come to the belief that this was by design as more part of a long term roadmap (see Roberts is a Genius). Although I still don't like the fact that this bill was even passed in the first place. This was rammed down our throats (1.00 to VV) in an almost illegal fashion in how it was passed.
Actually taxes are increasing here shortly, on the middle class and wealthy. Can't be directly tied to Obamacare but in a single payer system, it doesn't matter. It's all part of the big pot we put into and dip out of.
Also, Obamacare's Insurance Provisions alone will cost 1.5 TRILLION bucks over the next 10 years. That will have to be paid for by someone.
-
They aren't going to be able to fund it on premiums and premium taxes from private insurers.
BINGO was his name-o.
That's why the CBO projects a COST of 1.5 trillion. It it was self sustaining there wouldn't be a net cost.
-
The reason they're forcing all healthy people to have insurance is because it will offset the cost of accepting people with preexisting conditions. Healthy people who don't think they need insurance having insurance will, in theory, balance out the cost of covering chemo, etc. for Joe Cancerpatient.
And actually, before this, if a poor uninsured person needs medical attention, who do you think pays for that? The taxpayers. They don't just let people bleed out and die in the hospital parking lot because they don't have insurance. So I don't see how forcing people to buy into coverage would require us (the already insured) to pay more money in taxes.
-
The reason they're forcing all healthy people to have insurance is because it will offset the cost of accepting people with preexisting conditions. Healthy people who don't think they need insurance having insurance will, in theory, balance out the cost of covering chemo, etc. for Joe Cancerpatient.
And actually, before this, if a poor uninsured person needs medical attention, who do you think pays for that? The taxpayers. They don't just let people bleed out and die in the hospital parking lot because they don't have insurance. So I don't see how forcing people to buy into coverage would require us (the already insured) to pay more money in taxes.
But the people who don't have it now or can't afford it? Its gonna be subsidized. Same difference really. Different means to the same end. The bill still misses the point of what the root problem is with healthcare.
-
Also, I found a very interesting read and I kind of buy into this some. AWK, as an atty what do you think? Kaos, as a business owner, what say you?
http://www.libertarian-examiner.com/2012/06/chief-justice-john-roberts-is-genius.html
tl;dr
Impeach Obama.
-
And actually, before this, if a poor uninsured person needs medical attention, who do you think pays for that? The taxpayers. They don't just let people bleed out and die in the hospital parking lot because they don't have insurance. So I don't see how forcing people to buy into coverage would require us (the already insured) to pay more money in taxes.
Then what the fuck is the point of this? The people who are without insurance now, are without it because they can't afford it. So how can they be forced to pay for it when they don't have the money? They won't. We'll (tax payers) be paying for it. Same as before.
They didn't fix a goddamn thing.
-
Then what the fuck is the point of this? The people who are without insurance now, are without it because they can't afford it. So how can they be forced to pay for it when they don't have the money? They won't. We'll (tax payers) be paying for it. Same as before.
They didn't fix a goddamn thing.
You got a nice way with words. I like them.
-
Then what the fuck is the point of this? The people who are without insurance now, are without it because they can't afford it. So how can they be forced to pay for it when they don't have the money? They won't. We'll (tax payers) be paying for it. Same as before.
They didn't fix a goddamn thing.
So if nothing is changing whatsoever, why the outrage? Why does at least trying to fix the problem make Obama a heretic?
Can't say enough that I disagree with the philosophical aspect of the government forcing people to pay for something they don't want, but there's definitely some hyperbole and blind rage coming from opponents.
-
So if nothing is changing whatsoever, why the outrage? Why does at least trying to fix the problem make Obama a heretic?
Can't say enough that I disagree with the philosophical aspect of the government forcing people to pay for something they don't want, but there's definitely some hyperbole and blind rage coming from opponents.
Because it causes more gov't oversight than before. It creates tons of costs to the states. It creates new agencies and requires a ton of people administering it at the Federal Level. If we are going to run around in circles, I at least would rather have less gov't doing so. And I know you may just be playing devils advocate and thats ok, it helps to get to the bottom of things. I just see no advantage to this bill. Not one. Ive combed through this whole thing with a fine tooth comb and I see nothing. I've looked at the budgets, revenue, medicare/caid, CBO, the bill itself - and I just don't see it. We will be the same off if not worse with a lot more money spent and gov't intrusion.
-
So if nothing is changing whatsoever, why the outrage? Why does at least trying to fix the problem make Obama a heretic?
Can't say enough that I disagree with the philosophical aspect of the government forcing people to pay for something they don't want, but there's definitely some hyperbole and blind rage coming from opponents.
Obamepublicrat. I don't like any of them, and I'm outraged because, yet again, trying to fix a problem led to this. We already have welfare insurance. They didn't fix shit, the fact that they spent this much time and money on this problem, to come up with this solution? I'd have a problem if there wasn't a fucking outrage.
How anyone can defend this pathetic piece of legislation is incomprehensible. If people are coming down hard on Obama, it's because THIS was his baby. Fixing America's healthcare was his ticket. He, along with every idiot who had a hand in this, FAILED!!
-
Furthermore. Saving my personal " lifetime story", I've been on my own since I was 17. I've had a full time job since 2 weeks after I graduated high school. I'm 31 now, and not once between then and now have I spent a day without health/dental insurance. Not once.
If people don't have health insurance, it's their own damn fault. Not the Government's problem. Not my problem. Not your problem. THEIR FUCKING PROBLEM.
-
Furthermore. Saving my personal " lifetime story", I've been on my own since I was 17. I've had a full time job since 2 weeks after I graduated high school. I'm 31 now, and not once between then and now have I spent a day without health/dental insurance. Not once.
If people don't have health insurance, it's their own damn fault. Not the Government's problem. Not my problem. Not your problem. THEIR FUCKING PROBLEM.
Would you say that to a child without insurance and shitty parents?
-
Would you say that to a child without insurance and shitty parents?
I have no problem, at all, taking care of children. We already do that, and this shitty bill did nothing to correct that problem. From birth until they finish high school. But if (either) mom or dad aren't willing to work a job that has an insurance plan, it's not my problem. Nor is it Uncle Sam's.
-
The reason they're forcing all healthy people to have insurance is because it will offset the cost of accepting people with preexisting conditions. Healthy people who don't think they need insurance having insurance will, in theory, balance out the cost of covering chemo, etc. for Joe Cancerpatient.
And actually, before this, if a poor uninsured person needs medical attention, who do you think pays for that? The taxpayers. They don't just let people bleed out and die in the hospital parking lot because they don't have insurance. So I don't see how forcing people to buy into coverage would require us (the already insured) to pay more money in taxes.
Let's get this right.
1. They're forcing everybody without insurance to have it. Just because they don't have insurance doesn't mean they are healthy. Supposedly the number of uninsured ranges somewhere from 20-30 million? So, you're going to add that many people that theoretically you will need to provide health care for. But you're telling me that this system is designed on the wager that the majority of those people are healthy, and won't need to use the system? All the while providing insurance at low cost so everybody can afford it? That's a scary wager. I understand that private health care is somewhat based on the same wager, but the difference is that you're going to pay more. But that is why those private insurance companies are still around.
And, as Token pointed out, those who can't afford insurance now probably won't be able to afford Obamacare either. And as I keep pointing out, everybody will help pay for this one way or another. If you really believe that the average citizen with insurance now will not be affected, you are going to be disappointed down the road.
2. If those "healthy" people aren't using the system, why should they be forced to pay for it?
3. If those that are currently uninsured are healthy and don't need health insurance, then why the fuck does this system even exist? What is the point?
I don't think anybody here will disagree that affordable healthcare for the masses is a great idea. I think where everybody gets hung up is it is obvious that this program will never operate without a deficit, and is going to further strain the budget. If you're going to fix it, then fix it the right way.
-
So if nothing is changing whatsoever, why the outrage? Why does at least trying to fix the problem make Obama a heretic?
While we are paying now to support some of the uninsured, we're going to have to pay even more when you add tens of millions of people to the system. I don't know how many times I need to say it, but the premium that those people are going to pay isn't going to fully fund the system. And not all of them will even be paying in. The money will have to come from somewhere. Even then, it will still run in the red.
-
I have another question that may have been addressed. What happens to the people who still refuse to purchase insurance? Do they get a bill in the mail? Or does the penalty come from the $10,000 tax refund check they didn't earn?
-
I have another question that may have been addressed. What happens to the people who still refuse to purchase insurance? Do they get a bill in the mail? Or does the penalty come from the $10,000 tax refund check they didn't earn?
My understanding is that the I.R.S. will be in charge of enforcing this. Not because the Court ruled it to be a tax. I'm relatively certain they intended for the I.R.S. to enforce it all along.
Assuming that it is the I.R.S. that enforces this, they will have some sort of reporting requirement. In all likelihood, companies which provide health insurance will be required to submit a form for each customer verifying that they are covered by insurance.
If someone over the age of 18 files a return, and the I.R.S. system notices that no health insurance report was filed on their social security number, then they will mail an inquiry. If no response is received, then they will send an assessment of the amount owed. If no response is received, then they will send it to collections, who will levy your bank account and garnish your wages.
While in collections, they'll keep any federal refunds you are due and apply it to the balance you owe. They'll also file to intercept your state refund.
I assume businesses who fail to properly report an individual who does have insurance through them will be fined with a civil penalty. Those businesses who currently fail to properly report and/or file employment withholding often get hit with civil penalties. The same collection technique is used: send notices, wait for response, move to collections, take money.
They are a pretty cost efficient agency.
-
My understanding is that the I.R.S. will be in charge of enforcing this. Not because the Court ruled it to be a tax. I'm relatively certain they intended for the I.R.S. to enforce it all along.
Assuming that it is the I.R.S. that enforces this, they will have some sort of reporting requirement. In all likelihood, companies which provide health insurance will be required to submit a form for each customer verifying that they are covered by insurance.
If someone over the age of 18 files a return, and the I.R.S. system notices that no health insurance report was filed on their social security number, then they will mail an inquiry. If no response is received, then they will send an assessment of the amount owed. If no response is received, then they will send it to collections, who will levy your bank account and garnish your wages.
While in collections, they'll keep any federal refunds you are due and apply it to the balance you owe. They'll also file to intercept your state refund.
I assume businesses who fail to properly report an individual who does have insurance through them will be fined with a civil penalty. Those businesses who currently fail to properly report and/or file employment withholding often get hit with civil penalties. The same collection technique is used: send notices, wait for response, move to collections, take money.
They are a pretty cost efficient agency.
So, somebody with alot of tax credits could just not pay, and they will take it out of their tax refund as Token suggests? If somebody is getting a refund for what they paid in plus some, and the government is simply taking back some of that plus some, that's not real income being put into the health care system. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. Really, it's robbing both. Or am I completely off base here?
-
So, somebody with alot of tax credits could just not pay, and they will take it out of their tax refund as Token suggests? If somebody is getting a refund for what they paid in plus some, and the government is simply taking back some of that plus some, that's not real income being put into the health care system. You're robbing Peter to pay Paul. Really, it's robbing both. Or am I completely off base here?
If you owe a tax debt to the I.R.S., then they will keep any federal refund you are owed and apply it to that debt. I imagine they would do the same thing with the amount owed for failure to have health insurance.
Any refund is not property of the government's. If the government gets to keep a refund that they normally wouldn't have gotten in order to satisfy a debt, then money is being made.
Not saying that it will be enough to float the system, but just pointing out that a levied refund is the same thing as income to the government, because the refund wasn't supposed to be theirs to keep initially.
-
(https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/376811_10151249149682796_1831628883_n.jpg)
-
So what is going to happen with someone like myself? I have healthcare/dental insurance on my entire family through the Military. My wife has declined to get insurance through her employer because I already have her covered. Will they try to charge my wife?
-
So what is going to happen with someone like myself? I have healthcare/dental insurance on my entire family through the Military. My wife has declined to get insurance through her employer because I already have her covered. Will they try to charge my wife?
From my understanding (I am retired military and have Tri-care) this should not affect you or your wife as she has coverage. But they are trying to up the fees charged to retired folks and up the deductable that you must now meet. Somewhere, somehow your gonna pay more and if the current administration gets re-elected look to get shafted as democrats on a second term tend to gut the military.
-
Somewhere, somehow your gonna pay more
That is the reality. They can say "It won't affect the average person with existing insurance" all that they want, but we all know that the cost will be passed on somewhere. The government is going to make things alot more expensive for the private insurers, and the insurers will pass that cost on to the consumer. The whole thing is nuts. Now that the government is in the insurance business, how is it right that they can and will tax private companies that are basically considered the competition? You're basically penalizing a company for doing well. I thought the whole point of the economy was for businesses to prosper?
-
That is the reality. They can say "It won't affect the average person with existing insurance" all that they want, but we all know that the cost will be passed on somewhere. The government is going to make things alot more expensive for the private insurers, and the insurers will pass that cost on to the consumer. The whole thing is nuts. Now that the government is in the insurance business, how is it right that they can and will tax private companies that are basically considered the competition? You're basically penalizing a company for doing well. I thought the whole point of the economy was for businesses Government to prosper?
Got remember whose running things now.
-
Question: What did you like about Romneycare that is different from Obamacare? Besides it being a state vs. federal government program.
-
Question: What did you like about Romneycare that is different from Obamacare? Besides it being a state vs. federal government program.
Romney care isn't any better.
Elect Gary Johnson
-
Romney care isn't any better.
Elect Gary Johnson
This man knows.
-
Quick question. Why has not one person spoke about all the little "hidden" bills and laws buried in this Obamacare shit not been spoke of? You know, the ones that have nothing to do with healthcare. I believe the Tea Party have been preaching on this for the last year.
-
I stole this:
Just left McDonalds got the new Obama happy meal! Order anything you want and the guy behind you has to pay for it!
:facepalm:
-
Romney care isn't any better.
Elect Gary Johnson
What's good about Gary Johnson?
-
What's good about Gary Johnson?
His platform emphasized tax cuts, job creation, state government spending growth restraint, and law and order.
As governor, Johnson followed a strict small government approach.
"Any time someone approached him about legislation for some purpose, his first response always was to ask if government should be involved in that to begin with."
He vetoed 200 of 424 bills in his first six months in office – a national record of 48% of all legislation – and used the line-item veto on most remaining bills. In office, Johnson fulfilled his campaign promise to reduce the 10% annual growth of the state budget.
In 1999, Johnson became one of the highest-ranking elected officials in the United States to advocate the legalization of marijuana. Saying the War on Drugs was "an expensive bust," he advocated the decriminalization of marijuana use
Johnson's accomplishments in office were described as follows: "no tax increases in six years, a major road building program, shifting Medicaid to managed care, constructing two new private prisons, canning 1,200 state employees, and vetoing a record number of bills."
According to one New Mexico paper, "Johnson left the state fiscally solid," and was "arguably the most popular governor of the decade . . . leaving the state with a $1 billion budget surplus."
During his tenure as governor, Johnson adhered to an anti-tax and anti-bureaucracy policy, setting state and national records for his use of veto powers: more than the other 49 contemporary governors put together. Term-limited, Johnson could not run for re-election at the end of his second term. As a fitness enthusiast, Johnson has taken part in several Ironman Triathlons, and he climbed Mount Everest in May 2003.
-
IT SAYS "TAX".
Oh, so it is a tax...so much for it being a penalty. It says "tax".
PAGE 167
Subtitle A—Shared Responsibility
9 PART 1—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
5
6
7
10
SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
11
12
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
13 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at
14 the end the following new part:
15
‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
‘‘SUBPART A.
TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE
COVERAGE.
16 ‘‘Subpart A—Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable
17 Health Care Coverage
‘‘Sec. 59B. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
18
‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19
20
HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf
-
Question: What did you like about Romneycare that is different from Obamacare? Besides it being a state vs. federal government program.
Some facts on romneycare I looked up myself:
Mitt didnt write most of what is in it
Massachusetts' legislature had a supermajority of democrats while Romney was governor
Romney actually vetoed most of it and was overridden
Teddy Kennedy had a ton of input into the bill
Most of Massachusetts citizens wanted the bill
-
His platform emphasized tax cuts, job creation, state government spending growth restraint, and law and order.
As governor, Johnson followed a strict small government approach.
"Any time someone approached him about legislation for some purpose, his first response always was to ask if government should be involved in that to begin with."
He vetoed 200 of 424 bills in his first six months in office – a national record of 48% of all legislation – and used the line-item veto on most remaining bills. In office, Johnson fulfilled his campaign promise to reduce the 10% annual growth of the state budget.
In 1999, Johnson became one of the highest-ranking elected officials in the United States to advocate the legalization of marijuana. Saying the War on Drugs was "an expensive bust," he advocated the decriminalization of marijuana use
Johnson's accomplishments in office were described as follows: "no tax increases in six years, a major road building program, shifting Medicaid to managed care, constructing two new private prisons, canning 1,200 state employees, and vetoing a record number of bills."
According to one New Mexico paper, "Johnson left the state fiscally solid," and was "arguably the most popular governor of the decade . . . leaving the state with a $1 billion budget surplus."
During his tenure as governor, Johnson adhered to an anti-tax and anti-bureaucracy policy, setting state and national records for his use of veto powers: more than the other 49 contemporary governors put together. Term-limited, Johnson could not run for re-election at the end of his second term. As a fitness enthusiast, Johnson has taken part in several Ironman Triathlons, and he climbed Mount Everest in May 2003.
. That's the good stuff. And for the most part I like him as well. But he has some cons too. He adamant stance against tariffs is one that is hard for me to overlook. Even Ron Paul has seemed bewildered by being against any tariff of any kind. It's just bad business on the federal level to be like that.
-
http://www.atr.org/obamacare-taxpayers-must-report-personal-health-a7611
Obamacare: Taxpayers Must Report Personal Health ID Info to IRS
When Obamacare’s individual mandate takes effect in 2014, all Americans who file income tax returns must complete an additional IRS tax form.
Big M GOOGLE EXCLUDED INCOME • 8 hours ago
I hate to burst your bubble, but the 861 defense will get you nowhere, because Title 26 has nothing to do with the IRS, and the crooked judges in these courts know it quite well. By its own admission, the IRS is a debt collection agency, and so comes under Title 15, which deals with collection practices. They cite Title 26 in order to confuse people. I can tell you without hesitation, every single person who has raised an 861 defense has lost. That would include people like Larken Rose.
One more thing. Not only does Title 26 not define "income" AT ALL, but the money earned by somebody working in the private sector in exchange for their skills and labor is NOT income, which was defined in a 1921 Supreme Court case as gain or profit from corporate activity. This is another reason why an 861 defense is just wandering down a blind alley.
Before you reply, be sure to look at Sections 61-63 of Title 26. They define gross income, adjusted gross income, and taxable income. If you don't define "income," it's basically impossible to legally define those things, right? If you don't define what a horse is, how do you define different breeds of horses? And remember what I mentioned above. Title 26 does NOT apply to the IRS, it applies to the Department of Internal Revenue. That's why it's called Internal Revenue Code, and not Internal Revenue Service Code. The Department of Internal Revenue is a US government agency. The Internal Revenue Service is a private, for-profit debt collection agency. They are two completely different animals.
http://www.atr.org/obamacare-taxpayers-must-report-personal-health-a7611#comment-895925691