Obamacare is upheld

[Ice1]

Seems rational.

 

 

As you may know, Clinton's model of healthcare was pretty close to the Swiss model. That said, the average Swiss citizen will pay around 2x out of pocket over the average US citizen. IE a higher percentage of insured but much higher deductibles.

 

It should also be noted that their population is less than New York City and compliance issues are far different due to size and cultural differences.

[billay]

Why throw away the $750? Do you not understand the nature of mandatory? You no longer have the choice not to either pay for the insurance or pay the fine (which is what it is, calling it a tax seems like nothing more than a loophole, especially considering Obama has long said it wasn't a tax... Oh wait, a tax can technically make it constitutional? Oh, well, that's what we meant in the first place ).

 

Thus, the better way to ask your question is: Why would I pay full premiums, when I can "waste" less and still be able to get covered when I need it.

 

I really think there's a fundamental misunderstanding about why insurance companies didn't cover pre-existing conditions, and it's exactly this, that people who hadn't paid in previously to the insurance will claim the benefits when they need to, without having contributed a dime to it previously.

 

So you're not "wasting" the $750 unless that prevents you from getting insurance when you need it. Since it doesn't, then the fine can be essentially be seen as a cheaper premium, and certainly not a waste, liek is paying a full premium when healthy when you can jsut pay a cheaper fine and claim it later... Screwing the system rocks!

 

But if you opt to pay the penalty instead of purchasing health insurance, you have nothing to show for the $750. If you were to pay the penalty and subsequently get ill and require coverage, you would still have to go out and purchase health coverage, without the benefit of the $750 thus "waste."

[Ice1]

How about this approach. Everyone pays sales tax. We institute a national sales tax that helps fund insurance in some manner. It is regressive in nature of course, but it would mostly be these same individuals that would benefit from the subsidies for their insurance in the exchanges. Are they still coming out ahead? Sure, but at least they are paying something into the system. Would that help satisfy all the redistribution victims of socialism?

 

 

In the end, we will in fact pay a FICA type paycheck tax if Obamacare ultimately survives. Fines, income tax, or even taxing tanning beds won't get it done. This will cost us a trillion or more in a decade given it looks like a bunch of 3rd graders came up with this plan.

 

While close to 50% of the population does not contribute one dime in income tax, they must ultimately contribute to this entitlement or it will fail.

 

Why people think giving more control to a government that is so out of control they already have to borrow 4 billion a day to stay solvent is truly an amazement.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Ice1

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Well, the free market says if there is a demand someone will figure out a way to fill it profitably. I thought the argument was the free market is perfect?

[delusions of grandeur]

But if you opt to pay the penalty instead of purchasing health insurance, you have nothing to show for the $750. If you were to pay the penalty and subsequently get ill and require coverage, you would still have to go out and purchase health coverage, without the benefit of the $750 thus "waste."

 

You get the added benefit of not having to deal with the IRS for not paying your fine/tax... Okay, yes, morally I agree, and there are many taxes I find to be a "waste" when you look at where the money goes, but most people, esepcially those with less discretionary income, look at their bottom line first...

 

To most peopel, it doesn't matter if the money is wasted, if you're gonig to haev spend mroe for the same benefits. So if it is cheaper to just pay the fine and get the insurance when you actually need it, then really isn't it more of a waste to have insurance when you're healthy and don't need it. If both provide the same benefit, and one costs less, then I don't see how it can be considered wasteful...

 

Of course this is all in the eyes of the consumer, because I'd rather give me money to the insurance company and not bankrupt them for ill-thought policy, and think it's entirely immoral to ask for something out of a policy that you never paid into before you needed it. That's the antithesis of what insurance is supposed to do... But neverless, people are selfish and will put their bottom line ahead of what's right if those are the choices they're given.

[delusions of grandeur]

Well, the free market says if there is a demand someone will figure out a way to fill it profitably. I thought the argument was the free market is perfect?

 

I fail to realize how this mandate constitutes a free market... Yes, the market will most likely overcome it, probably by sticking it to the consumer that can pay to make up for it, like is what usually happens with intervention

[westvirginia]

But if you opt to pay the penalty instead of purchasing health insurance, you have nothing to show for the $750. If you were to pay the penalty and subsequently get ill and require coverage, you would still have to go out and purchase health coverage, without the benefit of the $750 thus "waste."

 

 

Ahh, but I assume the penalty would be paid at the end of the year - when you're doing your tax return. Then, your $750 is only your "premium" for the previous year when you didn't get sick. If I don't have to make the decision - it gets made for me by whether I get sick or not this year - then I'm not "wasting" anything, am I?

 

You're also missing this: the architects of this plan WANT to bankrupt insurance companies. As this happens, they will get to assert more and more control over your healthcare, eventually resulting in their brass ring of socialized medicine. They will step in as soon as they can and say "see - we tried to use the free market but it just doesn't work in this case! Government MUST do this! For the chiiiiiiiiiildren!" And I've been saying that was the whole point of this legislation since it was first talked about.

 

 

Well, the free market says if there is a demand someone will figure out a way to fill it profitably. I thought the argument was the free market is perfect?

 

 

As was stated by DoG, this is FAR from a free market. When nanny-state tells you that you have to do X and can only bill for it at a price whereby you are losing money, then people will not want to practice medicine in this country.

[Chavez]

There is a lot left to play out.. The flip side of the coin is that there will likely be some Governor who would be inclined to opt out on principle...

 

 

 

...and that man will be Scott Walker!

[gbpfan1231]

I think the whole argument of people paying the fine until they need to use insurance is hogwash.

 

I mean just look at the entitlements that we have now - thank god we have honest people in this country and nobody tries to scam the system.

 

If we had a mentality of people trying to get things for free then I would agree that this will fail but thank god that we don't have a entitlement mentality in this country.

[billay]

Ahh, but I assume the penalty would be paid at the end of the year - when you're doing your tax return. Then, your $750 is only your "premium" for the previous year when you didn't get sick. If I don't have to make the decision - it gets made for me by whether I get sick or not this year - then I'm not "wasting" anything, am I?

 

 

 

You and DoG both are coming at the insurance issue from the standpoint of necessity. If you don't get sick, then any money you pay for insurance is wasted. This is a different kind of waste than actually paying money and receiving nothing in return. Your version is an inefficiency that can be remedied by making use of the service. Given the focus on preventative care going forward, its going to be far more common for people to go to the doctor when they are not sick, in order to avoid more serious and avoidable health issues in the future. The fact is most health insurance coverage includes a fair amount of preventative care (as I assume does Obamacare). Failing to go to the doctor because you didn't face a life threatening illness this year does not mean you got nothing for your money. This "wasted" opportunity is a horse of a different color.

[billay]

 

 

You're also missing this: the architects of this plan WANT to bankrupt insurance companies. As this happens, they will get to assert more and more control over your healthcare, eventually resulting in their brass ring of socialized medicine. They will step in as soon as they can and say "see - we tried to use the free market but it just doesn't work in this case! Government MUST do this! For the chiiiiiiiiiildren!" And I've been saying that was the whole point of this legislation since it was first talked about.

 

 

 

 

If the administration REALLY wanted to bankrupt the insurance companies, why wouldn't they have gone with a single payer option?

[westvirginia]

If the administration REALLY wanted to bankrupt the insurance companies, why wouldn't they have gone with a single payer option?

 

 

It was politically untenable. What they did got a republican elected for the first time in how many years in Mass? And they had to give out how much graft to even get some democrats to say yes?

[bushwacked]

Looks like we've progressed our way through unsubstantiated speculation to full blown chicken little conspiracy theories. That didn't take long now.

[bushwacked]

Now that the Supreme Court has upheld President Obama’s health-reform law, one new poll suggests most people want the law’s opponents to drop their repeal efforts and move on to other problems. Another poll suggests the public is as divided by the law as ever.

 

In the latest survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, 56 percent of respondents said they prefer Obamacare opponents “stop their efforts to block the law and move on to other national problems,” while 38 percent said they prefer those opponents “continue trying to block the law from being implemented.”

 

Kaiser, a nonprofit, independent foundation that studies health policy and opinions, polled 1,239 adults beginning last Thursday, when the Supreme Court upheld Obama’s health law under Congress’s taxing power.

 

Predictably, responses broke down on partisan lines, but independents who do not lean toward either party also preferred Obamacare critics drop their repeal push by a margin of 51 percent to 35 percent. Respondents favored the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the law by a margin of 47 percent to 43 percent, Kaiser found.

 

While Democrats and Independents may want to move on, it is also clear that the decision did little to change opinions about the law itself.

 

A poll from CNN found that 50 percent of Americans agreed with Supreme Court’s decision, while 49 percent disagreed with it. Not surprisingly, 81 percent of Democrats liked the Supreme Court decision while 81 percent of Republicans disliked it

 

 

Please please...let the Repubs spend the next 5 months campaigning for the repeal of Obamacare using Romney as your mouthpiece. :crossing fingers:

[billay]

WV, Scott Brown was elected in January of 2010 and Obamacare was signed into law in March of 2010.

 

Care to try again?

[delusions of grandeur]

Looks like we've progressed our way through unsubstantiated speculation to full blown chicken little conspiracy theories. That didn't take long now.

 

Maybe you're right. It is possible we're giving Obama way too much credit

Please please...let the Repubs spend the next 5 months campaigning for the repeal of Obamacare using Romney as your mouthpiece. :crossing fingers:

 

[The Mucca]

Under this socialist health plan, if the company I work for decides to pay the penalty instead of insuring it's

employees, I will be paying approximately $8000.00 more a year to insure myself and my family.

If enough companies to do this, the middle class is done for sure.

[Ditkaless Wonders]

BB states "govt. never makes anything better," and then labels statstics as talking points, while you take it upon yourself to state this. What an extra special little tag team you 2 are in the tailgate.

 

 

Its good to be appreciated.

[yo mama]

Under this socialist health plan, if the company I work for decides to pay the penalty instead of insuring it's

employees, I will be paying approximately $8000.00 more a year to insure myself and my family.

If enough companies to do this, the middle class is done for sure.

 

I guess I don't understand this point. Your company previously had no obligation to provide you with insurance, and could have canceled your insurance in the past without penalty. What would possess them to suddenly cancel your insurance now that there *is* a penalty?

Edited July 4, 2012 by yo mama

[The Mucca]

I guess I don't understand this point. Your company previously had no obligation to provide you with insurance, and could have canceled your insurance in the past without penalty. What would possess them to suddenly cancel your insurance now that there *is* a penalty?

 

 

 

To save millions of dollars.

[Trojanmojo]

To save millions of dollars.

 

 

So then why didn't they withhold health insurance to you before so that they could save millions of dollars?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

 

 

So then why didn't they withhold health insurance to you before so that they could save millions of dollars?

 

 

This.

 

If your company is using this as some kind of an excuse to gut benefits they already were giving you under no obligation, then they are a CHIPS AHOY!ty employer and are bound to lose their good employees to a better one who will run them out of business. Also, if the gut your benefits and expect anyone to stay they should at the very least increase your salary to help you buy insurance through one of the exchanges.

[Ice1]

I guess I don't understand this point. Your company previously had no obligation to provide you with insurance, and could have canceled your insurance in the past without penalty. What would possess them to suddenly cancel your insurance now that there *is* a penalty?

 

 

There are three obvious reasons.

 

1) Regulation as to policy type.

2) Cost of policy.

3) Cost to administer regulation

 

It is easy to say companies shouldn't do this or that employees will go elsewhere but anyone that hires these days knows that for every opening 50 to 100 resumes will be sent.

 

The government through nanny policies always has unintended consequence. People voted for government control over healthcare so it stands to reason many businesses will give them what they wanted and shift what was a benefit to the new entitlement. Fines will amount to 2 - 3 months maximum of employer contribution and with the corporate tax laws changing January 1st, we will most likely see significant action on the business side in multiple markets.

[The Mucca]

This.

 

If your company is using this as some kind of an excuse to gut benefits they already were giving you under no obligation, then they are a CHIPS AHOY!ty employer and are bound to lose their good employees to a better one who will run them out of business. Also, if the gut your benefits and expect anyone to stay they should at the very least increase your salary to help you buy insurance through one of the exchanges.

 

 

That may have been true 10/15 years ago, but todays business culture is a lot different. Many company's have

already frozen/adjusted pensions and 401ks in the few years, to think they will not do that with insurance is foolish.

[Chavez]

There are three obvious reasons.

 

1) Regulation as to policy type.

2) Cost of policy.

3) Cost to administer regulation

 

It is easy to say companies shouldn't do this or that employees will go elsewhere but anyone that hires these days knows that for every opening 50 to 100 resumes will be sent.

 

The government through nanny policies always has unintended consequence. People voted for government control over healthcare so it stands to reason many businesses will give them what they wanted and shift what was a benefit to the new entitlement. Fines will amount to 2 - 3 months maximum of employer contribution and with the corporate tax laws changing January 1st, we will most likely see significant action on the business side in multiple markets.

 

 

...so, in short, companies like yours are going to help insure that this half-assed, half-measure plan eventually turns into a single-payer system that destroys health insurance companies?

 

 

Well, bust my bumpers. America, what a country!