Obamacare precedent gives Washington power to put $50,000 tax on abortion - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

IllTestYourGirls · 06-28-2012, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Most people making $60k a year have employer provided health insurance so they're fine. Lots of self-employed people had few to no insurance options in the past (especially if they had even the smallest thing wrong with them) so they are good to go now.

Will there be some people hurting? Yes? Will there be some people better off? Yes.

In the past hospitals could appeal to the states for aid to cover bills that remain unpaid. Guess how states paid for that? Taxes. Taxes that everyone had to pay.

At least now it will be the person refusing to get health insurance that will be paying the tax rather than all of the other taxpayers.

How are the self employed good to go now? They have the same exact options as they did before. Or did Obama create more insurance companies? Actually they will have LESS options because they will have to buy a federally approved insurance plan. Before they could have paid for something less than what the feds say need to be covered.

The hospitals will still be going to the state to get money because not everyone will be insured. Those refusing health insurance will be paying the tax than when they get hurt go to the hospital not pay and the tax payer is stuck with the bill anyway.

Sly · 06-28-2012, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Most people making $60k a year have employer provided health insurance so they're fine. Lots of self-employed people had few to no insurance options in the past (especially if they had even the smallest thing wrong with them) so they are good to go now.

Will there be some people hurting? Yes? Will there be some people better off? Yes.

Part of being able to get the sick insured is to get more people into insurance to balance out the risk. That includes getting healthy people in so they can invest that money and grow their claims reserve.

The people that say "I'll never get sick" are lying. The one's that say "I'll deal with my hospital bills" are mostly lying if they're middle class. They're not going to have a heart attack and refuse treatment. We know that's bullshit. They're going to go to the ER and get treatment and based on the number and amount of hospital bills not being paid these days there is a chance they will never pay it.

In the past hospitals could appeal to the states for aid to cover bills that remain unpaid. Guess how states paid for that? Taxes. Taxes that everyone had to pay.

At least now it will be the person refusing to get health insurance that will be paying the tax rather than all of the other taxpayers.

You mean the $600 tax? Again, that is nothing. I don't know anyone that pays $50 a month for insurance.

GregE · 06-28-2012, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

It wasn't meant to be that way, but from what I understand since the Medicaid part was ruled out, it may be. There were supposed to be options for low income people, but without reading the judgment, with Medicaid being knocked out of the bill I cannot imagine what those options are other than buying insurance.

As I understand it, if you're poor enough you won't have to buy insurance. Which is to say that you'll still be in the exact same boat you were in before Obamacare.

People like that will still be using emergency rooms for basic medical care, albeit in smaller numbers.

theking · 06-28-2012, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

Obviously both congress and the president have input into law. Traditionally, major laws lime this are submitted by the president, then amended and passed by Congress. But okay, let's play fifth grade government class. SENATOR Palin. The ruling says that the even when it would be unconstitutional the feds to require that you do something, they can go ahead and require it anyway by calling the requirement a tax. Do you feel better if it's SENATOR Palin who is no longer restrained by the constitution?

I am unaware of Palin being a Senator or ever having been a Senator.

IllTestYourGirls · 06-28-2012, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

You mean the $600 tax? Again, that is nothing. I don't know anyone that pays $50 a month for insurance.

Your tax does not get you healthcare. You still have to pay for your healthcare. Or not pay for it and let the tax payer pick up the bill.

Rochard · 06-28-2012, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Fucking idiot. Car insurance is to protect the other guy. Health insurance is forcing me to protect me. See the difference?

I honestly don't understand you some times.

My wife hit a boulder last month, and my insurance company shelled out $6k to fix it. There was no "other guy", and my insurance company didn't protect anyone else other than my interests and my investment in my SUV.

See the difference?

IllTestYourGirls · 06-28-2012, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

I honestly don't understand you some times.

My wife hit a boulder last month, and my insurance company shelled out $6k to fix it. There was no "other guy", and my insurance company didn't protect anyone else other than my interests and my investment in my SUV.

See the difference?

Was your SUV paid off?

Half man, Half Amazing · 06-28-2012, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Overload

being german i really dont get what fuss this is to US folks ... here, you are insured - NO MATTER WHAT INCOME - even if unemployed, 100% handycapped or whatever - fuck, even if you are an illegal alien you will receive medical care ... and hey, it works! it aint too expensive to have a (relatively) healthy popupaltion and ... oh Christianity - what was that bla about loving yer next like yerself?! i would hate myself for living in a country that refuses help for the ones in need - but oh fuck, the US is solely based on profit and greed

health care for all works in all european countries - why should america be unable to compete?!

Yeah but if those sick people can actually go to a doctor to get help then there's less incentive for them to seek help at churches. Organized religion is organized business, and it's all tax-free, everyone else pays for it...yet you don't hear a peep outta the right wingers. I'll bet you $1000 if the right-wingers put up a bill to tax only Islam, their base would whole-heartedly support it. Any right wingers whining about freedom are total hypocrites, they only want you to have freedoms that are in line with their religion - any other freedoms they will fight tooth and nail to take away from you.

Rochard · 06-28-2012, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

However, Washington can penalize you for doing or not doing anything they want, if they call the penalty a "tax".

You seem to think this is a new concept.

If you buy a car that uses too much gas you get hit with a Gas Guzzler Tax. Your being "penalized" for buying a car that is crappy on gas.

IllTestYourGirls · 06-28-2012, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

You seem to think this is a new concept.

If you buy a car that uses too much gas you get hit with a Gas Guzzler Tax. Your being "penalized" for buying a car that is crappy on gas.

But I don't have to buy that car.

This is a tax on inaction. I am doing nothing and getting taxed.

raymor · 06-28-2012, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

In the State of Florida you must carry car insurance if your car is tagged and/or on the road.

You were right that it has nothing to do with Washington politicians as car insurance is something left for the states.

No, go back and read a) b) and c). In no state do you have to insure your car. You have to have either LIABILITY coverage to protect the person you run over, or sufficient assets to pay his medical bills, and that only if you choose to risk hitting him by driving. (as opposed to say, taking the bus.) Nowhere does the law require you to insure your car.

miss_bellabellini · 06-28-2012, 06:27 PM

Women's rights haven't exactly been advancing in the U.S over the past few years. But Roe v. Wade ruled that the decision to have an abortion was protected under privacy rights in the constitution.

I would hope privacy rights are more protected than taxes.

Women in the U.S have other problems right now. Ignorant pharmacists refuse to sell Plan B in small towns because they think it is abortion. It is also hard to find doctors who will perform abortions in many states.

Politicians should be going after clinicians and state laws that limit privacy rights.

IllTestYourGirls · 06-28-2012, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss_bellabellini

Women's rights haven't exactly been advancing in the U.S over the past few years. But Roe v. Wade ruled that the decision to have an abortion was protected under privacy rights in the constitution.

I would hope privacy rights are more protected than taxes.

Women in the U.S have other problems right now. Ignorant pharmacists refuse to sell Plan B in small towns because they think it is abortion. It is also hard to find doctors who will perform abortions in many states.

Politicians should be going after clinicians and state laws that limit privacy rights.

What about the womans right to choose not to buy health insurance?

raymor · 06-28-2012, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theking

I am unaware of Palin being a Senator or ever having been a Senator.

Then you haven't been paying attention and have a hard time seeing anything beyond the present instant. In November, several hundred morons will be elected. Most of them dumber than Palin, and most of them would like to force you to do things you don't want to do. Today you're celebrating a ruling giving them the power to force you to do all kinds of stuff previously understood to be unconstitutional.

Palin, or someone just as bad, will be president. Our last two presidents prove that stupid gets elected.

IllTestYourGirls · 06-28-2012, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

Then you haven't been paying attention and have a hard time seeing anything beyond the present instant. In November, several hundred morons will be elected. Most of them dumber than Palin, and most of them would like to force you to do things you don't want to do. Today you're celebrating a ruling giving them the power to force you to do all kinds of stuff previously understood to be unconstitutional.

Palin, or someone just as bad, will be president. Our last two presidents prove that stupid gets elected.

Sadly very few people understand what you just said. One day someone dumber than Bush will get elected and con congress into forcing us all to do something dumber than forcing us to buy health insurance from a corrupt health insurance company.

epitome · 06-28-2012, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

You mean the $600 tax? Again, that is nothing. I don't know anyone that pays $50 a month for insurance.

Aren't there also new tax incentives for having insurance? If so I wonder at what point it becomes a wash and you should just have it.

epitome · 06-28-2012, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

How are the self employed good to go now? They have the same exact options as they did before. Or did Obama create more insurance companies? Actually they will have LESS options because they will have to buy a federally approved insurance plan. Before they could have paid for something less than what the feds say need to be covered.

The hospitals will still be going to the state to get money because not everyone will be insured. Those refusing health insurance will be paying the tax than when they get hurt go to the hospital not pay and the tax payer is stuck with the bill anyway.

For all the things they considered pre-existing trust me there are lots of self-employed unable to get coverage until now. I am one of them. My ObamaCare kicked in on April 1st. Right now my premium is paid to the government but come 2014 it will be a private insurer.

You are right about people still going to the ER. Since everyone will now be eligible for coverage we should amend the law saying uninsured can be turned away. As a conservative you likely agree.

miss_bellabellini · 06-28-2012, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

What about the womans right to choose not to buy health insurance?

You pay taxes for lots of things you wouldn't want to buy or pay for. That's the argument that the religious right made about pulling funding for Planned Parenthood because one of their services is performing abortions.

I'm not an American citizen. But I've lived in South Africa where private health insurance was expensive. And I live in Canada now where health care is managed by the government.

I prefer the Canadian option. Governments around the world have access to large amounts of money. Humanity would be better off if more of that money was put towards health care and education.

I'm not saying Canada is perfect. There are corrupt idiotic politicians here also. The health minister in Ontario should be fired and never be allowed to hold a position of power ever again.

Sly · 06-28-2012, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss_bellabellini

You pay taxes for lots of things you wouldn't want to buy or pay for. That's the argument that the religious right made about pulling funding for Planned Parenthood because one of their services is performing abortions.

I'm not an American citizen. But I've lived in South Africa where private health insurance was expensive. And I live in Canada now where health care is managed by the government.

I prefer the Canadian option. Governments around the world have access to large amounts of money. Humanity would be better off if more of that money was put towards health care and education.

I'm not saying Canada is perfect. There are corrupt idiotic politicians here also. The health minister in Ontario should be fired and never be allowed to hold a position of power ever again.

You are justifying a new policy, of force, by calling it a "tax." That's pretty much the whole marketing shtick behind this.

We can create taxes for just about anything. The same marketing shtick could be used then, too.

GregE · 06-28-2012, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

You are right about people still going to the ER. Since everyone will now be eligible for coverage we should amend the law saying uninsured can be turned away. As a conservative you likely agree.

The working poor are still too "rich" for medicaid and still too poor to afford private health insurance.

ObamaCare hasn't changed anything for them.

To now deny them any medical access whatsoever seems a tad draconian, don't you think?

Relentless · 06-28-2012, 07:00 PM

The scarier and more hysterical analogy is that Congress can now pass a law that requires you to pay a tax for NOT having an abortion to help spread the cost of those who do have abortions.

That also is not going to happen

miss_bellabellini · 06-28-2012, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

You are justifying a new policy, of force, by calling it a "tax." That's pretty much the whole marketing shtick behind this.

We can create taxes for just about anything. The same marketing shtick could be used then, too.

Actually that wasn't the marketing shtick. Obama was all over the place giving interviews and speeches trying to tell people that it wasn't a tax. He knew that the American public doesn't respond well to the idea of more taxes or 'big Government'.

Now all those interviews have come back to bite him in the ass because the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare precisely because it is a tax.

"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax," Roberts wrote in the court's majority ruling. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."

Maybe you should be angry at the people who challenged Obamacare and forced a Supreme Court ruling?

Sly · 06-28-2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miss_bellabellini

Actually that wasn't the marketing shtick. Obama was all over the place giving interviews and speeches trying to tell people that it wasn't a tax. He knew that the American public doesn't respond well to the idea of more taxes or 'big Government'.

Now all those interviews have come back to bite him in the ass because the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare precisely because it is a tax.

"The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax," Roberts wrote in the court's majority ruling. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."

Maybe you should be angry at the people who challenged Obamacare and forced a Supreme Court ruling?

I'm not angry at anyone. I just thought it was cute how you latched on to the word tax and used that as justification, just like others have done and will continue to do for this issue and a plethora of other "taxes", past present and future.. :-)

Rochard · 06-28-2012, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IllTestYourGirls

But I don't have to buy that car.

This is a tax on inaction. I am doing nothing and getting taxed.

That's a valid point really.

ruff · 06-28-2012, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

That's a valid point really.

It's not valid. You don't have to buy a car. You can walk forever. You are going to need medical attention at some point in your life, that's a certainty.

galleryseek · 06-28-2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruff

It's not valid. You don't have to buy a car. You can walk forever. You are going to need medical attention at some point in your life, that's a certainty.

Yes, so using state sponsored theft via coercion is the right way to encourage people to buy health insurance?

Rule with an iron fist! Obama 2012! Don't obey? Pay mother fucker!

miss_bellabellini · 06-28-2012, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

I'm not angry at anyone. I just thought it was cute how you latched on to the word tax and used that as justification, just like others have done and will continue to do for this issue and a plethora of other "taxes", past present and future.. :-)

I'm not angry either, but it's the Supreme Court that called it a tax based on the constitution.

Anyway, I'm sure everyone will forget about it in a few years and not much will change. I'm not sure if it was Colbert or Stewart (probably both) who said that the ruling wasn't a win or loss for either political party.

Romney is on the news saying Obamacare is legal but still wrong, so he will run against it.

Obama will make a statement praising the Supreme Court. But he will still have to clarify why he was giving interviews all over the place saying it wasn't a tax when it actually was.

How many days left until the election?

Canadian politics isn't much better. But at least our elections are short and sweet. The media turns the U.S elections into a year long sports season.

Tijuana_Tom · 06-28-2012, 07:31 PM

Do you guys need the definition of TAX? geesus murphy.

"A sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services."

If you don't have health care you are costing everyone else money. So pay up sucka!

shinmusashi44 · 06-28-2012, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

A) Insuring your car isn't mandatory. You can choose not to insure your car. You're thinking of LIABILTY coverage, which covers the victim if I run you over. Liability coverage, protecting you from me, is also not mandatory. I can choose to risk MY health. That's different from me choosing to risk YOUR health.

b) Liabilty coverage is not mandatory. Only IF I decide to put you at risk with my driving, I need to show that I can be responsible for any accidents I cause. I can choose to do that using insurance, proof of sufficient assets, a cash bond, or other ways. I just have to prove that I can take care of any accidents I cause, or I can choose to take the subway instead.

c) STATES have the constitutional authority to have me sure proof of financial responsibility if I want them to give me a license. The court agreed today that under tne enumerated powers it's unconsititutional for the FEDS to require you to buy insurance for yourself. The constitution doesn't give them that power. (But the court allowed them to skirt the constitition by calling it a tax.)

What the hell are you talking about, it is mandatory. You have to have insurance/liabilty before you can get a tag on your car, you have to have insurance/liabilty before you can leave car dealership. You can also go to jail for not having car insurance/liabilty. And in FL if you stop paying your insurance/liabilty, you have to turn in your tag.

woj · 06-28-2012, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ruff

It's not valid. You don't have to buy a car. You can walk forever. You are going to need medical attention at some point in your life, that's a certainty.

How is that a certainty? What if you choose to for example be treated by alternative medicine practitioners? or choose to be treated by a family member who happens to be a doctor? Or you are perhaps in good health and you die in a tragic sky diving accident? Or perhaps you believe that Japan has superior level of medical care and choose to be treated there? Or you choose not to get treated for whatever reason, some religious reason perhaps lets say?

In all these cases you will have no use at all for insurance that you are forced to buy...

theking · 06-28-2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

Then you haven't been paying attention and have a hard time seeing anything beyond the present instant. In November, several hundred morons will be elected. Most of them dumber than Palin, and most of them would like to force you to do things you don't want to do. Today you're celebrating a ruling giving them the power to force you to do all kinds of stuff previously understood to be unconstitutional.

Palin, or someone just as bad, will be president. Our last two presidents prove that stupid gets elected.

Correction...I am not celebrating anything...in fact I am surprised by the ruling and even more surprised by Chief Justice Roberts voting the way he did and also surprised by his explanation for voting the way he did. I think it makes him appear to be not to bright by opening doors for all kinds of bullshit.

I see now that you were speaking about the "euphemistic Palin".

ruff · 06-28-2012, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

How is that a certainty? What if you choose to for example be treated by alternative medicine practitioners? or choose to be treated by a family member who happens to be a doctor? Or you are perhaps in good health and you die in a tragic sky diving accident? Or perhaps you believe that Japan has superior level of medical care and choose to be treated there? Or you choose not to get treated for whatever reason, some religious reason perhaps lets say?

In all these cases you will have no use at all for insurance that you are forced to buy...

Because in order for the mandate to work, everyone has to buy into the insurance. You will soon see that despite all the rhetoric, the insurance companies will be the first ones completely behind this healthcare program. And that's because it spreads out the risks, the market will compete and rates will drop. A few more posts to this thread and I think we will have it sorted out and can submit our findings to our local congressmen.

raymor · 06-28-2012, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

The scarier and more hysterical analogy is that Congress can now pass a law that requires you to pay a tax for NOT having an abortion to help spread the cost of those who do have abortions.

That also is not going to happen

That IS better analogy. That won't happen (I hope), but this ruling says it would be constitutional. The health care bill may be "a big fucking deal", but I think it's almost inconsequential compared to the precedent that the federal government may now create unconstitutional requirements by merely labeling them as "taxes".

American's eating habits affect health care costs far more than healthy young people choosing to forgo insurance does, so under this ruling the feds may now force you to buy broccoli and yogurt every week - or pay the penalty, ahem "tax".

Sunny Day · 06-28-2012, 10:28 PM

Besides the uninsured going to the ER, they also go to hospital clinics and in life threatening cases have surgery. The hospitals have to charge the insurance companies higher rates to make up losses from the uninsured. Some hospitals are government run and have to get tax money to cover the uninsured.

You're also paying for people with health insurance that can't pay their share of the bill. The majority of bankruptcy filings in the US is from people who couldn't pay their medical bills. Most health insurances have caps on what they pay. You might need a heart transplant that costs $500,000 and your insurance might only cover $250,000. So again the hospital has to raise its rates to cover the loss.

Hospital charges might actually come down since the hospitals should be getting fully paid. But that only if deductibles are eliminated or the government just puts everyone on Medicare.

There are some doctors who charge less than doctors (most) who accept insurance. These doctors don't accept insurance so they have fewer people working. One doctor needs 3 or 4 people doing nothing but filing insurance claims and hassling with the insurance companies to actually pay them.

People without insurance now also cost the the insured and all taxpayers by not taking care of minor problems as the can't pay for them so they end up getting much sicker and the bill gets a lot bigger.

06-28-2012, 06:27 PM	#62
miss_bellabellini Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Toronto Posts: 533	Women's rights haven't exactly been advancing in the U.S over the past few years. But Roe v. Wade ruled that the decision to have an abortion was protected under privacy rights in the constitution. I would hope privacy rights are more protected than taxes. Women in the U.S have other problems right now. Ignorant pharmacists refuse to sell Plan B in small towns because they think it is abortion. It is also hard to find doctors who will perform abortions in many states. Politicians should be going after clinicians and state laws that limit privacy rights. __________________ bella.bellini at gmail.com Check out my official site!

06-28-2012, 07:00 PM	#71
Relentless www.EngineFood.com Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,697	The scarier and more hysterical analogy is that Congress can now pass a law that requires you to pay a tax for NOT having an abortion to help spread the cost of those who do have abortions. That also is not going to happen __________________ Website Secure \| Engine Food ICQ# 266-942-896

06-28-2012, 10:28 PM	#84
Sunny Day Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 1,406	You're paying for the uninsured already Besides the uninsured going to the ER, they also go to hospital clinics and in life threatening cases have surgery. The hospitals have to charge the insurance companies higher rates to make up losses from the uninsured. Some hospitals are government run and have to get tax money to cover the uninsured. You're also paying for people with health insurance that can't pay their share of the bill. The majority of bankruptcy filings in the US is from people who couldn't pay their medical bills. Most health insurances have caps on what they pay. You might need a heart transplant that costs $500,000 and your insurance might only cover $250,000. So again the hospital has to raise its rates to cover the loss. Hospital charges might actually come down since the hospitals should be getting fully paid. But that only if deductibles are eliminated or the government just puts everyone on Medicare. There are some doctors who charge less than doctors (most) who accept insurance. These doctors don't accept insurance so they have fewer people working. One doctor needs 3 or 4 people doing nothing but filing insurance claims and hassling with the insurance companies to actually pay them. People without insurance now also cost the the insured and all taxpayers by not taking care of minor problems as the can't pay for them so they end up getting much sicker and the bill gets a lot bigger.

06-28-2012, 07:31 PM	#78
Tijuana_Tom So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: May 2011 Location: 90210 Posts: 668	Do you guys need the definition of TAX? geesus murphy. "A sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services." If you don't have health care you are costing everyone else money. So pay up sucka!