Entire ACA upheld by Supreme Court

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Honu

On of one of those articles Riot posted I answered the health care questions and found out the ACA doesnt do anything at all for me and my partner.

It may not give you financial subsidies, but yes, you both get all the consumer protection benefits: no lifetime cap, no kicking you off when you get sick, etc.

And, in 2014 when the state exchanges are up, you'll have other options for purchasing competitively-priced health care from competitive providers

Just "wow" on the nonsense you have to put up with, tax-wise, with your household. That needs to be fixed, too.

You got a discount for having your ACL done with insurance. That's great. My insurance company approved payment for my operation to the hospital, then 6 months later decided not to pay. I had to pay "full price", no discounts, out of pocket. That practice is now illegal with the ACA. For you and I, and your partner. Thank god.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Riot

It may not give you financial subsidies, but yes, you both get all the consumer protection benefits: no lifetime cap, no kicking you off when you get sick, etc.

And, in 2014 when the state exchanges are up, you'll have other options for purchasing competitively-priced health care from competitive providers

Just "wow" on the nonsense you have to put up with, tax-wise, with your household. That needs to be fixed, too.

You got a discount for having your ACL done with insurance. That's great. My insurance company approved payment for my operation to the hospital, then 6 months later decided not to pay. I had to pay "full price", no discounts, out of pocket. That practice is now illegal with the ACA. For you and I, and your partner. Thank god.

There are good parts and bad parts to the heath reform, the good is obvious, the bad to me is the federal government forcing people to buy a product or pay a fine. Its not right. I see alot of people refusing to buy or pay the fine on principle alone which I support. They, the feds, in my opinon have overstepped what Ill feel comfortable with as far as the government is concerned. We the people should be able to decide if we want to participate in the program or not. It is opening up a whole new can worms when it comes to laws taxes and fines and what the feds can do with their power.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Honu

There are good parts and bad parts to the heath reform, the good is obvious, the bad to me is the federal government forcing people to buy a product or pay a fine.

The Supreme Court reiterated today, in the decision, that people do not have to purchase the product, and can choose not to pay the fine.

[Honu]

Originally Posted by Riot

The Supreme Court reiterated today, in the decision, that people do not have to purchase the product, and can choose not to pay the fine.

So that wording will be removed?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Honu

So that wording will be removed?

No. Just like taxes, you can choose not to follow the law. The Supreme Court said today that people are free to choose not to purchase, and not to pay the fine, either. But of course, like income taxes, they would still be subject to a penalty.

Although penalties are assessed, there is nothing currently in place to allow collection any of the penalties at this time. The IRS is forbidden from trying to collect them. That has to be initiated by removing some wording in the law by Congress.

It is anticipated that more people will want health insurance at a rate they can afford, even if they don't make much money, than choose to be without it. That's why the exchanges exist, so prices to purchase drop.

So the law is designed to "wait and see" how many non-compliant people turn up, before any punishment is initiated.

Practically speaking, from that "what would it mean for you" web page page:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...u/struck-down/

Single make $35,000/year: If you do not obtain insurance coverage by 2014 you will be assessed a tax penalty. The penalty becomes progressively greater from 2014 through 2016, when it reaches full strength. At that point, assuming your current income remains the same and your household consists of 1 uninsured adult, you would be subject to a penalty of about $695. You are exempt from the penalty if the least expensive plan option in your area exceeds eight percent of your income.

That last sentence is for people that earn too much to qualify for any federal assistance, but any insurance would be greater than 8% of income. For example, you make $75,000 a year, and can't find insurance for less than $500 a month. You don't have to pay any penalty.

Did you try entering yourself and your partner separately (unmarried) to see what each of you are eligible for?

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

The Supreme Court reiterated today, in the decision, that people do not have to purchase the product, and can choose not to pay the fine.

Sounds like a mandate to me...if you don't have to purcahse the product or pay the fine then how is it mandatory?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Sounds like a mandate to me:zz:...if you don't have to purcahse the product or pay the fine then how is it mandatory?

if they can't fine...er, tax, then there's no mandate. it would still blow up the whole package. that was why the health providers went for this plan, it makes people buy it.
the only way, from what i've read, to keep from paying the fine is if the coverage price exceeds a set percentage of your income. but with subsidies being what they are, i don't see how that could occur.

[Clip-Clop]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=rL7ak__MGyw

This was great stuff.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=rL7ak__MGyw

This was great stuff.

how in the hell can it be deficit neutral?? how can doubling medicaid rolls not cause an increase in spending? how can subsidizing premiums not cost money?
in what fuci<ing thomas more utopian fantasy land does this **** work? is believable? it's not logical!! if you have x amount on medicaid now...you double that-what does that do to the cost of providing that care alone? well, i would think one could safely extrapolate that if you double the membership of a group, that would also double the cost of covering that group. that's just medicaid. what about the subsidies? who will pay that? and if your stop loss is a certain amount, who is funding that? with what? monopoly money??
adding people with pre-existing conditions-who will pay for those? high risk coverages, who will pay? all the' free' add ons, where will that money come from?

oh, wait...let me guess, because hospitals are going to magically cut their costs, right? LMAO. yeah, sure they will. sure they will. and that'll make up aaaallll the difference.

dear god. and people think that'll happen. HA!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Sounds like a mandate to me...if you don't have to purcahse the product or pay the fine then how is it mandatory?

If too many people (so it affects the pricing) choose to defy the law, then the Congress can insert collection language regarding the penalty so it will stick.

Kinda silly decision for folks to make, when the choice is

a) affordable comprehensive health care, you pay according to your income level

b) no health care

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

If too many people (so it affects the pricing) choose to defy the law, then the Congress can insert collection language regarding the penalty so it will stick.

Kinda silly decision for folks to make, when the choice is

a) affordable comprehensive health care, you pay according to your income level

b) no health care

Who will handle the collection of the "penalty"?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Who will handle the collection of the "penalty"?

Right now, in the language of the Act, the IRS is specifically forbidden to attempt to collect any penalty. That doesn't even start until 2016.

As has been mentioned here many times over the past two years, that was done on purpose when the act was written, because the government wanted to judge if there was going to be a problem with compliance, or not.

The Congress would have to remove a couple of sentences in the Act to permit collection of fines (enforcement).

Who would pay healthcare penalty - less than 1% of Americans:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...tml?ref=topbar

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Honu

There are good parts and bad parts to the heath reform, the good is obvious, the bad to me is the federal government forcing people to buy a product or pay a fine. Its not right. I see alot of people refusing to buy or pay the fine on principle alone which I support. They, the feds, in my opinon have overstepped what Ill feel comfortable with as far as the government is concerned. We the people should be able to decide if we want to participate in the program or not. It is opening up a whole new can worms when it comes to laws taxes and fines and what the feds can do with their power.

it's funny to me that the first thing that happened after the ruling is that shares in health care providers all went up in price.

and when kids turn 26, then what? a guy who works at the wellness center just turned 26, so he currently doesn't have insurance.

it's not a tax, obama said so. but it is a tax, roberts said so. on something you don't get. i guess it's an un-tax.
i wonder what marshall would say.

[Riot]

"It's okay for the GOP to start pretending that they like Romneycare now"
- JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS

"ITS INTERNATIONAL ALL-CAPS DAY ON RIGHT-WING BLOGS!!!!!!"

"The votes are in - I still have insurance!" - unemployed college-educated 22-year-old still on parents insurance

"BREAKING: Conservatives planning to leave U.S., but can't find wealthy Western democracy without universal health care"

"The Onion ‏@TheOnion
Commentary: I Don't Want Health Care If Just Anyone Can Have It"

"The Onion@TheOnion
Republicans, leukemia team up to repeal health care law"

"LOLGOP ‏@LOLGOP
Scalia points out that slaves didn't get health care and rarely complained, as far as he can tell"

And, for extra fun, video of CNN and Fox News, who both initially wrongly reported the Supreme Court decision http://core.talkingpointsmemo.com/tv...-on-aca-ruling