Entire ACA upheld by Supreme Court

[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!

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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!

They will, because they will only be paid what the gov't thinks is fair.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

They will, because they will only be paid what the gov't thinks is fair.

lol
yeah, sure. that's why people are throwing money at health providers stock right now, because we all know how profitable things are when there are price controls.

well, at least it'll be interesting to watch how it all turns out.

[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