The assistance only goes up to people making at most 88,000 per year or something like that. And it scales - you’re not going to get all that much help if you make $50,000. You’ll get lots of you you make $15,000.
The fact that the government says this will raise 17 billion dollars a year indicates that a LOT of people are going to fit in this category - uninsured people who pay penalties rather than get insurance. The self-employed will probably make up a good chunk of this.
And don’t forget - you only get help from the government if you actually buy the insurance. I think a lot of people will be in this situation: They’re self-employed, they don’t make a lot of money, and they can’t afford health insurance. The penalty is $625, but an insurance policy is $4000/yr. The government will kick in half, but that’s still $625 vs $2000, so they’ll just pay the penalty.
I can think of precedent for state and local governments forcing individuals to buy car insurance but then again that is only if they want to drive.
The only reason we have a mandate is because we want to stop insurance compnies from screening for pre-existing conditions. Think about it. If you didn’t allow insurance companies from screening out pre-existing conditions, then insurance would get so expensive that only people who had pre-existing conditions would apply and even then, they would only apply for insurance on their way to the hospital. We could avoid all of this messiness if we had a single payer system but people get really bent out of shape about single payer systems.
As for the Constitutionality, there is almost no question that it is constitutional. It is a tax for failing to do something, we have taxes for failures to do things all the time. We even have special taxes for failing to file tax returns, and even more taxes for failing to pay taxes.
For single people. It’s like $200K for married households.
And if you make $88K a year, you already have health care.
Who gives a shit? They’re not poor. They have no excuse for sponging off the people who DO buy health care when they inevitably get sick, so if that many people who can afford to take responsibility choose not to do it, then the feds need to charge them accordingly.
Small businesses get subsidies, by the way.
If they can’t affiord it, they’ll be subsidized. If they make upwards of $100K a year, then they can afford it (that’s a pretty good income in the US, we don’t use that Monopoly money that you guys use).
The penalty is imposed per month, not per year, but even if they choose to pay the fine instead of buying insurance, so what? why is that a bad thing (xcept maybe for insurance companies, and whatever is bad for insurance companies makes Baby Jesus giggle).
First it was people making 200K, now it’s households. And I still would really appreciate a cite for this. This is a third request. I’m not trying to bust your chops; I just haven’t seen that anywhere.
Few doubt that healthcare, writ large, has some interstate commerce implications (although that’s not what the founders had in mind, obviously). The question is, does the power to regulate commerce = the power to mandate commerce.
Could the government require, for example, every American to purchase and maintain via some plan a cell phone with a GPS tracker, on the grounds that we could help find missing persons, small kids or Alzheimer types who wander off? Could the government *require *you to buy a car (and a GM car, it’s our national brand!) on the grounds that it would help the economy?
If not, what’s the difference, constitutionally speaking? (putting aside whether the idea of socialized medicine is a good idea or not).
Knowing the truth will affect my understanding of the bill, which would effect my opinion. My understanding now is that people who make so little money that they don’t need to file income tax are exempt, as per the cite I mentioned.
My opinion is that UHC would probably be a good thing, all things considered. I’m a little concerned if UHC means “We force (nearly) everybody to purchase insurance.” If that is not what it means, then I would like to know it.
Q: What if I make too much for Medicaid but still can’t afford coverage?
A: You might be eligible for government subsidies to help you pay for private insurance that would be sold in the new state-based insurance marketplaces, called exchanges, slated to begin operation in 2014. Premium subsidies would be available for individuals and families with incomes between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty level, or $14,404 to $43,320 for individuals and $29,326 to $88,200 for a family of four.
The subsidies would be on a sliding scale. For example, a family of four earning 150 percent of the poverty level, or $33,075 a year, would have to pay 4 percent of its income, or $1,323, on premiums. A family with income of 400 percent of the poverty level would have to pay 9.5 percent, or $8,379.
In addition, if your income is below 400 percent of the poverty level, your out-of-pocket health expenses would be limited.
This keeps getting asked and it has been answered which is it is probably is ok. Again I posted a link with a very good analysis of the issues surrounding this and it is their opinion, based on the law and previous cases and an analysis of the justices that it would pass constitutional muster.
I know you do not like that answer but it will not change no matter how often it is asked.
Probably. The federal power to tax is fairly broad. They can tax you for not doing all sorts of things. For example, some towns tax residents for failure to provide for their own trash removal and landscaping, sure you could do these things on your own, drive your trash down to the dump and mow your own grass but there are all sorts of instances where the government will take on an expense and charge you for it if you have not provivided for it yourself. Car insurance and workers compensation insurance are just two examples. The case for this sort of taxation is especially compelling where (as here) the failure to engage in specific activity imposes a cost on the rest of society.
I read your link… you’re not suggesting that it’s an unbiased analysis I hope. It was a study by an organization looking to use the law to change healthcare policy in the US, or as they put it, “The essential vision for the O’Neill Institute rests upon the proposition that the law has been, and will remain, a fundamental tool for solving critical health problems in our global, national, and local communities.” The avowed purpose of the paper is to pre-arm those who are in favor of Health care reform with ammo in defense of the constitutionality of what was to come… this is hardly an objective look at things, starting with that thesis.
Further, I found this paper to be very simplisitic. It goes on and on about the constitutionality of a federal mandate to buy insurance, in the exec summ, in the leadup, etc. But when it comes to the money shot, here’s their (circular) argument (on pg 6 of your doc)
So they go into all these reasons why mandatory ins is a good idea… then they say, hey, it’s clear and well-settled that Congress can mandate purchase.
Huh? Where is it clear? When was it settled? Show me where in the constitution it says you can mandate citizens to enter into private contracts, Mr Georgetown Law dudes…
Good link though, and I appreciate the helpful tone of the debate.
This website allows you to view the text of the various bills, for specific topics. Very useful. I just did so for the reconciliation bill.
The insurance subsidy cuts off at 4X the Federal Poverty Level. For an individual, the FPL in 2009 is $10,830. For a family of three, it’s $18,310.
Here’s the table of subsidies:
So, Let’s say you’re an individual making $22,000/yr. The government will require you to pay a maximum of 6.3% of your income for health insurance, and they’ll subsidize the rest. So, you will now have to come up with $1,386 on your own to pay for your health insurance. Or, you can choose to pay the penalty, which after 2016 will be $750 or 2% of income, whichever is greater.
How many individuals who make $22,000 per year are going to be able to come up with an additional $1,386 for health insurance? A lot of them will pay the penalty.
If you’re an individual making 4X the FPL, you’re going to get hammered. That’s an income of around $43,000. If you live in an expensive place like California, you’re not exactly living like a king. But the government will require you to buy your own health insurance, and will only subsidize you if the cost exceeds 9.5% of your income, or $4,104. If you make more than 4X the FPL, you’re on your own.
Young professionals probably won’t pay more than $4,104 for health insurance. Therefore, they’ll get no subsidy at all. They now have an individual mandate for insurance, and have to pay full price or pay the penalty.
Looking around on the web, it appears that a healthy male in his mid to late 20’s can expect to pay about $1500 per year for health insurance (varies greatly by region). But using that number, it would suggest that if you’re a healthy person in that age range, you’re not going to get any federal subsidy for your health care at all so long as you live above twice the poverty line. The subsidy is primarily going to go to higher risk people - a 50 year old overweight smoker who makes $30,000/yr will get some relief.
This seems to me to be a disincentive to be self-employed or to start your own business. Most people are going to get their health insurance through their employers. But if you decided to quit and build your own business, you could at least choose to take on the risk of deferring health insurance until your business was earning real income. Now, as soon as you quit you’ll be on the hook to provide your own health insurance, or pay the penalty.
I wonder how many young people who support this plan realize that they’re going to be expected to pony up pretty much the full cost of their own health care plan if they don’t get one through an employer?
And what’s this going to do to very small businesses who can’t afford to provide health care coverage for their employees?
A bill this complex is going to have major unintended consequences as the markets shake all of this out. There will be plenty of new headlines to keep us all yapping about it for a long time.
I appreciate the reply, however, your example is one of what towns do. However, just because towns do it does not mean the federal government may also do it consistent with the U.S. Constitution. Our constitution is a dual system of government, with the states and federal government co-existing simultaneously but not with the same powers. Hence, what the states and towns may do, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, does not mean the federal government can follow suit.