I am overjoyed at the decision, and I fully support Obamacare. However, I am a little conflicted over the concept of having to buy something from a private corporation. Here are some quotes from people in a thread on Reddit – Dopers, please explain to me how to counter these arguments:
Also, here’s another quote, how do we respond to this? How will very low income people, who don’t qualify for Medicaid, afford private insurance? I understand there are subsidies, but they will still be having to pay something, right? Is there anywhere that has a real-life example of how this might play out?
Not exactly sure that this challenge would pertain, as the law doesn’t require anyone to get medical care. I don’t much like wars in foreign countries, but I don’t get to opt out of paying for the military.
Are you fucking kidding me? You, sir, are some kind of extreme partisan hack. Are you saying that unless SCOTUS decisions come down 0 - 9 against some person (in this case Obama) that he’s prevented from being deemed a liar because “highly trained people can differ”? Because that would be silly.
Here’s the deal. Obama said it wasn’t a tax. He insisted it wasn’t a tax. He blamed his critics from trying to state it was a tax. But guess what? It is a tax. That makes him a liar.
They just told the world that, in their esteemed opinion, the mandate penalty is not a tax. Do you think they are wrong?
Look, I think Obama was wrong when he said that the penalty isn’t a tax. I always considered that stupid political word games, and it still is. That doesn’t make him a liar - just a politician and wrong in the opinion of 5 SCOTUS justices. If you ask him today he will probably still say he doesn’t think it’s a tax.
Of course it will - as it should be. I personally support taxing the freeloaders rather than paying for them via higher medical expenses. The voters may well disagree. And if Romney ends up winning than at least we can say that the American people decided what they want their health care system to look like, not 9 folks in robes.
Likely it won’t. There’s only a small in-play group and that won’t be what they vote on.
And calling Obama a lar because SCOTUS disagreed with his reasoning is foolish. He said it wasn’t a tax. They disagreed. That doesn’t mean he was lying. He may still believe its not a tax.
Kudos to Roberts for threading the needle. I think reasonable people can disagree one whether the Commerce Clause would cover this - some consider it to be regulating ‘inactivity’, but the counterpoint is that NO ONE is ‘inactive’ in the health care system, which is what the law addresses. It essentially prohibits you from taking part in the health care system without paying (the penalty, or the insurance premium).
That said, the Commerce Clause does need a backstop - it obviously can’t do everything, and upholding the ACA on its basis may not have been sliding down the slippery slope, but you could have seen the slope from there.
So cheers to Roberts for finding the middle path, which is all too rare these days.
And jeers to the four dissenting jagoffs who bent out of their way trying to explain why it wasn’t a tax.
No, it would be looking at something intelligently.
No it doesn’t. The SCOTUS offers final decisions, not necessarily correct ones. If you say that you aren’t wearing shoes and the SCOTUS decides that your flippy-floppies count as shoes, it doesn’t make you a liar. It makes you poorly dressed.
At first glance, this seems like the WORST possible ruling that could have happened.
They upheld the individual mandate, but ruled against the expansion of medicaid. I was listening to NPR the other day and they were saying that the expansion of medicaid was going to be a key way that many individuals who would not normally be able to afford health care get it.
So, if I’m understanding this ruling correctly, the federal government can now tax anyone who doesn’t get healthcare insurance, but now millions of people who genuinely can’t afford it aren’t going to be able to apply for medicaid.
I hope I’m wrong, but this just seems like a huge fucking win for insurance companies, and a huge fucking loss for the poor.
I agree, in this example, the system did work. Doesn’t necessarily stop an amendment attached to a budget bill (I know hasn’t been one passed in three years now) being passed.
Actually, I don’t want anything stopped. As I said before, there are many parts of the law I agree with, and think they are important, and in some cases a long time coming. I may be worried over nothing, and you may be proven true, that the Individual Mandate will not lead to my concerns and elections will correct any future proposed idiotic bills…
My concern is simply that A could lead to B
Actually I like broccoli, especially with cheddar melted on top
One of the big wins in the ACA is that the insurance companies have to spend some percentage (80?) of premiums on actual medical care. I believe there were news articles about some insurers already having to send refund checks.
The subsidies are pretty large for low-income folks. And for very low-income folks the expansion in Medicaid will allow them to join medicaid for free. Here’s a post that works through some numbers for an “average family”. There’s a link in there to a calculator that allows you to figure the subsidy for various income levels and family types.
A few governors might showboat for a while, but in the end I have trouble imagining the States will turn down the extra Medicaid money. And of course the system of subsidies will still be in place.
They are already exempt under Section 5000A(d)(2)(A) of the law:
“[The term “applicable individual”] shall not include any individual for any month if such individual has in effect an exemption under section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section.”
I’m confused about something about the ACA now that it is a tax and some comments I heard on the news this morning. Is it a case where everyone gets a refund for having health insurance OR you pay extra tax for not having it. For example Person A has insurance and Person B does not. Both have a tax liability of $5000 in 2014. Is it: #1 Person A pays $4500, Person B pays $5000
or #2 Person A pays $5000, Person B pays $5500 ($500 in incresed tax)
or #3 Both A and B have a new tax liabilitity of $5500 but Person A pays $5000 ($500 credit), Person B pays $5500
Question 2: If #2, how is it a tax on income? I understand how paying less tax is used to control behavior, but that is different than taxing NOT doing something.
