Getting hit by a car only requires a 1 hour stay in the ICU? :dubious:
Again with this. Would you say that I don’t have to refrain from raping women. I am free to rape to my heart’s content. It’s just that I have to take the risk that they might defend themselves and then spend life in prison afterwards.
Would you agree that the above statement is misleading?
I can’t believe this is still being offered up as an example. The difference is that you do not have to buy car insurance. And millions of people who don’t own cars don’t buy it every year.
How many people don’t own a body?
Oh, you.
I’m not in medical billing, so I’m not 100% sure what the real expected cost would be. I just chose a large number that seemed a likely fee to incur for intensive emergency treatment. But at the same time, that figure is *well *beyond the means of any normal person to handle within a single lifetime. Which sucks donkey cunts!
I basically agree with this. Calling Obama a liar because he said something wasn’t a tax and the Supreme Court later decided it was is ridiculous. At worst it means he was mistaken.
As for the fact that his Justice Department argued it was a tax, I do think he has a little bit of cover because they actually argued that it was a “legal exercise of the taxing power”. You might say “well, that’s the same as a tax”, but the Justice Department argued otherwise. Basically they said:
(1) It’s not a tax, so the Supreme Court doesn’t have to wait until someone has had to pay it before ruling (which they would have if it were an actual tax).
(2) However, it is enough like a tax to be considered a legal exercise of the taxing power.
Clearly not everyone on the court bought into this distinction. Kennedy said (during the oral argument; I haven’t read the dissent yet), basically, “The government is arguing it’s not a tax today and they’ll be back tomorrow to argue that it is one!”
I was not, but that would be interesting. I was a Diet Tech, padawan dietitian if you will.
Diet Tech extraordinaire I mean.
I’m sure they were just keeping track of people who’s insurance might be exhausted, possible applications for charity care(it was a Catholic Hospital) and the like.
I heard one of the dietitians mention it and I did a double take. “How can someone own over a million dollars!” “Mr X and Mrs Y have been on the 7th floor waiting for heart transplants for over a year, how much do you think that costs?” I was right out of college and pretty clueless.
Well, kanicbird says he can leave his pretty much at will, so he should probably be exempt.
I really want to know, what happens to poor people who live in states whose governors and legislatures refuse to expand medicaid?
I live in Texas and I doubt they’re going to want to expand it. We have a lot of people who are going to be mandated to buy insurance, but won’t be elligible for medicaid. Supposedly there are some “subsidies” but obviously they won’t be enough, because according to NPR, the medicaid expansion was a key part of the law to insuring everyone who can’t afford it.
I’m genuinely worried and kind of pissed off.
I expect when they look around and see poor folks in blue states getting insurance, they will be a lot less inclined to vote for Republlicans in the future.
Move to a better state?
Seriously though, I highly doubt that any governors will be turning this money away out of spite knowing that their poorer citizens will then be facing a mandate without the benefit of the Medicaid expansion. I could be wrong, but I hope I’m not.
But as has been pointed out, the mandate has no real teeth, so I expect people otherwise not inclined to buy health insurance will ignore it, not buy health insurance, but keep the application in their pocket and mail it when they are in the ER. Can’t be denied for pre-existing conditions!
Another clever angle in the liberal plan. A toothless mandate will undermine all private insurance companies, who will declare bankruptcy, paving the way for single payer health care.
I love it when a plan comes together!
Perhaps. Freeloaders and moochers will always be with us.
I’m not sure what that has to do with the Medicaid expansion, though. Are you implying that governors will not feel compelled to take the Medicaid expansion because they’d rather their poorer citizens go without insurance and then apply through the exchanges after they get sick? I guess I never considered that entire states would want to be moochers, but I guess it’s possible.
Actually, I expect the insurance exchanges to function like Medicare (and most employer sponsored plans). An initial enrollment period in late 2013/early 2014 followed by annual open enrollment windows.
So, you can wait until you are sick - and then wait for the next enrollment period.
Arizona didn’t begin participating in Medicaid until 1982.
Missed edit window - here are supporting links:
(or read it yourself - PDF WARNING - see section 2702)
http://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/ppaca-consolidated.pdf
‘‘SEC. 2702. GUARANTEED AVAILABILITY OF COVERAGE.
‘‘(a) GUARANTEED ISSUANCE OF COVERAGE IN THE INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP MARKET.—Subject to subsections (b) through (e), each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual or group market in a State must accept every employer and individual in the State that applies for such coverage.
‘‘(b) ENROLLMENT.—
‘‘(1) RESTRICTION.—A health insurance issuer described in subsection (a) may restrict enrollment in coverage described in such subsection to open or special enrollment periods.
‘‘(2) ESTABLISHMENT.—A health insurance issuer described in subsection (a) shall, in accordance with the regulations promulgated under paragraph (3), establish special enrollment periods for qualifying events (under section 603 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974).
‘‘(3) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations with respect to enrollment periods under paragraphs (1) and (2).
So, it’s not a penalty and it’s not a tax. It’s also not a pinecone. But what *is *it?
What’s your point?
It’s exactly what the esteemed Chief Justice said it is. A penalty that is functionally equivalent to a tax and thus is authorized under Congress’s authority to tax.