Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by ethics, Nov 14, 2011.
Obviously I am on the fence with this. I firmly believe this country needs an overhaul but I am not sure this is the model. But... I believe in SCOTUS and our system and if this is what was ruled so be it.
Agreed. I think the law in its current form stinks to high heaven. There should have been an attempt made to reform tort law and reign in the insurance companies before a comprehensive health care law was written.
In a nutshell:
Well, that's it, I guess!
I could tear my hair out all day over this, but then I'd get sick and need to go see a doctor. I wonder what'll happen to Medicare under this law? Obama is going to be insufferable for the rest of the year!
Full opinion here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
They are arguing that the mandate is a tax. Which I must point out is the EXACT opposite argument the Obama administration made to get the law passed in the first place. However, in order for it to be constitutional, the mandate must be a tax. So a nice bait and switch there.
The Supreme Court is saying because the mandate is a tax, individuals cannot just choose to ignore it, and therefore it is constitutional. It sounds like he's created a new tax, in essence, and that's not going to sound as good as a penalty. Reminds me of the Simpsons episode when Lisa is trying to avoid the word tax as the President...
Clinton called taxes "investments."
Did SCOTUS call the mandate a tax, or just the penalty?
The penalty is a "tax".
This is getting a tad surreal.
In essence, the only portion they took into consideration was the mandate that everyone must purchase insurance. This was upheld. They also upheld the penalty as it would be considered a tax. Congress has to rewrite a portion of the bill, but essentially, the entire act was upheld as it's currently written.
Will you be required to buy health insurance or pay the fine? How much will the fine be?
For those who have to buy health insurance from an exchange, how much of a subsidy will they receive?
This is what has me so pissed off about this new policy. You have to pay up front for the cost, and then you get your "percentage" back when you file taxes. Right now, as it stands, if I wasn't covered under Tricare I'd have to pay half my annual salary and then wait until I file a tax return to claim the credit.
I'm still stunned over this. There's no pricing guarantee for the insurance you have to purchase. There's no guarantee that a healthcare provider will accept it. But damn it, we're going to make you buy it!
Why didn't any go after the idea that healthcare providers charge 2 different rates? Why not mandate that they lower the cash charge to what is "reasonable and customary?" Wouldn't that have done more to make things affordable, which was the supposed point of this whole clusterfuck in the first place?
If anyone wants to see how this affects us, good post on Reddit:
If they are going to fund it with a tax, then they should just go the same route as other countries and do universal health care. You'd eliminate the whole insurance company nightmare and paperwork debacle. There would still be health insurance available to give you a higher standard of care should you choose to purchase it, but a basic level of care would be available to everyone.
At that point, you'd have two tier health care and only those who had the money to spend on insurance would be able to obtain immediate or specialized care. It's not a good thing.
I agree. That was a good read.