Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sharmin said:
Do you have a source for this? Everything I read said 2.5% of income, minimum of $695.
Click to expand...
That’s the figure for the fine if you don’t get insurance. The increase average of $1300 is for higher premiums paid by those with insurance.
 
Luigi_Daniele said:
On those who, by definition, are least able to afford it.
Click to expand...
There is an exception for low income earners and the CBO predicted that the greatest share of payers will be those with an income exceeding 500% of the federal poverty level. 😉
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Sure it is, but I’m certainly not sad or upset about the fact that a 1% tax two years from now will be deducted.
Click to expand...
So, it is like taxing everyone an additional 1%, but giving a mortgage deduction at the same time, so only people who rent will be effected. Is that correct?

If I’m understanding this correctly, a family of four with a household income of $40k per year that doesn’t currently have health insurance, will be charged a $400 tax two years from now, if they don’t start paying for the health insurance they currently can’t afford. Do I have that right?
 
rlg94086 said:
So, it is like taxing everyone an additional 1%, but giving a mortgage deduction at the same time, so only people who rent will be effected. Is that correct?
Click to expand...
Something like that.
rlg94086 said:
If I’m understanding this correctly, a family of four with a household income of $40k per year that doesn’t currently have health insurance, will be charged a $400 tax two years from now, if they don’t start paying for the health insurance they currently can’t afford. Do I have that right?
Click to expand...
That depends on whether or not they qualify for an exemption.
 
Look at the bright side. There should be a lot of job opportunities to figure out the ideal tax strategy would be for everyone. 🙂
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Well, I’m on Romney Care, which is what Obama Care was based on.

The coverage has been excellent and in fact, better than the insurance I had with my employer.

Also, I had the choice of choosing between five health insurance companies. When I was working, my employer did not provide a choice, but we had to take what he offered and pay for 35% on my own.

My payments now are less than what my employer forced me to pay.

It will be even better with Obama Care, because instead of being in a pool of 10,000 people, you’ll be in a pool of tens of millions of people and hat will reduce the premiums, for now.

However, as I said in another post, before long those premiums are going to increase and this is because the cost of health care continues to rise, because we have a “for profit,” health care system, run my MBA’s, looking to make huge earnings for themselves and the administrators whom they work for.

Jim
Click to expand...
I think you’ve touched on perhaps the key issue regarding health care. As long as we have a for-profit health care system, not only will the premiums eventually rise but the quality of health care will be jeopardized. (It’s the same principle with respect to for-profit education.) Get the profit incentive out of health care.
 
Listening to Hugh Hewitt,discussing his theory, that this decision will work in Romney’s favor and the clincher here is, that is exactly what Justice Roberts intended! His thought is ,looking ahead to future judicial appointments,by throwing Obama a bone now,it will in fact create a firestorm of suppport for a Romney victory in November.After which ,the whole Obamacare will be repealed,either by a senate and congressional majority,or by way of SCOTUS. So,what do you all think,is this really a political chess game,or is this just a desperate thought on Hugh Hewitt’s part:shrug:
 
Jeanne_S said:
Listening to Hugh Hewitt,discussing his theory, that this decision will work in Romney’s favor and the clincher here is, that is exactly what Justice Roberts intended! His thought is ,looking ahead to future judicial appointments,by throwing Obama a bone now,it will in fact create a firestorm of suppport for a Romney victory in November.After which ,the whole Obamacare will be repealed,either by a senate and congressional majority,or by way of SCOTUS. So,what do you all think,is this really a political chess game,or is this just a desperate thought on Hugh Hewitt’s part:shrug:
Click to expand...
Doubt it, but hope so.
 
If you feel disappointed, watch former Clinton advisor Dick Morris talk about the impact on the election of the Supreme Court decision, it will make you feel better about Romney’s opportunity

dickmorris.com/obamas-victory-will-defeat-him-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert

He discusses the new demographics that will support Romney, the elderly, who face rationing in ObamaTax, will turn out in droves, and the young and the poor, who were Obama’s base, who will face tax increases if they do not have health insurance and have to spend 7% or 8% of their income on insurance before any federal subsidies or face a fie of $2000 or $3000.
 
From Justice Ginsberg’s concurrence:
Other provisions of the Constitution also check congressional overreaching. A **mandate to purchase a particular product would be unconstitutional if, for example, the edict impermissibly abridged the freedom of speech, interfered with the free exercise of religion, *or infringed on a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause.
Click to expand...
Preach it, sister! Care to make a guest appearance at F4F?
 
BobCatholic said:
As Governor, Romney was pro-abortion. He’s not going to change all of a sudden if he’s in a different executive position. I’m not trusting his words that he says now when his actions in the past were different.
Click to expand...
Wrong, as Governor, my governor, Romney was not pro-abortion.

He was very much pro-life, and despite having a state legislature of 87% democrats, he fought for protection of the unborn and sided with the Church on this and opposition to homosexual marriage.

Stop listening to the Super PAC ads, both from Democrats and Republicans, they’re both riddled with lies.

Jim
 
St_Francis said:
They may get an exception from the mandate so that they don’t have to get health insurance?
Click to expand...
There are tax exemption provisions for those without insurance as a result of religious belief, insurance cost-to-income ratio, hardship etc. built into the law
 
Bubba Switzler
  1. Obmacare will not provide healthcare for everyone. When it fails those who support it will demand more government power. That is a lust for power and a lack of charity.
Click to expand...
Obama care isn’t universal health care. It’s affordable health care legislation which regulates the health insurance industry and mandates that everyone have, health insurance, whether through private insurers, the military or other means.
  1. A just means to a just end would entail charity, not government.
Click to expand...
Charity will not pay for people to receive health care.
Why are ER services free in the first place?
Click to expand...
They’re not free. Those of us with health insurance, pay higher premiums and taxes, to help pay for those who don’t have health insurance.
Government regulation. As is so often the case, you are seeking a government solution to a government problem. Every government failure become a justification of more government.
Click to expand...
Lack of government regulation caused the collapse in the encomoy 2007-2008, please don’t go there.
That is, if not a lust for power, a predilication for the expedience of power and the appearance of justice over reality.
Click to expand...
Lust for power is why the founding fathers put checks and balances in place.

Sorry you don’t like the result of one of those checks and balances which was BTW, made by Justice Roberts, a conservative, Catholic, court appointee of George W. Bush.

Jim
 
What I find amusing about this whole debate is the number of people who claim they’re moving to Canada over this ruling.

I think some of them might even be serious about it.
 
Slightly OT:

I wasn’t aware that Roberts was RC.:o

Wow, 5 of 9 SCOTUS Justices…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top