Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
How? The hospitals still are required to provide emergency care. Are you saying the hospital will be able to “charge back” against the tax? That’s news to me. Not to mention that there are many who use the ER as their only form of health care that aren’t going to be taxed because they aren’t eligible for Obamacare (undocumented immigrants, for example).
How, indeed.

The ostensible explanation is that Obamacare will cause everyone to be insured. But, as has been previously discussed, that is not the case. Most intelligent Obamacare supporters know that is not the case. But still they toss these explanations out hoping that nobody will connect the dots.
 
Seriously, is it really such a tragedy that some people who were uninsured will now be? Not to mention that the inexorable rising of health care costs will be stemmed?
Yes, because the ends can never justify the means. Because Obamacare will fail and we will be left with the mess. Because it encourages injustice.

Where I live, Medicare/Medicaid pays $200 or less for services that private insurance pay $500-$700 for and that uninsured individuals pay $1000-$2000 for. Please, please, explain to me how government taking steps to address those disparities is a tragedy?
The tragedy is leading people into dependence on government.
I guess unless you’re actually sick and unable to meet health costs, it really is all about power, money and politics…
No doubt a starving man will steal a loaf of bread but that does not justify bread thievery.
 
Romney had a pro life record as governor, and that is why many pro life groups have endorsed him. Romney used to be pro abortion, so was Ronald Reagan, Norma McCorvey - Jane ‘roe’ of roe vs wade, former abortionist Bernard Nathanson, former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson who is also a Catholic convert.

Many people used to be pro abortion and they changed their position to being pro life.
He all of a sudden changed his stance in 2010. This was because he knew he was going to run for President.

This is too early for me to place my trust in him on this issue.
 
Yes, I am fine with it. I pay taxes all the time that support things I don’t agree with. At least this tax is going toward something I believe in.
👍

Not to mention that it’s going to something necessary for the common good. Unlike money/subsidies going to…say…highly profitable oil companies - something which I likewise am unable to do anything about.
 
Let me get this straight, it’s OK to “evolve” on this issue only if it’s in the right way?
So you can’t tell the difference between someone “evolving” and someone “changing his stance because he would be unelectable”? Do you always accept what politicians say?

He knew he could not be elected as governor if he were pro-life in Massachusetts.

He knows he cannot be nominated and elected as president if he wee NOT pro-life now.

Remember: He lost the nomination in 2008 because he was still pro-abort then. He won now.

On this one issue, I don’t trust him.
 
Yeh but now you would only have to pay the $650 and they won’t bug you further. I don’t like it but just saying.
Um…no. You still get billed for the ER visit. The tax is on top of your medical bills.
 
Yes, because the ends can never justify the means. Because Obamacare will fail and we will be left with the mess. Because it encourages injustice.

The tragedy is leading people into dependence on government.

No doubt a starving man will steal a loaf of bread but that does not justify bread thievery.
No, but if his starvation is the result of acts of omission/commission by those in a position to make food accessible, then he is NOT the only guilty party - indeed he may be the least guilty of all…or is he supposed to simply lie down and die?
 
So you can’t tell the difference between someone “evolving” and someone “changing his stance because he would be unelectable”? Do you always accept what politicians say?

He knew he could not be elected as governor if he were pro-life in Massachusetts.

He knows he cannot be nominated and elected as president if he wee NOT pro-life now.

Remember: He lost the nomination in 2008 because he was still pro-abort then. He won now.

On this one issue, I don’t trust him.
Do you trust Romney on the health-care issue then?
 
No, but if his starvation is the result of acts of omission/commission by those in a position to make food accessible, then he is NOT the only guilty party - indeed he may be the least guilty of all…or is he supposed to simply lie down and die?
You missed my point. I have no beef with someone who steals bread when he is starving, though it is not the solution I would prefer.

My beef is with those who hide behind the starving to justify bread stealing by the general public or, worse, who use the starving to justify their own power grabs.
 
You missed my point. I have no beef with someone who steals bread when he is starving, though it is not the solution I would prefer.

My beef is with those who hide behind the starving to justify bread stealing by the general public or, worse, who use the starving to justify their own power grabs.
My beef is that you seem more concerned with accusing the authorities with what you term ‘stealing’ than with the happy fact that people who are indeed starving (by any objective measure) are being fed.
 
Does the tax apply per person or per family?

There are a lot of split families where the noncustodial has to have insurance on the kid/kids.

Who gets penalized if the kid doesn’t have insurance? What if kids have insurance, but parent doesn’t?

Do all families pay the same rate regardless of how many people are insured or not?
 
The government now has control on us. They said that they will take care of the poor for free, the rich will have the money to pay the taxes for their healthcare but the middle class and small business’ will suffer the most. Not good for the economy! The government can raise taxes as much as they want because they are in control. We will be getting LESS healthcare for MORE of our money. There will also be long waits to have certain procedures done. Obamacare is socialized medicine.
 
just an observation on big government and it’s every spreading effect.
"What two things do a college education,** health care **and housing have in common?

One is that the price of these things has been rising at least twice as fast as other prices. The other thing is that they are all subsidized by government

Let’s take college tuition…But the reason, in the end, that they do raise prices is, like any business, because they can. And one of the big reasons they can is the ever-increasing amount of public money pumped into the system in a losing effort to keep college “affordable.” In effect, these well-intentioned subsidies have the perverse effect of shielding colleges from the kind of market discipline that would have forced them to hold down prices by constantly improving their productivity and efficiency, as happens in just about every other industry".

econlog.econlib.org/archives/2004/12/subsidies_raise.html
 
👍

Not to mention that it’s going to something necessary for the common good. Unlike money/subsidies going to…say…highly profitable oil companies - something which I likewise am unable to do anything about.
Oil companies are about as profitable as other businesses are. They’re just big. Look it up. It’s easy to do.
 
Do all families pay the same rate regardless of how many people are insured or not?
I believe it is the same rate. 1% of combined income in 2014 steadily increasing to 2.5% of combined income in 2016.
 
Wow, this thread is going to cruise past 1,000 posts before morning. I guess people feel strongly about this or something. 😛
 
A family could end up paying the full tax & for insurance. That doesn’t seem right.
If you’re asking what the penalty is for a total lack of coverage then I listed above (I may have misunderstood the original question). If you have a situation in which some members of the family are not covered then the penalty is assessed on an individual basis not a collective basis.
 
just an observation on big government and it’s every spreading effect.
"What two things do a college education,** health care **and housing have in common?

One is that the price of these things has been rising at least twice as fast as other prices. The other thing is that they are all subsidized by government

Let’s take college tuition…But the reason, in the end, that they do raise prices is, like any business, because they can. And one of the big reasons they can is the ever-increasing amount of public money pumped into the system in a losing effort to keep college “affordable.” In effect, these well-intentioned subsidies have the perverse effect of shielding colleges from the kind of market discipline that would have forced them to hold down prices by constantly improving their productivity and efficiency, as happens in just about every other industry".

econlog.econlib.org/archives/2004/12/subsidies_raise.html
Yes, it has exactly the opposite effect. Federal student aid makes college much more expensive. Insurance makes medical care more expensive, and government mandated insurance will make it even more expensive than it is now.
 
Wow, this thread is going to cruise past 1,000 posts before morning. I guess people feel strongly about this or something. 😛
I was noticing that myself–I think it would be a record, a thread being closed for hitting 1000 posts in less than 24 hours!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top