Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

[_Abyssinia]

Reading and listening to conservative talking points here and elsewhere, I’ve become troubled that too many Americans are being led to believe they are going to be paying the healthcare law tax or penalty. I’ve seen the tax or penalty described as the largest tax increase on the poor and middle class. I say tax or penalty only because I think Gov Romney or his camp were calling it a penalty the other day because of the similar plan implemented in Massachusetts under his leadership. Not sure what they are saying today. But which terminology we use isn’t exactly a big deal to me. “Tax” is not a bad word to me so I’m personally fine calling it a “tax” if for the sake of this discussion that’s what Chief Justice Roberts would like us to call it.

Here’s the thing though. And I am fully aware trying to argue this on a conservative political forum such as this one at CAF is fruitless.

But here goes.

If you’re poor enough to be blessed to have coverage under Medicaid, you’ll have coverage.

If you’re middle class and fortunate to have coverage through an employer or you choose to keep what coverage you already have, or you qualify for Medicare, you’ll have coverage. The latter of course assuming the Ryan budget plan never gets implemented and Medicare as we know it is not ended.

If you choose to participate in the exchanges, you’ll have coverage. And better yet for those who do choose one of 4 tiers of coverage through an exchange, subsides to help pay for their health care coverage will be available for those making between 133 to 400 percent of the poverty level, an income of $92,000 for a family of four. Naturally of course the poorer and older a person is, the greater the subsidy. That only makes sense and is fair.

And if you unfortunately live in a state as I do whose Tea Party Republican governor since the court ruling is going around saying his state won’t implement the exchanges, fortunately the federal government will put one in place for residents of those states. I personally thank God and President Obama and those who supported and voted for the healthcare law for that. But mostly I thank God for leading those govermnent leaders to do something about health care in this country. If left to the states, not everyone can afford to move to one where a state exchange is offered.

The only person paying the tax ruled constitutional under the United States Constitution by the Supreme Court of the United States is the person who chooses to still after all of that, not to have health care coverage. It’s their choice.

Here’s a link that might help.

healthcare.gov/index.html

And here’s a source about the exchanges and subsidies.

cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57466008-503544/a-post-supreme-court-guide-to-the-health-care-law/

Peace everyone. God bless!

I find your post disturbing. This is a so called ‘health care’ bill which could give the abortion industry nearly $1 billion annually, imagine the abortion clinics they could set up with that money, more baby slaughtering facilities. What about the HHS mandate which forces employers to pay for things that go against their conscience and could close Catholic hospitals, schools, and clinics

There are an estimated 12 million uninsured, and most of these people are eligible for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program or Medicaid but they have not signed up. Most of the uninsured earn over $75000 a year, and an estimated 30% of those without insurance are without it for less than 6 months. Illegal immigrants make up big percentage of the uninsured

There is no huge problem with people being uninsured. There is no need for health care overhaul, there is need for moderate free market health reforms which increase accessibility and competition to make health care cheaper. ObamaTax does nothing to address the price of health care, except by increasing health insurance premiums

 

[PaulinVA]

…Anyway not sure why you said “you’re welcome”. But for whatever reason it was, I guess you thought a “thank you” was warranted. So thank you.

I’m one of those people who is getting very little from the health care bill except paying for other people’s insurance.

As I said, I believe that an industrialized society should provide care for all, but everyone has to contribute. Providing subsidies for a family of four that makes $92,000 a year is a little excessive.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Seekerz, if nothing else I have to take my hat off to you for making an effort to explain that taxation is not theft. But when the tax argument is being lost, I think there has to be a back up plan even if it has nothing to do what you were addressing.

You can put wings on a pig and call it a rooster. Its still a pig.

 

[wynnejj]

I have to say that this argument sure gives me pause about my assertion that the individual is a penalty, not a tax, because it gives some very compelling reasons why the tax argument was not given the attention that it deserved…

The Health-Care Mandate Is Clearly a Tax—and Therefore Constitutional—A Commentary by Jack Balkin

 

[Swiss_Guy]

I think the bishops miss an opportunity by not opposing the whole law. It vests enormous power in the hands of the secretary of HHS. They can see how much in the cavalier way she defines contraceptions and even abortifacients as normal medical care and requires religious institutions to go along. It is but one short step to defining abortions in general as medical care. She can through the board set up by the act, make similar decisions that will simply overrun every barrier set up by the Right to Life Movement.

What troubles me, however, is how comfortable so many bishops are with a european style state. This despite what has happened in France and other states. The Church has a very crabbed notion of limited government, and the principle of subsidarity, while useful, is not an adequate basis for political action within our constitutional system. It troubled me greatly to see the bishops attack Paul Ryan’s budget. How do we limit the actions of this very secular, very statist regime, which has demonstrated so little respect even for black churches?

Only two did. Ryan’s bishop didn’t condemn it and said that Ryan was a responsible lay Catholic. I also don’t think it is a good idea to say that the Church has a “crabbed” notion of limited government; the Church is the bride of Jesus Christ who is God over all. Not to mention that it has condemned communism, socialism, and the welfare state (also unregulated capitalism).

 

[_Abyssinia]

Analyzing the Obamacare Ruling: How Should Pro-Lifers Respond?

Notre Dame law student and former Life Report guest John Gerardi joins Jonathan Keller and me in the studio to discuss the Supreme Court’s “Obamacare” decision. Josh opens the show by focusing on how this legislation promotes abortion and tramples on religious liberty. This includes a brief explanation of why “ella” should definitively be considered an abortifacient, and not merely a contraceptive. Josh also discourages people from making baseless claims about Chief Justice Roberts’ intelligence or intentions.

Afterwards, John Gerardi gives a careful analysis of the decision, including what constitutional issues were examined. The show ends with a discussion of what pro-lifers can do to fix things.

After this episode finished shooting, we stayed on the air for over an hour continuing the discussion and responding to questions from our live stream audience

youtube.com/watch?v=SZibCxThQxU

lifenews.com/2012/07/04/analyzing-the-obamacare-ruling-how-should-pro-lifers-respond

 

[seekerz]

There is no need for health care overhaul

Obviously that’s what Republicans think, or they would have seriously considered doing something about the situation before now.

What percentage of GDP does health care expenditure have to constitute before unnecessary death/disability, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, soaring premiums, or luxury-priced toothbrushes dent the consciousness of those who CAN afford the ‘best health care in the world’?

I heard a similar view voiced yesterday by a politician who opposes the ACA. We already have the best, the uninsured are not the issue…so what’s the big problem with health care? Why nothing at all sir, if we can immunize our collective conscience against those who have to go without or bankrupt their families to remain alive/healthy. Nothing’s the matter.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Obviously that’s what Republicans think, or they would have seriously considered doing something about the situation before now.

What percentage of GDP does health care expenditure have to constitute before unnecessary death/disability, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, soaring premiums, or luxury-priced toothbrushes dent the consciousness of those who CAN afford the ‘best health care in the world’?

I heard a similar view voiced yesterday by a politician who opposes the ACA. We already have the best, the uninsured are not the issue…so what’s the big problem with health care? Why nothing at all sir, if we can immunize our collective conscience against those who have to go without or bankrupt their families to remain alive/healthy. Nothing’s the matter.

There needs to be health care reform not a healthcare overhaul

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9472245&postcount=50

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Obviously that’s what Republicans think, or they would have seriously considered doing something about the situation before now.

What percentage of GDP does health care expenditure have to constitute before unnecessary death/disability, prohibitive out-of-pocket costs, soaring premiums, or luxury-priced toothbrushes dent the consciousness of those who CAN afford the ‘best health care in the world’?

I heard a similar view voiced yesterday by a politician who opposes the ACA. We already have the best, the uninsured are not the issue…so what’s the big problem with health care? Why nothing at all sir, if we can immunize our collective conscience against those who have to go without or bankrupt their families to remain alive/healthy. Nothing’s the matter.

So what you are saying is that cost is the problem. The ACA does nothing to control cost. In fact, the more the government is involved, the highest cost rises. Government interference (regulations) RAISE the cost of a product or service, not lower it. So the net effect of the ACA is that it is going to have the net effect of causing already ridiculous prices for health care to go UP, not down, making it less affordable and even more out of reach for those who can least afford it.

 

[Dawnia]

I have to say that this argument sure gives me pause about my assertion that the individual is a penalty, not a tax, because it gives some very compelling reasons why the tax argument was not given the attention that it deserved…

The Health-Care Mandate Is Clearly a Tax—and Therefore Constitutional—A Commentary by Jack Balkin

Interesting article. I think the problem is that the penalty/tax has aspects of both a tax and a penalty. It’s graduated like a tax (income tax), has exceptions like a tax (social security tax), and it’s collected by the IRS. But, it also is punative like a penalty (fine for not registering your care on time) and it is triggered by inaction like a penalty (not fixing an oil leak). I believe that it fits a penalty better than it does a tax. If you look at every tax or tax credit, there has to be activity that triggers the tax or tax credit (buying gas, buying a house, earning income, having kids, etc) All of those taxes are optional…heck even earning income is optional. This is the only tax that taxes you for not doing something.

To me, it seems to be an incroachment on liberty. The government is not our master, it is our servant and should not be dictating what we must do. I am noones slave, no matter what my dogs say.

If nothing else, this decision has definitely solidified who I will be voting for.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

So what you are saying is that cost is the problem. The ACA does nothing to control cost. In fact, the more the government is involved, the highest cost rises. Government interference (regulations) RAISE the cost of a product or service, not lower it. So the net effect of the ACA is that it is going to have the net effect of causing already ridiculous prices for health care to go UP, not down, making it less affordable and even more out of reach for those who can least afford it.

One problem that we currently face is not having enough conservatives to start being pro-active on these issues instead of reactive to everything progressives do. We are always putting out fires instead of enacting policies to stop the arsonists. All we’ve been able to do is watch our nation burn, but at some point we have to get on top of the firestorm and put it out for good. I’m not sure there is time.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

One problem that we currently face is not having enough conservatives to start being pro-active on these issues instead of reactive to everything progressives do. We are always putting out fires instead of enacting policies to stop the arsonists. All we’ve been able to do is watch our nation burn, but at some point we have to get on top of the firestorm and put it out for good. I’m not sure there is time.

Time ran out a while ago. Even if we put the fire out, the structure is irreparably damaged. The only thing left to do is tear it down and rebuild.

 

[mary_bobo]

So what you are saying is that cost is the problem. The ACA does nothing to control cost. In fact, the more the government is involved, the highest cost rises. Government interference (regulations) RAISE the cost of a product or service, not lower it. So the net effect of the ACA is that it is going to have the net effect of causing already ridiculous prices for health care to go UP, not down, making it less affordable and even more out of reach for those who can least afford it.

You are correct. Additionally, the quality of the care that we will be allowed to have will be much less than what we have not. Like so many things, we are lowering our medical care to the lowest common denominator.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

I agree, Paul. That’s why I keep stressing that the efficient delivery of medical care, with leveled availability of services (such as abundant well-staffed clinic services in all major population centers) is essential to keeping costs down, which in turn is essential to keeping premiums down. That would also relieve strain on the expensive ER’s. The way I would prefer to have it handled is to have such clinics fairly proxiimate to hospitals, with shuttle service in between. There needs to be terrific intake at the ER, to bring those patients back to the local clinic during extended open hours, or to require them to return to the clinic the next day if it is not a medical emergency. Conversely, a truer emergency can be transported to the nearby ER.

The 53% who comprise taxpaying individuals are definitely not all wealthy. The truly wealthy are anywhere between 1% and 5%. One of my repeated questions on this site is how many of those 53% will become the 47% due to the ACA? (And I’m not even addressing the employer question, which Ridgerunner and others have; that also has a boomerang effect: when the employer closes shop, jobs are lost and so are incomes.)

All this does not touch the employer conscience concerns, etc. I’m just focusing on the economic aspects, which I always consider integral to social justice. There’s a myth that Catholic social justice only addresses the extremely impoverished. It doesn’t. It’s part of a wider justice which considers economic impacts and the right to earn a livelihood, which is not restricted to the dangerously poor. Given how labile the economy has recently been (last several years), I am anxious about further weakening & risk and people conserving even more (not hiring, etc.) due to perceived risk & anxiety.

We tried the “doc in a box” satelite clinic plan in the eighties-ninties. They are all closed now. From what I saw during their time, was many PT’s, who should have gone directly to the ER. Went instead, to a satelite clinic. Often with disasterous results. The ones who could have been handled at a satelite facility, you guessed it. Were seen in the Local trauma center. While it may have helped to keep cost in check. The citizenry at large was not sophisticated enough, to properly utilize it. Allowing EMS (the people actually trained in the art of triage) to triage pt.s, and determine their destination. Was stopped cold, by their employer’s fear of liability. So, they (the clinics) started dying shortly after the HMOs did.

 

[Mickey_Finn]

There needs to be health care reform not a healthcare overhaul

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9472245&postcount=50

No Abyssinia, we definetly need an overhaul.

ATB

 

[RACJ]

It kind of reminds me of the Bush’s Sarbanes-Oxley 404 provision which mandated internal control tests and added significant costs on firms. It wasn’t counted as a tax but it might as well have been. We were hired to implement it but had a hard time figuring out how. It kept us employed at least.

At least Bush is gone, but now we’ve got a mendacious sort who fancies himself as an imperial dictator. There are always guys out there suffering from delusion, but the shock is that so many American people refuse to discern the obvious about him— that he flouts the limitations of the executive branch at every turn. Maybe people WANT a tyrant who makes all their decisions for them. :hypno:

 

[PaulinVA]

We tried the “doc in a box” satelite clinic plan in the eighties-ninties. They are all closed now. From what I saw during their time, was many PT’s, who should have gone directly to the ER. Went instead, to a satelite clinic. Often with disasterous results. The ones who could have been handled at a satelite facility, you guessed it. Were seen in the Local trauma center. While it may have helped to keep cost in check. The citizenry at large was not sophisticated enough, to properly utilize it. Allowing EMS (the people actually trained in the art of triage) to triage pt.s, and determine their destination. Was stopped cold, by their employer’s fear of liability. So, they (the clinics) started dying shortly after the HMOs did.

Not at all. The clinics in drug stores and employer’s offices are making a comeback.

Telemedicine (like MD LiveCare) are also gaining traction.

The issue is getting enough primary care docs and PAs to try people in the right place. If they are medicaid people and don’t have transportation, you need to mmet them where they are.

 

[Jeffrey]

Yea… by keeping the government out of it.

No Abyssinia, we definetly need an overhaul.

ATB

 

[gnjsdad]

Yea… by keeping the government out of it.

Affordable access to healthcare is a basic human right. This is Catholic doctrine, as infallibly taught by the Popes.

Since it is readily apparent that markets have proven themselves incapable of providing this human right, governments MUST intervene. It belongs to the state to maintain the common good, and part of maintaining the common good is insuring that everyone within the state’s purview has access to affordable health care.

 

[Jeffrey]

If ppl are unwilling to work for a living then thats on them to get healthcare. I shouldn’t have to pay for someone else to get healthcare. Plain and simple. Its wrong to take from someone working to give it to ppl that want a free ride.

Affordable access to healthcare is a basic human right. This is Catholic doctrine, as infallibly taught by the Popes.

Since it is readily apparent that markets have proven themselves incapable of providing this human right, governments MUST intervene. It belongs to the state to maintain the common good, and part of maintaining the common good is insuring that everyone within the state’s purview has access to affordable health care.