Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

[Rence]

Big Point 1: This is about insurance, not the free ride stuff.

This mandate is trying to get more people to subscribe to insurance so that they don’t apply and get the free ride stuff.

Providing medical care to people who cannot afford it is charity. If it is necessary that this charity be carried out by the government, then the government should find ways of paying for it that do not infringe upon people’s rights. If it can’t, then it should scrap the program entirely.

When one lives in a community and draws from the benefits of living in that community, they should contribute to it so that the pot doesn’t run dry. This is what this mandate is trying to accomplish. Again, people like the Amish don’t like contributing to anything outside their community, so they have resolved to live independent of that outside community and have formed their own.

I would say that preventing access to the State’s benefits to those who refused to contribute by not buying insurance might be an option, but when a child is involved, that’s something the State can’t allow and would be difficult to follow through. So mandating that everyone buy insurance is a step in the right direction.

It’s not wrong to make people responsible for their own contribution to a benefit available to all in the community: when push comes to shove and life happens, people who don’t have insurance or who are under insured will either have to draw from State funds, or go into default again raising the cost of healthcare. Therefore, they should pay into it as well. Those who don’t like it should just form their own self sufficient community that will not use the benefits from the State, that way theydon’t have to pay into it and they’re on their own.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

This mandate is trying to get more people to subscribe to insurance so that they don’t apply and get the free ride stuff.

Simply not true. There is an exemption for people people for whom insurance would cost a large portion of their income. These are the same people who get most of the free care. The mandate is for the reasons I stated above.

When one lives in a community and draws from the benefits of living in that community, they should contribute to it so that the pot doesn’t run dry. This is what this mandate is trying to accomplish. Again, people like the Amish don’t like contributing to anything outside their community, so they have resolved to live independent of that outside community and have formed their own.

If we are going to consider healthcare a state supplied benefit - which I advise against - then again, the result is just a tax raise. In fact, if the goal was just for the government to supply more people with healthcare, that would be the most appropriate response.

Again, if this is about people contributing their fair share, fine. Raise taxes and be done with it. But it’s not.

 

[Holly3278]

If you were not able to pay then your state picked up the bill. That’s how it works. Now you will be able to have your own insurance, and if you have financial problems, then you may qualify for a subsidy to pay for your own policy.

Well, I do have Medicaid now thankfully. I am so grateful to God that I do have my Medicaid.

I’m not familiar with claim aid. Who pays into that? Would they cover cancer treatments for an extended time? Just asking.

I am not sure but I think it is a state of federal grant type program. I am not sure but I think they only cover emergency room visits and such. I could be wrong about that though.

 

[Rence]

Simply not true. There is an exemption for people people for whom insurance would cost a large portion of their income. These are the same people who get most of the free care. The mandate is for the reasons I stated above.

Plenty of people can afford it, but don’t want to subscribe to it. It’s part of their portion, and now they’ll have to pay it to contribute to the pool.

I used to work for a pediatrician’s office in which 1/3 of the clientele put their children on medicaid or opted to pay an out of pocket discount. Now those people wll have to buy insurance and put back into the pot.

If we are going to consider healthcare a state supplied benefit - which I advise against - then again, the result is just a tax raise. In fact, if the goal was just for the government to supply more people with healthcare, that would be the most appropriate response.

Again, if this is about people contributing their fair share, fine. Raise taxes and be done with it. But it’s not.

Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but that’s not what they’re doing. They’ve instead mandated insurance coverage, and I agree with it. I’m sure there are many like you and I: some will agree and others won’t. It’s a big world with many different people who each have their own views on this.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but that’s not what they’re doing. They’ve instead mandated insurance coverage, and I agree with it. I’m sure there are many like you and I: some will agree and others won’t. It’s a big world with many different people who each have their own views on this.

Yes, but everyone who disagrees with me is wrong .

(Joke. Sort of.)

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Given that before obamacare, people who bought their health insurance did so with after-tax dollars, while the insurance provided by an employer was a business tax deduction for the business and not counted as income for the employee.

If what you are saying were the case, the government could have easily actually just given a tax break to those who bought their own health insurance. That would have saved all sorts of botheration.

But nooooooo, they had to pass a bill which gave them much more control over us and did *not *solve the problem, which is the high cost of health care.

There are 2 interesting issues here:

1. Since employee health insurance was not counted as income, employee health insurance which covered abortion was essentially subsidized by the government. However, in the new law, the government will not subsidize plans which cover abortions that are bought by individuals. Therefore, the new subsidies are actually an improvement over the status quo when it comes to abortion.
2. The government is essentially giving a tax break to people who buy insurance. You will not get arrested for not having health insurance, you’ll just pay a higher tax rate than people who do.

 

[wynnejj]

So when do we start getting taxed for not belonging to a health club?

 

[_Abyssinia]

The problem with poeple having the choice to buy into it (or not) is the huge number of those who aren’t buying into it, or who haven’t had a chance to yet, but who are drawing from it. The government is burdened by medicaid and more people simply need to contribute to it. If one is willing to accept it, one should be contributing to it.

If one doesn’t want to buy it, then they should carry some form of ID waiving their rights to medical treatment so they don’t rack up all sorts of bills when life happens and they need medical intervention.

You know, people belly aching about all this can do like the Amish and get together and form a self-sufficient community that neither pays into nor draws from the system. They could do that. I have no idea why they won’t. Life would certainly be a bit quieter…

Why should people have to change their way of living because of a health care decision by the Supreme Court? If people have to do to that, that sounds like persecution.

The Amish are not the only people who got an exception, those with the Christian Care Ministry also do

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

Pelosi’s district secured almost 20 percent of the latest issuance of waivers nationwide, and the companies that won them didn’t have much in common with companies throughout the rest of the country that have received Obamacare waivers.

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

For instance, Boboquivari’s restaurant in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivari’s advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners.

dailybail.com/home/flashback-20-of-obamacare-waivers-are-gourmet-restaurants-ni.html

Is that fair?

 

[iamrefreshed]

I voted no because the court did not do it’s job properly. It was supposed to rule on whether or not the Commerce Clause covered the Act. Not if it was a tax. It should have been struck down and sent back to Congress for approval as a tax increase.

Besides the fact that for $50 a month every American could have insurance.

They pay that much for their precious cell phones.

 

[ricks1948]

I’m really curious as to who those people are who ‘don’t want health insurance’. Would they be willing to carry a medical bracelet saying what to do about their health care if they have an accident and can’t speak?

I do not want health INSURANCE, I want the health care a hospital (which is a Catholic institution) can give those who need it. The insurance industry will profit from this not the needy.

 

[Domnall]

I’m pretty happy with the Health Care Act ruling, personally. I think it will be beneficial to the millions of Americans that will now have access to health insurance that didn’t have it before. Heck, I don’t even care that Chief Justice Roberts called the penalty a tax. So what? The sky is not falling people.

On the other hand, I still don’t support the HHS mandate. However, I believe the court will be ruling on that at a later time. Considering what Justice Ginsberg said in her opinion, I think we Catholics may get a victory there!

 

[PTL]

I’m pretty happy with the Health Care Act ruling, personally. I think it will be beneficial to the millions of Americans that will now have access to health insurance that didn’t have it before. Heck, I don’t even care that Chief Justice Roberts called the penalty a tax. So what? The sky is not falling people.

On the other hand, I still don’t support the HHS mandate. However, I believe the court will be ruling on that at a later time. Considering what Justice Ginsberg said in her opinion, I think we Catholics may get a victory there!

Health care under Obamacare is not free unless your annual income is below poverty line. Everyone else will pay much more tax to support it. That is the largest tax increase in the history and the middle class which is the majority of American, will suffer the most. And this uphold is bad for the HHS mandate. Since the Obamacare includes the support of abortion, it makes HHS mandate part of it. This is very bad for the Church and those who stick to true Catholic teachings. Catholic hospitals and charities will be forced to close, the persecution is big. Religious freedom will be lost. Do you want to see that happen by being happy for the ruling?

America already has the best health care system without Obamacare. No one has been denied health care if he has a real need even without insurance. No emergency room patient has ever been denied. Why do we need Obamacare that kills the unborn, kills the senior, and burdens the middle class with high tax? Obamacare is a disaster. Communist China is even better than this.

 

[Domnall]

Again, I’ll trust the constitutional scholars who say that the sky isn’t falling.
And, as for costs, we’ll see exactly where they go for the middle class. I have a feeling they may go up minimally, but there is the chance that they wil go down as well.

Only time will tell, both sides claim that they are right. We’ll just have to wait and see what ends up actually happening

All we can, and should do, now is pray.

 

[mary_bobo]

I do not want health INSURANCE, I want the health care a hospital (which is a Catholic institution) can give those who need it. The insurance industry will profit from this not the needy.

I’m not so sure about that. What I think is going to happen is that businesses will eventually pay the fines and opt out thus doing away with employer furnished healthcare. Then we will get to a single payer system which I do not think people in this country will like after having the finest healthcare in the world available to them. We are throwing out the baby with the bath water here. Why not concentrate on helping those truly in need and leave the rest alone. It would be cheaper. Catholic hospitals are already closing under the burden of government paperwork which does nothing to solve the delivery of care. Get the government as far away from health care as can be done and I bet you will see an improvement. Many hospitals are closing under the burden of people being unable to pay and using the ER as a primary care physician. We can do better than that in this country.

 

[dixieagle]

America already has the best health care system without Obamacare. No one has been denied health care if he has a real need even without insurance. No emergency room patient has ever been denied. Why do we need Obamacare that kills the unborn, kills the senior, and burdens the middle class with high tax? Obamacare is a disaster. Communist China is even better than this.

While there are indeed superb physicians and hospitals available in the US, a system that is outrageously expensive, relying largely on “fee for service” which encourages excessive and expensive tests while not paying enough attention to preventive and primary care, is not my idea of “the best health care system.” With life expectancy in the US hovering at about #49 worldwide, there is a lot of work to be done.

Until primary and preventive care gets the emphasis they deserve, and we move away from the “fee for service” model (theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/05/moving-away-from-fee-for-service/256755/#) we can expect costs to continue to rise to an even more untenable level.

 

[Corki]

I’m really curious as to who those people are who ‘don’t want health insurance’. Would they be willing to carry a medical bracelet saying what to do about their health care if they have an accident and can’t speak?

As someone who worked in “corporate America” and had the responsibiltiy of enrolling employees in coverage, it’s mostly the young, single workers new to the workforce that don’t want insurance. They don’t generally have chronic health issues, their routine preventive care isn’t all that expensive and they would rather have the couple of hundred dollars in their pocket than pay their portion (usually only 10-20% of the real premium) for coverage.

And this is the problem with how Obamacare was set up. Without those young, healthy citizens being “forced” to pay for insurance, the plan can’t afford all those new enrollees, especially the ones with pre-existing condidtions. Even the tax for not getting insurance doesn’t really help since that money goes to the IRS and not to pay for other insurance claims.

 

[wynnejj]

This Supreme Court ruling can be likened to any other court case where 12 jurors are deciding whether John Doe broke the law, and one juror says “You know, I won’t accept that he’s John Doe!”, and instead of the court case being treated as a mis-trial due to a hung jury, John Doe(?) is declared not guilty with no chance of addressing these specific allegations again due to double jeopardy.

What you have here is eight out of nine justices believe that they are ruling about the constitutionality of extending the commerce clause to create commerce for the general welfare and one justice saying that I don’t really think that the subject at hand is the commerce clause.

 

[_Abyssinia]

http://media.washtimes.com/media/im....jpg?d7424c57cb812afd2cfbb84826bdce2ccfba6288

7 of the new 21 taxes are for those earring less than $250000

 

[anp1215]

I voted no because the court did not do it’s job properly. It was supposed to rule on whether or not the Commerce Clause covered the Act. Not if it was a tax. It should have been struck down and sent back to Congress for approval as a tax increase.

Besides the fact that for $50 a month every American could have insurance.

They pay that much for their precious cell phones.

$50 a month?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Steve Moore of The Wall Street Journal editorial board cites Congressional Budget Office estimates that roughly 8 million (or 76 percent of) middle-class taxpayers earning less than $120,000 a year will shoulder the new Obamacare tax mandate authorized by Roberts.

realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/06/30/john_roberts_is_a_super-taxer_114665.html

youtube.com/watch?v=ixRRuzmxzTg

President Obama promised that his reform package would begin to stymie the out-of-control growth in the cost of American health care. He pledged $2,500 in health insurance savings for the typical American family.

But doctors don’t buy it. Only one quarter feel that Obamacare will reduce health insurance costs for consumers. Nine out of ten posit that insurers will raise premiums for employers and individuals.

They have good reason to doubt Obamacare’s cost-cutting potential. Healthcare spending is expected to reach $2.7 trillion this year — or about $1 of every $6 spent in our economy. By 2020, health spending will account for a full fifth of America’s GDP.

That increase is in large part thanks to Obamacare. Instead of relieving high insurance premiums, the nonpartisan **Congressional Budget Office estimates that American families in the non-group market will see their premiums rise $2,100.

They’re already trending higher. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, average family premiums in 2011 topped $15,000 — a 9 percent increase from 2010. Prior to Obamacare’s passage — from 2009 to 2010 — premiums went up just 3 percent.**

In April 2010, Richard Foster, the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), concluded that American spending on health care through 2019 would be $311 billion higher than if the law had never passed.

Even with all that additional money flowing through the system, doctors don’t think that the quality of care will improve. Half of all doctors believe that access to care will diminish because of hospital closures prompted by health reform.
Further, nearly 70 percent of doctors believe that long wait times will plague emergency rooms. A full 83 percent of physicians foresee increased wait times for primary care appointments.

That’s in large part because Obamacare is expected to extend government-subsidized insurance coverage to many folks — even as the supply of providers remains relatively constant.

my emphases

forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/12/26/doctors-say-obamacare-is-no-remedy-for-u-s-health-woes