Quantcast

Supreme Court Says Buy Health Insurance Or Be Taxed More. Do you agree?

Foxhound BN0 2012/06/28 14:15:13
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The Supreme court ruled that while Congress cannot make you get health insurance, you can be taxed more if you don't. Do you agree with their verdict?

Please be kind and rave this post so more readers will see it. Thank you.
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Philo® ~PWCM~JLA ✩ 2012/06/28 16:43:27
    I disagree with the verdict.
    Philo® ~PWCM~JLA ✩
    +35
    Completely unconstitutional. SCOTUS cannot institute a tax, neither can POTUS. Bad law, worse medicine. Welcome to the USSA, comrades!
    flag of the untied soviet states of america

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Sally Johnson 2012/08/22 14:41:00
  • mneiai 2012/07/18 21:36:36
    I agree with the verdict.
    mneiai
    I don't want to get sick because some underemployed 20 year old doesn't ever go to the doctor.
  • MLor 2012/07/16 00:48:52
    I agree with the verdict.
    MLor
    Used to be if you didn't have the insurance the hospital could sue you. I had it bought before the ruling.
    I do think those on the government dime not working, that are able to work should be taxed. They should be made to contribute like the rest. If fhey get a refund and live in government housing and go for free medical care....hell yes they should be taxed.
  • Beccy 2012/07/14 21:16:19
    I disagree with the verdict.
    Beccy
    +1
    I lost all respect for the surpreme court when they crowned little george in 2000.
  • Live Free Or Die 2012/07/07 22:59:45
    I disagree with the verdict.
    Live Free Or Die
    +2
    SCOTUS also ruled that the states do not have to expand Medicaid to cover those who can't afford health insurance. Therefore, I have to say NO, I don't agree with it because it's taxing you for being alive, not for not having available health insurance.

    Thus, I believe more legislation needs to be added. Any state that refuses Medicaid expansion as part of it should not have to implement AHCA or the tax.
  • Clyde 2012/07/06 18:43:19
    I disagree with the verdict.
    Clyde
    +2
    Roberts rewrote the wording instead of doing his job and judging it as is. Sad day for the rule of law, the constitution, America, and freedom.
  • gracious43 2012/07/04 17:19:37
    I disagree with the verdict.
    gracious43
    +2
    Is it a tax or is it a fine? I always consider a tax to be something you pay for a purchase. This appears to be a punishment for not doing something that you are supposed to do, which is what a fine is.

    How are you supposed to pay for something if you don't have the money to pay for it? I get my healthcare insurance through work. What about the people in America who don't have jobs? I'm not an expert at this, I realize. I do know that some hospitals are making plans to clean clocks with this ruling.
  • JoeM~PWCM~JLA 2012/07/02 15:49:40
    I disagree with the verdict.
    JoeM~PWCM~JLA
    +2
    I agree with the four dissenting judges and with most of what Roberts wrote.
    The part I am having the most trouble with is, how did he get to the final answer, given the path he described.
    It is like looking at a high school or collage math paper, were the steps must be shown. he got most of the steps right but ended up with the wrong answer. And it is the same wrong answer that the four students sitting closest to him got... In the classroom, this is called "evidence of cheating".
  • gaylehelen 2012/07/01 21:31:35
    I disagree with the verdict.
    gaylehelen
    +2
    I cannot understand how it can be Constitutional to tell someone they HAVE TO buy something. I just don't understand. Maybe because I do have health insurance, but I still can't grasp the concept of being told you HAVE TO buy something.
  • ConLibFraud 2012/06/30 21:11:28
    I disagree with the verdict.
    ConLibFraud
    +2
    The IRS is not a governmental department. The IRS is unconstitutional. And now the IRS will have even more power to harass We The People!!

    America - Land of the Sheep and Home of the Slave!
  • Wilde~MoonChild ™ 2012/06/30 18:49:14 (edited)
    I agree with the verdict.
    Wilde~MoonChild ™
    +1
    Amazing!! Why are conservatives acting as though this is a new revelation?? It's a penalty, a fine... everyone knew that!
  • Elementer 2012/06/30 17:33:50
    I agree with the verdict.
    Elementer
    +2
    Typical SodaHead User: "I disagree with the verdict, therefore it must be socialism. And everyone knows socialism's bad."
  • Freedom... Elementer 2012/06/30 18:41:24
    FreedomFighter
    Incorrect, I disagree with that verdict because it removes our choice in the matter. We are being penalized if we disagree with the Government, and that is IN FACT SOCIALISM. History has shown all socialist nations have fallen under their own weight, and that is causes a stagnentation growth. So, I would indeed call it bad, and that is without even mentioning the loss of liberty that comes with socialism.
  • StarWar... Freedom... 2012/06/30 20:29:48
    StarWarsBob
    +1
    I have a simple question for all those that oppose the PPACA. The question is about the story of John. John is a 25 year old contracted construction worker in Arizona, and he makes about $60,000 a year as an electrician on new housing projects. He had been working for five years, and managed to save up about $100,000. He could afford to purchase health insurance, but he chooses not to. Why should he, as he is healthy, young, strong and hasn't been sick three days in the last five years. One Friday night after work, John hopped on his Harley motorcycle and drove to the local bar, where he met up with friends and had six beers to wash away the stress of the work week. Unfortunate as it was, on his way home John crashed his motorcycle, and as he was not wearing a helmet, he suffered a brain injury. It was bleeding in his skull. He was rushed to the ER, and the doctors determined that if John was to survive, he would need brain surgery. John had his operation and was in the hospital for six days, where he had accumulated a $350,000 hospital and doctor bill. John didn't have $350,000 to pay the bill with.

    The simple question is this: Who should pay for John's hospital bill?
    Should the hospital and doctors write off the expense as a loss? Should the hospital raise it's rates for those that are insured and that could afford care to keep from losing millions every year from patients like John?
  • Freedom... StarWar... 2012/06/30 20:35:14
    FreedomFighter
    I would have to say John, and John's family assuming he lives. There are billing systems, pay over time, and so on.

    To be honest, I do put personal liberty above economy, so I am one of the most biased people to discuss on this matter. You raise a good point, but I do not beleive it is good enough to justify taking away liberty for.
  • StarWar... Freedom... 2012/06/30 21:22:30
    StarWarsBob
    +1
    Since the government passed the EMTALA in 1986 which requires all hospitals that treat Medicare patients to treat everybody that has a medical emergency, even illegal aliens and the uninsured, hospitals have been losing tens of billions of dollars every year. To keep from going bankrupt, hospitals have been forced to raise their rates for services to an outrageous level. That is why hospitals will charge $25 for an aspirin in the ER. A two hour visit to the ER that required a cat-scan will cost $13,000. Because of our antiquated health care system, hospital and doctor costs have been increasing at the rate of over 900% in the last 30 years. In 1980, all monies spent on health care in this country came to $256 billions, and by 2010 those expenditures reached $2.6 trillions. The CBO projected that if the PPACA were not passed, the cost of health care would reach 25% of GDP by 2025, just 13 years away. That would be about $5 trillions a year, or 25 cents for every dollar spent on EVERYTHING in this country going for health care. That is the PRIMARY reason why the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, to address those out of control costs for health care. In 2014, 99% of Americans will have health insurance as prescribed by law. What that means is that hospitals w...


    Since the government passed the EMTALA in 1986 which requires all hospitals that treat Medicare patients to treat everybody that has a medical emergency, even illegal aliens and the uninsured, hospitals have been losing tens of billions of dollars every year. To keep from going bankrupt, hospitals have been forced to raise their rates for services to an outrageous level. That is why hospitals will charge $25 for an aspirin in the ER. A two hour visit to the ER that required a cat-scan will cost $13,000. Because of our antiquated health care system, hospital and doctor costs have been increasing at the rate of over 900% in the last 30 years. In 1980, all monies spent on health care in this country came to $256 billions, and by 2010 those expenditures reached $2.6 trillions. The CBO projected that if the PPACA were not passed, the cost of health care would reach 25% of GDP by 2025, just 13 years away. That would be about $5 trillions a year, or 25 cents for every dollar spent on EVERYTHING in this country going for health care. That is the PRIMARY reason why the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed, to address those out of control costs for health care. In 2014, 99% of Americans will have health insurance as prescribed by law. What that means is that hospitals will increase their profits, health insurance companies will increase their profits, and everybody will get paid for health care services.
    When everybody gets paid, the out of control costs this country sees now will decrease.

    Something had to be done, and the problem had been growing for decades with no real solution, which is why I support the PPACA. The law is hardly perfect, but it is 1000 times better than doing nothing other than a tax credit for health care savings accounts, which would not have addressed the ever increasing costs of health care.
    (more)
  • Grandpa StarWar... 2012/07/03 12:52:33
    Grandpa
    So you are saying you want the goverment to control who,how,and if you can recieve care >> Instead of fixing the corruption that has caused health care to raise in the frist place >> Start a new system,and how long do you think it will take before that system will be corrupted ??? And most of all the LAWYERS and thier law suits that cost the hospital Millions each year >>> Quess the goverment can pay those and we can support more goverment leeches >> FIX WHAT WE HAVE >> GET TORT REFROM AND STOP THE BULLSH___
  • StarWar... Grandpa 2012/07/03 18:50:08
    StarWarsBob
    +1
    The PPACA does not let the government control anything - except the excessive costs of health care. The individual states are required to set up the health care exchanges, and it's up to the states to implement those exchanges.

    Tort reform was proposed in the initial health care bill, but was shot down by blue dog Democrats and it was kept out of it. In 2003, Texas passed medical tort reform putting a cap on malpractice suits of $250,000 for doctors and hospitals, and it did nothing to decrease the high costs of health care in Texas. What it did do is to increase profits for insurance companies, but those savings were not passed on to the overall costs of health care in that state.
  • gracious43 StarWar... 2012/07/04 18:05:47
    gracious43
    +1
    I agree with everything you are stating. However, most of the people who come through ER without health insurance, can't pay for it. Most of them. I will allow that there are a few "Johns" who come through ER. But most illegal aliens and unemployed who make it into ER that don't have insurance, and can't pay for their medical bills, aren't going to be able to pay for insurance just because it becomes a law. Hospitals are still going to be stuck with these bills.

    And I would say that at least for the hospital system I work for, that is the case.

    In that case, this law is going to punish a very few people who are barely squeaking by, and have no intention of living dangerously, and in fact, never use ER. They are just trying to eek out just enough take-home cash to live on. That is my only concern with the law.
  • StarWar... gracious43 2012/07/05 19:41:32
    StarWarsBob
    I disagree. While illegal aliens will not be insured, 99% of Americans that are uninsured now will be insured in 2014. The PPACA provides for those that can't afford insurance. Individuals whose employers don’t offer minimum essential coverage and whose household incomes are 133–400 percent of the federal poverty level will qualify for federal subsidies.
    Generally, individuals will be eligible for subsides in the form of premium tax credits and cost sharing assistance if their household income is 100–400 percent of FPL, and their share of employer-offered coverage (if applicable) exceeds 9.5 percent of their household income. Most individuals between 100–133 percent of FPL will be eligible for Medicaid and as such, ineligible for these subsidies. This is to help them pay their insurance premiums or cost sharing obligations (co-insurance or co-payments) under a plan they purchase through a state exchange.

    (FPL):
    For an individual
    133% = $14,404
    400% = $43,320
    Family of four
    133% = $29,326
    400% = $88,200

    What is needed in the future is to put some incentives for states to expand the Medicare provisions of the PPACA. This can be done through various ways, but the most logical is the threat of withholding federal funds for those states that decide to not comply.
  • gracious43 StarWar... 2012/07/06 05:30:22 (edited)
    gracious43
    +1
    Okay, so a CNA, who makes 19,000-26,000 per year, and has health insurance premiums of 4,129. What is going to happen to her? Use her as an example.

    RISING HEALTH CARE COSTS
    Average annual premium contribution paid by workers with employer-provided health insurance.

    Year Single coverage Family coverage

    2007 $694 $3,281

    2008 $721 $3354

    2009 $779 $3,515

    2010 $899 $3,997

    2011 $921 $4,129

    Source: Kaiser Family Foundation
  • trentin... gracious43 2012/07/06 06:13:11
    trentinafur
    1) you might want to start with a yea or nay re: the overarching goals and philosophy that SWBob has laid out above: namely, that everyone carry personal coverage so that the insured are not burdened by the uninsured. That's the 85-90%. Your question is valid. But once you've dealt with the framework and big, hairy policy questions, it's easier to resolve questions like yours.

    2) If the nurse in your example single - less than $80/month should be affordable. If she has a family - then the gov't would need to foot a portion of that bill. Similar to the different tax rate structures for single vs. married filing jointly.

    But again - these are the details. The big fish are: no denial due to PEC; no policy rescission, keeping kids on parents policies to 26 - and the necessary quid pro quo for these: a mandate. If the 1st 3 make sense from a policy standpoint - which again makes the mandate a requirement - the rest of the smaller issues are quite addressable.
  • gracious43 trentin... 2012/07/06 06:16:15
    gracious43
    Why don't you just say the same thing you just wrote in Ancient Greek? I would understand it just as well.
  • trentin... gracious43 2012/07/06 16:19:33
    trentinafur
    Wow. Really?

    Ok.....it's pretty straightforward stuff. Written in plain english. If you can't get it, I'm afraid someone else will need to help you.

    Good luck.
  • StarWar... gracious43 2012/07/06 07:38:41
    StarWarsBob
    Well, that has been the problem. Health insurance premiums have been increasing every year. The reason for this is the absurd method of compensation to hospitals and doctors. As you probably know, hospitals and doctors are reimbursed by insurance companies in a scheme called "cost-plus", started by Blue Cross in 1947. Cost-plus allowed physicians to be reimbursed according to "reasonable and customary" charges, and hospitals were reimbursed on a percentage of their costs plus a percentage of their working and equity capital. This system permitted doctors to charge whatever they wanted, knowing they would be reimbursed, and created a perverse incentive for hospitals to increase costs because that meant increased income. Patients have no reason to show restraint, because the money spent belongs not to them but to a third party. The cost-plus system inevitably led to higher health care costs.

    Cost-plus reimbursement worked like this: If Blue Cross patients accounted for 25 percent of a hospital's patient days, Blue Cross reimbursed the hospital for 25 percent of its total costs. That's total operating expenses, from rent to security guards to everything. If Medicare patients accounted for 30 percent of the hospital's patient days, then Medicare paid the hospital 30 percent of its ...





    Well, that has been the problem. Health insurance premiums have been increasing every year. The reason for this is the absurd method of compensation to hospitals and doctors. As you probably know, hospitals and doctors are reimbursed by insurance companies in a scheme called "cost-plus", started by Blue Cross in 1947. Cost-plus allowed physicians to be reimbursed according to "reasonable and customary" charges, and hospitals were reimbursed on a percentage of their costs plus a percentage of their working and equity capital. This system permitted doctors to charge whatever they wanted, knowing they would be reimbursed, and created a perverse incentive for hospitals to increase costs because that meant increased income. Patients have no reason to show restraint, because the money spent belongs not to them but to a third party. The cost-plus system inevitably led to higher health care costs.

    Cost-plus reimbursement worked like this: If Blue Cross patients accounted for 25 percent of a hospital's patient days, Blue Cross reimbursed the hospital for 25 percent of its total costs. That's total operating expenses, from rent to security guards to everything. If Medicare patients accounted for 30 percent of the hospital's patient days, then Medicare paid the hospital 30 percent of its total costs. Other insurers reimbursed in much the same way.

    This has been the primary driver for the out of control health care costs in this country, and those costs have sky rocketed from $256 billions in 1980 to $2.6 trillions in 2010.

    As to the answer to your question, if the CNA's insurance premiums exceeds 9.5% of her income, then she will be eligible for a tax credit. If she has a family of four making $26,000 a year, 9.5% of her income would be $2,470, and if her insurance premiums or out of pocket expenses were $4,129, then she can write off $1,759 off her tax returns. If she were single and making $26,000 and her insurance premiums were $921, then she would have no write offs or deductions.

    The point of the PPACA is to make health care AFFORDABLE for everybody. If a person makes $200,000 a year, then they can afford health insurance. The CBO projected that by 2025, in just 13 years, if the PPACA were not passed, health care would cost 25% of GDP on a yearly basis. That would be about $5 trillions a year, and those kinds of costs would be unsustainable in this country. Health insurance premiums would be double what they are today.
    (more)
  • gracious43 StarWar... 2012/07/06 08:18:53
    gracious43
    +1
    So you are suggesting that a mother of four should make do on

    Here is the break down
    26,000
    -
    6500 (taxes + ss+medicaid)
    -
    4,129 (health insurance)
    +
    1,759 (tax writeoff)

    ------------------

    Is that right?

    A single woman earning 26,000

    -65000 (taxes, ss medicaid)
    -3,000 (health insurance)
    ----------------------

    Is this right?

    You see I have been this woman before. I don't drink, or use drugs and never have. I tread on life softly and I am healthy and I made the decision to not have health insurance, when I was young, because it would have made the difference between groceries and electricity.

    I earn a nice wage currently. I have very good health benefits. I just remember that there was a time in my life that the amount of money you seem to view as chump change was my daily bread.

    And I am going to tell you right now that the kinds of people that come into my lab using blood products and expensive trauma services because they got into a drunken brawl are not going to be carrying health insurance. You are not going to be able to make them. They don't care about tax write offs. The probably don't work anyway, and they won't be filling out tax forms come April. The person that you are going to be hurting is the woman that is mopping up the mess the thug makes on the ER floor.

    And I have to admit th...
    So you are suggesting that a mother of four should make do on

    Here is the break down
    26,000
    -
    6500 (taxes + ss+medicaid)
    -
    4,129 (health insurance)
    +
    1,759 (tax writeoff)

    ------------------

    Is that right?

    A single woman earning 26,000

    -65000 (taxes, ss medicaid)
    -3,000 (health insurance)
    ----------------------

    Is this right?

    You see I have been this woman before. I don't drink, or use drugs and never have. I tread on life softly and I am healthy and I made the decision to not have health insurance, when I was young, because it would have made the difference between groceries and electricity.

    I earn a nice wage currently. I have very good health benefits. I just remember that there was a time in my life that the amount of money you seem to view as chump change was my daily bread.

    And I am going to tell you right now that the kinds of people that come into my lab using blood products and expensive trauma services because they got into a drunken brawl are not going to be carrying health insurance. You are not going to be able to make them. They don't care about tax write offs. The probably don't work anyway, and they won't be filling out tax forms come April. The person that you are going to be hurting is the woman that is mopping up the mess the thug makes on the ER floor.

    And I have to admit that I don't know that much about health costs. I know nurses and CNAs get worked to the bone. They are certainly making budget cuts in labs. If there is money to be scrimped, trust me, it is getting done--at least in not-for-profit hospitals.
    (more)
  • StarWar... gracious43 2012/07/06 09:02:59
    StarWarsBob
    +1
    No, that is not right. A single woman making $26,000 does not pay $3000 in insurance premiums. Their average premiums (according to your Kaiser data) is $921 in 2011.

    I too worked for a non-profit hospital (Childrens) for two years in the business offices, and have worked in the health care industry for 16 years. Seven years in a big city medical group, and seven years for one of the top five health insurance companies. So I have seen all aspects of health care from three perspectives.

    Here is the Kaiser data that breaks down the costs of health care in this country, and how it has grown in the last thirty years, and what the PPACA does to address those costs.
    http://www.kaiseredu.org/Issu...

    If the PPACA were not passed, health care costs would bankrupt this country in less than a decade.

    One more thing. Just because you have health insurance doesn't mean that you are not vulnerable to bankruptcy do to a medical condition. Check out this study done by Harvard Medical School on bankruptcy due to excessive medical costs.
    http://www.businessweek.com/b...
  • gracious43 StarWar... 2012/07/06 16:15:21
    gracious43
    I know good and well how expensive health-care costs are in the US. In fact, in spite of the fact that my insurance was supposed to pay 100% of all health-care I receive,within my hospital's system, I got zinged $2000.00 in additon, when I received health-care four years ago. Fortunately I had the money in savings, but when I was young, I would not have.

    In addition, $75.00 per month is too much for a young person in a low paying job. I don't pay that much. I pay roughly $13.00 a month for my health-care insurance, in spite of the fact that I earn much more than the young CNA working her rear-end off at the low end pay of health-care workers.

    And it is much too expensive for anyone who who doesn't have a job. Now you mentioned that 99% of the uninsured now, will be insured by 2014. How? By criminalizing them? Because this is not acceptable. The young CNA with a take-home pay of $19500 is going to be paying for health-insurance (which at her young age, she likely won't need) and even if her insurance is $75.00/month, that is still going to come out of her monthly expenses--more likely food bills, since food bills are more flexible than rent and utilities.

    Nonworking people won't be able to pay for insurance at all. Are you willing to criminalize them? And I guarantee you that most...





    I know good and well how expensive health-care costs are in the US. In fact, in spite of the fact that my insurance was supposed to pay 100% of all health-care I receive,within my hospital's system, I got zinged $2000.00 in additon, when I received health-care four years ago. Fortunately I had the money in savings, but when I was young, I would not have.

    In addition, $75.00 per month is too much for a young person in a low paying job. I don't pay that much. I pay roughly $13.00 a month for my health-care insurance, in spite of the fact that I earn much more than the young CNA working her rear-end off at the low end pay of health-care workers.

    And it is much too expensive for anyone who who doesn't have a job. Now you mentioned that 99% of the uninsured now, will be insured by 2014. How? By criminalizing them? Because this is not acceptable. The young CNA with a take-home pay of $19500 is going to be paying for health-insurance (which at her young age, she likely won't need) and even if her insurance is $75.00/month, that is still going to come out of her monthly expenses--more likely food bills, since food bills are more flexible than rent and utilities.

    Nonworking people won't be able to pay for insurance at all. Are you willing to criminalize them? And I guarantee you that most of the people who use very expensive trauma procedures in the ER are not going to have jobs. They might earn income, but it isn't taxable. And they aren't going to care about being criminalized. They aren't going to care about carrying insurance.

    The other group of high frequency use of ERs are people who use ER for routine medical care. I want to even say, they use it for nothing. They come in for nonmedical uses, and bring their children in for issues that I would have prescribed bed-rest and chicken soup for my own children. They are not going to be insured either. The state, whether federal or state, will still be paying for the medical care of them and their children

    I understand that your "John" should carry insurance. He also shouldn't drink. He should be penalized for drinking and driving. The alcohol industry should be penalized for selling a nuisance product.

    But I think this fellow is rare among the uninsured folks. I think that most uninsured folks are unemployed, or earning minimal wages, and this law, which criminalized them for not having insurance, is going to be placing an undue burden on struggling folks.
    (more)
  • StarWar... gracious43 2012/07/07 08:06:47
    StarWarsBob
    +1
    The ones that don't have jobs are eligible for Medicaid.

    You are right in that many that don't have insurance are using the ER for routine medical procedures, and the ER is the second most expensive kind of health care there is next to the ICU. That is why mandatory insurance is necessary - to get those people into doctors offices for preventative care and out of the ER.

    You are wrong about the majority of the uninsured being unemployed. Hispanics make up the largest demographic group without insurance next to whites, while most are employed in industries that do not offer employer provided health care, like construction, agriculture, and the service industry. In 2004, 46% of all the uninsured were employed full time, while another 28% were employed part time. That's 72% of the uninsured that were either employed full or part time.
    industry 2004 46 uninsured employed 28 employed 72 uninsured employed
    http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/re...

    The PPACA does not criminalize anybody. If an individual is unemployed or under employed, the government steps in and provides health care for them, either through Medicaid or through the state run health care exchange system, depending on their income.
  • gracious43 StarWar... 2012/07/07 15:01:43 (edited)
    gracious43
    There is no criminalization to not having insurance. It's simply that everyone is going to be insured. Is that right?


    Based on the chart figures of there being 45.8 million uninsured, 21.068 million of these people are uninsured because they are working part-time or not working. Is that accurate?

    25.29/45.8/100 8.702/45.8/100 12.36/45.8/100

    These 21.068 million individuals will receive state and or federal aid, or just state aid?

    edit, my apologies:

    8.702/45.8/100 + 12.36/45.8/100 =21.068
  • StarWar... gracious43 2012/07/08 06:51:09
    StarWarsBob
    +1
    If you open the link to the data, you will find the exact demographics for the uninsured as of 2004. Current data is a little different with about 50.7 million uninsured as of 2010, or 16.7% of the total population excluding illegal aliens.
    http://www.usatoday.com/news/...

    in 2014, 99% of Americans will have health insurance. That is one of the reasons for the law, to assure that healthy young Americans pay into the system to help offset the high costs of health care for everybody. Right now those that have insurance are paying for those that don't have it through their higher premiums.
  • gracious43 StarWar... 2012/07/08 16:06:46
    gracious43
    +1
    Your first link stated that this:


    According to the Census Bureau's 2005 Current Population Survey (CPS), there were 45.8 million uninsured individuals in 2004, or 15.7% of the civilian non-institutionalized population

    In any case this is what I would be appreciative if you would explain to me. I have a job that offers insurance. It will be no problem at all for my employer to take the money from my paycheck and subtract it for my insurance. It will be automatic. I won't even have to think about it.

    But there are some jobs that don't offer insurance. There are "day jobs" where men and women get paid by the day, from different employers. There are self-employed women that babysit children, or tend to the elderly. All sorts of these types of jobs. How is the government going to insure that all of these people get insurance?
  • Live Fr... gracious43 2012/07/08 20:43:13
    Live Free Or Die
    +1
    This law would have been fine gracious and not hurt families who can't afford the insurance and have to pay a tax. But the SCOTUS changed the ruling and said that states don't have to expand the Medicaid coverage to the working class as was intended in states that don't want the expansion of those funds. It went from being a fine for those who just refuse to apply to a tax for those who simply cannot afford to buy insurance.
  • StarWar... gracious43 2012/07/09 19:17:54
    StarWarsBob
    +1
    The government will impose a penalty of $95 or 1% of the income for those Americans that fail to acquire insurance in 2014 and 2015. That is the grace period for Americans to abide with the law. In 2016, an individual will receive a penalty of $695 or 2.5% of their income (whichever is greater) for those individuals that fail to acquire insurance. The government can't force Americans to acquire insurance. However, it can fine them for not complying with the law. That fine will be added to their tax liability.
  • gracious43 StarWar... 2012/07/10 05:31:44
    gracious43
    First of all, ouch! Second of all, if I were a gambling woman, I would bet that there is more than 1% of the population who don't file income taxes, and aren't going to get insurance just because it is the law.
  • StarWar... gracious43 2012/07/11 08:39:27
    StarWarsBob
    +1
    That may be true, but I doubt it. On my auto insurance, I have to pay an extra $35 a year to cover uninsured motorists, even though it's the law that all drivers must have auto insurance in my state. So I guess there will be some that don't get the insurance, but it will cost everybody else that gets it.
  • gracious43 StarWar... 2012/07/11 16:02:15
    gracious43
    They may have ways of getting people to sign up and pay for insurance that I don't understand. I understand what you are saying about paying for uninsured motorists. That galls me, too.

    The difference, I suppose, that I am thinking about, is that when I was poor, I didn't drive. I didn't pay for a car, and I didn't pay for insurance. I took the city bus and I walked. But poor people have to live.
  • StarWar... gracious43 2012/07/12 03:32:49
    StarWarsBob
    +1
    The PPACA makes health insurance affordable to poor people, whereas now they don't have any insurance at all. That is the primary reason why the rich and powerful United States is 49th in the world in infant mortality rates. The poor country of Cuba has a better infant mortality rate than that of the US. Cuba, as of 2011 has an infant mortality rate of 4.83 infant deaths per 100,000 live births, while the United States has a rate of 5.98 deaths per 100,000 live births. This is according to the CIA World Book of Facts.
    https://www.cia.gov/library/p...
    I see no reason why the US should not be in the top ten countries in the world with the lowest infant mortality rates. The primary cause is that the uninsured do not receive proper pre-natal care, and after the PPACA goes into effect in 2014, they will receive proper pre-natal care, and our infant mortality rate will decrease. The same thing applies to life expectancy. The US is 50th in the world in life expectancy rates at 78.49 years. I would like to see the United States in the top ten countries with the highest life expectancy, along with Monaco, Macau, Japan, Singapore, San Marino, Andorra, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Australia and Italy, all of which have rates of 81.86 years or higher.
    https://www.cia.gov/library/p...
    The United State...
    The PPACA makes health insurance affordable to poor people, whereas now they don't have any insurance at all. That is the primary reason why the rich and powerful United States is 49th in the world in infant mortality rates. The poor country of Cuba has a better infant mortality rate than that of the US. Cuba, as of 2011 has an infant mortality rate of 4.83 infant deaths per 100,000 live births, while the United States has a rate of 5.98 deaths per 100,000 live births. This is according to the CIA World Book of Facts.
    https://www.cia.gov/library/p...
    I see no reason why the US should not be in the top ten countries in the world with the lowest infant mortality rates. The primary cause is that the uninsured do not receive proper pre-natal care, and after the PPACA goes into effect in 2014, they will receive proper pre-natal care, and our infant mortality rate will decrease. The same thing applies to life expectancy. The US is 50th in the world in life expectancy rates at 78.49 years. I would like to see the United States in the top ten countries with the highest life expectancy, along with Monaco, Macau, Japan, Singapore, San Marino, Andorra, Guernsey, Hong Kong, Australia and Italy, all of which have rates of 81.86 years or higher.
    https://www.cia.gov/library/p...
    The United States is the greatest country in the world, and I believe it's time that our health care statistics reflect that greatness.
    (more)
  • gracious43 StarWar... 2012/07/12 05:12:32
    gracious43
    Actually I really really disagree with you as far as mortality rates for infants. I had home birth, and I firmly believe that home is the best place for birth. All births should start out at home, and if it is a real emergency and only if it is a real emergency should births end up in the hospital. The reason why the US has such a high infant and maternal mortality rate is because of the US birth practices in hospitals. Pitocin was evil enough. Now doctors are using cytotec, and it is even worse. And hospitals are filthy. And you know it.

    There might be other reasons that other countries have higher life expectancies. I'd have to think about that.

    In any case, thank you for talking to me. I'm trying to learn about this law, like everyone else in the country. I hope it gets tweaked so that it isn't an undue burden on the poor, and I hope that it doesn't give hospitals and insurance companies too much power over people's right to choose other options for health care. This is America, and most people like to decide some issues for themselves. I think some health matters are one of those hot topics, that Americans tend to want to keep their options open.
  • StarWar... gracious43 2012/07/13 06:33:52
    StarWarsBob
    +1
    While you are thinking about the reasons why other countries have higher life expectancy rates and lower infant mortality rates, you might want to compare the US health care system to that of Japan. In Japan in 2005, 51.5% of Japanese babies were born in hospitals, 47% in private physician-run clinics with fewer than nineteen beds, 1.0% in maternity homes, and 0.2% at home. Yet Japan has the second lowest infant mortality rate in the world, with 2.21 infant deaths per 100,000 live births in 2011, compared to the US with 5.98 infant deaths per 100,000 live births. The US has almost three times the infant death rate. In Japan, primary and secondary level maternity hospitals and clinics do not use epidural analgesia, and independent midwifery homes never use analgesia, so there may be something to your pitocin and cytotec use theory. Also, Japan spends half what the US spends as a percent of GDP on health care, at 8.2%, while the US spends over 16%. Also, Japan has the third highest life expectancy rate in the world, while the US is 50th.

    The PPACA makes health care affordable and available to the poor like no other legislation in history, and it will lower the ever increasing health care costs in this country, which was exactly the point of the law. While the legislation is hardl...
    While you are thinking about the reasons why other countries have higher life expectancy rates and lower infant mortality rates, you might want to compare the US health care system to that of Japan. In Japan in 2005, 51.5% of Japanese babies were born in hospitals, 47% in private physician-run clinics with fewer than nineteen beds, 1.0% in maternity homes, and 0.2% at home. Yet Japan has the second lowest infant mortality rate in the world, with 2.21 infant deaths per 100,000 live births in 2011, compared to the US with 5.98 infant deaths per 100,000 live births. The US has almost three times the infant death rate. In Japan, primary and secondary level maternity hospitals and clinics do not use epidural analgesia, and independent midwifery homes never use analgesia, so there may be something to your pitocin and cytotec use theory. Also, Japan spends half what the US spends as a percent of GDP on health care, at 8.2%, while the US spends over 16%. Also, Japan has the third highest life expectancy rate in the world, while the US is 50th.

    The PPACA makes health care affordable and available to the poor like no other legislation in history, and it will lower the ever increasing health care costs in this country, which was exactly the point of the law. While the legislation is hardly perfect, it is far better than any other serious proposals made in the past. The PPACA will do for the poor what Medicare did for the elderly in 1965. Prior to 1965, health insurance was not affordable for seniors, just as it is not affordable to the poor today. All that will change in 2014, and I look forward to it happening. Today the health insurance companies control availability and access to health care, and their monopoly will end in 2014, while they still will make decent profits for themselves and their stock holders.
    (more)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 50 Next » Last »

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/25 12:01:26

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals