Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So these "deadbeats" will get a conscience and some money and buy insurance ?
LOL at that. The ERs will still be full of people with no insurance. You cannot stop that even with this law.
If they have no money, the bill has a sliding scale where the costs are lowered or even completely covered.
If they still refuse buy insurance, then they pay nevertheless via a "penalty".
Talk about bitter irony. The details of the Supreme Court's decision upholding the ObamaCare law are still being interpreted, but what is certain is that what saved the law was that the "ObamaCare tax." The Court ruled that the individual mandate to purchase health care or face a fine is a tax, not a requirement.
In other words, the Court said that Congress can impose a "tax" on people if they don't buy health insurance.
Enlarge Image
AFP/Getty Images
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts
When Congress was debating for months and months, the Obama team argued that the individual mandate "is not a tax." This was to spare the White House the embarrassment of admitting that President Obama was violating right out of the box his sacred promise not to tax anyone earning less than $200,000. According to Congressional figures 70% to 75% of the "tax" falls on those who earn less than $200,000 per year, and that is 8 million non-rich people. So Mr. Obama argued this was a mandate and a fine to enforce the requirement to buy health care.
But then in front of the Supreme Court and lower courts, the Obama legal team shifted strategies and argued it was a tax after all. The Supreme Court has traditionally and regrettably granted unlimited taxing authority to the Congress and they did so again on Tuesday.
The decision is an absurd and extraordinarily dangerous interpretation of the taxing power. If Congress wants to mandate people to eat right, exercise, say their prayers at night, would it be constitutional if Congress taxes people for not complying?
So the White House won by conceding that their mandate is a tax on anyone whether you make $200,000 or $20,000. Mr. Obama's team is surely uncorking the champagne bottles, but taxpayers may not be so happy.
By giving them more readily available access to healthcare that they didn't have before.
Emergency rooms will be less burdened by dead beats, who show up, get treated, and skip out on the bill. Leaving the hospitals with an unpaid bill passed on to those with insurance.
Thanks for asking.
None of what you said is true. Where the hell are you getting that information from? Its a TAX, and taxing people doesnt give them more access to healthcare, nor does it take care of deadbeats.. Hell, it encourages them because the tax is cheaper then insurance.
All I know, is the Massachusetts Delagation must have been braindead to support this bill, We get new Taxes, and Have to Finacially support Massheath AND Obamacare.
If they have no money, the bill has a sliding scale where the costs are lowered or even completely covered.
If they still refuse buy insurance, then they pay nevertheless via a "penalty".
Most everybody pays into the system.
But it pays more to avoid getting insurance until you need it, right? I would imagine the lower middle income folks will select this option. Makes the most financial sense.
Yes and those people who take the bus pay for insurance inside their fee when they ride. However for the millions in this country who do drive, they are required to have insurance for their vehicle. You're paying for insurance one way or the other trust me. One "forces" you to when you take the bus and the other "forces" you to when you drive a personal vehicle.
Much like health care right now the insured drivers carry the cost of those who are not, it's built into the price and rates are high as a result.
Regardless of state of federal, it's still government requiring you to purchase a product.
Only there is nothing the Federal Constitution requiring citizens to purchase a product. But there is nothing in there preventing individual States from requiring it's citizen's to purchase a product. There's a difference in there, and it's an important one. This is taking power away from the States and giving it to the Federal Government.
I take it that I can just buy catastrophic and pay out of pocket to go to a doctor that refuses insurance, right?
Not "refuses" but any doctor should be able to take cash. And the cost is actually cheaper if you pay them out of your own pocket.
I had reason to go to another doctor a few years ago and rather than go through the hassles with insurance I just opted to pay cash for the exam. They had a different price structure for that.
I guess you're not old enough to remember "back when". Insurance was only used for hospital stays.
All else was paid for by you. Insurance was very cheap back then as was drugs/doctor visits/tests.
IMO the introduction of the HMO started its downfall.
Sure sounds good the freebees and add ons.. who pays for it??.. the American People.. government expansion into socialism.. Our paychecks will be small, and we won't be able to buy food for those who work and do things right but the lazy crowd will have health care and probably abuse it.
Using this argument, Ike's interstate system is an example of socialism.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
