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 then cost must drop. Hopefully insurance companies will go under quickly. They are nothing but liars and greedy scammers.
Why would it? People will just have to pay the penalty instead. With all of the new mandates put on what has to be covered, this means people will see their premiums increase, businesses will drop coverage, and those people will have to either pay even more for health insurance or pay the penalty for not having health insurance. End result? Less people with health insurance but a LOT more paying increased taxes. Go Obama.
Yes. Correct. It's a such an odd decision. When you look at this in practicality, this law will be even more of a mess. After all, the SCOTUS doesn't rule on if the law is a good idea or not, just constitutionality. It's constitutional as a tax. States do not have to help the federal gov't ensure people get health insurance or be held to the penalty of not getting Medicare funding. That was ruled unconstitutional. Personally, I do not see where Obamacare helps anyone get health insurance with this ruling. It does raise taxes though.
ETA: I keep typo-ing myself there. I meant Medicaid expansion.
I often type "Medicare" for "Medicaid" myself, and I only bolded it to maintain clarity on the thread, not to make a thing out of your typo.
It's not SCOTUS's job to rule on whether a law is good or not, and I think that Roberts' pointed comment to that effect was important. I also very much appreciated Roberts' distinguishing the thoughts and positions of other justices of the court on the various provisions. It provided a lot of insight into this particular ruling
It was also important that in the decision, they took the law apart, and ruled on the various parts. I think it's important to note that it's not, "States do not have to help the federal government ensure people get health insurance,", because the states help in that area was never required, or really sought. The help was in ensuring that part of the population (who fell below 133% of the federal poverty line in income) would have their medical expenses paid. The idea being that this segment of the population is the one whose members might be expected to not pay their medical expenses but who use medical resources and therefore drive up costs for everyone.
Frankly, I have a lot of issues with the Affordable Care Act, and always have had. My biggest issue is that as a country we need to drive costs down much, much more significantly. With Baby Boomers retiring and using medical resources at an unprecedented rate, with a weakened economy both domestically and internationally, we have designed a perfect storm. Healthcare and medicine is going to break us in the next 50 years unless we take some real measures to drive down costs.
Why would it? People will just have to pay the penalty instead. With all of the new mandates put on what has to be covered, this means people will see their premiums increase, businesses will drop coverage, and those people will have to either pay even more for health insurance or pay the penalty for not having health insurance. End result? Less people with health insurance but a LOT more paying increased taxes. Go Obama.
I really don't understand where SCOTUS had the authority to change the law by themselves. The original law said it was going to use the Commerce Clause to penalize you. It should have been struck down and put back in Congress to change it to a tax, then taken up again. SCOTUS has no power to authorize a tax on it's own. Anyway, this ruling is an extremely slippery slope. You wait and see how many other things we will be forced to buy simply by using a tax as a penalty for not.
Actually is was a brilliant move by Roberts. Roberts said the mandate does not survive under the commerce clause. He set a conservative precedent there. He went on to find that it does survive under the tax clause, which is so narrow that they retain the ability to find something unconstitutional without overturning this decision.
The left is going to claim a victory. They should not. The victory here is for all of us. There is a person on the Supreme Court that has vision and intelligence. A person that understands how important the Supreme Court is to the United States and its importance as an equal branch. If the Supreme Court is to survive and retain its power, it has to be free of a political taint. He accomplished that today. Conservatives actually won if you read the opinion. He set precedent by saying that the mandate was unconstitutional under the commerce clause, which paves the way for declaring other bills to found unconstitutional without the political taint. The man is absolutey amazing.
Of course. It will cheaper to do so. So now that employee has to either find insurance or pay the penalty (I mean tax). This decision will actually encourage employers to not provide health insurance.
Did you know that health insurance costs more than doubled for employers between 2000 and 2008?
I often type "Medicare" for "Medicaid" myself, and I only bolded it to maintain clarity on the thread, not to make a thing out of your typo.
It's not SCOTUS's job to rule on whether a law is good or not, and I think that Roberts' pointed comment to that effect was important. I also very much appreciated Roberts' distinguishing the thoughts and positions of other justices of the court on the various provisions. It provided a lot of insight into this particular ruling
It was also important that in the decision, they took the law apart, and ruled on the various parts. I think it's important to note that it's not, "States do not have to help the federal government ensure people get health insurance,", because the states help in that area was never required, or really sought. The help was in ensuring that part of the population (who fell below 133% of the federal poverty line in income) would have their medical expenses paid. The idea being that this segment of the population is the one whose members might be expected to not pay their medical expenses but who use medical resources and therefore drive up costs for everyone.
Frankly, I have a lot of issues with the Affordable Care Act, and always have had. My biggest issue is that as a country we need to drive costs down much, much more significantly. With Baby Boomers retiring and using medical resources at an unprecedented rate, with a weakened economy both domestically and internationally, we have designed a perfect storm. Healthcare and medicine is going to break us in the next 50 years unless we take some real measures to drive down costs.
Yes and it seems this ruling does nothing to help with that. Here's the consequence as I see it. People will pay more for health insurance. If your employer does not offer health insurance, they can pay the penalty instead (which is a lot cheaper). If people can't get health insurance, there's no one that is going to help them get it. However, you will have to pay the penalty for not getting health insurance. When people really understand what has happened here, they will realize this is a mess.
Judge Roberts is a real American Traitor. Shame on you!!!
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.
