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.
My taxable income is always based upon my net profit. As a sole-proprietor I provided my own health insurance. Or rather, I did. As of midnight tonight I will no longer have medical or dental coverage.
What I want to be law should be left up to the States, not the federal government. Congress has no constitutional authority to require anyone under its jurisdiction to purchase a product/service. The Tenth Amendment allocates that power to the States and/or the people, respectively.
I would personally prefer no government intrusions in regard to my health care, but I cannot deny that the States do have the constitutional authority, where Congress clearly does not.
I don't know about the tax situation for business owners, but my guess is you get a subsidy of some kind for your health insurance.
You don't have to buy insurance. This is very clear. If you don't buy insurance your taxes go up.
Just like if you don't have children your taxes are higher. If you don't own a home your taxes are higher. If you don't have a 401k your taxes are higher. No one says that because they pay higher taxes if they don't own a home that the government is making them buy a home.
Healthcare wouldn't exist without government intrusion.
Hey should doctors have to be state certified or should any schmo be able to claim the title or any school be able to pass off any program as certified?
Should drugs be tested by the government for safety? Should states and government fund Hospitals and medical schools?
Should a government court system exist to foot most of the cost of lawsuits filed against doctors?
Again, I fail to see how a health care system exists without a large amount government intrusion?
I don't know about the tax situation for business owners, but my guess is you get a subsidy of some kind for your health insurance.
I am not sure which planet you are on, but keeping as much of my earned revenues as possible is not a "subsidy." You seem to forget that it is the taxpayers, like myself, that subsidizes government. Not the other way around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
You don't have to buy insurance. This is very clear. If you don't buy insurance your taxes go up.
Actually, due to recent hardware purchases this year, my taxable income has been, and will be, much less. I pay my taxes quarterly, and I only pay what I owe. I have not received a "refund" (read as "overpayment") in more than twenty years. I have better uses for my money that let the IRS sit on it without even paying interest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
Just like if you don't have children your taxes are higher. If you don't own a home your taxes are higher. If you don't have a 401k your taxes are higher. No one says that because they pay higher taxes if they don't own a home that the government is making them buy a home.
Healthcare wouldn't exist without government intrusion.
Hey should doctors have to be state certified or should any schmo be able to claim the title or any school be able to pass off any program as certified?
Should drugs be tested by the government for safety? Should states and government fund Hospitals and medical schools?
Should a government court system exist to foot most of the cost of lawsuits filed against doctors?
Again, I fail to see how a health care system exists without a large amount government intrusion?
I already conceded that States do have the constitutional authority to involve themselves in health care, even if I would prefer otherwise, but the federal government does not have that constitutional authority.
If the US Constitution does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate health care the Tenth Amendment prohibits them from exercising that power. The US Constitution is suppose to limit the power of the federal government, not make it all powerful to do anything it pleases. As with education, social programs, and now health care, the federal government continues to usurp powers that belong exclusively to the States and/or the people.
I am not sure which planet you are on, but keeping as much of my earned revenues as possible is not a "subsidy." You seem to forget that it is the taxpayers, like myself, that subsidizes government. Not the other way around.
Actually, due to recent hardware purchases this year, my taxable income has been, and will be, much less. I pay my taxes quarterly, and I only pay what I owe. I have not received a "refund" (read as "overpayment") in more than twenty years. I have better uses for my money that let the IRS sit on it without even paying interest.
I already conceded that States do have the constitutional authority to involve themselves in health care, even if I would prefer otherwise, but the federal government does not have that constitutional authority.
If the US Constitution does not specifically grant Congress the power to regulate health care the Tenth Amendment prohibits them from exercising that power. The US Constitution is suppose to limit the power of the federal government, not make it all powerful to do anything it pleases. As with education, social programs, and now health care, the federal government continues to usurp powers that belong exclusively to the States and/or the people.
Oh so you did get a subsidy for your health insurance. Semantics aside, so you were already participating in a system in which those without health insurance paid higher taxes or a fee if you like. What are you complaining about now?
Since my independent policy is being cancelled at dec 2014 if not earlier i will have to take my family to obama care. Thats their plan!
When did you get the notice? I don't think my individual policy is compliant, but haven't received anything in the mail. I've been having my mail forwarded since June though and they have lost a couple of things. My agent hasn't called me back yet (he should know).
No one really knows if it's seriously flawed. I know those children allowed to stay on their parent's insurance have a new peace of mind. I know those w/pre-existing conditions (did you know being female is one,too??) are relieved not being denied help. Yes, if this law could cover everyone it would be more ideal. Do you think that goal could have been met w/republican approval??
All I want is to let the program be fully implemented before making the decision to get rid of it. If it's bad, then repeal. But, until it's fully rolled out, there are only assumptions. (and you no what to assume means). When Medicare and Social Security were first rolled out, there were glitches that needed to be dealt with. But these 2 programs are very much appreciated by our elder and disabled populations, and glitches were ironed out. If you look at Mass. w/Romneycare the people there are very happy and do not want it to go away.
As with every piece of legislation there will be areas in need of improvement. So, perhaps one could stop prejudging the ACA, and see if it needs adjusting once it is fully implemented. Then, make the necessary adjustments. I worked w/people that have no health insurance, I've seen 1st hand the devastation it causes them and those around them. Perhaps insuring 25 million doesn't seem enough (and it isn't) but at least it's the first time our government has a workable plan. There has been an awful lot of money spent by the Koch brothers and other wealthy conservatives to misinform the public. There have been strong anti-Obama voices on the air to mislead the public. Couldn't those millions of dollars have been more helpful to improve a plan rather than destroy it?
I understand that your views of the government are that it is too involved in the lives of free people. Many bad things have been forced upon us by politicians that have destroyed our countries morale, our standing in the world, and caused the death of many of our youth through wars. But, trying to insure people w/healthcare seems like a positive step forward. There are not enough private sector people or religions that can relieve the burden a sick or injured person faces w/o health insurance. It would be ideal, but it has yet to be the case. I support the libertarian views, and the democratic ones. I am even supporting the republican one re' individual mandates, even tho' I would rather see universal health care. Please allow this legal law (per Supreme Court ruling) to get fully implemented. Then, if it's a failure, I suppose you won't see another Democratic President for a long time. I think it's success is what scares the far right.
Here's the problem as I see it, once this "law" goes live in all honesty there's no ending it. Entitlements never,ever end they just grow bigger.
As I've said before, I'd be less against this if Obama had not exempted/delayed all the groups that have given him "gelt" or control large blocks of those that voted for him. He's already changed the law several times (to benefit his friends) so what's the problem with delaying it for the same time period for us peons?
If it's really,truly that great then everyone on board when it leaves the station. We all can either sink or swim together as it should be.
Just so you know, you may work with people who're not insured, I live with one and we've been "self insured" for several years now due to cost. It doesn't look like it'll change when Obamacare kicks in because the insurance offered looks to be a joke.
The only plan that makes sense is the platinum level due to deductibles and the monthly cost is prohibitive.
Please explain your logic behind thinking that not having healthcare because someone is unable to afford it is "good" for that someone, while having healthcare because ACA is providing a subsidy that makes it affordable for someone is "bad" for that someone. This is such a strange concept that so many of you ACA opponents have -- that the people ACA makes health coverage affordable for somehow would have a better situation next year if they lived another year without adequate healthcare -- that inadequate healthcare is somehow a positive thing while adequate healthcare is a negative thing. It's sounds so nonsensical and silly that it really needs to be explained, to make sure that you're fully integrating into your assessment the real human lives of 25 million people who were not able to afford healthcare this year and who will be able to next year.
I completely agree! I don't understand the meanspiritness of the anti-ACA contingent ...
Chief Justice John Roberts is a constitutional conservative. His decision made clear that Congress has the authority to involve itself in healthcare. Reasonable constitutional conservatives disagree with each other. Those opposed to ACA lost. It's time for them to get over it.
Egoistic right-wingers are anti-federal so that they can move to a state that fosters the rush to the bottom, failing its most vulnerable citizens to foster the comfort and luxury of its citizens with the most financial power to exploit. So they can create an even more egregious cesspool of economic injustice, shinier heights and more putrid lows, and also fostering dumping of your state's problems across state lines into a neighboring state that is more compassionate and moral.
Here is the part you don't understand. It's not about hating Obama or the Democrats. It's about hating a poorly crafted and intrusive bill that has very little to do with health care and more to do with invading our private lives as citizens. Have you read the legislation? Or have you merely flown by the seat of your pants and gone by what your contemporaries are telling you? Do you understand that you are losing what were formerly your patient rights and that the government itself has unbridled access to all your health information? Do you understand that under the ACA that you will receive substandard treatment? Your doctor will no longer make your health care decisions. A panel of bureaucrats will decide what your treatment should be based on a cost and return basis rather than your health needs. It's all in there if you take the time to read it. I get my healthcare from the VA and I will say that as a veteran, the personnel at the VA treat me with respect and dignity, however they are limited in what they can do for me by a budget set forth by our government. If you need a CT scan, it may take up to a year for you to get it. Outside providers don't want to provide services to the VA because the government is not willing to pay enough for those services to be done. This is what you can expect in the future with the government running your health carer.. Enjoy...
If you get your care at the VA you're already letting govt bureaucrats decide what care you get. Obamacare won't affect u. Whoever pays your healthcare bills has access to your info. It's been like that for a long time.
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.
