Affordable Health Care Law under review by SCOTUS

[baldgriff]

Im not trying to be negative Lurker...... just my cynicism is in full gear currenlty.

Many here tried floating that health care is a right for each person. I dont find mandates in line with a "right"..... Also, whether people want to admit this or not, there is a large class of people that currently cant afford to purchase coverage. If they have to file a tax return, they will be required to carry this coverage or pay the fine.

Based on the chart you provided the fine in 2014 is $95 per adult and another $47.50 per child up to $285 per family or 1% of their income which ever is greater. So the single person working PT for $20K a year will either have to pay a monthly premium to carry insurance or pay a fine of $200 - $285 at some given time. There are numbers and numbers of people out there working PT and barely making it. Hell there are plenty out there making much more than that and they are barely making it.

My point is that there are the individuals that are likely not going to opt for coverage - because they cant afford it.

The insurance companies are going to get money from everyone - This is better than bailing out the banks or car industry. Just make it law that everyone has to send money to the insurance companies that have "promised" to keep costs reasonable. Sorry, but the poorest are having to pay for something that they cant currently afford - if they dont the Feds fine them - and all of the money ends up back to the insurance companies.


I just dont see this really helping the segment of the population that is supposed to need the help the most.... because they are now forced to buy something that they cant afford in the first place.

[baldgriff]

This whole discussion is a perfect argument for Universal healthcare--get profit out of the Health Care industry. To hell with Insurance, cover everyone equally and affordably if not for free. That way employers don't have to bother and everyone is covered. The Dems will have the next 12 years to get this done--I'm hoping they will.

LOL - if the Republicans could have put up a better candidate and had any idea how to run their campaign the Dems wouldnt even have 4 more....

[Lurker765]

Im not trying to be negative Lurker...... just my cynicism is in full gear currenlty.

Many here tried floating that health care is a right for each person. I dont find mandates in line with a "right"..... Also, whether people want to admit this or not, there is a large class of people that currently cant afford to purchase coverage. If they have to file a tax return, they will be required to carry this coverage or pay the fine.

Based on the chart you provided the fine in 2014 is $95 per adult and another $47.50 per child up to $285 per family or 1% of their income which ever is greater. So the single person working PT for $20K a year will either have to pay a monthly premium to carry insurance or pay a fine of $200 - $285 at some given time. There are numbers and numbers of people out there working PT and barely making it. Hell there are plenty out there making much more than that and they are barely making it.

My point is that there are the individuals that are likely not going to opt for coverage - because they cant afford it.

The insurance companies are going to get money from everyone - This is better than bailing out the banks or car industry. Just make it law that everyone has to send money to the insurance companies that have "promised" to keep costs reasonable. Sorry, but the poorest are having to pay for something that they cant currently afford - if they dont the Feds fine them - and all of the money ends up back to the insurance companies.


I just dont see this really helping the segment of the population that is supposed to need the help the most.... because they are now forced to buy something that they cant afford in the first place.

Once again, if you are going to use the examples of a poor person who cannot afford it. The ACA will provide financial assistance.

A single person working PT for $20k a year can choose to pay the $95 fine for 2014 and not do healthcare. That would cost them almost $8 per month.

Individuals and families with incomes between 100% - 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and who are covered by an exchange plan are eligible for advanceable, refundable tax credits, paid to the issuer, against the cost of their healthcare coverage. The payment of credits will begin in 2014.

I'm pretty sure if you are making $20k you easily fall within the FPL 400% mark. One of the main goals of this program was to cover poor and pre-existing people. Rich and middle class people already have health plans that cover them through work and that won't change. Those companies want to keep their health coverage so that people work at their company.

[baldgriff]

Again forgive my cynicism......... We can go back and forth on this all day....

All I see as this was essentially a bail out for the insurance companies - and another way for the government to be in my business...

[Lurker765]

Again forgive my cynicism......... We can go back and forth on this all day....

All I see as this was essentially a bail out for the insurance companies - and another way for the government to be in my business...

Sure. The government and health care companies did their negotiations. The government wants pre-existing conditions to be included in the health exchanges. The insurance companies want young people roped into health care. Etc for the back and forth.

I completely agree that it is a way for the government to be in your business. But if that doesn't happen health care costs continue to explode as people who don't have it and don't want to pay for it have an accident or medical trauma and then go into the ER where they don't pay for it. Or they declare bankruptcy.

When the ER writes off the bills or such it isn't like the cost evaporates. It is getting paid somewhere by someone.

How many rich and middle class people do you know who don't have health insurance for their families? Insurance isn't a popular thing, but it is a useful safety net. If you can afford it most people choose to be covered. How many people at your workplace opt out of the company health care? Not many I would guess even if they have to pay for some % of the plan themselves.

Now, almost everyone can have health care. Pre-existing conditions, poor, etc are those most helped by this legislation. This increases job mobility and allows entrepreneurs to not be tied to a corporate job just due to a health issue in their family. This helps stop the free-loader/bankruptcy problem. This increases the pool of candidates covered by insurance which spreads the risk and reduces costs for the average pool individual.

Yes, insurance companies make a profit but they are also providing a service that has value. If they make out like bandits then the government will probably renegotiate using their large bargaining power.

Just using the RJ small samples -- recently one of our Canadian fellows went in for a check up on his throat (since it costs very little) and had a close call with a major, major health issue. In the USA if he was someone working at Denny's he probably wouldn't have gone in due to the costs and could very well be dead today. This isn't common, but it also isn't rare once you start talking about 30 million people.

[Moonlight J]

Papa John's business has been crushed in the Obama years. Easy to see why he can't afford to cover his employees.

[GwynnInTheHall]

LOL - if the Republicans could have put up a better candidate and had any idea how to run their campaign the Dems wouldnt even have 4 more....

And this means what exactly? Hillary will run in 2016 and win and serve 8 years. The GOP will split into 2 parties or continue to lose--the Cannot and will not win if they keep the social platforms they have and if they split, they will not win because they dont have the numbers.

In the meantime, the Dems will gain in congress next midterm and pass pretty much whatever they want to hand off to Hillary. BTW, It's far easier to revise laws already in place then to get them passed in the first place.

Oh and..you didn't have a better candidate, so what's that say for your side of the street?

Edit: not even a better one waiting in the wings..........

[Lurker765]

And this means what exactly? Hillary will run in 2016 and win and serve 8 years. The GOP will split into 2 parties or continue to lose--the Cannot and will not win if they keep the social platforms they have and if they split, they will not win because they dont have the numbers.

In the meantime, the Dems will gain in congress next midterm and pass pretty much whatever they want to hand off to Hillary. BTW, It's far easier to revise laws already in place then to get them passed in the first place.

Oh and..you didn't have a better candidate, so what's that say for your side of the street?

Edit: not even a better one waiting in the wings..........

Hillary was born October 26th 1947. In 2016 she will be 69 years old. Do you think she will run? And stay in office until she is 77 assuming she wins twice?

The oldest President at inauguration was Reagan at 69 so Hillary would be the second oldest for her first term and the oldest in her second. And that term did not work out so well for Reagan.

I think the Democrats will probably have to nominate someone different just due to age issues. Granted, people are living longer, but the average life expectancy of a woman in the USA is 80.8 years.

[johnnya24]

And this means what exactly? Hillary will run in 2016 and win and serve 8 years. The GOP will split into 2 parties or continue to lose--the Cannot and will not win if they keep the social platforms they have and if they split, they will not win because they dont have the numbers.

In the meantime, the Dems will gain in congress next midterm and pass pretty much whatever they want to hand off to Hillary. BTW, It's far easier to revise laws already in place then to get them passed in the first place.

Oh and..you didn't have a better candidate, so what's that say for your side of the street?

Edit: not even a better one waiting in the wings..........

That is an awful lot of complacency in one post GITH You might want to have a look at the rise and fall of New Labour in the UK. The situation closely mirrors what is happening the USA right now. 15 years after New Labour won a crucial election, and three consecutive landslide victories in a row ... they are now virtually un-electable. This seemed inconceivable 5/6 years ago. The whole Obama-Hillary thing reminds me so much of Blair-Brown.

It might take the GOP 10 years to find their way back to the center-right ... but when they do, they will win. They will learn from the failures of the last 10 years. The aim for the Dem's has to be to shift the goalposts in several select areas during there time in power and make sure, when the GOP do get back in, that they are managing a fairer system.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Hillary was born October 26th 1947. In 2016 she will be 69 years old. Do you think she will run? And stay in office until she is 77 assuming she wins twice?

The oldest President at inauguration was Reagan at 69 so Hillary would be the second oldest for her first term and the oldest in her second. And that term did not work out so well for Reagan.

I think the Democrats will probably have to nominate someone different just due to age issues. Granted, people are living longer, but the average life expectancy of a woman in the USA is 80.8 years.

I do and I do (hmm sounds like a good name for a musical)

Hillary has paid her dues and i'm sure expects the nod. The country would salivate at the opportunity to have a female president, which is why, if they're savvy, the GOP will nominate Rice.

[GwynnInTheHall]

That is an awful lot of complacency in one post GITH You might want to have a look at the rise and fall of New Labour in the UK. The situation closely mirrors what is happening the USA right now. 15 years after New Labour won a crucial election, and three consecutive landslide victories in a row ... they are now virtually un-electable. This seemed inconceivable 5/6 years ago. The whole Obama-Hillary thing reminds me so much of Blair-Brown.

It might take the GOP 10 years to find their way back to the center-right ... but when they do, they will win. They will learn from the failures of the last 10 years. The aim for the Dem's has to be to shift the goalposts in several select areas during there time in power and make sure, when the GOP do get back in, that they are managing a fairer system.

Ifg i didn't see the general landscape of society as a whole changing I'd agree with you--but the tenacity of the far Right leads me to believe--there is NO Way they abandon anti gay marriage, anti abortion and other far right social planks. Even now you see them digging their heels in and every one of my very conservative friends are parroting the--we will not be overcome mantra to the tune of obstruct obstruct obstruct. The party has to evolve or split or die. I cannot see them doing the 1st (though i'd LOVE to see that), I somewhat see the 2nd happening which would weaken the right quite a bit and I hope the 3rd part doesn't happen because truly--we need 2 sides at the table to really be at our best, but not if that one side ignores reality as they do in their present form.

[johnnya24]

Ifg i didn't see the general landscape of society as a whole changing I'd agree with you--but the tenacity of the far Right leads me to believe--there is NO Way they abandon anti gay marriage, anti abortion and other far right social planks. Even now you see them digging their heels in and every one of my very conservative friends are parroting the--we will not be overcome mantra to the tune of obstruct obstruct obstruct. The party has to evolve or split or die. I cannot see them doing the 1st (though i'd LOVE to see that), I somewhat see the 2nd happening which would weaken the right quite a bit and I hope the 3rd part doesn't happen because truly--we need 2 sides at the table to really be at our best, but not if that one side ignores reality as they do in their present form.

They will evolve ... it might take 10 years or 2 more election defeats, possibly sooner if some other issue changes the agenda for them, but it will happen. These niche issues they are obsessing over are complete non-issues in reality. They can't go anywhere. Abortion and gay marriage are novelty platforms that will disappear as quickly as they appeared. Even the zealots can be made to shut up or go away if it is harming the parties chances. Party politics dictates ... it always does.

Could there be a split ... maybe. But it will be more of a chip off the right than a full on split. That is actually the kind of thing that would allow the moderates to grasp control of the agenda again ... and the zealots won't last long on their own ... plus it will allow the party to divorce itself from the harm these people are causing. I think it would definitely be better to have these people on the outside pissing in given the partisan nature of the US media.

Right now the GOP seem like a party full of liars and morons with an agenda that will only appeal to stupid people. Ever time I see a GOP representative I feel like I'm being lied to. Every word seems like spin. Until they change the personnel they will keep lurching around like idiots ... but the more they lose the more common sense will begin to take control again.

That said ... they still have to find a way to get the right candidate through the primaries. That could be the hardest task of all. The last one was comical. Santorum -Romney - Gingrich - Paul (not to mention the others). There is a real talent shortage in the GOP.

[Gregg]

Right now the GOP seem like a party full of liars and morons with an agenda that will only appeal to stupid people. Ever time I see a GOP representative I feel like I'm being lied to. Every word seems like spin. Until they change the personnel they will keep lurching around like idiots ... but the more they lose the more common sense will begin to take control again.
.

You are only half right.

[Gregg]

That said ... they still have to find a way to get the right candidate through the primaries. That could be the hardest task of all. The last one was comical. Santorum -Romney - Gingrich - Paul (not to mention the others). There is a real talent shortage in the GOP.

Right on the money. I know of no Republican in my walking around life that was happy with the choices right from the start. It was always the lesser evil. Eventually they had to convince themselves that Romney was a good choice. Or at least better than Obama. That is a bad platform to try and win an election.

[Roto Rooter]