#1 Posted by jewunit (1064 posts) -

On the very last day of the Supreme Court's term, they have released their opinion on National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius(i.e.- the Obamacare case). The decision is long and full of splinter opinions with a number of justices disagreeing on exactly why the law should be upheld. However, the majority did support the individual mandate. They construed as a tax that the federal government has the power to levy. A portion of the law was restricted though. The justices put restrictions on the expansion of Medicaid. The states should be allowed to expand Medicaid as they see fit and have their rights respected to that extent.

I have been following this case pretty closely and I think the decision is a worthwhile one. I don't think it unduly expands the powers of the federal government and it encourages the country to move toward a universal coverage system. I expect there will be more lawsuits related this matter in the future, but it is important that the federal government have the power to enact this legislation.

Well...what do you think?

#2 Posted by Milkman (17312 posts) -

It's nice to see us here in Amerca joining the modern era.

#3 Posted by SlightConfuse (3963 posts) -

More people being able to see a doctor is a good thing

#4 Posted by AlisterCat (5722 posts) -

I feel pretty sick watching twitter explode saying this means the end of freedom and how America is becoming like China and Communist Russia. Even calling Obama a fascist dictator.

People need perspective. They have no idea.

#5 Posted by tracerace11 (289 posts) -

Do not care for it one bit. I do not want government telling me what I have and do not have to purchase. Having said that, I realize that the days where the government only protects it citizens, and not spoon feeds them with everything the gov't believes they should have are over. This puts so many restrictions on insurance companies it is pathetic. They SHOULD be allowed to determine if one person is a higher risk than another. Under the possible new health care, companies are not allowed to "discriminate" and charge higher risk people more.

In business, I call that being stupid.

#6 Posted by Demoskinos (15138 posts) -

I think something needs to be done about the system but forcing people to purchase health insurance or face a tax penalty is fucked up.

#7 Posted by Vigil (231 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

I think something needs to be done about the system but forcing people to purchase health insurance or face a tax penalty is fucked up.

I feel the same way about auto insurance, I'm forced to do business with insurance companies by the government.

#8 Posted by Whampire (58 posts) -
#9 Posted by Lunar_Aura (2778 posts) -

It seems to be doing a number on wall street at the moment

#10 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7099 posts) -

@Milkman said:

It's nice to see us here in Amerca joining the modern era.

Still not as expansive as it should be, however, but it is a step in the right direction.

#11 Posted by Demoskinos (15138 posts) -
@Vigil

@Demoskinos said:

I think something needs to be done about the system but forcing people to purchase health insurance or face a tax penalty is fucked up.

I feel the same way about auto insurance, I'm forced to do business with insurance companies by the government.

You can opt out of driving. Owning a car is a privilege this is basically a tax for being alive.
#12 Posted by WMWA (1162 posts) -

Good

#13 Posted by Phatmac (5726 posts) -

There are several details with Obama Care that I don't like. Some have already been brought up here, but I'm for universal health care for sure. Hopefully this is the first step towards that.

#14 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7099 posts) -
#15 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

You know what this thread needs?

Wait, wrong clip. Anyway...

#16 Edited by Jams (2966 posts) -

Well, I'm a little worried for what this could mean. If I am required to get insurance for all of my employees, it will put me out of business. If it puts me out of business it puts my 8 employees out of business too. I was just told that if we stay under 50 employees, we'll be okay. So that's good. My sister is in school right now without a job and doesn't have heath care. From what I understand, if she doesn't get health care she'll get penalized in her taxes. I'm worried what will happen to people like me and my parents who own small business that can't afford everyone's health care.

I still don't like the idea of having something like insurance forced on people. Especially if they can't afford it. Does that mean it's a lose/lose for them?

#17 Posted by GalacticPunt (1106 posts) -

I'm still for Single Payer as the real solution, but that's not going to get passed anytime soon thanks to Red Scare dinosaurs infesting congress.

But I will still bask in this victory, and drink the tears of the right wingers who thought the Supreme Court would do their dirty work for them.

@Whampire: that is goddamn hilarious!

#18 Edited by Lobster_Ear (285 posts) -

@Jams said:

Well, I'm a little worried for what this could mean. If I am required to get insurance for all of my employees, it will put me out of business. If it puts me out of business it puts my 8 employees out of business too.My sister is in school right now without a job and doesn't have heath care. From what I understand, if she doesn't get health care she'll get penalized in her taxes. I'm worried what will happen to people like me and my parents who own small business that can't afford everyone's health care.

This may be outdated information, but I thought you were only required to get health insurance for all your employees if you have over 40 or 50 employees under the Health Care Reform act (I refuse to call it Obamacare...fucking stupid).

#19 Posted by KiloKAHN (6 posts) -

I am Kilokahn! Master of the digital world! Obamacare is a trivial problem - meat things!

#20 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7099 posts) -

@Lobster_Ear said:

@Jams said:

Well, I'm a little worried for what this could mean. If I am required to get insurance for all of my employees, it will put me out of business. If it puts me out of business it puts my 8 employees out of business too.My sister is in school right now without a job and doesn't have heath care. From what I understand, if she doesn't get health care she'll get penalized in her taxes. I'm worried what will happen to people like me and my parents who own small business that can't afford everyone's health care.

This may be outdated information, but I thought you were only required to get health insurance for all your employees if you have over 40 or 50 employees under the Health Care Reform act (I refuse to call it Obamacare...fucking stupid).

I believe that's still the case.

#21 Posted by scarace360 (4828 posts) -
#22 Posted by HellBrendy (994 posts) -

Had this forever in Norway. And you know, this country doesn't really work at all.

#23 Edited by TooWalrus (13256 posts) -

This is barely barely Obama's law anymore, anyway. My history professor is one of the few people who's actually read the whole law, it's well over 1500 pages long, and it's a complete mess. He's got the whole thing printed out in giant 3-ring binders. It's crazy, because the law Obama wrote was about 80 pages, and was clear and concise. The rest of the stiff is shit put there by congress.

Never mind, I guess it's changed since my class, it's almost 2000 pages now.

#24 Posted by Sergio (2247 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

@Vigil

@Demoskinos said:

I think something needs to be done about the system but forcing people to purchase health insurance or face a tax penalty is fucked up.

I feel the same way about auto insurance, I'm forced to do business with insurance companies by the government.

You can opt out of driving. Owning a car is a privilege this is basically a tax for being alive.

Most people don't opt out of getting health care when they need it (unless they have religious reasons), nor can hospitals deny them emergency care (unless they feel like getting sued).

#25 Posted by mandude (2666 posts) -

@HellBrendy said:

Had this forever in Norway. And you know, this country doesn't really work at all.

Doesn't Norway consistently top Quality of Living indices?

#26 Edited by IMMAGONNALICKU (7 posts) -

@Jams said:

Well, I'm a little worried for what this could mean. If I am required to get insurance for all of my employees, it will put me out of business. If it puts me out of business it puts my 8 employees out of business too. I was just told that if we stay under 50 employees, we'll be okay. So that's good. My sister is in school right now without a job and doesn't have heath care. From what I understand, if she doesn't get health care she'll get penalized in her taxes. I'm worried what will happen to people like me and my parents who own small business that can't afford everyone's health care.

I still don't like the idea of having something like insurance forced on people. Especially if they can't afford it. Does that mean it's a lose/lose for them?

Does your sister have any income at all (investments, dividends, etc.)? If you don't meet certain minimum income thresholds (with regards to filing and dependency statuses), then you aren't required to file your taxes. And, if she isn't required to file her taxes, then I'd bet your sister wouldn't be penalized.

EDIT: According to these people, she wouldn't have to pay if she has no income.

#27 Posted by Animasta (14719 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

I think something needs to be done about the system but forcing people to purchase health insurance or face a tax penalty is fucked up.

people need health insurance. If they literally cannot afford it I assume there are options available, but when you're poor and you don't have health insurance nad you need to go to the hospital... ugh. it's fucked up.

#28 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

If the democrats trying to improve health care is called Obama Care, is the illegal invasion of Iraq called the Bush War?

@TooWalrus said:

This is barely barely Obama's law anymore, anyway. My history professor is one of the few people who's actually read the whole law, it's well over 1500 pages long, and it's a complete mess. He's got the whole thing printed out in giant 3-ring binders. It's crazy, because the law Obama wrote was about 80 pages, and was clear and concise. The rest of the stiff is shit put there by congress.

Never mind, I guess it's changed since my class, it's almost 2000 pages now.

God I hate the American political system. Every time democrats try and do something congress has to slow everything down and ruin everything then come election time they will blame the democrats because most elephants are too fucking stupid to know better.

#29 Posted by Everyones_A_Critic (6310 posts) -

I have to pay a tax penalty for not having health insurance regardless so I guess nothing really changes for me (Massachusetts).

#30 Posted by Vodun (2370 posts) -

@mandude said:

@HellBrendy said:

Had this forever in Norway. And you know, this country doesn't really work at all.

Doesn't Norway consistently top Quality of Living indices?

I do believe duder was being sarcastic.

#31 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8606 posts) -
@Demoskinos said:
@Vigil

@Demoskinos said:

I think something needs to be done about the system but forcing people to purchase health insurance or face a tax penalty is fucked up.

I feel the same way about auto insurance, I'm forced to do business with insurance companies by the government.

You can opt out of driving. Owning a car is a privilege this is basically a tax for being alive.
You can opt out of living as well, being alive, healthy and taken care of when you fall ill also a privilege.
Its a small price to pay, because if you don't got insurance and fall deadly ill you will drive yourself into the ground ( or walk, if you opted out of driving).
#32 Posted by Demoskinos (15138 posts) -
@Animasta

@Demoskinos said:

I think something needs to be done about the system but forcing people to purchase health insurance or face a tax penalty is fucked up.

people need health insurance. If they literally cannot afford it I assume there are options available, but when you're poor and you don't have health insurance nad you need to go to the hospital... ugh. it's fucked up.

Well of course I'm all for sick people getting help but im just scared to death now that my premium is going to skyrocket. I'm already paying $160 a month for just myself. I'm 26 pretty damn healthy and never use a doctor and now because insurance companies are forced not to discriminate logic says premiums have to go up. Secondly the govt being able to determine when you go to the doctor is scary. In 2008 I had a major hernia operation now under universal healthcare I would have to most likely be put on a waiting list since hernias aren't a huge problem and generally non fatal. Its a really sketchy issue. And then add into the mix people who smoke or drink excessively and turn themselves into higher risks that the rest of us have to take care of. The whole issue frustrates me possibly more than anything else.
#33 Posted by pyromagnestir (4339 posts) -

@Everyones_A_Critic said:

I have to pay a tax penalty for not having health insurance regardless so I guess nothing really changes for me (Massachusetts).

I'm 26 in a couple months. Then this will be true for me as well, from what I understand. Although seeing as I don't have a job, I don't know, maybe it won't?

#34 Posted by LikeaSsur (1586 posts) -

@TaliciaDragonsong said:

You can opt out of living as well, being alive, healthy and taken care of when you fall ill also a privilege.

It shouldn't be. And opting out of living, really? You're suggesting suicide? Not driving is inconvenient. Not living is...well...come on, man.

#35 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

If Breaking Bad had one main message I would say it's that the US Health Care System sucks! Walter White was teacher, should be one of the most respected people and had to pay 100s of thousands of dollar to pay for his treatment, he went to selling crack to do this. His brother in law a DEA agent got shot on the job and even he didn't have health insurance and he's a fucking cop. Both these men get paid from the government and both got fucked over from them at the same time.

#36 Posted by Animasta (14719 posts) -

@Demoskinos: it's better than the alternative, where I get saddled with a 5000 dollar hospital bill for a visit that did not help me in the least. I don't presume to know the intricacies of health care premiums and shit, but if your premium does skyrocket, you can always get the cheaper option right? That's kinda the point. Making it free is the right move, but you can't run before you can walk (especially in america, where we hate poor people)

#37 Posted by Renahzor (1001 posts) -

@Lobster_Ear: While accurate, it completely ignores many logical problems with that exclusion as it sits. Companies slightly above 50 employees are encouraged to lay people off, and those slightly below are discouraged from growing. In addition, companies like ours which have far less than 50 employees will need to adjust wages up to compensate for our employee's need to get personal healthcare(as long as this is cheaper than just buying health coverage for employees, which I can assure you it will be), or risk being priced out of the skilled labor market. Those increased costs of doing business don't just come out of thin air, they come right back to people paying more for goods and services.

@Bourbon_Warrior: You do realize the entire bill was put together under a democrat controlled congress and senate right? The debate you see now is thanks to Republicans having won a majority in the house and reduced the democrat majority in the senate quite a lot. But the bill passed under a fully democrat controlled legislative and executive branch.

FWIW I think some of the provisions in the health care act are very good, but some are extremely stupid, and such is the brilliance of our government.

#38 Posted by Darkstorn (472 posts) -

If we had single payer this wouldn't be a controversy, but it's a hell of a lot better than before. It's about time the U.S. started catching up with every other industrialized nation on the planet.

#39 Posted by AlexW00d (6434 posts) -

Can someone explain what this is properly about to me? I'd read an article put I don't want to read anything that isn't concise.

Online
#40 Posted by Jams (2966 posts) -

@IMMAGONNALICKU said:

@Jams said:

Well, I'm a little worried for what this could mean. If I am required to get insurance for all of my employees, it will put me out of business. If it puts me out of business it puts my 8 employees out of business too. I was just told that if we stay under 50 employees, we'll be okay. So that's good. My sister is in school right now without a job and doesn't have heath care. From what I understand, if she doesn't get health care she'll get penalized in her taxes. I'm worried what will happen to people like me and my parents who own small business that can't afford everyone's health care.

I still don't like the idea of having something like insurance forced on people. Especially if they can't afford it. Does that mean it's a lose/lose for them?

Does your sister have any income at all (investments, dividends, etc.)? If you don't meet certain minimum income thresholds (with regards to filing and dependency statuses), then you aren't required to file your taxes. And, if she isn't required to file her taxes, then I'd bet your sister wouldn't be penalized.

EDIT: According to these people, she wouldn't have to pay if she has no income.

I know she filed her taxes last year. She does have some grants and student loans that give here a check (monthly? I'm not sure).

#41 Posted by Jay_Ray (1127 posts) -

This entire thing is fucked up, fact is America is the only Westernized country without universal health care. Any one who is sick should be able to get the help they need without worrying about the cost of an essential service.

#42 Posted by McGhee (6075 posts) -

You guys jizzing yourselves over this law should realize that the insurance companies just love it. Congratulations, in the supposed Land of the Free you are going to be forced to purchase health insurance you may not need.

#43 Posted by Demoskinos (15138 posts) -
@TaliciaDragonsong And that SHOULD be able to happen if you want it to. If you want to gamble with your health that should be your call.
#44 Posted by Renahzor (1001 posts) -

@AlexW00d: The US passed a law in 2009 called the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". It was challenged with the supreme court as being unconstitutional. Today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the act. The key provision being challenged was a mandate for every individual to have health insurance, which was sold to the American public as not a tax, but a penalty enforced under congressional commerce powers. The justices today ruled 5-4 that indeed this act(and importantly, the individual mandate) is constitutional, but it cannot be claimed as a commerce regulation power, but must be as a tax under congressional tax authority (the legal wording is very important, but the outcome is the same, you get health insurance or pay a tax/fine, within certain specific guidelines based on income etc). The reason the bill was worded the way it was, is this actually results in one of the largest "tax" increases in american history, and no politician wants it to be taken in that way, its a bit hard to get re-elected. Most of the provisions will go into effect in 2014 and beyond, you can read into that whatever you like.

#45 Posted by Animasta (14719 posts) -

@McGhee said:

You guys jizzing yourselves over this law should realize that the insurance companies just love it. Congratulations, in the supposed Land of the Free you are going to be forced to purchase health insurance you may not need.

tell me who doesn't need health insurance

#46 Posted by hughesman (312 posts) -

@Vigil said:

@Demoskinos said:

I think something needs to be done about the system but forcing people to purchase health insurance or face a tax penalty is fucked up.

I feel the same way about auto insurance, I'm forced to do business with insurance companies by the government.

Your not required to insure you own car your only required to have "liability" insurance to pay for someone else's car if you cause an accident. Also you don't really have to drive in order to live.

#47 Posted by EXTomar (4943 posts) -

The trick is that it maybe one thing to say "You need to be free to take your chances" but the problem is if you take your chances and end up unconcious in the emergency room they are going to treat you and charge us all. Unless you carry "do not treat me ever" warning stapled to your underwear, can you really say "it is your call?"

The truth is the US already offers universal health care. It is just terribly expensive and highly inefficient. Claiming that it needs to be for the sake of freedom is not compelling on its own. Please make a more convincing argument.

#48 Posted by Bevinsky (184 posts) -

I find it odd that America is pushing for universal health insurance and not universal healthcare.

Too many retards spouting "oh no the us is becoming communist" for that to happen.

#49 Posted by IMMAGONNALICKU (7 posts) -

@Jams: If your sister has no other "money flow" outside of the grants and student loans, then check (or have her check) her Form 1098-T ("Tuition Statement") that the school sends before tax season (typically around December to February?). Most schools also offer digital, Adobe PDF versions through their student services websites on demand.

When I volunteer for the IRS during tax season, we always compare Box 2 ("Amounts billed for qualified tuition and related expenses") and Box 5 ("Scholarships or grants"). If Box 2 (outgoing money) is greater than Box 5 (incoming money), then she has no income (but could use the difference for certain education credits, if she chooses to file). If Box 5 is greater than Box 2, then we usually consider it as income.

#50 Posted by AlexW00d (6434 posts) -

@Renahzor said:

@AlexW00d: The US passed a law in 2009 called the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act". It was challenged with the supreme court as being unconstitutional. Today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the act. The key provision being challenged was a mandate for every individual to have health insurance, which was sold to the American public as not a tax, but a penalty enforced under congressional commerce powers. The justices today ruled 5-4 that indeed this act(and importantly, the individual mandate) is constitutional, but it cannot be claimed as a commerce regulation power, but must be as a tax under congressional tax authority (the legal wording is very important, but the outcome is the same, you get health insurance or pay a tax/fine, within certain specific guidelines based on income etc). The reason the bill was worded the way it was, is this actually results in one of the largest "tax" increases in american history, and no politician wants it to be taken in that way, its a bit hard to get re-elected. Most of the provisions will go into effect in 2014 and beyond, you can read into that whatever you like.

So basically the US is now more similar the rest of the world? Seems fair to me. Thanks for the explanation.

Online