The bill provides subsidies of up to 94% of the cost of insurance to low income individuals. If your income is below a certain threshold, you are excused from the mandate to buy health care insurance by the financial hardship exemption.I don't have enough money to buy Health Insurance. What is going to happen to me when i don't get it?
hoola
House Democrats have 216 votes needed to pass US health care reform.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="hoola"]The bill provides subsidies of up to 94% of the cost of insurance to low income individuals. If your income is below a certain threshold, you are excused from the mandate to buy health care insurance by the financial hardship exemption.I don't have enough money to buy Health Insurance. What is going to happen to me when i don't get it?
nocoolnamejim
And what if i just don't want to buy it?
The bill provides subsidies of up to 94% of the cost of insurance to low income individuals. If your income is below a certain threshold, you are excused from the mandate to buy health care insurance by the financial hardship exemption.[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="hoola"]
I don't have enough money to buy Health Insurance. What is going to happen to me when i don't get it?
hoola
And what if i just don't want to buy it?
I just don't want to have to pay for the Iraq War. Part of living in a Democracy is that sometimes you end up having to pay for things you'd rather not have to pay for. The bill provides very generous subsidies for low income individuals to buy insurance. For those who truly can't afford it, then they are excluded. But some things require Collective Action to get done. Car insurance is a good example. Whether you agree with it or not, you're required to buy it if you drive a car. Yes, it is a bit of infringement on your "freedom" from a certain point of view, but overall society as a whole is better off by requiring people who own a car to have health insurance.[QUOTE="hoola"][QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] The bill provides subsidies of up to 94% of the cost of insurance to low income individuals. If your income is below a certain threshold, you are excused from the mandate to buy health care insurance by the financial hardship exemption. nocoolnamejim
And what if i just don't want to buy it?
I just don't want to have to pay for the Iraq War. Part of living in a Democracy is that sometimes you end up having to pay for things you'd rather not have to pay for. The bill provides very generous subsidies for low income individuals to buy insurance. For those who truly can't afford it, then they are excluded. But some things require Collective Action to get done. Car insurance is a good example. Whether you agree with it or not, you're required to buy it if you drive a car. Yes, it is a bit of infringement on your "freedom" from a certain point of view, but overall society as a whole is better off by requiring people who own a car to have health insurance. Driving is a privilege........ Driving you also have the potential to cause an accident and cause damages that that necessitate having insurance. These "damages" do not occur in the realm of health care. They are not very comparable entities.......
[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="hoola"]I just don't want to have to pay for the Iraq War. Part of living in a Democracy is that sometimes you end up having to pay for things you'd rather not have to pay for. The bill provides very generous subsidies for low income individuals to buy insurance. For those who truly can't afford it, then they are excluded. But some things require Collective Action to get done. Car insurance is a good example. Whether you agree with it or not, you're required to buy it if you drive a car. Yes, it is a bit of infringement on your "freedom" from a certain point of view, but overall society as a whole is better off by requiring people who own a car to have health insurance. Driving is a privilege. Driving you also have the potential to cause an accident and cause damages that that necessitate having insurance. These "damages" do not occur in the realm of health care. They are not very comparable entities. Debateable. Some estimates beg to differ. [quote="Washington Post"] And visits to emergency rooms by uninsured patients increase premiums for the insured -- by $1,000 per person per year, according to some estimates. Anyway folks, off to have dinner with the family. Keep living La Vida Loca everybody out there. For good or for ill, this bill is historic. Today, for better or for worse, is a historic day.And what if i just don't want to buy it?
Mafiree
Just look at Massachusetts, this is a fiscal trainwreck. This bill is the death-knell of the American experiment. this has put us on the road to socialized medicine.
[QUOTE="Mafiree"] Driving is a privilege........ Driving you also have the potential to cause an accident and cause damages that that necessitate having insurance. These "damages" do not occur in the realm of health care. They are not very comparable entities.......-Sun_Tzu-Au contraire, if you get in an accident or get very sick and require emergency medical treatment, don't have insurance, and can't afford your medical bills, they get shifted on to those with insurance through higher premiums. You not having insurance has the potential to negatively effect me and everyone else who does have insurance. only if insurance companies have to cover pre-existing conditions.
only if insurance companies have to cover pre-existing conditions.What do you mean? Insurance companies don't have to cover pre-existing conditions right now and what I described is happening right now. But you bring up another point - the willfully uninsured are preventing those with pre-existing conditions from getting insurance, because they are depriving insurance companies the means to offer insurance to those with pre-existing conditions.danwallacefan
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Born_Lucky"]That's not hyperbolic at all. im pretty sure every state requires you to buy auto insurance. Though, I dislike the idea of having to buy from a corporation. I would prefer single payer or a public optionWell - since the mods deleted my post - I'll post it again
.
.
Never before in the history of the United States, have Americans been FORCED to buy a product.
This bill is illegal, it's unconstitutional, and it's attempting to remove our individuality and turn us into slaves of the government.
Atheists_Pwn
If you drive, yes.
You don't have to drive. You sort of have to live as the only alertnative is dying.
[QUOTE="hoola"]The bill provides subsidies of up to 94% of the cost of insurance to low income individuals. If your income is below a certain threshold, you are excused from the mandate to buy health care insurance by the financial hardship exemption.I don't have enough money to buy Health Insurance. What is going to happen to me when i don't get it?
nocoolnamejim
I currently have no income. I will be expected to pay atleast 6% of it even if I have no income?
Whats 6% of nothing?
What do you mean? Insurance companies don't have to cover pre-existing conditions right now and what I described is happening right now. But you bring up another point - the willfully uninsured are preventing those with pre-existing conditions from getting insurance, because they are depriving insurance companies the means to offer insurance to those with pre-existing conditions.Can you explain those two points? I'm not sure how someone who gets injured without insurance causes YOUR premiums to rise, and I'm not sure how it prevents you, to some degree, from getting insurance.[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]only if insurance companies have to cover pre-existing conditions.
-Sun_Tzu-
Wait a minute - earlier you complain that the bill is going to cut medicare/medicaid, and now you complain about "socialized medicine?"Just look at Massachusetts, this is a fiscal trainwreck. This bill is the death-knell of the American experiment. this has put us on the road to socialized medicine.
danwallacefan
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"]Wait a minute - earlier you complain that the bill is going to cut medicare/medicaid, and now you complain about "socialized medicine?" eh...wait, what? I'm sorry, when exactly did I complain about the cuts it makes to medicare/medicaid? I honestly do not remember right now. I remember making a thread saying that it pays for this with cuts to medicare, but I dont remember complaining about it ever.Just look at Massachusetts, this is a fiscal trainwreck. This bill is the death-knell of the American experiment. this has put us on the road to socialized medicine.
PannicAtack
Though I'm not ecstatic about the medicare cuts either. To my understanding it cuts it by cutting reimbursement to doctors, not by dropping medicare coverage for certain treatments.
But if it does really cut it by dropping coverage for certain conditions then I'm quite excited about that. Senior citizens in America are the wealthiest demographic in America.
Wait a minute - earlier you complain that the bill is going to cut medicare/medicaid, and now you complain about "socialized medicine?" eh...wait, what? I'm sorry, when exactly did I complain about the cuts it makes to medicare/medicaid? I honestly do not remember right now. I remember making a thread saying that it pays for this with cuts to medicare, but I dont remember complaining about it ever.[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="danwallacefan"]
Just look at Massachusetts, this is a fiscal trainwreck. This bill is the death-knell of the American experiment. this has put us on the road to socialized medicine.
danwallacefan
Though I'm not ecstatic about the medicare cuts either. To my understanding it cuts it by cutting reimbursement to doctors, not by dropping medicare coverage for certain treatments.
But if it does really cut it by dropping coverage for certain conditions then I'm quite excited about that. Senior citizens in America are the wealthiest demographic in America.
I was mistaken. You merely mentioned the medicare cuts, not complaining.Can you explain those two points? I'm not sure how someone who gets injured without insurance causes YOUR premiums to rise, and I'm not sure how it prevents you, to some degree, from getting insurance.Since hospitals cannot deny care to anyone who walks into the emergency room per the law, there are a number of people who receive medical care but cannot pay the bills. Hospitals then shift those costs onto those who have health insurance.danwallacefan
And to explain why the willfully uninsured prevent insurers from offering insurance policies to the uninsurable, it's first important to understand how insurance works. When an insurance company sells you insurance, they are essentially making a bet with you that you are going to die old, while you, the customer, are betting that you are going to die young. That's how insurance companies make money, by you not getting sick. But insuring those with pre-existing is not a worthwhile bet with our current health care system, because those with pre-existing conditions are more likely to die sooner and require medical care sooner than insurance companies would like.
But by forcing the willfully uninsured to buy insurance (these are people who are usually very healthy and don't often receive medical care), insurance companies are receiving a lot more in revenue because they have all these healthy people who are paying premiums, making it easier for them to bet on the health of those with pre-existing conditions.
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Just holding my breath, and hoping that the thing won't pass. At least my state has a provision banning the mandate requiring people to buy health insurance.
majwill24
Dont hold your breath. You should welcome this. More conservatives or republicans should just stand out the way and let nature take its course. Reality and economic laws will do the rest. It usually takes a tragedy to open peoples eyes and give them do the will to do what is necessary. It was the inflationary period in Germany during the 30's and the rise of Hitler why Germany today is so paranoid about debt and inflation. That fear and strong memory of history is what gave the German government the power and will to reform their welfare and social services early last decade. They knew that combined with longer lifespans and lower birth rates and so much more that the current system was unsustainable. the chancellor even threatened to quit if his party didnt support him. Germany isnt Europes largest economy, even with absorbing the east in the 90's, for being stupid. They think longterm and is realistic about difficult political decisions. Thats why you see their current government telling Greece to make cuts and tighten their belt, something that the german people have had to do themselves.
I see nothing in your post which remotely has any legitimate reason why I should welcome this change, and in point of fact I have plenty of problems with the current bill which would need to be alleviated in order for me to reconsider. I welcome progress. Others will disagree, but overall I wouldn't call this bill progress. Secondly, if you are speaking about long term cost control, the bill is primarily focused on increasing accessibility, not controlling costs. I would be quite surprised if the bill significantly lowered health care expenditures per service.
[QUOTE="majwill24"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Just holding my breath, and hoping that the thing won't pass. At least my state has a provision banning the mandate requiring people to buy health insurance.
coolbeans90
Dont hold your breath. You should welcome this. More conservatives or republicans should just stand out the way and let nature take its course. Reality and economic laws will do the rest. It usually takes a tragedy to open peoples eyes and give them do the will to do what is necessary. It was the inflationary period in Germany during the 30's and the rise of Hitler why Germany today is so paranoid about debt and inflation. That fear and strong memory of history is what gave the German government the power and will to reform their welfare and social services early last decade. They knew that combined with longer lifespans and lower birth rates and so much more that the current system was unsustainable. the chancellor even threatened to quit if his party didnt support him. Germany isnt Europes largest economy, even with absorbing the east in the 90's, for being stupid. They think longterm and is realistic about difficult political decisions. Thats why you see their current government telling Greece to make cuts and tighten their belt, something that the german people have had to do themselves.
I see nothing in your post which remotely has any legitimate reason why I should welcome this change, and in point of fact I have plenty of problems with the current bill which would need to be alleviated in order for me to reconsider. I welcome progress. Others will disagree, but overall I wouldn't call this bill progress. Secondly, if you are speaking about long term cost control, the bill is primarily focused on increasing accessibility, not controlling costs. I would be quite surprised if the bill significantly lowered health care expenditures per service.
I hope you don't live in New York or New Jersey. "Here's one number that wasn't mentioned during last week's Presidential Health Care Summit -- the Democrats want to levy a new income tax to fund ObamaCare and the residents of New York and New Jersey will likely end up paying about 25 percent of it."How so? Well, the new tax would slap the 2.9 percent Medicare tax on "interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents" for the first time ever, for those households earning $250,000 and above. A similar scheme to add this additional tax on capital gains is said to be close behind. And according to the Manhattan Institute, New Yorkers are, once again, in line to bear the brunt of the proposed tax hike."It's estimated that the ObamaCare tax would force Empire State residents to shell out an additional $4.8 billion on this so-called "unearned" income assessment." http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/obamacare_bleeds_nyers_panwYPtPVGrnj3mXzGcojJ[QUOTE="coolbeans90"][QUOTE="majwill24"]
Dont hold your breath. You should welcome this. More conservatives or republicans should just stand out the way and let nature take its course. Reality and economic laws will do the rest. It usually takes a tragedy to open peoples eyes and give them do the will to do what is necessary. It was the inflationary period in Germany during the 30's and the rise of Hitler why Germany today is so paranoid about debt and inflation. That fear and strong memory of history is what gave the German government the power and will to reform their welfare and social services early last decade. They knew that combined with longer lifespans and lower birth rates and so much more that the current system was unsustainable. the chancellor even threatened to quit if his party didnt support him. Germany isnt Europes largest economy, even with absorbing the east in the 90's, for being stupid. They think longterm and is realistic about difficult political decisions. Thats why you see their current government telling Greece to make cuts and tighten their belt, something that the german people have had to do themselves.
Snipes_2
I see nothing in your post which remotely has any legitimate reason why I should welcome this change, and in point of fact I have plenty of problems with the current bill which would need to be alleviated in order for me to reconsider. I welcome progress. Others will disagree, but overall I wouldn't call this bill progress. Secondly, if you are speaking about long term cost control, the bill is primarily focused on increasing accessibility, not controlling costs. I would be quite surprised if the bill significantly lowered health care expenditures per service.
I hope you don't live in New York or New Jersey. "Here's one number that wasn't mentioned during last week's Presidential Health Care Summit -- the Democrats want to levy a new income tax to fund ObamaCare and the residents of New York and New Jersey will likely end up paying about 25 percent of it."How so? Well, the new tax would slap the 2.9 percent Medicare tax on "interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents" for the first time ever, for those households earning $250,000 and above. A similar scheme to add this additional tax on capital gains is said to be close behind. And according to the Manhattan Institute, New Yorkers are, once again, in line to bear the brunt of the proposed tax hike."It's estimated that the ObamaCare tax would force Empire State residents to shell out an additional $4.8 billion on this so-called "unearned" income assessment." http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/obamacare_bleeds_nyers_panwYPtPVGrnj3mXzGcojJNope, I live in Virginia, where the individual mandate was banned. I don't know how it will play out, but I am rather relieved that the state government did something useful for once. I am rather glad I don't live in New York or Jersey...
I hope you don't live in New York or New Jersey. "Here's one number that wasn't mentioned during last week's Presidential Health Care Summit -- the Democrats want to levy a new income tax to fund ObamaCare and the residents of New York and New Jersey will likely end up paying about 25 percent of it."How so? Well, the new tax would slap the 2.9 percent Medicare tax on "interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents" for the first time ever, for those households earning $250,000 and above. A similar scheme to add this additional tax on capital gains is said to be close behind. And according to the Manhattan Institute, New Yorkers are, once again, in line to bear the brunt of the proposed tax hike."It's estimated that the ObamaCare tax would force Empire State residents to shell out an additional $4.8 billion on this so-called "unearned" income assessment." http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/obamacare_bleeds_nyers_panwYPtPVGrnj3mXzGcojJ[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
I see nothing in your post which remotely has any legitimate reason why I should welcome this change, and in point of fact I have plenty of problems with the current bill which would need to be alleviated in order for me to reconsider. I welcome progress. Others will disagree, but overall I wouldn't call this bill progress. Secondly, if you are speaking about long term cost control, the bill is primarily focused on increasing accessibility, not controlling costs. I would be quite surprised if the bill significantly lowered health care expenditures per service.
coolbeans90
Nope, I live in Virginia, where the individual mandate was banned. I don't know how it will play out, but I am rather relieved that the state government did something useful for once. I am rather glad I don't live in New York or Jersey...
Well I DO! :evil:I find it ironic how the Dems have demonized the insurance industry, yet their bill throws 32 million more Americans at their door step. So the insurance industry should be happy because with more customers comes more money. And it's true that with this bill insurance companies can't turn away people with preexisting conditions, but according to Lawrence O'Donnell and Howard Dean, it could cost that individual a lot of money because there are no cost controls in the bill on that issue. So it's like...Yes, we'll cover you even though you have a preexisting condition, but it's going to cost you thousands of dollars.
But I've just come to the conclusion that the only way for people to see just how badly the government can screw something up is for this thing to pass. I simply don't understand the whole "government involvement is good" mindset. I can't wait to see a program with all the speed and efficiency of the Postal Service combined with the compassion of the IRS.
Lol, I know right? If this passes I can't wait to see people start complaining.I find it ironic how the Dems have demonized the insurance industry, yet their bill throws 32 million more Americans at their door step. So the insurance industry should be happy because with more customers comes more money. And it's true that with this bill insurance companies can't turn away people with preexisting conditions, but according to Lawrence O'Donnell and Howard Dean, it could cost that individual a lot of money because there are no cost controls in the bill on that issue. So it's like...Yes, we'll cover you even though you have a preexisting condition, but it's going to cost you thousands of dollars.
But I've just come to the conclusion that the only way for people to see just how badly the government can screw something up is for this thing to pass. I simply don't understand the whole "government involvement is good" mindset. I can't wait to see a program with all the speed and efficiency of the Postal Service combined with the compassion of the IRS.peaceful_anger
Well a lot of liberals are unhappy about the fact that people are being forced to purchase private insurance. Most would rather just have medicare for all. But those with pre-existing conditions will not have to pay a a ridiculous amount in premiums because the senate health care bill utilizes a concept known as community rating. There are also a good number of cost controls in this bill.I find it ironic how the Dems have demonized the insurance industry, yet their bill throws 32 million more Americans at their door step. So the insurance industry should be happy because with more customers comes more money. And it's true that with this bill insurance companies can't turn away people with preexisting conditions, but according to Lawrence O'Donnell and Howard Dean, it could cost that individual a lot of money because there are no cost controls in the bill on that issue. So it's like...Yes, we'll cover you even though you have a preexisting condition, but it's going to cost you thousands of dollars.
But I've just come to the conclusion that the only way for people to see just how badly the government can screw something up is for this thing to pass. I simply don't understand the whole "government involvement is good" mindset. I can't wait to see a program with all the speed and efficiency of the Postal Service combined with the compassion of the IRS.peaceful_anger
As for people complaining about the health care bill, I'm sure there will be plenty to complain about. But that doesn't mean that people will want to repeal the health care bill and strip millions of their insurance. Chances are they will want to improve this bill.
As an uninsured with pre-existing conditions, I would rather just not be covered than be told "You WILL be covered or we will fine you 25,000 dollars and put you in prison!"
I'm uninsured because I cannot afford it. Even if I could get insurance with my conditions I wouldn't be able to because I don't have the money. Now I won't just be able to get it with my pre-existing conditions, I will HAVE to get it even if I can't pay/paying will financially ruin me. I know about these little "You won't have to pay as much if you're poor" things in the bill, but I don't have any money to pay, and others cannot afford another expense no matter how much.
I want healthcare for all but I don't want to have to fear imprisonment for it.
Well a lot of liberals are unhappy about the fact that people are being forced to purchase private insurance. Most would rather just have medicare for all. But those with pre-existing conditions will not have to pay a a ridiculous amount in premiums because the senate health care bill utilizes a concept known as community rating. There are also a good number of cost controls in this bill.[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]
I find it ironic how the Dems have demonized the insurance industry, yet their bill throws 32 million more Americans at their door step. So the insurance industry should be happy because with more customers comes more money. And it's true that with this bill insurance companies can't turn away people with preexisting conditions, but according to Lawrence O'Donnell and Howard Dean, it could cost that individual a lot of money because there are no cost controls in the bill on that issue. So it's like...Yes, we'll cover you even though you have a preexisting condition, but it's going to cost you thousands of dollars.
But I've just come to the conclusion that the only way for people to see just how badly the government can screw something up is for this thing to pass. I simply don't understand the whole "government involvement is good" mindset. I can't wait to see a program with all the speed and efficiency of the Postal Service combined with the compassion of the IRS.-Sun_Tzu-
As for people complaining about the health care bill, I'm sure there will be plenty to complain about. But that doesn't mean that people will want to repeal the health care bill and strip millions of their insurance. Chances are they will want to improve this bill.
Well I'm going by what Howard Dean says. LINKThe part about preexisting conditions starts at the 3:38 mark, but the whole thing is interesting to listen to.And Lawrence O'Donnell also talked about the Senate Bill. LINKI really think O'Donnell must have been sick that day, or the pod people took over his body.
As an uninsured with pre-existing conditions, I would rather just not be covered than be told "You WILL be covered or we will fine you 25,000 dollars and put you in prison!"
I'm uninsured because I cannot afford it. Even if I could get insurance with my conditions I wouldn't be able to because I don't have the money. Now I won't just be able to get it with my pre-existing conditions, I will HAVE to get it even if I can't pay/paying will financially ruin me. I know about these little "You won't have to pay as much if you're poor" things in the bill, but I don't have any money to pay, and others cannot afford another expense no matter how much.
I want healthcare for all but I don't want to have to fear imprisonment for it.
Pixel-Pirate
No one is going to jail because of this health care bill. This is what the bill says, "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."
And when it comes to who is effected by the individual mandate and the affordability of insurance, here is a good summary of what the senate health care bill does:
"Exceptions will be given for financial hardship and religious objections; and to American Indians; people who
have been uninsured for less than three months; if the lowest cost health plan exceeds 8% of income; and if the
individual has income below the poverty level ($10,830 for an individual and $22,050 for a family of four in
2009)."
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8023-S.pdf
It'll be horrible. Read the fine print of the bill. We have to do anything doctors tell us to do for our children or they'll be taken away, and nurses can come in your house unannounced for totally no reason.
Well I'm going by what Howard Dean says. LINKThe part about preexisting conditions starts at the 3:38 mark, but the whole thing is interesting to listen to.Howard Dean says a lot of things, not all of them are very truthful. This bill doesn't just make it illegal for insurers to deny care to those with pre-existing conditions, it makes it illegal for insurers to discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions in general, by implementing community ratings.
And Lawrence O'Donnell also talked about the Senate Bill. LINKI really think O'Donnell must have been sick that day, or the pod people took over his body.peaceful_anger
I hope you don't live in New York or New Jersey. "Here's one number that wasn't mentioned during last week's Presidential Health Care Summit -- the Democrats want to levy a new income tax to fund ObamaCare and the residents of New York and New Jersey will likely end up paying about 25 percent of it."How so? Well, the new tax would slap the 2.9 percent Medicare tax on "interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents" for the first time ever, for those households earning $250,000 and above. A similar scheme to add this additional tax on capital gains is said to be close behind. And according to the Manhattan Institute, New Yorkers are, once again, in line to bear the brunt of the proposed tax hike."It's estimated that the ObamaCare tax would force Empire State residents to shell out an additional $4.8 billion on this so-called "unearned" income assessment." http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/obamacare_bleeds_nyers_panwYPtPVGrnj3mXzGcojJ[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
I see nothing in your post which remotely has any legitimate reason why I should welcome this change, and in point of fact I have plenty of problems with the current bill which would need to be alleviated in order for me to reconsider. I welcome progress. Others will disagree, but overall I wouldn't call this bill progress. Secondly, if you are speaking about long term cost control, the bill is primarily focused on increasing accessibility, not controlling costs. I would be quite surprised if the bill significantly lowered health care expenditures per service.
coolbeans90
Nope, I live in Virginia, where the individual mandate was banned.
Will that actually play out though? I mean, shouldn't federal law overrule state law in this case?
Howard Dean says a lot of things, not all of them are very truthful. This bill doesn't just make it illegal for insurers to deny care to those with pre-existing conditions, it makes it illegal for insurers to discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions in general, by implementing community ratings. That just seems a little bit unfair. I mean, if community rating is used then an uninsured person who has liver cancer because of heavy drinking throughout life will pay the same amount as a mormon who can't drink at all.[QUOTE="peaceful_anger"]Well I'm going by what Howard Dean says. LINKThe part about preexisting conditions starts at the 3:38 mark, but the whole thing is interesting to listen to.
And Lawrence O'Donnell also talked about the Senate Bill. LINKI really think O'Donnell must have been sick that day, or the pod people took over his body.-Sun_Tzu-
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I hope you don't live in New York or New Jersey. "Here's one number that wasn't mentioned during last week's Presidential Health Care Summit -- the Democrats want to levy a new income tax to fund ObamaCare and the residents of New York and New Jersey will likely end up paying about 25 percent of it."How so? Well, the new tax would slap the 2.9 percent Medicare tax on "interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents" for the first time ever, for those households earning $250,000 and above. A similar scheme to add this additional tax on capital gains is said to be close behind. And according to the Manhattan Institute, New Yorkers are, once again, in line to bear the brunt of the proposed tax hike."It's estimated that the ObamaCare tax would force Empire State residents to shell out an additional $4.8 billion on this so-called "unearned" income assessment." http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/obamacare_bleeds_nyers_panwYPtPVGrnj3mXzGcojJchessmaster1989
Nope, I live in Virginia, where the individual mandate was banned.
Will that actually play out though? I mean, shouldn't federal law overrule state law in this case?
Why should federal law overrule state law? You would be pretty hard pressed to argue that the State of virginia, by not forcing people to buy insurance, is abridging anyone's immunities or privileges.Already, 37 states are planning to sue. Now that's bipartisanship.;) Seriously, this bill is a joke. Even if by some miracle it actually became law, this thing is getting repealed when the new Congress votes next year.
no son, because there's this thing called a "veto"...Already, 37 states are planning to sue. Now that's bipartisanship.;) Seriously, this bill is a joke. Even if by some miracle it actually became law, this thing is getting repealed when the new Congress votes next year.
MarcusAntonius
[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]no son, because there's this thing called a "veto"...Already, 37 states are planning to sue. Now that's bipartisanship.;) Seriously, this bill is a joke. Even if by some miracle it actually became law, this thing is getting repealed when the new Congress votes next year.
Hewkii
No son, there's this thing called an "override."
[QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]no son, because there's this thing called a "veto"... And I highly doubt Republicans will gain enough seats to make it to a two-thirds majority to override vetoes. This bill is going to stick at least until a Republican president takes office.Already, 37 states are planning to sue. Now that's bipartisanship.;) Seriously, this bill is a joke. Even if by some miracle it actually became law, this thing is getting repealed when the new Congress votes next year.
Hewkii
em...source?Already, 37 states are planning to sue. Now that's bipartisanship.;) Seriously, this bill is a joke. Even if by some miracle it actually became law, this thing is getting repealed when the new Congress votes next year.
MarcusAntonius
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I hope you don't live in New York or New Jersey. "Here's one number that wasn't mentioned during last week's Presidential Health Care Summit -- the Democrats want to levy a new income tax to fund ObamaCare and the residents of New York and New Jersey will likely end up paying about 25 percent of it."How so? Well, the new tax would slap the 2.9 percent Medicare tax on "interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents" for the first time ever, for those households earning $250,000 and above. A similar scheme to add this additional tax on capital gains is said to be close behind. And according to the Manhattan Institute, New Yorkers are, once again, in line to bear the brunt of the proposed tax hike."It's estimated that the ObamaCare tax would force Empire State residents to shell out an additional $4.8 billion on this so-called "unearned" income assessment." http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/obamacare_bleeds_nyers_panwYPtPVGrnj3mXzGcojJchessmaster1989
Nope, I live in Virginia, where the individual mandate was banned.
Will that actually play out though? I mean, shouldn't federal law overrule state law in this case?
I honestly don't know. I am guessing that the Federal Government will win. I hope it won't though. I think the argument was that the individual mandate violates the Commerce Clause. (Thank God they weren't invoking the tenth amendment...)
[QUOTE="Hewkii"][QUOTE="MarcusAntonius"]no son, because there's this thing called a "veto"... And I highly doubt Republicans will gain enough seats to make it to a two-thirds majority to override vetoes. This bill is going to stick at least until a Republican president takes office. which isn't that far away ;)Already, 37 states are planning to sue. Now that's bipartisanship.;) Seriously, this bill is a joke. Even if by some miracle it actually became law, this thing is getting repealed when the new Congress votes next year.
supercubedude64
That just seems a little bit unfair. I mean, if community rating is used then an uninsured person who has liver cancer because of heavy drinking throughout life will pay the same amount as a mormon who can't drink at all.Yes, there is an inherent unfairness with community ratings, but it's not as if the status quo or a free-market health care is any fairer (in fact I'd say it's even more unfair), and there are ways to minimize this unfairness - such as creating incentives that promote wellness and healthiness.danwallacefan
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Nope, I live in Virginia, where the individual mandate was banned.
coolbeans90
Will that actually play out though? I mean, shouldn't federal law overrule state law in this case?
I honestly don't know. I am guessing that the Federal Government will win. I hope it won't though. I think the argument was that the individual mandate violates the Commerce Clause. (Thank God they weren't invoking the tenth amendment...)
why?And I highly doubt Republicans will gain enough seats to make it to a two-thirds majority to override vetoes. This bill is going to stick at least until a Republican president takes office. which isn't that far away ;)[QUOTE="supercubedude64"][QUOTE="Hewkii"] no son, because there's this thing called a "veto"...danwallacefan
Still too far for my tastes...
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
Nope, I live in Virginia, where the individual mandate was banned.
danwallacefan
Will that actually play out though? I mean, shouldn't federal law overrule state law in this case?
Why should federal law overrule state law? You would be pretty hard pressed to argue that the State of virginia, by not forcing people to buy insurance, is abridging anyone's immunities or privileges."This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Come on dan, you should know this...
[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]
[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]
Will that actually play out though? I mean, shouldn't federal law overrule state law in this case?
danwallacefan
I honestly don't know. I am guessing that the Federal Government will win. I hope it won't though. I think the argument was that the individual mandate violates the Commerce Clause. (Thank God they weren't invoking the tenth amendment...)
why?I think that the argument from the Commerce Clause is stronger, the Federal Government seems to ignore the Tenth Amendment anyway, and the whole secessionist sensationalism that goes with it is annoying, and hurts the perception of our side of the political spectrum.
[QUOTE="danwallacefan"] which isn't that far away ;)Hewkiiliterally no one is going to care about this bill in two years. Right, because it'll lead to much bigger problems when we're fighting the government's controlling robots.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment