It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Healthcare Ruling: Individual Mandate Ruled CONSTITUTIONAL, entire law upheld.

page: 80
74
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


America is now a corporate dictatorship the sooner you learn that fact the better you understand how we have been sold by the Democrats as a bailout to insurance companies and big pharma.

I hope when reality coming your way you be prepare of what Obama care is all about and is not.

edit on 2-7-2012 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
 


So, I am not forced to purchase something, even if i don't want to?


No ...you are not...did you even read the ruling?

Just exhausting debating with ignorance...



ROBERTS:

Although the breadth of Congress’s power to tax is greater than its power to regulate commerce, the taxing power does not give Congress the same degree of control over individual behavior (emphasis added). Once we recognize that Congress may regulate a particular decision under the Commerce Clause, the Federal Government can bring its full weight to bear. Congress may simply command individuals to do as it directs. An individual who disobeys may be subjected to criminal sanctions. Those sanctions can include not only fines and imprisonment, but all the attendant consequences of being branded a criminal: deprivation of otherwise protected civil rights, such as the right to bear arms or vote in elections; loss of employment opportunities; social stigma; and severe disabilities in other controversies, such as custody or immigration disputes.

By contrast, Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the severe burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated by a regulatory purpose—can impose. But imposition of a tax nonetheless leaves an individual with a lawful choice to do or not do a certain act, so long as he is willing to pay a tax levied on that choice.

The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.

edit on 2-7-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Oh,, so I don't have to buy health insurance, if I already have it.
But when companies stop offering that, I will then have to purchase it....
Or, if I just want to be taxed, as per penalty, that is collected via the IRS.

So, not restrictive of rights, huh?

You do sound tired. Maybe stop using talking points from 0bama and move on and maybe engage your brain.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Indigo5
 


America is now a corporate dictatorship the sooner you learn that fact the better you understand how we have been sold by the Democrats as a bailout to insurance companies and big pharma.

I hope when reality coming your way you be prepare of what Obama care is all about and is not.

edit on 2-7-2012 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)


I have no delusions of ACA being a perfect bill...but most of it's failings came about at the behest of the GOP and will be remedied in comming years.

That said...it is historic step in the right direction. Something no other President has been able or willing to do....though all of them have lied and promised to and failed.
edit on 2-7-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
 


Oh,, so I don't have to buy health insurance, if I already have it.
But when companies stop offering that, I will then have to purchase it....
Or, if I just want to be taxed, as per penalty, that is collected via the IRS.

So, not restrictive of rights, huh?


It's only restrictive of rights if you think it your right to be uninsured...which is fine with me as long as you where a tag that demands that no Paramedic will assist you if you get caught in a fire or hit by a car...maybe a national register where you demand that you never be treated for Cancer unless you pay cash in advance? Otherwise your idealogical nonsense becomes MY tax-burden. Until that happens I'd appreciate if everyone chipped in a little for the inevitable.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


The only thing Obama needed to do was to improve the already two taxes we have aka entitlement programs Medicare and Medicaid to help the needy in the nation, while prohibiting while regulating insurance companies from gouging and restricting health care to those that need it most, that was not that difficult to achieve.

Forcing Americans to buy insurance from private sources or face taxes aka penalties is slavery anyway that we can slice it.


edit on 2-7-2012 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


You really have to stop relying on talking points.
You basically stated it is only restrictive if you don't have insurance. WOW. Way to go freedom, huh? Right down the toilet.

Really, very sad......When you actually wake up and see what the bill is, and what it will be too late for you.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a thought..so now that this new tax as been passed, how are insurance companies reacting to it..with all the talk going around..i havent really heard any real response from the private companies that are being forced to engage or open up there insurance policies to anybody.....that can pay for them.....my policy premiums will be going up along with deductables....

how about those with pre-existing conditions that couldnt get insurance before because the companies would not cover them....shouldnt they be jumping up and down with happiness..................but i guess right now its a little to early to see what the companies are gunna do and how much people will have to pay



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5
 


You really have to stop relying on talking points.


You mean the actual ruling by Roberts? or the other sources I have cited? Whilst you simply burp up regurgitated GOPisms.


Originally posted by macman
You basically stated it is only restrictive if you don't have insurance.

No..you stated it...
And having no health insurance, being denied insurance, black-listed or simply not being able to afford to go to the doctor is beyond "restrictive".

Absent that, you are fighting for the right to mooch off everyone else who pays for your uninsured ass via inflated medical bills and local taxes when your appendix explodes and you don't have 50k in your wallet to pay the doctors before they operate....all the while mumbling about your "freedoms" to not have insurance.

WTF...how stupid of an argument is that? My grandfather liberated concentration camps...and you wine about how being required to carry health coverage is the "government grabbing you by the throat".

Just effen retarded IMO. Your brain has been stunted by too much Fox News.

God help me...on to real issues...



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
i find it ironic that people dont think about this..people say we, the insured, are paying for the uninsured, those that dont pay out of pocket...........ok...but we are also paying for the insured as well..... so you go to the hospital and rack up 10,000$ bill and your insurance company pays 80%....you pay 20%....where is that 80% that the insurance company is paying come from? just like where does the money come from that the insurance company uses to pay 100% of an unisured person?



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearmind
a thought..so now that this new tax as been passed, how are insurance companies reacting to it..with all the talk going around..i havent really heard any real response from the private companies that are being forced to engage or open up there insurance policies to anybody.....that can pay for them.....my policy premiums will be going up along with deductables....


Which is it? A massive hand-out to the insurance companies??? Or is it driving them out of business???

Retarded logic...all day long...

Hey...BTW...the Affordable care Act restricts Health Insurance companies from directing more than 20% of the premiums they collect to administrative costs.

That measn they have to pay 80% toward actual healthcare for thier customers vs. DENY DENY DENY all claims until the CEO can afford his new yacht.

It's called a "Medical-Loss-Ratio"...a fancy way of insurance companies measuring how often they can weasel out of paying claims and instead make more money.

Because of "Obamacare" in Illinois alone about 160,000 people are getting about 50 Million refunded to them..about $300 per policy holder.

Tell me again about the huge hand-outs to insurance companies?

Better yet tell me again about they are going out of business, while last year the health insurance industry showed record profits?

How about this...they can no longer ef you over...they can profit...up to 20%...but if they shoot for the stars and decide to not pay 80% toward actual claims...they got to refund it.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   

edit on 2-7-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by pwndnewb
Healthcare is not health insurance. They are two separate things.


Okay....Half right. They are certainly two different things...but not "seperate".

Boat insurance and neurosurgery are two seperate things.


You are one to talk to other people about semantics.

I stand by my statement as correct. Just because healthcare and health insurance have a relational aspect doesn't mean that they are not separate things. Your health insurance will not defibrilate you if you go into cardiac arrest. However a medical professional would most likely.

Here is an example that you might understand. When you get a soft-drink at a resturant, it comes in a glass with ice. The soft-drink and the ice are two separate things. They do have a relational aspect.

Boat Insurance and nuerosurgery are two separate things, I will agree. And unless you are hit by a boat (that has coverage with a medical rider) causing you a brain injury they are unrelated.

I would still say that health insurance and neurosurgery are two separate things, but do have a relational aspect.


Health Insurance pays for Healthcare...absent insurance, private or public, healthcare is neither paid for nor provided. They are the precise opposite of seperate.


Sometimes, health insurance doesn't pay for healthcare. There are some things that simply aren't covered by medical insurance. That is why policies and plans have what they call exclusions. More often then not, things that aren't specifically listed as covered are excluded.

Absent of health insurance, healthcare can be provided. The healthcare professionals usually make patients (typically both the insured and un-insured sign something that states that the bill is the patient's responsibility. If a patient has insurance, this covers the healthcare provider if insurance does not pay or doesn't pay all of the bill.

An uninsured person can (and usually does) get treatment at an emergency room. In the state that I live in, it is against the law for the hospital to deny treatment to an uninsured individual. Un-insured persons can also get treatment through charitable foundations, free clinics, low income clinics and other sources.

My best friend died of complications due to cancer in February (after months and months of fighting, he ended up having a heart attack on an operating room table as he was about to get re-grafted over his open wound on his throat). As he had no job, he qualified for medicaid until his SSI kicked in. At that point, he had no insurance. He was able to obtain surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy through the local hospitals charitable foundation. It wasn't something that was advertised to the general public. It was someting that he had to ask about through the hospitals financial department.


I have to wonder where a post begining with that whopper of a mistruth is headed.


Did you just call me a liar? So much for decorum and manners.


Originally posted by pwndnewb
Insurance is a totally different thing. It is all about risk.



Risk is premised on choice...it assumes that consumers have the option of insuring themselves, unfortunately for Millions of Americans who cannot afford insurance or have pre-existing conditions or are dropped by their insurers..."risk" is not an option, it is a luxury.

"Risk" is certainly relevant to insurers though. "Medical Loss Ratio"...which is what insurers brag about to Wall Street. The amount of what they collect that they actually pay out toward healthcare for the payees. Or put another way...they are rewarded with profits for denying claims and dropping patients from coverage who are bad "risks"..."bad risks" are people who actually need healthcare.


Risk is a reality in this universe. The idea is transferrence of the risk. That is why a person pays premiums.

Are or are not insurers in business? Why are they in business? Could it be that they are looking to make a profit?

I agree, risk is relevant to insurers. It is a lot of money. When you say that they are rewarded for denying claims and dropping patients, I would tell you that a very small amount of claims are denied compared to the claims that are paid. The claims that are denied, are usually denied because they are either not covered by the contract (policy or plan) or limited in someway that is spelled out in the policy. Claims denied in error (should have been covered/paid) is a very small number in comparison to total claims paid out or denied. I have never seen in my experience a person dropped because they are a bad risk. If they are bad risk, they usually don't get past the underwriting process. I have seen people dropped because they don't meet some requirement (ie non payment of premium, not being eligible for coverage, etc..)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by pwndnewb
The majority of the healthcare industry and ALL of the insurance industry is all about the almighty dollar.



Yes and unfortunately the viruses and genetic mutations that fuel cancer and other diseases do not understand or care about the almighty dollar. Only the "industry" that treats them. This is a unique disconnect. An absence of a critical variable in the supply and demand equation that underpins capitalism.


Gobbledegook....Of course viruses and genetic mutations, cancers and other diseases don't understand or care about money. Most of the healthcare industry is for profit, so they do care. In my opinion,you are looking at it wrong, healthcare as it relates to industry is a service not a product.


Thier is a fixed supply of disease and car accidents that do not respond to price. There is no consumer choice in getting cancer, but the insurance company can choose to pay for the treatment and the healthcare providers can choose the price of that treatment...the consumer's choice involves treatment or death.


Fixed supply...whatever. Of course they don't care about price, they are occurances. The provider of goods/services usually sets the price.


Originally posted by pwndnewb
something they may or may not use


This is one of the most illogical arguments I see in this debate. We will ALL require medical help at some stage unless you die quick and young. Getting treatment when you are hit by a car is not a choice. Taking your child to the doctor when their life is at risk is not a chioce. Having that cancerous mole removed is not an option...unless you consider death (yourself or a loved one) a good and viable option to the expense.


Maybe, maybe not. Hit by a car...that is on car insurance....

Fact is there are people out there that don't use medical professionals and such. One example is Christian Scientists.

I have to leave now. Will be back later.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by clearmind
 


The insurance companies are scared. Their stock is tanking everyday since this. You would think it would be good right? No, the know Americans aren't going to pay for the insurance. Americans are just going to do what they always do, do nothing and if uncle sam comes knocking they won't care about that either. All you have to do now is not pay for insurance and pay the 600 bucks a year in a penalty. Then when you need insurance go sign up for it since you can't be denied. Haven't you learned by now this world is full of scammers by now? They have fleeced Americans for the last 10 years and Americans still sit there and go it won't happen. Yes it will



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 


They can always subsidize the company into smaller corporations as in sections. Then confuse the accounting to come up with the 20% in each section. See how easily you can scam this? Remember this is wallstreet and full of crooks.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


watch when the IRS form comes out and says it is a tax penalty and then the lefts will say. Oh yeah its a tax, but that's Okay. Now you pay.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 

nor will they openly admit it's a tax.
how would That go over during election season ??

YES we Can, We can tax you any dang way we want !!
we'll just call it a penalty for existing.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo5
 
Indigo5, please explain how my healthcare and health insurance are not separate ??
i have ample access to one but no desire for the other.
healthcare is available in a multitude of forms and with 24/7 access, why would i need insurance?

actually, i pay for my healthcare, not insurance or you for that matter.
(unless i'm treated at the clinic - taxdollars contribute)

this blanket statement is completely false ...

absent insurance, private or public, healthcare is neither paid for nor provided
healthcare is seldom refused or denied to a paying patient, however, quite often, both requested and medically necessary healthcare is denied by insurance beaurocrats.

insurance does nothing to improve my care, it just increases your expense.

and finally, you manage your level of risk and i'll manage mine.
it is not my duty to mitigate your level of risk.

ETA: here's a question i truly hope you'll answer honestly --> IF i and 10,000 others who are not currently insured, join ObeyMeCare and decide to become expert daredevils (you know, like Evel Knievel, RIP) who regularly inflict serious bodily harm to ourselves, are you now willing to shoulder the burden [without complaint] of our additional expense to your healthcare ??
edit on 2-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
The SCOTUS says it is a tax. That would seem to be the final word for now.
That is what made the individual mandate constitutional.

I see it as a penalty. So did Obama. Apparently Mitt Romney sees it that way too. A lot of people do.

I wonder why certain SCOTUS justices don't see it as a penalty?
because the USSC is charged with upholding the Constitutionality of the law, not some PC viewpoint that hopefully won't elevate the blood pressure of toooo many voters.




top topics



 
74
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join