Those two statements mean the same thing. Prior to the ACA you had no recourse if you couldn't afford health insurance; now the costs will be transferred to the public, as they should be.
That makes NO sense at all. If there is ONE premium rate (set by the gov't)
and all must pay it (or get it subsidized by the taxpayers) then what does "private" medical insurance do except for take a cut of the action as a profit?
Medicaid and Medicare now contain 100% of the RULES and paper pushers to verify/pay claims money to PRIVATE health care providers now; WHY does ObamaCare keep "private" insurance in the loop?
The ONLY reason is to pretend that "options" are available, when, in fact, they are not, since ObamaCare sets the premium rates, defines the minimum/maximum benefits AND the allowable "overhead" (profit?) then there is nothing left for the insurance company to do EXCEPT act as paper pushers to verify/pay claims money to PRIVATE health care providers; EXACTLY what Medicaid/Medicare now do as well (but with no "profit").
It appears that some haven't been paying attention the past two years.Think about this for a minute. Does it even seem plausible? I mean the median income is like what around $50k which means half of the population makes that or less. IF they have insurance now it costs $15k (per you) AND the $2k is correct they will get a ~85% reduction in cost with PPACA. Where is all this money going to come from?
I mean it's free to the consumer.
It appears that some haven't been paying attention the past two years.
It's going to come from the places mentioned in the healthcare bill that was passed two years ago. Perhaps you should, um, read up on that?
In short, as orginally scored, Obamacare was going to cost $1 trillion over 10 years, so they either raised taxes (or cut loopholes) or cut spending (the $500 billion out of Medicare Advantage that the right is always lying about) to offset that $1 trillion over 10 years. Again, research is your friend... especially since that info is 2 years old.
There isn't. There will be a maximum premium rate in order for plans to qualify for the health insurance exchanges, but the government does not set the premium under the ACA. Insurers will be free to compete with one another on premium rates as long as they stay below that ceiling, in accordance with supply and demand.
They spread the risk among their policy-holders and pay out the costs of health insurance to whichever policy-holders lose the game of health roulette.
If you want to cut them out of the loop entirely, you won't get many objections from me.
And this is a problem why? What exactly do you think insurers do NOW, if not act as paper pushers to verify/pay claims money?
Why don't you do it for us then?Which we all know is PURE fantasy. The average annual cost per Medicaid patient is NOW over $7,400. Multiply that by the millions added by ObamaCare PLUS a portion of that for each added to the "subsidized" pools by ObamaCare and you come up with the REAL cost. The CBO did NOT do that simple math.
EXACTLY. ObamaCare = Income redistribution. Taking setting the risk based premium rates out of the private insurance "business" leaves absolutely NOTHING for them to do but verify/pay claims for a profit (set by the gov't).
What the insurers do NOW is set risk based; rates based on age, gender, smoking, weight/height and many other factors, in short, they DISCRIMINATE. They set ACTUARIAL based variable PREMIUM RATES, that is their current MAIN JOB. Under ObamaCare do the "exchanges" do that DISCRIMINATING? Do they still allow the "private" insurance companies to do that DISCRIMINATING? Under ObamaCare can "private" insurance rates still vary based on age, gender, weight/height and smoking?
Why not simply put EVERYBODY on Medicaid/Medicare and tax them directly at the ObamaCare defined "fair" rates? The answer, of course, is that would expose the SCAM and its TRUE COSTS immediately, rather than pretend it will "save money".
its a penalty, not a tax. taxes are not punitive.
Incorrect. A person making just above this dollar amount would pay no more than 3-4% of their income toward insurance premiums. In other words, they could actually buy a policy for $600 a year.
In both of these cases, families earning just above the poverty line would have their health care subsidized to the point that they would only be paying 3-4% of their income toward premiums each year.
I have a source from some kooky bloggers called the Department of HHS, Department of Treasury, and Congressional Research Service:
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/reports/premiums01282011a.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20101027...eReform/CRS/HealthInsurancePremiumCredits.pdf
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/Documents/36BFactSheet.PDF
Sigh. Is it really too much to ask that people actually learn the contents of the law before they go running their mouths about how horrible it is? I mean, it's one thing to disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of "tax," or to think that some provision of the law is bad policy. It's another thing to not even know the contents of the law. Sadly, this seems to be par for the course with the Affordable Care Act's most vocal opponents.
Lets get it right folks...the reason there will never be Medicare for all...is that there is too much money in the health insurance industry going to politicians they will never give up one of their golden gooses.
It was upheld under congress' authority to tax and nothing else. It's a tax.
Lets get it right folks...the reason there will never be Medicare for all...is that there is too much money in the health insurance industry going to politicians they will never give up one of their golden gooses.
Why don't you do it for us then?
only in a backwards, reverse-reality dimension is this considered to be the same thing as raising taxes on the Middle-class.
I am lower middle-class. And yet, Obama didn't just raise my taxes.
end of story.
The end of the story is that it is a tax, upheld by the authority to tax.
Medicaid costs per person by state: What is the cost per person annually for medicaid
The answer: national 2008 Average Per Capita Medicaid Expenses is $14780.
Health Spending per Capita
United States $6,815
its a penalty, not a tax. taxes are not punitive.
Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law, 5-4, in Victory for Obama
By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: June 28, 2012
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld President Obama’s health care overhaul law, saying its requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty was authorized by Congress’s power to levy taxes. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four more liberal members.
“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,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html?pagewanted=all
I think the supporters of this decision missed a very important point I made. Let's say the religious right wins the next election and uses the decision for political gain, they say "okay, fine, you win on the abortion debate it's legal" "thanks to your new backdoor though we now can tax an abortion at 1000%, go ahead, take it to SCOTUS, but remember thanks to your new champion John Roberts we can tax for anything". Or, since the BOR was subjugated to tax powers, if say..........the poll tax were to be re-instituted, the civil rights act < BOR < Taxation. People don't realize what was done here.This is a real scary part to this whole bill being found constitutional. What's next?
This one is.
I think the supporters of this decision missed a very important point I made. Let's say the religious right wins the next election and uses the decision for political gain, they say "okay, fine, you win on the abortion debate it's legal" "thanks to your new backdoor though we now can tax an abortion at 1000%, go ahead, take it to SCOTUS, but remember thanks to your new champion John Roberts we can tax for anything". Or, since the BOR was subjugated to tax powers, if say..........the poll tax were to be re-instituted, the civil rights act < BOR < Taxation. People don't realize what was done here.
Wrong. He has lied. He specifically said that it was not a tax. It was deemed constitutional under Congress' authority to tax. It is a tax...and a lie.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?