• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758, 1205]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

You are either a really, really bad liar, or just an easy dupe to liberal propaganda...

and the National Review article I posted are from as far back as two weeks ago...Please re read.

IPAB, Obamacare

Now stop lying.
Come on, you and the right are the ones making stuff up. Everybody knows what the original Death Panel deal was (besides ludicrous). Now you and National Review are making up another Death Panel -- different section of Obamacare, same stupid talking point. It's bull**** and everyone trying to sell it knows it.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

[...] Or better yet join a church exempt from the law.
But then they'll get pregnant because birth control is not allowed, and they won't be able to have an abortion. Whose taxes are gonna pay for that baby boom? ;)

Wait, I've got it -- we'll give the churches tax subsidies :lamo
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Oops. For clarity, here's your smiley: :3oops:

New eligibility rules enacted under PPACA extend coverage in Medicaid to most people with incomes under 133% of poverty.
For people with somewhat higher incomes (up to 400% of poverty), PPACA provides tax credits that reduce premium costs.
People with incomes up to 250% of poverty also are eligible for reduced cost sharing (e.g., coverage with lower deductibles
and copayments) paid for by the federal government. The premium tax credits and cost-sharing assistance will begin in 2014.

Who is eligible for premium tax credits?
Citizens and legal residents in families with incomes between 133% and 400% of poverty who purchase coverage through
a health insurance exchange1 are eligible for a tax credit to reduce the cost of coverage.

How will premium subsidies be provided?

Premium tax credits would be refundable and advanceable. A refundable tax credit is one that is available to a person even if he or she has no tax liability. An advanceable tax credit allows a person to receive assistance at the time that they purchase insurance rather than paying their premium out of pocket and waiting to be reimbursed when filing their annual income tax return. PPACA requires exchanges to provide information to prospective enrollees about their eligibility for premium tax credits. The process through which people apply for premium tax credits will likely be established by the Secretary of Treasury through regulation.

Gee Karl, nothing is set up yet for advancement credits. So again for clarity......tax credits don't mean crap to someone who can't afford the insurance in the first place. At the rate the Obama administration has lied about the Obama Care Bill I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for those advanced credits.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Gee Karl, nothing is set up yet for advancement credits. [...]
Man, you're determined to ride that sinking ship all the way to the bottom! :2razz:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Man, you're determined to ride that sinking ship all the way to the bottom! :2razz:

Valid questions you just can't answer Karl. Sorry, Obama will be hoist on his own petard come November.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

I'm not going to bother reading nearly 1500 posts, but someone tell me if I get how this thread has gone, correct:

Many of those on the right are whining and crying and making idiotic claims that this will destroy the US.
Many of those on the left are laughing and rejoicing and making idiotic claims that this will save the US.

How'd I do?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

You are either a really, really bad liar, or just an easy dupe to liberal propaganda...



and the National Review article I posted are from as far back as two weeks ago...Please re read.

IPAB, Obamacare

Now stop lying.

That particular source often draws inaccurate conclusions. Any suggestion of rationing or death panels would be an inaccurate conclusion.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

I'm not going to bother reading nearly 1500 posts, but someone tell me if I get how this thread has gone, correct:

Many of those on the right are whining and crying and making idiotic claims that this will destroy the US.
Many of those on the left are laughing and rejoicing and making idiotic claims that this will save the US.

How'd I do?

Pretty damn good!! See why do we read these threads.

You did leave out that a few of us think the ruling was fine, we won't die, but we should go back to work and try to structure something better without going back to where we were.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Again for clarity.

Folks making more than 133% of the Federal Poverty Level and you pay for insurance or pay the $600 a year tax. A single person making over $14,856 would have to pay for insurance (on $14,856, really?) or $600 tax.

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.

A married couple with no kids making over $20,122 a year would be required to pay for insurance for 2 or the tax for 2. A family of 4, 2 adults and 2 kids making over $30,656 a year would have to buy insurance for 4 or pay double the tax for the adults.

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.

You claim up to 400% subsidies, do you have any proof that comes from a reliable source and not a "kook" blogspot?

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.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Pretty damn good!! See why do we read these threads.

You did leave out that a few of us think the ruling was fine, we won't die, but we should go back to work and try to structure something better without going back to where we were.

I figured there were a few of those, but I also figured they got lost in the stupidity being spewed by the hacks from both sides.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

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.

I'll look your links over, but they come fro the same administration that assured us repeatedly this isn't a tax then has their attorneys argue it is which is what the SCOTUS decided. How believable are they less than a kook blog I'd say.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

a lot a low income earners won't be eligible for subsidies..... if their employer offers a qualified plan, they gotta take it or pay the tax.... their premiums are not subsidized.
subsidies come into play when the employer doesn't have qualified plans to offer.

What's your point? "Qualified plans" will only be qualified in the first place if they meet certain criteria regarding affordability and coverage. So yes, if they can get their health insurance from their employer, they have to do that. The point is that low-income earners will not be in a situation where they have no choice but to incur some tax liability they didn't have before...they'll either be covered by Medicaid, or through their employer, or they'll get subsidies to purchase individual policies on the health insurance exchange, or in the worst case scenario they'll get a financial hardship exemption.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Many of those on the right are whining and crying and making idiotic claims that this will destroy the US.

Also there are a few amusing threats to leave the country and move to (fill in the name of some other country with even more statist health care). :lol:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

I'll look your links over, but they come fro the same administration that assured us repeatedly this isn't a tax then has their attorneys argue it is which is what the SCOTUS decided. How believable are they less than a kook blog I'd say.

This is just a description of the basic contents of the law, and the regulations that HHS has established. Are you suggesting that they're lying about the actual contents of the Affordable Care Act? What possible purpose would that serve? :confused:

If it's that easy to pull the wool over people's eyes, maybe Obama could just change the word "million" to "billion" somewhere on the Department of Education's website, and our schools will suddenly have more money. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

You are either a really, really bad liar, or just an easy dupe to liberal propaganda...

The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, is a fifteen-member United States Government agency created in 2010 by sections 3403 and 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which has the explicit task of achieving specified savings in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality.[1] Under previous and current law, changes to Medicare payment rates and program rules are recommended by MedPAC but require an act of Congress to take effect. The new system grants IPAB the authority to make changes to the Medicare program with the Congress being given the power to overrule the agency's decisions.

Independent Payment Advisory Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and the National Review article I posted are from as far back as two weeks ago...Please re read.

IPAB, Obamacare

Now stop lying.

Holy ****, mac ... now you're arming yourself with wikipedia links???

:lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

You don't know when to quit, do ya?

Sections 3403 and 10320 of the bill Obama signed were not about the supposed "death panels." It was section 1233 of H.R. 3200 that you're thinking of ...


[h=3]SEC. 1233. ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CONSULTATION.[/h]
  • (a) Medicare-

    • (1) IN GENERAL- Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended--

      • (A) in subsection (s)(2)--

        • (i) by striking `and' at the end of subparagraph (DD);

        • (ii) by adding `and' at the end of subparagraph (EE); and

        • (iii) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:

    • `(FF) advance care planning consultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));'; and

      • (B) by adding at the end the following new subsection:


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:2:./temp/~c111AUkd1Q:e540198:


And that section was yanked from the bill that Obama signed. How much clearer can I get?

Yet more evidence that you have no idea what in the hell you're talking about. :roll:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

What's your point? "Qualified plans" will only be qualified in the first place if they meet certain criteria regarding affordability and coverage. So yes, if they can get their health insurance from their employer, they have to do that. The point is that low-income earners will not be in a situation where they have no choice but to incur some tax liability they didn't have before...they'll either be covered by Medicaid, or through their employer, or they'll get subsidies to purchase individual policies on the health insurance exchange.

good god, you are defensive.

my point was to provide information, nothing more , nothing less..... let loose of your partisan blinders, not everything is an attack... jeez
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

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.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/reports/premiums01282011a.pdf

Nothing in there about advancing premium payments.

http://web.archive.org/web/20101027...eReform/CRS/HealthInsurancePremiumCredits.pdf

Old link that was taken down for obvious reasons.

Credit Amount

The credit amount is generally equal to the difference between the premium for the “benchmark plan” and the taxpayer’s “expected contribution.”
• The expected contribution is a specified percentage of the taxpayer’s household income. The percentage increases as income increases, from 2% of income for families at 100% of the federal poverty level (FPL) to 9.5% of income for families at 400% of FPL. (The actual amount a family pays for coverage will be less than the expected contribution if the family chooses a plan that is less expensive than the benchmark plan.)

• The benchmark plan is the second-lowest-cost plan that would cover the family at the “silver” level of coverage.
• The credit is capped at the premium for the plan the family chooses (so no one receives a credit that is larger than the amount they actually pay for their plan).

Example 2: Family of Four with Income of $50,000, Purchases Less Expensive Plan
If a family chooses a plan that is less expensive than the benchmark plan, the family will generally pay less, thereby creating an incentive to choose a less costly plan and reducing overall health care costs.
• Income as a Percentage of FPL 224%
• Expected Family Contribution: $3,570
• Premium for Benchmark Plan: $9,000
• Premium Tax Credit: $5,430 ($9,000 - $3,570)
• Premium for Plan Family Chooses: $7,500
• Actual Family Contribution: $2,070 ($7,500 - $5,430)

LOLOLOLOL! A family of 4 attempting to survive on less than $50,000 a year will still have to cough up $2070 a year or $172 a month. I'm sure they'll vote for Obama in November.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

At the end of the day, which it is, it was a good day for Americans.... we still have the 37th best healthcare system in the world, but at least we took a step forward.

Health care reform.jpg

A good day. Many before Obama worked to move the ball down the field. Perhaps Obama doesn't get the TD of national healthcare, we we'll settle for the FG.


Its now time to put this silliness behind us and move on to real issues; like the economy.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Also there are a few amusing threats to leave the country and move to (fill in the name of some other country with even more statist health care). :lol:


I haven't seen anyone in this thread threaten to leave the US over Obamacare.....

I'm doing away with my US citizenship in the next few years, but it has little to do with Obamacare
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

I haven't seen anyone in this thread threaten to leave the US over Obamacare.....

There have been a couple. One person in this thread threatened to move to Poland (which has universal health care), and one threatened to renounce his US citizenship and move to Iran (which doesn't have universal coverage but does have a heavy-handed government involvement in health care).
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

LOLOLOLOL! A family of 4 attempting to survive on less than $50,000 a year will still have to cough up $2070 a year or $172 a month.

Does $500 per person per year really seem that unreasonable to you? And if so, are you suggesting that the subsidy be increased? Because I could get on board with that.

If you think that $500 is too much to spend on health insurance for an entire year, how on earth do you think they're going to be able to pay for an expensive medical bill?

I'm sure they'll vote for Obama in November.

:roll:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

upsideguy;1060637143 A good day. Many before Obama worked to move the ball down the field. Perhaps Obama doesn't get the TD of national healthcare said:
like the economy[/B].

Which will, btw, continue to suck, especially now that we have another confirmed unaffordable public debt for the taxpayers to deal with.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

I haven't seen anyone in this thread threaten to leave the US over Obamacare.....

I'm doing away with my US citizenship in the next few years, but it has little to do with Obamacare

Adios, amigo!
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Does $500 per person per year really seem that unreasonable to you? And if so, are you suggesting that the subsidy be increased? Because I could get on board with that.

If you think that $500 is too much to spend on health insurance for an entire year, how on earth do you think they're going to be able to pay for an expensive medical bill?



:roll:

$2000/yr. when the average family policy runs about $15,000 seems like a pretty good benefit to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom