• 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: Entire Healthcare Law Upheld

Masada said:
First off, it's not an opinion. I personally work with over 400 companies, that range in size from 3 employees to 1000. This law mandates that a business with more than 50 employees MUST provide health insurance.

Problem is, most 50 man companies cannot afford health insurance for their employees. THey simply dont have the money to fund such a program. Now, because this mandate was upheld, that company faces some major decisions. 1. Provide health insurance. 2. Go out of business 3. Lay off employees to fall below the 50 employee threshhold. 4. Break up company into 2 seperate companies.

These are all solutions that come from the actual business owners. It's not that they don't "want" to offer benefits, they simply cannot afford it. So, this hurts their growth potential, hiring capabilities, or any possibility of increasing wages. They simply can't do it all. They cant afford to invest where they want, increase wages for existing employees, grow and hire new employees, and provide health insurance for everyone all at the same time. They cant afford to do it all.

It's a job killer, and at a time when our economy needs businesses to grow and expand, this mandate stifles any chance of that in literally millions of companies.

Do the math. In a company with 60 employees. The average insurance premium is approximately $500 per person, per month. That comes out to an additional $360,000 per year that that company must now pay in insurance premiums. That is a tremendous burden on a company with only 60 employees. That's $360,000 that could go to hiring new people, expanding their company, increasing wages, etc. But it's now mandated that they spend that $360,000 on health insurance. Go talk to any company with 60 employees. Maybe 5% of them end their fiscal year with $360,000 just left over.

This isn't some kind of opinion. This is reality. I work with these companies. Owners are of a mixed bag politically. Some liberals, some not. But they all know the reality. They simply don't have that $360,000 left over each year to pay insurance premiums. It's a simple matter of math, not politics.

So, what are their solutions???? Where is their freedom to run a successful business now?
Click to expand...

Employer health insurance is not mandated to be free to the employee. If a company has 50 full-time employees, there is no earthly reason why they cannot offer health insurance options to their employees. This mandate hurts the employees, not the employers. The employees will have to pony up and have health insurance that, in one way or another, comes out of their own pockets...whether in terms of lower wages or higher deductions.

If hospitals didn't have to treat people who didn't have health insurance for nothing, we wouldn't need these regulations. But they do. Now: Penalize people who go to the emergency room for a sore throat, and we'll really have something.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

hazlnut said:
Exactly.

The main problem with the Affordable Care Act is one of information and understanding.

People who are 'educated' by Fox News, Glenn Becky, and the like, don't have a clue what is in the ACA.
Click to expand...

I liked the idea of the individual mandate, but I like the notion that the Constitution actually meant something more. Seriously, what power can the fed govt no exercise after this? I know you couldn't give a sh!t, but a lot of us can't help but to.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

ttwtt78640 said:
Yep. It is a mess. Prehaps the 1040 will have an ObamaCare check box, on page 12, that IF NOT CHECKED adds $400 to your tax owed. How IRS will know who is/is not insured is beyond me. If you were insured, for PART of the year, does that count as insured or uninsured?
Click to expand...

It will likely work the same as the MA system.... We get an insurance statement in the mail along with our W-2's in February. In lists which months we had approved coverage for. This is included with the MA tax return and the penalty is pro-rated for any months we didn't have insurance.
 
Re: Entire Healthcare Law Upheld

AdamT said:
Stocks were down before the ruling. They've been rising since the initial reaction. Dow is down only 50 points from where it was before the announcement. ;)
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming that Obama economic policies suck. Now watch the market fall more.

News Headlines
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Tigger said:
Your math problem is wrong. For anyone who wants to get decent health insurance through MassHealth the cost is more than $118 a month. Who in their right mind wouldn't pay the $900 fine ($75 a month) and get the FREE emergency care that is still required by Federal Law instead of paying the minimum $118 a month, plus additional costs, and getting essentially the same level of service?
Click to expand...
ER's don't cover non-ER care, you still refuse to add that care in your calculation. You do realize that you are advocating for the thing you are railing against, personal responsibility.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Moderator's Warning:
Threads merged and placed in BN-MSM. cp's source was a blog, but this is covered in the mainstream media in a big way, so let's put it in the most active forum.
 
Re: Entire Healthcare Law Upheld

ARealConservative said:
scrotus (not a typo) once again rules with corporations. everyone must buy insurance. what a tremendous boon for corporate America.
Click to expand...

I was almost in favor of it getting struck down so that the medicare for all approach could be taken.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

JayDubya said:
Edit: I don't understand how we're getting two opposite breaking news items. Which is accurate?
Click to expand...

FOX News, CNN & MSNBC jumped the gun and all of them reported it wrong initially. All of them.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

iguanaman said:
You are spouting false GOP talking points again.
There are no cuts in Medicare benefits from the HC law and that 500 billion comes from PROVIDERS not beneficiaries. The HC bill actually STRENGTHENS Medicare, perhaps that is what you don't like.



Fact Checking the GOP debate: $500 billion in cuts to Medicare? - The Washington Post
Click to expand...

So, a doctor, now getting $400 for a given illness, will give the same treatment, if he then gets only $200 for that same illness?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Tigger said:
Then we have nothing more to discuss, do we? Welcome to the Ignore List.
Click to expand...
Funny, you just responded to another post after this one.

No, seriously....if you are going to do it...do it. Walk the walk.

Otherwise...you are just talk.
 
Re: Entire Healthcare Law Upheld

Masada said:
First off, it's not an opinion. I personally work with over 400 companies, that range in size from 3 employees to 1000. This law mandates that a business with more than 50 employees MUST provide health insurance.

Problem is, most 50 man companies cannot afford health insurance for their employees. THey simply dont have the money to fund such a program. Now, because this mandate was upheld, that company faces some major decisions. 1. Provide health insurance. 2. Go out of business 3. Lay off employees to fall below the 50 employee threshhold. 4. Break up company into 2 seperate companies.

These are all solutions that come from the actual business owners. It's not that they don't "want" to offer benefits, they simply cannot afford it. So, this hurts their growth potential, hiring capabilities, or any possibility of increasing wages. They simply can't do it all. They cant afford to invest where they want, increase wages for existing employees, grow and hire new employees, and provide health insurance for everyone all at the same time. They cant afford to do it all.

It's a job killer, and at a time when our economy needs businesses to grow and expand, this mandate stifles any chance of that in literally millions of companies.

Do the math. In a company with 60 employees. The average insurance premium is approximately $500 per person, per month. That comes out to an additional $360,000 per year that that company must now pay in insurance premiums. That is a tremendous burden on a company with only 60 employees. That's $360,000 that could go to hiring new people, expanding their company, increasing wages, etc. But it's now mandated that they spend that $360,000 on health insurance. Go talk to any company with 60 employees. Maybe 5% of them end their fiscal year with $360,000 just left over.

This isn't some kind of opinion. This is reality. I work with these companies. Owners are of a mixed bag politically. Some liberals, some not. But they all know the reality. They simply don't have that $360,000 left over each year to pay insurance premiums. It's a simple matter of math, not politics.

So, what are their solutions???? Where is their freedom to run a successful business now?
Click to expand...

First of all, the employers contribution is fully deductible. Second, if an employer opts NOT to provide insurance and at least one employee would qualify for government subsidies, then the employer has to pay a fine of $2,000 for each employee, minus 30. So if the employer has 60 employees and the penalty applies, the employers maximum exposure is $60,000 -- not $360,000.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

roughdraft274 said:
My understanding is that it was redefined as a tax, but it is completely upheld. Medicaid expansion is limited, not sure in which ways.

CNN and MSNBC got it wrong.
Click to expand...

And FOX... they are all so desperate to be the breaking news folk that when one jumped the gun and got it wrong they all jumped off the bridge together. Idiot. Shows how far "journalism" has fallen.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

mac said:
There is only one United States of America.
Click to expand...

In that one USA 47% pay no FIT. Wait until that becomes 52%. Hmm...
 
Re: Entire Healthcare Law Upheld

Excon said:
Yep! There it is alright.

I am talking about what is not good for the Country as a whole, and you counter with how greedy individuals who want others to foot the bill for them would think about it.
Figures. :doh
Click to expand...

You're not talking about the greedy individuals who are too cheap to buy health insurance and instead sponge off everyone else?
 
Re: Entire Healthcare Law Upheld

poweRob said:
I was almost in favor of it getting struck down so that the medicare for all approach could be taken.
Click to expand...


Well, if people step up to the plate and toss the TeaBrain obstructionists out of congress, we may move in that direction.

America may yet deliver on the promise of Judeo-Christian love and compassion.... if the "Christian" conservative get out of the way.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Albert Di Salvo said:
Huge victory for African America at the expense of White America.
Click to expand...

:lamo

What a bitter racist.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Albert Di Salvo said:
Health care providers will pass the cut along to white seniors. This is a disaster for them. Their healthcare is being transferred to the beneficiaries of Obamacare.
Click to expand...

are seniors of color exempted?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

zgoldsmith23 said:
Yeah, treating everyone equally. That is such a bad idea. :roll:

You think he is pandering to minorities, right?
Click to expand...

People aren't being treated equally. Obamacare reduces the quality of care for most people who have good insurance coverage. Most of those people are white. Obamacare brings in millions of the working poor into Medicaid. Most of the working poor aren't white. White numbers are rapidly diminishing in America. Whites are an older and wealthier group than are non-whites.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

"I absolutely reject that notion"
President Obama

Referring to Obamacare as a tax. Really, not a tax? Then why did your lawyers argue that it is to the SCOTUS?

 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

The entire election just became out the Obamacare tax on the middle class and border control. It majorly benefits the GOP. Romney's campaign message is perhaps the clearest in American history.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Albert Di Salvo said:
People aren't being treated equally. Obamacare reduces the quality of care for most people who have good insurance coverage. Most of those people are white. Obamacare brings in millions of the working poor into Medicaid. Most of the working poor aren't white. White numbers are rapidly diminishing in America. Whites are an older and wealthier group than are non-whites.
Click to expand...

So this is all about race huh? poor baby. Too bad you are full of shyte:

In 2002, about 71 percent of the working poor were white.
However, the proportions classified as working poor for
blacks (10.5 percent) and Hispanics or Latinos (10.4 percent)
continued to be about twice those of whites (4.5 percent)
and Asians (4.6 percent).​
 
Last edited:
Re: Entire Healthcare Law Upheld

on page 43 of the ruling, the Court specifies the difference in the Government's powers of 'punishment' between the Commerce Clause (or the necessary & Proper Clause) and taxation.

Under the first two, which they deemed the individual mandate does NOT fall under, the court can push its full weight, i.e. fines, imprisonment, deportation, etc.

Under the ability to tax: They only have the power to tax.

But what this law effectively does is give us three choices: 1) Buy Health Insurance 2) Pay a fine or 3) go to jail. Which cannot be a punishment for not buying the individual mandate.

My initial argument when I vetted my own idea in my head was: they imprisonment is for not paying the fine. Not for not buying insurance. But just as the wording of the law calling the 'tax' a 'penalty' is just semantics, I claim this is just semantics. You are going to jail because you're not paying a fine... because you're not buying health insurance. Which they cannot force you to do! They can only encourage you via a tax.

I also understand that this is a slippery slope to an argument that no taxation can then be enforced. My response: Exactly.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

Woot woot :mrgreen:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125]

X Factor said:
I liked the idea of the individual mandate, but I like the notion that the Constitution actually meant something more. Seriously, what power can the fed govt no exercise after this? I know you couldn't give a sh!t, but a lot of us can't help but to.
Click to expand...


I just don't embrace far-right paranoia and lies.


Wait, wait... Mitty is on TV lying through his teeth, "job killer"...blah, blah, blah...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom