• 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-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Yes, the quality of plans on the individual market is indeed a big problem right now. I was shopping for an individual plan a couple years ago...most of them are terrible and virtually all of them are unreliable. The ACA addresses this by mandating procedures that they must cover, banning rescission and other abuses, and gathering them all in one place (on a health insurance exchange). This allows consumers to easily compare plans based upon just a few variables (e.g. premiums, deductibles, out of pocket maximums), which isn't really possible under the present system unless you are a doctor and/or an actuary.

Even with banning recissions, and such, most individual plans are pretty ****ty, because the complete lack of pooling. And while I am aware the exchanges are meant to address this, that still seems like a highly questionable solution

The brave new world of health insurance exchanges : CJR

'Tiered' Insurance Confounds Consumers, Docs In Mass. - Kaiser Health News
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

By tying your health care needs to your employer, people become dependent on that employer. Getting laid off (even aside from the salary loss), could be absolutely devastating and wipe out your entire life savings. This, in turn, makes employees less likely to leave their jobs to start a business, get an education, or find a job where they can be more productive. Employer based plans reduce worker mobility and increase risk aversion.



Yes, the quality of plans on the individual market is indeed a big problem right now. I was shopping for an individual plan a couple years ago...most of them are terrible and virtually all of them are unreliable. The ACA addresses this by mandating procedures that they must cover, banning rescission and other abuses, and gathering them all in one place (on a health insurance exchange). This allows consumers to easily compare plans based upon just a few variables (e.g. premiums, deductibles, out of pocket maximums), which isn't really possible under the present system unless you are a doctor and/or an actuary.

That seems like a pretty good way to address the problem to me...it eliminates most of the main problems with individual health care plans that exist now. What do you dislike about it?

The PPACA should eliminate the non-taxable status of employer provided medical care insurance and treat it as what it is; part of a 100% taxable employee compensation package. After all, PPACA was justified under the INCOME TAX LAW by the SCOTUS. To demand that John Q. Public spend ANY of their after tax wages on medical care insurance while allowing 85% of the population to NOT do so, as they get it at work, is INSANE. The taxation of employers for NOT providing this benefit, is far worse than the individual mandate, as it punishes businesses that can not afford it (or choose not to) while rewarding those that do, the EXACT opposite of your desire to separate medical care insurance from the workplace. PPACA goes in many OPPOSITE directions, as all congressional legislation is want do do, as many different and competing lobbyists help to make this mess of a law. The fact that the federal gov't, by law, makes federal employees pay only 25% of the REAL cost of their medical care insurance premiums, while demanding that private employers pay 8% to 9.8% of employees income for medical care insurance premiums, or pay a tax/fine/penalty. In other words, give ALL of your uninsured employees a pay raise or pay a fine, how THAT can be constitutional is AMAZING.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The PPACA should eliminate the non-taxable status of employer provided medical care insurance and treat it as what it is; part of a 100% taxable employee compensation package.

I agree, that would be a step in the right direction. PPACA opens the door to that by taxing "Cadillac plans," but ideally all employer health insurance should be counted as taxable income.

The taxation of employers for NOT providing this benefit, is far worse than the individual mandate, as it punishes businesses that can not afford it (or choose not to) while rewarding those that do, the EXACT opposite of your desire to separate medical care insurance from the workplace.

Agreed.

In other words, give ALL of your uninsured employees a pay raise or pay a fine, how THAT can be constitutional is AMAZING.

Constitutional =/= Good policy.
The employer mandate within PPACA is a fine example of a bad policy that nevertheless made its way into the law. Fortunately this is somewhat counterbalanced by the tax on "Cadillac plans," which is a good policy. But I agree that it will need to be fixed at some point in the future.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I agree, that would be a step in the right direction. PPACA opens the door to that by taxing "Cadillac plans," but ideally all employer health insurance should be counted as taxable income.



Agreed.



Constitutional =/= Good policy.
The employer mandate within PPACA is a fine example of a bad policy that nevertheless made its way into the law. Fortunately this is somewhat counterbalanced by the tax on "Cadillac plans," which is a good policy. But I agree that it will need to be fixed at some point in the future.


The Cadillac Plan will effect 33% of citizens, yes?

If you sell your house and make money on it, what was the percentage of the tax, you'll have to pay on the gain you realized again?

How come Unions are exempt? Why aren't they in the TAX group?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I agree, that would be a step in the right direction. PPACA opens the door to that by taxing "Cadillac plans," but ideally all employer health insurance should be counted as taxable income.



Agreed.



Constitutional =/= Good policy.
The employer mandate within PPACA is a fine example of a bad policy that nevertheless made its way into the law. Fortunately this is somewhat counterbalanced by the tax on "Cadillac plans," which is a good policy. But I agree that it will need to be fixed at some point in the future.

It is robbery, pure and simple, and will hurt the already dismal employment picture by requiring employers to pay MORE for the same work. A low wage worker must pay only 2% for their "exchange" plan premium, yet their boss must pay about 8% more or $2000 whichever is less as a fine just to keep them hired on. I predict that this will not be good for the unemployment situation.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

It is robbery, pure and simple, and will hurt the already dismal employment picture by requiring employers to pay MORE for the same work. A low wage worker must pay only 2% for their "exchange" plan premium, yet their boss must pay about 8% more or $2000 whichever is less as a fine just to keep them hired on. I predict that this will not be good for the unemployment situation.

The law would certainly be improved by removing the employer mandate and treating all health benefits as taxable income, that's for sure. If this encourages more employers to drop coverage, great.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Obamacare expanded existing electronic records requirements. My doctor's office just started using tablets and laptops last year to get ahead of the curve. Pretty cool, actually. All of you information is right there and easier to access than a paper file. Eventually this will reduce costs by eleminating a lot of clerical work, and it should improve care as doctors are able to share patient records and avoid drug interactions.

And ultimately it will hopefully provide a gigantic database that the medical community can use to study treatments and outcomes, thus improving health care and lowering costs.


Coincidentally I saw my cardiologist yesterday for my bi-annual checkup.

Checking in at the receptionist, there were a couple of things different. First, she asked for my pharmacy and which location. Then she scanned my ID and insurance card into her computer. In the past she made a photocopy of them and put them in my file and never asked for my pharmacy.

Once in the exam room, I noticed a laptop that had not been there before. The nurse took my BP and pulse rate and entered them into the laptop. She asked all the other standard questions about medications, any changes etc. All went into the laptop. Then she did an EKG and it went directly into the laptop. In the past she had to make a paper printout of it to go into my file.

Next the doctor came in with his bright shiny new slim lenovo thinkpad and my big ol' bulky paper file. During the visit all the information he referred to was on his thinkpad, including the lipid panel results that I had done about a month before. He never once looked at my paper file (I suspect he had them for backup).

Then, - this is the part I really liked - he refilled my maintenance medications directly to my pharmacy from his thinkpad. Of course in the past I had to take the paper prescription, drop them off at the pharmacy and then come back later to pick them up. This saved me an annoying extra trip.

Checking out, the receptionist printed out a description of my visit, my receipt for my co-pay, my appointments for a couple of routine tests that we do every year, and my next doctor's appointment. All on one sheet of paper. In the past, she would have given me three or four different pieces of paper, all handwritten.

Yes, I did ask if this was because of the ACA and was told yes.

None of this was in place six months ago.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The Cadillac Plan will effect 33% of citizens, yes?

If you sell your house and make money on it, what was the percentage of the tax, you'll have to pay on the gain you realized again?

How come Unions are exempt? Why aren't they in the TAX group?

would you please point us to a cite which shows us that union employees are tax exempt regarding cadillac plans
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

It is robbery, pure and simple, and will hurt the already dismal employment picture by requiring employers to pay MORE for the same work. A low wage worker must pay only 2% for their "exchange" plan premium, yet their boss must pay about 8% more or $2000 whichever is less as a fine just to keep them hired on. I predict that this will not be good for the unemployment situation.

Corporate profits are not the problem, they are at record levels. You also forget that employees are hired because they are needed to make the profits for the company. More money in employees pockets is GOOD for the employment situation, unlike corporations that are sitting on trillions, employees will SPEND the extra cash.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

would you please point us to a cite which shows us that union employees are tax exempt regarding cadillac plans


No. It's about time folks READ the bill. Go for it. Get informed.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Corporate profits are not the problem, they are at record levels. You also forget that employees are hired because they are needed to make the profits for the company. More money in employees pockets is GOOD for the employment situation, unlike corporations that are sitting on trillions, employees will SPEND the extra cash.

you realize that not all employers are giant corporations?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Obamacare expanded existing electronic records requirements. My doctor's office just started using tablets and laptops last year to get ahead of the curve. Pretty cool, actually. All of you information is right there and easier to access than a paper file. Eventually this will reduce costs by eleminating a lot of clerical work, and it should improve care as doctors are able to share patient records and avoid drug interactions.

Your doctor is behind the curve if he just discovered electronic records last year - in fact he's been breaking the law if what you say is true. Again, same requirements and HIPAA has been around since 96. That "cost" has already been reduced.

And ultimately it will hopefully provide a gigantic database that the medical community can use to study treatments and outcomes, thus improving health care and lowering costs.

No way, no way, no way. You better hope to God that's not the effect. All you're doing is handing actuaries the rope to hang you with. HIPAA specifically prevents this. No matter how anonymous they claim it will be - it won't.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Factcheck.org is a biased source to the left

Nice try though. Obamacare is filled with at least 20 taxes.

Okay list 'em
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Factcheck.org is a biased source to the left

Nice try though. Obamacare is filled with at least 20 taxes.
The myth that Billy brought up was specifically addressed.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

No. It's about time folks READ the bill. Go for it. Get informed.

show us the excerpt (with cite) which says union employees with a cadillac health care plan are tax exempt
until you can do so i must conclude you are blowing smoke on this
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Okay list 'em

Happily

Here Are The New Taxes You

The bill is 2700 pages. Have you read it yet?

Americans for Tax Reform : Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes

Taxes that took effect in 2010:

1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971

2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

3. “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105

4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980

5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike ($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004

6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services ($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399

Taxes that took effect in 2011:

7. Medicine Cabinet Tax ($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959

8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959

Tax that took effect in 2012:

9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Min$/Jan 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957

Taxes that take effect in 2013:

10. Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93

11. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax ($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:

Bill: PPACA, Reconciliation Act; Page: 2000-2003; 87-93

12. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers ($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986

13. High Medical Bills Tax ($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995

14. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389

15. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D ($4.5 bil/Jan 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994

16. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives ($0.6 bil/Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000

Taxes that take effect in 2014:

17. Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following

18. Employer Mandate Tax (Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer). Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346

Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years

19. Tax on Health Insurers ($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993

Taxes that take effect in 2018:

20. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans ($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The myth that Billy brought up was specifically addressed.

The only myth being tossed around this thread is the whopper by liberals claiming that Obamacare isn't a tax.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Factcheck.org is a biased source to the left

Nice try though. Obamacare is filled with at least 20 taxes.



Needs to be repeated. Thanks,
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

show us the excerpt (with cite) which says union employees with a cadillac health care plan are tax exempt
until you can do so i must conclude you are blowing smoke on this



Read the bill, as suggested by Nancy Pelosi.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

The myth that Billy brought up was specifically addressed.


Bronson already answered you. Thus your link is debunked.

Good job Gimmie.
 
Back
Top Bottom