[olldflame]

It's going to be a fight that lasts years and years. It's only just beginning; it will flip-flop back and forth between who has the majority.

I'm very much opposed by the whole ordeal but people are acting like we're talking about thousands of dollars. The fine is $95 or 1% of your yearly income. Don't pelt me...I understand the issues of liberty and freedom. I don't like it very much but it's become reality, and it's probably not changing with Romney. He'll talk a big game but he won't have the guts to sign the repeal in office.

By the 3rd year, it will be $695 per single adult and $2085 per family. As one of over 7 million American citizens living abroad, it will be a disincentive for me to return to the states for any extended period of time. Anyone who spends less than 35 days a year in the country is exempt.

[From the class of 09]

I understand the constitutionality problem with the individual mandate but if you just look at it from a purely actuarial side the individual mandate makes sense.

No it doesn't. Next question.

If you are going to guarantee insurability you have to include the individual mandate to avoid all the healthy people opting out. So it actual does make sence from a purely numbers side.
Execution will be another story but they need the mandate for the numbers too work even in theory.

Not really much to argue about but I knew I could count on you to try

[Humble_Opinion]

It's going to be a fight that lasts years and years. It's only just beginning; it will flip-flop back and forth between who has the majority.

I'm very much opposed by the whole ordeal but people are acting like we're talking about thousands of dollars. The fine is $95 or 1% of your yearly income. Don't pelt me...I understand the issues of liberty and freedom. I don't like it very much but it's become reality, and it's probably not changing with Romney. He'll talk a big game but he won't have the guts to sign the repeal in office.

By the 3rd year, it will be $695 per single adult and $2085 per family. As one of over 7 million American citizens living abroad, it will be a disincentive for me to return to the states for any extended period of time. Anyone who spends less than 35 days a year in the country is exempt.

Ding ding. The modest 'penalty' doesn't come close to covering the cost of one person's health insurance premium for a year. The goal of setting the bar so low is to encourage employers to stop providing coverage to their employees and opt to pay the penalty instead. By doing this, they take one giant leap towards a more 'universal' healthcare system without having to use any branch of government. At the same time, they will lambast the employers for dropping their employees health insurance - effectively casting themselves as the 'savior'. The end result? More people relying on government. This has been the Democrat Party's campaign strategy ever since the 1930's.

[Covert Hawk]

From mittromney.com

As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts...[Roberts] hold dear what the great Chief Justice John Marshall called “the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected”: a written Constitution, with real and determinate meaning. The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written. And his nominees will possess a demonstrated record of adherence to these core principles."

[Purple Haize]

And my thoughts.....
I liked Justice Roberts reasoning from what I've heard. The court struck down the mandate. What Roberts was saying, IMO, is that as much as the Obama administration tried to say this wasn't a tax, it actually is a tax. So as a tax it is Constitutional, look at your pay stub and the FICA tax etc. so that fine AS A TAX. That makes sense to me. I'm not saying I like it, just saying it makes the most sense.

IF this stands it will be a nightmare. I see 3 main problems ( besides the obvious)
For starters Evil Corporations will be dropping health programs left and right. Why not? The fine is considerably less then the price of insuring their employees. This will drive up the cost of the program
Secondly, the personal fine doesn't make sense. If you can't afford health insurance how can you afford the fine/tax? What happens if you don't pay it.
Which leads to this. Who is going to collect this tax? The Insurance Companies that will still be in business and providing the service or the Federal government? I know the IRS is ramping up with agents, but how will the companies get their money? This just is the first step towards Single Payor.

As for Romney, he said he is going to repeal it and/or give the States a waiver. He has stopped saying 'repeal and replace' and just said he was going to scrap it. This is THE defining issue of this election. I don't believe this is a choice of 'a lesser of two evils' at all. It's an issue of electing someone who crafted this monstrosity of federal control or electing the person who is going to do away with it. I'm not concerned what if anything it gets replaced with because that is a different fight for a different time. The fight right now is the person who can win and scrap this Taxdate. There is a 100% chance that if Obama stays in office this Law will stay and get worse. If Romney wins, even his worst critics have to admit he will do away with this Law.

[lynchburgwildcats]

Well, at least my employer will have to provide me with insurance. On the other hand, I hardly ever have to use the insurance I pay for entirely out of my own pocket for under $100 a month and from everything I read, that policy likely will not even be available. Wonder how much money I don't have I will be forced to hand over to get health insurance I rarely ever use.

[jbock13]

Well, at least my employer will have to provide me with insurance. On the other hand, I hardly ever have to use the insurance I pay for entirely out of my own pocket for under $100 a month and from everything I read, that policy likely will not even be available. Wonder how much money I don't have I will be forced to hand over to get health insurance I rarely ever use.

No they won't. They'll simply pay the fine and put you on the government exchange.

[Purple Haize]

Well, at least my employer will have to provide me with insurance. On the other hand, I hardly ever have to use the insurance I pay for entirely out of my own pocket for under $100 a month and from everything I read, that policy likely will not even be available. Wonder how much money I don't have I will be forced to hand over to get health insurance I rarely ever use.

No. They won't. They will just pay the fine since it will be cheaper for them

[Purple Haize]

Well, at least my employer will have to provide me with insurance. On the other hand, I hardly ever have to use the insurance I pay for entirely out of my own pocket for under $100 a month and from everything I read, that policy likely will not even be available. Wonder how much money I don't have I will be forced to hand over to get health insurance I rarely ever use.

No they won't. They'll simply pay the fine and put you on the government exchange.

OMG we totally typed that at the same time!
JINX

[jbock13]

I understand the constitutionality problem with the individual mandate but if you just look at it from a purely actuarial side the individual mandate makes sense.

No it doesn't. Next question.

If you are going to guarantee insurability you have to include the individual mandate to avoid all the healthy people opting out. So it actual does make sence from a purely numbers side.
Execution will be another story but they need the mandate for the numbers too work even in theory.

Not really much to argue about but I knew I could count on you to try

Or we can get the government out of health care and go back to a first person health care system. Worked great for every other industry.

[jbock13]

Well, at least my employer will have to provide me with insurance. On the other hand, I hardly ever have to use the insurance I pay for entirely out of my own pocket for under $100 a month and from everything I read, that policy likely will not even be available. Wonder how much money I don't have I will be forced to hand over to get health insurance I rarely ever use.

No they won't. They'll simply pay the fine and put you on the government exchange.

OMG we totally typed that at the same time!
JINX

lol you stole my brillance

[Purple Haize]

I understand the constitutionality problem with the individual mandate but if you just look at it from a purely actuarial side the individual mandate makes sense.

No it doesn't. Next question.

If you are going to guarantee insurability you have to include the individual mandate to avoid all the healthy people opting out. So it actual does make sence from a purely numbers side.
Execution will be another story but they need the mandate for the numbers too work even in theory.

Not really much to argue about but I knew I could count on you to try

Actually that is true if you know the fixed cost. Medical costs are variable. Therefore trying to actualize this law is nearly impossible

[jbock13]

Ding ding. The modest 'penalty' doesn't come close to covering the cost of one person's health insurance premium for a year. The goal of setting the bar so low is to encourage employers to stop providing coverage to their employees and opt to pay the penalty instead. By doing this, they take one giant leap towards a more 'universal' healthcare system without having to use any branch of government. At the same time, they will lambast the employers for dropping their employees health insurance - effectively casting themselves as the 'savior'. The end result? More people relying on government. This has been the Democrat Party's campaign strategy ever since the 1930's.

Simply brilliant Humble. You're 100% on.

[lynchburgwildcats]

Well, at least my employer will have to provide me with insurance. On the other hand, I hardly ever have to use the insurance I pay for entirely out of my own pocket for under $100 a month and from everything I read, that policy likely will not even be available. Wonder how much money I don't have I will be forced to hand over to get health insurance I rarely ever use.

No. They won't. They will just pay the fine since it will be cheaper for them

That's fine by me, if I can keep my current insurance policy, it will be cheaper anyways. Of course, if I get on as full-time, won't be an issue anyways.

[Purple Haize]

Well, at least my employer will have to provide me with insurance. On the other hand, I hardly ever have to use the insurance I pay for entirely out of my own pocket for under $100 a month and from everything I read, that policy likely will not even be available. Wonder how much money I don't have I will be forced to hand over to get health insurance I rarely ever use.

No. They won't. They will just pay the fine since it will be cheaper for them

That's fine by me, if I can keep my current insurance policy, it will be cheaper anyways. Of course, if I get on as full-time, won't be an issue anyways.

Did you even read? Your employer will no longer be offering you a Health Policy. Period. It will then be up to you to find one on your own or pay the Fine/Tax. Which will be less....for now.

[Humble_Opinion]

Exactly Purp. And anyone that thinks this rate won't grow exponentially in the next decade is seriously misguided. Consider that in 1913 the top marginal Income Tax rate for an individual was 7% on income of $500,000 (roughly $10.5 - $11 million in 2011). Compare that with today... A number that has been drastically reduced since the Carter era. It's really quite scary what occurred today. The fact that more than half of our country doesn't understand this spells out how far we've fallen. It almost makes me wonder if the progressive advance can even be stopped. Sure - it can be halted for a few years, but with half of the country gone it's only a matter of time...

[lynchburgwildcats]

Did you even read? Your employer will no longer be offering you a Health Policy. Period. It will then be up to you to find one on your own or pay the Fine/Tax. Which will be less....for now.

Did you even read? Let me answer that for you, because the answer is obviously no. I already indirectly stated my current employer doesn't offer me a health policy. See quote below since you obviously didn't read it the first time around.

Well, at least my employer will have to provide me with insurance.

[Purple Haize]

Did you even read? Your employer will no longer be offering you a Health Policy. Period. It will then be up to you to find one on your own or pay the Fine/Tax. Which will be less....for now.

Did you even read? Let me answer that for you, because the answer is obviously no. I already indirectly stated my current employer doesn't offer me a health policy. See quote below since you obviously didn't read it the first time around.

Well, at least my employer will have to provide me with insurance.

This is an entirely inaccurate statement. I know your employer doesn't offer you insurance now. And, if this tax stands, even if you go full time, they will not have to provide it and probably won't.

[From the class of 09]

No it doesn't. Next question.

If you are going to guarantee insurability you have to include the individual mandate to avoid all the healthy people opting out. So it actual does make sence from a purely numbers side.
Execution will be another story but they need the mandate for the numbers too work even in theory.

Not really much to argue about but I knew I could count on you to try

Actually that is true if you know the fixed cost. Medical costs are variable. Therefore trying to actualize this law is nearly impossible

Why can't you use an actuarial process for variable cost? It's more complicated sure, but current health insurance, disablitity, long term care, and many other insurance products do this everyday.

The execution of this will be a nightmare thanks to the governments inability to manage programs but if looking soley at numbers the individual mandate makes sense.

[Purple Haize]

When dealing with Life Home and Auto you are correct. You are also correct that the government trying to manage it will be a nightmare. Determine health care costs is a lot like gambling. I do understand what you are trying to say that in order for the numbers to work, those that are healthy must pay into said system for it too even remotely work. However, that would only be the case in a single payer system. The way the system is currently configured it takes only simple, or Marshall Math, to understand this will not work.

[jmdickens]

Exactly Purp. And anyone that thinks this rate won't grow exponentially in the next decade is seriously misguided. Consider that in 1913 the top marginal Income Tax rate for an individual was 7% on income of $500,000 (roughly $10.5 - $11 million in 2011). Compare that with today... A number that has been drastically reduced since the Carter era. It's really quite scary what occurred today. The fact that more than half of our country doesn't understand this spells out how far we've fallen. It almost makes me wonder if the progressive advance can even be stopped. Sure - it can be halted for a few years, but with half of the country gone it's only a matter of time...

also funny that 1913 was the year that Congress unconstitutionally created the Central Bank known as the federal reserve. The value of the dollar today is $.04 of what it was in 1913.

Back to health care, basically this means we will end up with single payer

[Humble_Opinion]

As I indicated before, I think that we're going to have to have some system where people can buy into a larger pool. Right now their pool typically is the employer, but there are other ways of doing it. I would like to -- I would hope that we could set up a system that allows those who can go through their employer to access a federal system or a state pool of some sort. But I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years out or 20 years out where we've got a much more portable system. Employers still have the option of providing coverage, but many people may find that they get better coverage, or at least coverage that gives them more for health care dollars than they spend outside of their employer. And I think we've got to facilitate that and let individuals make that choice to transition out of employer coverage.

Barack Obama at SEIU's Healtch Care Forum in 2007.

[skywalker5291]

Very good video on the whole situation.

[From the class of 09]

Why should I not be in favor of massive healthcare reform including a universal system?

Americans spend twice as much as residents of other developed countries on healthcare, but get lower quality, less efficiency and have the least equitable system, according to a report released on Wednesday.

Every other system covers all its citizens, the report noted and said the U.S. system, which leaves 46 million Americans or 15 percent of the population without health insurance, is the most unfair.

"The lower the performance score for equity, the lower the performance on other measures. This suggests that, when a country fails to meet the needs of the most vulnerable, it also fails to meet the needs of the average citizen," the report reads.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/ ... SU20100623

[ALUmnus]

Objective or subjective? I think it's pretty clear.

Anytime you start throwing around the word "fair", you've lost me. Not to mention "lower quality" and "less efficient" based on patient surveys. We spend more per person (gasp!). That seems it would have more to do with cost (probably the biggest problem) and demand. Universal coverage may make the numbers look better, but wouldn't fix the problem, and you have to look at how the universal coverage effects the numbers.