SCOTUS re-wrote the law to make it constitutional. The Commerce Clause doesn't apply to the law, so it was re-written by SCOTUS into a tax, which Congress can authorize via a 50+ vote in both chambers. Are you an idiot?
That's not AT ALL what he ruled. He changed the penalty/mandate into a tax, and struck down the Commerce Clause argument. Do you even pay attention? LMAO He just shut down the Commerce Clause/Mandate argument, and now changed ObamaCare into literally the largest tax increase in US history, and it impacts the poor far greater than the rich.
Whether it's a "state issue" or a "federal issue" is irrelevant to the semantics argument of fee vs. tax. And the fact that states don't claim it's a tax means that you see things as I do. Levying a penalty for not having something that the government has decided you should is generally not considered a tax. Again, though, it's semantics, because you can rephrase "requiring people to pay money" as a tax pretty easily.
Not really. The tax/penalty only affects those that don't buy insurance. The estimate is that over the first 5 years, the tax/penalty will raise $120 billion total. Hardly the largest tax increase in history. Even if you (incorrectly and rather absurdly) assume that the supreme court ruling that the penalty is a tax means the entirety of Obamacare is a tax, it isn't the largest in history. Here's more data, in case you someday become more interested in facts than in repeating Limbaugh rants. barfo
You and PolitiFact are clearly missing the point. It's the largest tax increase ever by a black man. Rush understands this.
I have a hunch. Health Care premiums will continue to skyrocket. Barfo and Minstrel will be spewing the party line, that without ObamaCare, the premiums would be even higher. LOL. The incentive for businesses is to stop paying for health care and to pay the $1200 per head TAX. Way cheaper than paying $10K per head, like they do now. The result will be govt. taking taxes and penalties from the middle class and paying the money directly to the insurance companies. Insurance company stocks look pretty good right now.
Before the ACA, business could have stopped paying for health care at no penalty. Why would they do it now when it carries a $1200 penalty? They didn't offer health care because it was cost-effective or saved them money...they offered it because it's compensation to employees, like salaries. A company that cut health insurance would be at a competitive disadvantage in getting the employees they want versus a company that doesn't, both before and after the ACA. The difference is that with the ACA, companies will pay $1200 a head for the privilege of that competitive disadvantage.
Correct. Companies offer health plans to separate themselves from other companies, and it's now expected for most professional jobs, and even McDonalds. The point is that now that companies can pay a much lower fee to offload employees to the 'government plan', that it will become the norm. Before, if you didn't offer HC to employees, their only other option was to purchase their own plan. Under ObamaCare, there is a 3rd option, and employees will have a health plan. Sure, they're being taxed if they don't pay for it, but would you rather pay a $2k tax and go on a government plan, or pay up to $1k/month for a family plan?
I don't understand why it matters to companies whether there was another option. Why do you feel that it's no longer an incentive? Under the ACA, middle-class citizens and above will still have to pay for their health insurance in the private sector if they don't get it from their employer...so companies cutting health insurance plans will still be essentially cutting their compensation packages, which should be as bad for hiring as it ever was.
If the $5k higher salary covers (or more than covers) buying private health insurance of the same level as the health insurance the company was offering, that doesn't seem like a problem. In fact, that seems like a potentially positive outcome...I'm not sure it's the greatest system to have health insurance tied to employer. If it doesn't, then their employees will still correctly see it as a pay cut and we're back to "companies could have cut health insurance long ago if they were okay with the results of cutting compensation."
Actually, no. If you're healthy and just use insurance for a couple of office visits a year, which MOST people (and by far) do, they'll see it as $400+ a month extra pay and they'll still have "free" office visits.
The point of health insurance is generally not the per-year money the individual consumes via health care. It's to cover them if they get something like cancer or suffer an accident that leads to extremely costly care/surgery and that sort of thing. What you're essentially claiming is that most people don't understand that and will look at the loss of health insurance and extra salary instead as "free money for nothing" which I think is way off-base and proven wrong by the fact that unions have often fought hard for health insurance as part of compensation. Unless the salary compensation is approximately the same as the cost of the health insurance being cut, I think most people will see it as an effective pay cut.
Minstrel, I like you, but you lost the debate on the "semantics" approach. Now that we're in the weeds, though, the real punitive nature of the HC bill will become obvious. I do give credit to Obama for signing onto a plan that will effectively destroy the private insurance industry in a bad economy. No more doctors amputating feet for $50k!! Those greedy fucking doctors ... ifff .... ummm ... modify ... errr ... [video=youtube;SG56B2et4M8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG56B2et4M8[/video]
I'm not really sure what you're claiming here, but you are, as ever, entitled to your opinion. Also, I've always liked you, too.
The cost of catastrophic (only) health insurance is the cheapest of all insurance available. It's even cheaper if you go with a $10K deductable (sizable, but not enough to make you lose your home or life savings).
Yeah, I agree. I personally go with high deductible insurance for the lower premiums. For most people, catastrophic is what I think society should guarantee. There are, of course, people who aren't healthy (and often not through their own doing) and I think society should also guarantee the health care they need, whether they're rich or poor. I still haven't seen any particular reason why it should be believed that companies will start cutting health insurance without a compensating bump in salary. I don't think the ACA makes that more likely...in fact, I think it makes it less likely due to the penalty for doing so.
