need some answers on ACA opinion

[Jarod]

This thread may not be the place for this but my brother-in-law just turned 70, has been retired for 5 years and pays a little over $1000 per month in health insurance for himself and my sister. That is highway robbery to me. To me that is what needs to be addressed.

He does not have Medicare?

 

[christiefan915]

This thread may not be the place for this but my brother-in-law just turned 70, has been retired for 5 years and pays a little over $1000 per month in health insurance for himself and my sister. That is highway robbery to me. To me that is what needs to be addressed.

Pretty sure that it's being addressed by the ACA. I'm sorry to hear they're being hit with such a high premium, it's unconscionable.

 

[leaningright]

He does not have Medicare?

Yes he does but it doesn't cover several things that need to be covered. Both he and my sister are very healthy as well. I would hate to see what the premiums would be for those not as healthy.

 

[Jarod]

Yes he does but

So he is paying $1000 for the Gap insurance? That must be some more kinda policy. He should shop around, my mother has good gap insurance and pays something around $278 a month. She is 78,

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

SF - The ACA does not demand that future Congresses do anything. The ACA makes the cuts. The cuts are the law. The cuts will happen unless the law is changed, which is always a possibility with any legislation.

Yes and the current laws in place prior to the ACA put into law the same type of cuts to Medicare. Which meant that future Congress's had to be the ones in office as Medicare payment cuts were made. Which causes doctors to refuse to see Medicare patients. Which causes voters to get pissed at Congress, which causes Congress to put in place doc fixes. You can pretend all you want that this scenario hasn't already played out. You can pretend all you want that the cuts will happen. Here in reality, we know better.

In reality, until we address the reasons behind the ever rising health care costs in this country, the ACA is not going to reduce the deficit. It will increase it.

 

[Howey]

The reason the CBO shows it as a deficit reducer (at least a big part of the reason) is that within the ACA they demand future Congress's cut payments to Medicare doctors. Similar cuts in the past have been passed in legislation and every year since the Congress has implemented a doc fix to reinstate the amounts of the cuts. It is completely absurd to think that suddenly Congress will stop doing this. If they cut medicare payments to docs/hospitals, then more and more will refuse to take Medicare patients. Until the cost side of the equation is addressed, Congress will continue doing the doc fixes.

Kinda, sorta, but not. There's a lot of fraud out there and the administration's been working hard to identify it and get rid of it. This will continue to reduce the cost of Obamacare. As far as the physicians fees, what they've been paid is over and above the usual and customary. Like those $200 aspirins we hear about all the time. Those are the costs that will be reigned in. Some doctors already don't take Medicare patients because they're greedy. Fortunately, there's always more doctors out there more than willing, especially when processing payments is streamlined.

this will continue apparently, since some answers are making more questions, so here goes.

2) It those that cannot afford health insurance then get taxed, for which they then cannot afford the tax, their tax will simply be paid for by other taxpayers? will this then work for other forms of taxes? For instance, can I get other taxpayers to subsidize my property taxes?

It's been explained on here several times what will happen when someone can't pay the penalty. Starting new threads or ignoring the correct responses doesn't negate the truth. "Other taxpayers" don't pay the penalty, so your lame comparison to property tax is a fail over and above the fact that owning property isn't a right and property taxes go to the state, not the federal government, but nice try.

Its a tax, no matter how the liberals spin it.

aren't taxes and penalties two different things?

The IRS is tasked by the government to collect money. Some is taxes, some isn't. That's where this falls in. The IRS collects penalties when you don't pay your taxes, is that considered another tax? No. The IRS collects repayments of the Bush homeowner stimulus from 2008. Is that another tax? No.

Here's another way to look at it. Say you own rental properties, financed through your bank. Do you use the bank or a management company to collect rent on those properties or do you use your gardener to collect the money? The government uses a resource it already has to collect penalties, etc.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1) A rose is a rose is a rose. What you call it is not what is important, what it is, is what is important, and the law creates a tax for those who chose not to have insurance.

so the wording of a law is not important, only the intent of the law?

2) The Supreme Court ruled that such a tax is within the taxing authority of the USA.

so the end result is that the federal government now has unlimited power to compel activity or inactivity by applying a tax to activity or inactivity?

3) The bill itself accounts for that by not imposing the penalty on those making less than a certian amount.

please explain.

 

[Howey]

The reason the CBO shows it as a deficit reducer (at least a big part of the reason) is that within the ACA they demand future Congress's cut payments to Medicare doctors. Similar cuts in the past have been passed in legislation and every year since the Congress has implemented a doc fix to reinstate the amounts of the cuts. It is completely absurd to think that suddenly Congress will stop doing this. If they cut medicare payments to docs/hospitals, then more and more will refuse to take Medicare patients. Until the cost side of the equation is addressed, Congress will continue doing the doc fixes.

But the CBO can only score what it is provided. The ACA calls for the cuts and thus the CBO must score it as if those cuts will happen. The democrats knew this which is why they put it in the bill. The party parrots then repeat the chant that the ACA will lower costs and refuse to discuss the history of Congress and past medicare payment cuts. People like Dung just start chanting 'the doc fixes have nothing to do with the ACA and therefore I will pretend they do not exist'.

He does not have Medicare?

He's probably got Medicare with Part B and a supplemental policy. The supplemental policy is what's ripping him off. It's for profit and at their age, they have preexisting conditions, so they're paying through the roof. Obamacare will fix that in 2014.

 

[Jarod]

so the wording of a law is not important, only the intent of the law?


so the end result is that the federal government now has unlimited power to compel activity or inactivity by applying a tax to activity or inactivity?

please explain.

1) The wording is only important in as much as its pratical effect. Meaning that if you simply go through a bill that creates a tax and change out the word "penalty" for the word "tax", it is still a tax as long as it has the same affect as a tax. The bill will be treated for what it intends to create, not for the semantics used.

2) I dont belvie that the power is unlimited, but I dont know where that limit is. Of corse it is always limited by elections and the people's vote. If a tax is created that enough people do not like, the people who supported it can be voted out.

3) I dont remember the math, but people and families making less than something like 125% above poverty level are exempt from the penalty.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yes and the current laws in place prior to the ACA put into law the same type of cuts to Medicare. Which meant that future Congress's had to be the ones in office as Medicare payment cuts were made. Which causes doctors to refuse to see Medicare patients. Which causes voters to get pissed at Congress, which causes Congress to put in place doc fixes. You can pretend all you want that this scenario hasn't already played out. You can pretend all you want that the cuts will happen. Here in reality, we know better.

In reality, until we address the reasons behind the ever rising health care costs in this country, the ACA is not going to reduce the deficit. It will increase it.

But the ACA does reduce the deficit. The deficit will only increase if Congress decides to undo the ACA.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1) The wording is only important in as much as its pratical effect. Meaning that if you simply go through a bill that creates a tax and change out the word "penalty" for the word "tax", it is still a tax as long as it has the same affect as a tax. The bill will be treated for what it intends to create, not for the semantics used.

ok, so if a law is written that the exact wording specifically states a person is prohibited from carrying a handgun on, or around, the person, but you change out handgun for any gun, then and since the intent of the law was to prohibit anyone from carrying a gun, then even though the exact wording doesn't prohibit someone from carrying a rifle or shotgun, they are still in violation of the law?

2) I dont belvie that the power is unlimited, but I dont know where that limit is. Of corse it is always limited by elections and the people's vote. If a tax is created that enough people do not like, the people who supported it can be voted out.

so even though supreme court precedent specifically states that a tax may not be imposed upon the exercise of a right, the congress can still tax that right and if people don't like it, they just vote in a new congress? no redress through the courts?

3) I dont remember the math, but people and families making less than something like 125% above poverty level are exempt from the penalty.

so people or families that make less than whatever amount is dictated by the law, don't need to bother buying insurance?

 

[Damocles]

But the ACA does reduce the deficit. The deficit will only increase if Congress decides to undo the ACA.

Or if, as SF said, they decide to do "doc fixes" so that doctors won't refuse medicare patients. It is the costs and not the coverage we need to address in order to stop a fiscal train wreck.

 

[Bonestorm]

ok, so if a law is written that the exact wording specifically states a person is prohibited from carrying a handgun on, or around, the person, but you change out handgun for any gun, then and since the intent of the law was to prohibit anyone from carrying a gun, then even though the exact wording doesn't prohibit someone from carrying a rifle or shotgun, they are still in violation of the law?

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. The issue isn't what the law calls the tax/penalty, but whether the tax/penalty fits the constitutional definition of a "tax." So Congress can call it whatever the hell it wants, but if it fits the definition of a "tax" within the meaning of the Constitution, then it's a tax for purposes of assessing Congressional authority to enact.

 

[Bonestorm]

Or if, as SF said, they decide to do "doc fixes" so that doctors won't refuse medicare patients. It is the costs and not the coverage we need to address in order to stop a fiscal train wreck.

The ACA reduces the deficit if Congress lets it.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

But the ACA does reduce the deficit. The deficit will only increase if Congress decides to undo the ACA.

Ok Dung... keep on chanting.

 

[Bonestorm]

Ok Dung... keep on chanting.

I'm just explaining reality to you. Your complaint is that the ACA doesn't cut the deficit because future Congresses might undo the deficit-cutting measures that are in the ACA. It's asinine. Your grievance isn't with the ACA but with future Congresses.

 

[Jarod]

ok, so if a law is written that the exact wording specifically states a person is prohibited from carrying a handgun on, or around, the person, but you change out handgun for any gun, then and since the intent of the law was to prohibit anyone from carrying a gun, then even though the exact wording doesn't prohibit someone from carrying a rifle or shotgun, they are still in violation of the law?

so even though supreme court precedent specifically states that a tax may not be imposed upon the exercise of a right, the congress can still tax that right and if people don't like it, they just vote in a new congress? no redress through the courts?

so people or families that make less than whatever amount is dictated by the law, don't need to bother buying insurance?

1) I belvieve that is different because clearly the word "handgun" is a subclass of "gun", but the Court found in the case of the ACA, the word "penalty" was used as a synonym of the word "tax". The result of the law, even with the word "penalty" had the exact same effect as if the word tax had been used. No matter how you dress it up, the way penalty is used here is a tax, according to the Court.

2) I dont think that is the logical extension of this ruling. First what right has this ACA imposed a tax upon? I belive you would have gotten a different result if the Congress had tried to impose a tax on a failure to recite the pledge of alegence, because of the enumerated right to free speech in the First Amendment.

3) They wont be penalized/taxed for not buying insurance.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. The issue isn't what the law calls the tax/penalty, but whether the tax/penalty fits the constitutional definition of a "tax." So Congress can call it whatever the hell it wants, but if it fits the definition of a "tax" within the meaning of the Constitution, then it's a tax for purposes of assessing Congressional authority to enact.

you can't have your cake and eat it too. either the words of a law mean something, or they don't and it's just the intent. how is that the wrong perspective?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1) I belvieve that is different because clearly the word "handgun" is a subclass of "gun", but the Court found in the case of the ACA, the word "penalty" was used as a synonym of the word "tax". The result of the law, even with the word "penalty" had the exact same effect as if the word tax had been used. No matter how you dress it up, the way penalty is used here is a tax, according to the Court.

as I had asked earlier then, how are we the people supposed to know what the law says, so that we may comply, unless the words of the law actually mean something? or are we supposed to know what their intent is?

2) I dont think that is the logical extension of this ruling. First what right has this ACA imposed a tax upon? I belive you would have gotten a different result if the Congress had tried to impose a tax on a failure to recite the pledge of alegence, because of the enumerated right to free speech in the First Amendment.

before this ruling, did we not have the right to determine what we buy and what we do not buy?

3) They wont be penalized/taxed for not buying insurance.

then the mandate really doesn't mean anything if it doesn't mandate the purchase for all, does it?

 

[Bonestorm]

you can't have your cake and eat it too. either the words of a law mean something, or they don't and it's just the intent. how is that the wrong perspective?

Yes, the words of the law mean something but the Supreme Court decides if the words of the law fall within the scope of the terms of the Constitution.

Let's try it this way. Pretend that Congress writes a law that said that all "boomsticks" are illegal and defines "boomsticks" to include any firearm imaginable. On review, the Court is well within its powers to say that the term "boomsticks" falls within the meaning of the term "arms" for purposes of testing the constitutionality of the anti-boomstick law. It wouldn't say that the Constitution doesn't mention "boomsticks" so Congress is free to regulate them as it wishes.

So like when Congress says something is a "penalty," the Court is well within its powers in saying that the "penalty" falls within the meaning of "tax" for purposes of testing the statute's constitutionality.