Supreme Court Upholds "Obamacare!"

Post Reply New Topic

I trust that the boy who lied about the German pirates will point me at the particular term of use that I am violating.

I believe the statement to be factual and neutral. It's not intended as a personal attack, nor is it intended to ridicule you. Simply an observation that when attempting to justify the use of a symbol that is illegal in a number of countries where WP members access the site, you chose to lie about the existence of German pirates.

According to who? Cuba? Don't believe anything that comes out of Cuba, they are a Communist country that has a showcase healthcare system as a way of trying to justify it's murderous ideology to it's imprisoned people and useful idiots abroad. The fact of the matter is that Cuba is one of the poorest countries in the world, their numbers don't add up.

You are perfectly entitled to believe whatever you wish.

As are you but why anyone would trust the Castro's word on anything is a mystery to me. As all Communist dictatorships, they manipulate the truth for political reasons. The picture they paint is not of reality.

You know, visagrunt's not the only "Vancouver liberal" here. And you say it like it's supposed to be some sort of insult, akin to "east coast/west coast liberal", I suppose. I'm rather weary of these petty, feeble epithets. I don't believe "liberal" is the slur you seem to think it, nor is "progressive". So what if I am these things? How exactly are my geographical location and my self-professed political beliefs supposed to be used against me? Being from Florida before moving here, I vote absentee in U.S. elections. My passport says I'm still an American. And believe it or not, I still self-identify as an American (or, at least, an American-Canadian). Would you presume to say I'm not a "real American" simply because I live in another country, or even the "wrong" part of the US? Give me a break. That doesn't even make sense as an insult.

However-- let's get something straight, Raptor, if you really wish to drag where visagrunt and I are from into the fray. I can laugh off the ineffectual namecalling, but the snide condescension crosses a personal line of mine. I have lived among Southerners for most of my life. I have seen firsthand how protective they may be of their homes and families and way of life, while those perceived as "outsiders" may never be invited into the fold. Such was the fate of me and my family, because we were not native Southerners. Be it by my own free will or the whim of fate, Vancouver is my home now; this is the place where I was finally accepted as I am, and where I have friends close enough to me that I truly see them as family. And if you think Southerners have a monopoly on being protective of their homes and families and way of life, I promise you, you're sorely mistaken.

Obesity is not one of their problems.

ruveyn

WOW!
Hope all that typing made you feel as good as it did me.

So how about the CIA factbook would you accept that as a reliable source?

A look at some leading health indicators:

Maternal mortality (deaths per 100,000 live births): CU: 53 (77th), US: 24 (52nd)
Infant mortality (deaths per 1,000 live births): CU: 4.83 (40th), US: 5.98 (49th)
Life expectancy at birth: CU: 77.87 (59th), US: 78.49 (50th)
Health expenditures (%'ge of GDP): CU: 11.8 (13th), US: 16.2 (2nd)
Physician density (per 1,000 population): CU: 6.399, US: 2.672
Hospital bed density (per 1,000 population): CU: 5.9, US: 3.1
HIV prevalence (%'ge): CU: 0.1% (50th), US: 0.6% (106th)
Obesity prevalence (%'ge): CU: 11.8% (21st), US: 33.9% (65th)

What does this tell us? Well it tells us that actually, Cuba and United States have comparable health outcomes. Cuba's infant mortality rate, obesity and HIV rates are better than the United States', but the United States' maternal mortality is lower. Life expectancy is pretty comparable, but the US has a slight edge.

But look at the middle fourth, fifth and sixth statistics: Cuba accomplishes these outcomes while spending less of its GDP on health (they spend more on education than on health, incidentally), and yet providing 2.5 times as many doctors and nearly twice as many hospital beds as the United States. And bear in mind that those health expenditures in Cuba are public expenditures, while the US figure includes the out of pocket spending by individual patients or by their insurers.

Neither you nor ArrantPariah have go the story straight--but you should not be too smug about the success of your health care system.

I didn't read through all of these pages, i just wanted to say i am totally against OBAMACARE and i feel that this IS A TAX no matter how much it is being said that it isn't. If i can't afford health care on my own, what right is it of our government to force me to buy it or pay a fine and have them seize my bank accounts and whatever else they may do to get that money out of me. there is no way you can convince me that this is not a tax. if you are going to pay for it one way or another IT IS A TAX!! !!

here are some things i found on facebook i wanted to share and share the same feelings i have towards OBAMACARE!

The spelling needs work

Those at the lowest income levels receive heavily government subsidized plans. That figure is from a reputable source, the Kaiser family foundation, that provides a projection of 133% of the poverty level in 2014 at 15,300, and provides the information on how much the government will subsidize plans at that lowest income level above medicaid insured individuals making less that 15,300, and what those premiums will be.

http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

One can double check the information by putting in the numbers, but in 2014 at 15,400 for a 21 year old individual they are projected to pay $470 a year, which is $18 bi-weekly. The government tax credit provided is $2921. There are maximum income percentages set for what one has to pay based on their income level. In this case it is 3.05%.

Perhaps the worse place people find themselves in is at age 60, even healthy, with a minimum wage job, the health care costs are immense. In this case the government will provide a $9702 subsidy, at the $15,400 income level, with a premium still limited to 3.05% of income. Whereas ordinarily an individual at this age and income could never afford a $10,000 insurance policy for a good full coverage policy; the government will provide the ability to afford a good full coverage policy starting in 2014.

This is a huge benefit to both ends of the age spectrum of single individuals on the minimum wage schedule and below. The benefits for families are much greater.

A public option or Universal health care plan would certainly bring down costs for everyone, but even this first step toward affordable, accessible health care for all, required almost a miracle to pass in congress, as well, in part, a sacrifice of some political careers.

There was not much doubt from the get go that a tax penalty was masked as a mandate, to allow the coverage to have any potential to get passed, even with the democrats in control . There would have been zero chance that it would have passed if the proper term tax penalty had been used instead of mandate penalty.

I didn't type it up, i just copied it, it still conveys how i feel about OBAMACARE and OBAMA himself.

this "help" still excludes me, my family and me have always made "too much" to get help but "not enough" to make ends meet so this still means that I will be penalized for being stuck in the middle, not being able to afford health insurance and still having to fork out this TAX because i didn't fulfill my "requirement" to have health insurance.

No. Where do you think the CIA is getting it's data? It's not collecting it itself, it's merely data collected by other sources. The same that are manipulated by the Cuban government which obviously has an interest in a rosy portrayal of itself. The same can be said about government statistics in a lot of countries.

And no, I am not smug about the success of our healthcare system. It has its problems, mainly costs, and I don't think Obama's reforms do anything to fix this and actually will make things worse for the vast majority of Americans.

The government is not requiring anyone to purchase health insurance that cannot reasonably afford it. There are multiple provisions within the law, that insures no one faces undue financial hardship as a result of the tax penalty, if one chooses not to purchase health insurance.

However, if it is determined that there is no financial hardship, it is not unlike any other tax increase, per the tax code that governs collection of taxes; it is a responsibility as an American citizen.

Before you come to the conclusion that you can't afford, it, I suggest that you put your financial information into the subsidy calculator, linked in my last post, that projects one's costs. You may find that your projected premiums may be as little as zero dollars, and your worries may not be warranted by the facts as they exist.

If you are in a family of four, making the national median income of approximately $47,000, in 2014, your bi-weekly premiums are projected as less than $115, or under $3000 annually, with a subsidy from the government of well over $9,000. That is in comparison to the average premium now, for a family in the US of close to $14,000 a year. $115 every two weeks is a bargain compared to $538 every two weeks.

If you live in a family of 4 making under the projected 133% limit of poverty of 31,100, in 2014, the entire family qualifies for medicaid which requires no monthly premiums, and modest out of pocket costs depending on which state one lives in.

And as detailed in my previous post, a single individual projected as making less than $15,300 is covered by medicaid, pays no monthly premium, and faces at most modest out of pocket costs, for services, depending on which state one lives in. And a person that makes higher than that limit at $15,400 pays only approximately $18 bi-weekly or $470 annually for a full coverage policy.

There is the potential that some states may forgo 100% subsidized medicaid coverage from the federal government, but it is seriously unlikely that any state is going to turn this down based strictly on fiscal responsibility, and if the decision is based strictly on politics, it would be an evidenced inhumane political action toward those individuals in that state that might be suffering from a chronic illness because of lack of access to treatments provided by healthcare.

The supreme court has determined it is a tax, and it was set up to be collected as a tax per existing tax code that enforce excise taxes, even when it was masked as a mandate penalty through rhetoric, which was the only way it could have been passed.

But, your facts as they are presented are incorrect per the law that governs the collection of excise taxes, that apply to the collection of the tax penalty for health care.

Per that tax code the government can impose no criminal penalties, liens or levies, as described below per the law, by an organization that gets the facts right. The government cannot seize your bank account because the tax laws that govern the tax penalty do not allow the government the authority to do that.

The most the IRS can do per the law, if they choose to, is to double an evaded tax and sue for it. That money will not be collected by liens or levies, as specified below. The money can be collected through tax refunds or government provided funds like the recent stimulus checks that were sent out to Americans, a few years back.

There are percentage limits of what the government requires of people to pay for premiums, and if there is an evidenced financial hardship one can apply for a waiver of exemption for purchasing health insurance, as evidenced below, updated as of yesterday by the factcheck.org site.

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/how-much-is-the-obamacare-tax/

The government's idea of "financial hardship" and reality are two completely different things.

Also making an exemption for only certain religious groups is playing favorites.
Shouldn't someone doesn't belong to a particular church also qualify? I guess personal spiritual beliefs don't count.