Questions on ACA

Discussion in 'Healthcare/Insurance/Govt Healthcare' started by Zoom-boing, Jun 29, 2012.

  1. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,061
    Thanks Received:
    7,260
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,120
    A few questions about ACA . . .

    Who, exactly, gets taxed? I've read and heard that only those who have chosen not to purchase insurance will get taxed. I've read and heard that most everyone will be taxed. Or by 'get taxed' is that referring to the trillions of dollars in taxes that are attached to ACA?

    Congress has the power to tax you . . . on your income, your bathing suit, your gasoline, etc. Yesterday's decision claims on one hand it reigns in government's over reach regarding the commerce clause in as far as government can not compel you to buy something. But on the other hand it gave government the power to tax you for not purchasing something. The government can tax you for not purchasing something . . . how isn't this related to commerce and how is taxing you for not purchasing something any different than fining you for not purchasing something? So . . . . what exactly changed? Can/does this give the government the power to tax you for not purchasing anything they deem as 'good for you' (maybe not now but someday soon and for the rest of your life)?

    Since Medicaid is already a government run insurance plan, why didn't they just add provisions to that like the pre-existing conditions, etc. and broaden who it covers? (I know, I know ... power grab).

    The original bill repeatedly said that not complying with purchasing insurance would result in a penalty/fine and the justices corrected the lawyers when the lawyers would call that penalty/fine a tax. Roberts turned around and called the penalty/fine a tax in order to let ACA stand. Huh? It wasn't a tax until the SC decided it was a tax?

    How is Obama going to spin the fact that he repeatedly said this was not a tax when in fact it was? When ACA originally passed I wondered 'how will they collect the fine'? It was always going to be via taxes, which is why they hired so many more IRS agents. Duh.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2012
  2. PixieStix
    Offline

    PixieStix Coal Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Messages:
    14,511
    Thanks Received:
    4,972
    Trophy Points:
    370
    Ratings:
    +5,259
    Yes
     
  3. Meister
    Offline

    Meister VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,900
    Thanks Received:
    8,099
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Conservative part of the Northwest
    Ratings:
    +8,100
    I think we will end up doing what Canada has done and just raise prices through taxes on fuel, liquor, etc. The price of this Bill has already increased in price from the time that the CBO got the first numbers and what those numbers are today.
    Probably down the road another president like Obama will sell the left on a VAT, and the courts will...well let's say "court" the idea.
     
  4. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,061
    Thanks Received:
    7,260
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,120
    Oh crap, I forgot all about VAT.

    We've managed to depress each other, M!
     
  5. BDBoop
    Offline

    BDBoop BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    35,385
    Thanks Received:
    4,998
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Don't harsh my zen, Jen!
    Ratings:
    +5,008
  6. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,061
    Thanks Received:
    7,260
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,120
  7. BDBoop
    Offline

    BDBoop BANNED

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    Messages:
    35,385
    Thanks Received:
    4,998
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Don't harsh my zen, Jen!
    Ratings:
    +5,008
  8. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,061
    Thanks Received:
    7,260
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,120
    The only question this answered was my first one.

    It does point out a whole lot of crap in the bill. Take pre-existing conditions ... according to the link: "Already in effect. It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them. ( Citation: Page 30, sec. 1101, Page 45, sec. 2704, and Page 46, sec. 2702)"

    then:

    "In 2014: No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history. ( Citation: Page 45, sec. 2704, Page 46, sec. 2701, and Page 57, sec. 1255)

    Why shouldn't people with pre-existing conditions pay a higher premium? They're more of a risk so they should pay more; as should smokers, as should obese, etc.

    Starting in 2014: "If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee (taxed). This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick."

    Trade-off for the pre-existing conditions? Bullshit. The amount of money they will collect via 'those who do not purchase and are taxed' will not be nearly enough to cover the high risk people.

    There's more but I'm too tired to go through it all right now.
     
  9. Greenbeard
    Offline

    Greenbeard Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    6,809
    Thanks Received:
    1,200
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    New England
    Ratings:
    +1,323
    If you're talking about the individual mandate, virtually no one. That's the idea. Are you looking for a more expansive answer?

    They did do that.


    The individual mandate is not a revenue raiser. It's a "trade-off" in the sense that it goes to the first point you made: it provides a mechanism for pricing risk such that someone can't avoid buying insurance until they get sick/injured (at which point they pay premiums rated not primarily on individual factors but on community factors) without consequence.

    In general, being a woman or having a weak heart or whatever will no longer affect your premium (though smoking will).
     
  10. Zoom-boing
    Offline

    Zoom-boing Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    25,061
    Thanks Received:
    7,260
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    East Japip
    Ratings:
    +10,120
    Thank you.

    #1 ... so all this 'tax' ruling etc is over 'virtually no one'? So companies that are getting taxed via aca will not pass on the cost to consumers?

    #2 .. unstated but implied was 'why didn't they just extend medicaid, etc. without a 2,000+ bill'?

    #3 ... high risk patients should pay more, not the same, as low/lower risk patients. Obese, diabetics, smokers, etc. are more of a risk so should pay higher premiums, not have it spread out among the rest of us (which is how I'm reading it).
     

Share This Page