 New link in the top of page "IRC Chat". |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album |
|
| | ||
New link in the top of page "IRC Chat". |
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in Debate Shrine. |
| Xeogaming Forums - Debate Shrine - Obama care considered unconstitutional is now a tax |
 |  |  |
| Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
True Flight The One         Since: 08-21-04 Since last post: 99 days Last activity: 99 days |
| ||
| .... So who here is feeling a bit upset about this? You're talking 95.00 a year per person which will cap in three years to 2500.00 a year. Also how is this taxation with representation?
Just so you guys know be sure to get on insurance because in 2014 your returns are going to be taxed 95.00 and each year it's going to raise til it caps out. |
|||
Elara Divine Mamkute Dark Elf Goddess Chaos Imp Penguins Fan Ms. Invisable  Since: 08-15-04 From: Ferelden Since last post: 99 days Last activity: 99 days |
| ||
| Um... I am assuming that this is a dead thread now considering the actual ruling of the SCOTUS was that it was Constitutional?
Also, it seems that you've been getting some biased information that is not giving you the entire story. Since it seems that you've been getting your info from either Fox News or CNN (both of whom reported that the law was struck down), here are some actual facts about the Affordable Care Act and how it will actually work and affect you: 1. By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates (pdf) the Affordable Care Act will have extended coverage to 33 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured. Here’s the graph: 
2. Families making less than 133 percent of the poverty line — that’s about $29,000 for a family of four — will be covered through Medicaid. Between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line — $88,000 for a family of four – families will get tax credits on a sliding scale to help pay for private insurance. 3. For families making less than 400 percent of the poverty line, premiums are capped. So, between 150% and 200% of the poverty line, for instance, families won’t have to pay more than 6.3 percent of their income in premiums. Between 300 percent and 400 percent, they won’t have to pay more than 9.5 percent. This calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation will let you see the subsidies and the caps for different families at different income levels. 4. When the individual mandate is fully phased-in, those who can afford coverage — which is defined as insurance costing less than 8 percent of their annual income — but choose to forgo it will have to pay either $695 or 2.5 percent of the annual income, whichever is greater. 5. Small businesses that have fewer than 10 employees, average wages beneath $25,000, and that provide insurance for their workers will get a 50 percent tax credit on their contribution. The tax credit reaches up to small businesses with up to 50 employees and average wages of $50,000, though it gets smaller as the business get bigger and richer. The credit lasts for two years, though many think Congress will be pressured to extend it, which would raise the long-term cost of the legislation. 6. Insurance companies are not allowed to discriminated based on preexisting conditions. They are allowed to discriminate based “on age (limited to 3 to 1 ratio), premium rating area, family composition, and tobacco use (limited to 1.5. to 1 ratio).” 7. Starting in 2018, the law imposes a 35 percent tax on employer-provided health plans that exceed $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. The idea is a kind of roundabout second-best to capping the tax code’s (currently unlimited) deduction for employer-provided heath insurance. The policy idea is to give employers that much more reason to avoid expensive insurance policies and thus give insurers that much more reason to hold costs down. 8. The law requires insurers to spend between 80 and 85 percent of every premium dollar on medical care (as opposed to administration, advertising, etc). If insurers exceed this threshold, they have to rebate the excess to their customers. This policy is already in effect, and insurers are expected to rebate $1.1 billion this year. 9. The law is expected to spend a bit over $1 trillion in the next 10 years. The law’s spending cuts — many of which fall on Medicare — and tax increases are expected to either save or raise a bit more than that, which is why the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will slightly reduce the deficit. (There’s been some confusion on this point lately, but no, the CBO has not changed its mind about this.) As time goes on, the savings are projected to grow more quickly than the spending, and CBO expects that the law will cut the deficit by around a trillion dollars in its second decade. Here’s its graph, which covers the period between 2012 and 2021: 
10. In recent years, health-care costs have slowed dramatically. Much of this is likely due to the recession. Some of it may just be chance. But there’s also evidence that the law has accelerated changes in the way the medical system delivers care, as providers prepare for the law’s efforts to move from fee-for-service to quality-based payments. 11. The law’s long-term success at controlling costs will likely hinge on its efforts to change the way health care is delivered, most of which have gotten very little attention. They include everything from encouraging Accountable Care Organizations to spreading medical homes to penalizing hospitals with high rates of preventable infections to creating an independent board able to quickly implement new reforms through the Medicare system. A partial list of these efforts can be found in the article link. Acknowledgements: This information comes from an article in the Washington Post written on 6/24/12 (Link to Article), which in turn drew its information from Kaiser Faimly Foundation's breakdown of the healthcare law. |
|||
Cteno Super Shotgun Moderator Since: 01-11-05 Since last post: 91 days Last activity: 89 days |
| ||
| One of the reasons why I'm for this reform -- I was in middle school and I had gotten pneumonia. My father was on his work's insurance for about 2-3 years at the time I had gotten sick. The insurance company decided not only to not help out with the medical bills but they also completely dropped us. That was the first time in that 2-3 year period that we had even used the insurance.
With the reform, we won't be seeing underhanded crap like this anymore. If you pay for your insurance, one way or another, you damn well better receive it. |
|||
|
Elara Divine Mamkute Dark Elf Goddess Chaos Imp Penguins Fan Ms. Invisable Since: 08-15-04 From: Ferelden Since last post: 99 days Last activity: 99 days |
| ||
| I was denied coverage for a preexisting condition... being fat. Do you know how annoying and embarrassing that is? | |||
|
Rogue If you're reading this... You are the Resistance Since: 08-17-04 Since last post: 633 days Last activity: 442 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Elara If you're considered fat, I'm downright uninsurable. |
|||
|
Elara Divine Mamkute Dark Elf Goddess Chaos Imp Penguins Fan Ms. Invisable Since: 08-15-04 From: Ferelden Since last post: 99 days Last activity: 99 days |
| ||
| As far as Blue Shield is concerned at least. Blue Cross took me with no problem. | |||
|
Cteno Super Shotgun Moderator Since: 01-11-05 Since last post: 91 days Last activity: 89 days |
| ||
Trust me, I know the feeling. Even now, after I've lost ~90 pounds since last year, I'm still considered obese by BMI -- a terrible system that doesn't account for muscle or dense bone, both of which I have. Unfortunately, that's the only system that physicians use.  |
|||
Katana Dark Wizard \"She said tonight...come on come on collide...see what I fire feels like..I bet its just like heaven.\"  Since: 08-15-04 From: Philadelphia, P.A. Since last post: 1554 days Last activity: 1372 days |
| ||
| The whole "pre-existing condition" thing is bullshit. I wasn't up for coverage with my job until this month, but I had a mild heart attack back in April. Thing is, I have PCOS, and PCOS fucks with your heart, your insulin/sugar levels, shit like that (Explains why I would be diabetic "sometimes" and have heart problems "sometimes" as a kid/teenager, actually.) so I couldn't get coverage or a little extra help back then, even though, let's just say my household makes less than 25 grand a year. Much less.
We obviously need healthcare reform. We are an unhealthy country, albeit there being a lot of discord over whether or not it is our fault with the individual choices we make...but I'm wondering... Elara, you've been studying history for like...ever....right? What kind of history did you cover and what's your specialty? "Unconstitutional" (or not) is a popular topic in this debate. I'd rather simplify for the moment and focus on what history can help define as constitutional or not. Your opinion would be pretty damned helpful. |
|||
|
Elara Divine Mamkute Dark Elf Goddess Chaos Imp Penguins Fan Ms. Invisable Since: 08-15-04 From: Ferelden Since last post: 99 days Last activity: 99 days |
| ||
| American history was one of my areas of emphasis (the other being ancient)
Unconstitutional is a term that gets thrown around a lot when it should not be. The Constitution has guidelines set out that detail the powers of the federal government and what it can and cannot do... what powers belong to the states, when the federal government can override those, etc. It also has the amendments to the Constitution, starting with the well-known Bill of Rights. These add additional rules to the government or alter something that is no longer applicable (such as the 13th Amendment declaring slavery abolished to correct rules about slaves in the Constitution, or the 14th and 19th amendments giving the right to vote to non-white men, and all women). That all being said, when something is ruled to be Unconstitutional, it is because it directly violates the laws of the Constitution or is incongruent with the spirit of those laws. For example, the Watergate scandal that forced Nixon to resign involved illegal wiretapping... they had no warrant or probable cause to get a warrant, therefore the recordings violated the Constitutional rights of those people. This reform law doesn't violate the constitution because nothing in the wording violates any of the laws because there is no law saying you cannot regulate an industry... and there is precedent for doing so (the antitrust laws, bank regulation, tobacco and alcohol regulation, labor laws, etc) |
|||
|
Katana Dark Wizard \"She said tonight...come on come on collide...see what I fire feels like..I bet its just like heaven.\" Since: 08-15-04 From: Philadelphia, P.A. Since last post: 1554 days Last activity: 1372 days |
| ||
| **nods** I get that. But a statement like that can be easily challenged. I agree with you, nut I could come up with a few challenges to that, saying that this bill is still is unconstitutional. Which, I'm 100% sure that you could too. Devil's advocacy is key to enlightenment sometimes. :p
I've been on a crusade to use history to prove or disprove reasoning just like that. People making claims, any claims, not just this, and on all sides of those claims, depend on the people they're appealing to to be uneducated on the topic. Well, fuck that...and just because I feel one way about something doesn't mean I should stop there and not bother to educate myself on what my opposition thinks, and why they think it. But no one's doing that it seems. They're either saying it is constitutional, supporting it with a brief explanation and some modern examples, or they're doing the same thing, but saying its unconstitutional. My opinion? We're spoiled in this day and age and we want things our way, all the time, no matter how short term they may be. Those saying this is unconstitutional seem to not want to give something of their's up. But before I could tell them they "should" I want to respect their opinions by at the very LEAST having solid proof of it being in fact a good thing, and not just trying to take their freedom. And that's what paying attention to actual historical events will help do. Science can talk about how improving our health is beneficial, and can give us WAYS to improve our system. But history will help us understand how to actually do it. Edit: Do I make any sense? Holy shit. (Last edited by Katana on 08-25-12 12:39 PM) |
|||
|
Elara Divine Mamkute Dark Elf Goddess Chaos Imp Penguins Fan Ms. Invisable Since: 08-15-04 From: Ferelden Since last post: 99 days Last activity: 99 days |
| ||
| I think at this point, since the Supreme Court has upheld it, it's really hard to say it is unconstitutional... since that is kinda what a Supreme Court ruling decides... but I get what you mean. And yes, Devil's advocate is a good learning tool. I also totally agree with you... but it is very true that you can show facts and history until you are blue in the face but there are still many people who will just ignore you because they don't want to believe the truth. People don't have conversations or debates anymore... they just yell. | |||
|
Katana Dark Wizard \"She said tonight...come on come on collide...see what I fire feels like..I bet its just like heaven.\" Since: 08-15-04 From: Philadelphia, P.A. Since last post: 1554 days Last activity: 1372 days |
| ||
| Absolutely. Maybe its because I'm still pretty young and definitely cocky, but when it comes to the two types of people to get through to, the opposition who has intellectual backing at least, and the opposition who just scream and yell, like you said....the screamers are scary because they get the most exposure, and even though it may be bad exposure for the individual, it's good exposure for their cause. **cough**teaparty**cough** And that can be difficult to beat...but at that point, since reason isn't going to work, I've always just went with the "Well, lets see who's a better salesperson here."
And even though the Supreme Court ruled for it...there's still opposition and they're still going to work their magic as much as possible. And let them. That's what this country is about. But I dunno...Obama is the first one to take a piss on this third rail, to this caliber, in a long time. I'm not a crazy fan of his, and that's a different subject, but no matter what side I'm on, I'm partially just excited to see this happening. |
| Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Xeogaming Forums - Debate Shrine - Obama care considered unconstitutional is now a tax |
| |
