Obamacare "Tax" Upheld by Supreme Court

Whatever it might be, I don't abuse the useage nor do I expect anyone else to provide it & I'm not even going to comment on that last part except to ask--how's that workin??

I like your drink theory Dan except the way it is now the bottom 4 are drinking for free the the top two are getting paid to drink & the middle are footing the bill.

The dilemma of the century might be that Obamacare forces the Occupy crowd (and their sympathizers) to make payments to the very same greedy corporations that they are protesting against.

Could it be that President Obama is outright owned by big business, and that (just as for the Federal Reserve Act and the big NY banks) the health care legislation itself was actually written by them?

lsayre wrote:Could it be that ... the health care legislation itself was actually written by [the insurance companies]?

When I buy a homeowner's or auto insurance policy, the policy form and the coverage are pretty well mandated by the state insurance commission. So the policies from different companies vary mostly in how much they cost, which engenders competition. I can pay vastly different amounts, for essentially the same coverage, depending which homeowner's or auto company I choose.

That is much less true of healthcare insurance, so the companies can give with the large print and take away with the small print. The Affordable Care Act is supposed to remedy that and make healthcare policies more standard like homeowner policies. I'm sure the ACA is not perfect, and I suspect the insurance companies had more input to the law than they should have (for both types of insurance), but it is still a significant improvement.

rberq wrote:That is much less true of healthcare insurance, so the companies can give with the large print and take away with the small print. The Affordable Care Act is supposed to remedy that and make healthcare policies more standard like homeowner policies. I'm sure the ACA is not perfect, and I suspect the insurance companies had more input to the law than they should have (for both types of insurance), but it is still a significant improvement.

Rather ironic though, that the 99% appears quite happy to be beholdened to the 1%. It's all in the packaging. Put a fascist twist to it, and capitalism is all good in their eyes. It's all in the level of control. The more the better.

rberq wrote:
That is much less true of healthcare insurance, so the companies can give with the large print and take away with the small print. The Affordable Care Act is supposed to remedy that and make healthcare policies more standard like homeowner policies. I'm sure the ACA is not perfect, and I suspect the insurance companies had more input to the law than they should have (for both types of insurance), but it is still a significant improvement.

If you want health insurance to be like all other insurance, why not remove the limit that it only be sold on a state by state basis?

Use the Commerce Clause like they do for everything from the water in your toilet to the alcohol in your blood.

Could it be that they don't WANT to make insurance easily available and portable across state lines?

Been this way before & HI could be sold across state lines if the Ins. Co.s want to set up shop there & abide by state rules. Just like states have different rules & even some areas, would you really want the cheapest H. I. possible? http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... tate-lines

samhill wrote:Been this way before & HI could be sold across state lines if the Ins. Co.s want to set up shop there & abide by state rules. Just like states have different rules & even some areas, would you really want the cheapest H. I. possible? http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... tate-lines

Setting up shop in every state isn't selling insurance across state lines.

Look at a company like esurance. They are an online auto insurance provider. I'm not sure they have an office anywhere.

As to what I'm willing to pay for health insurance, maybe I want the cheapest, maybe I don't. But I'd like the choice.

What I really want is a major medical plan and pay cash for everything else.

Nearly 10% of companies intend to drop all employee health care coverage in about 2 years. And 10% more aren't sure. Only 81% plan to continue offering health care insurance.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/ins ... -coverage/

jpete wrote:What I really want is a major medical plan and pay cash for everything else.

Exactly! Me too. I pretty much have it now through my job with a HSA-qualified high deductible plan. I know some people who have bought those plans with private insurance. Something approaching that is currently available as Medicare Supplement Plan F/high deductible. Don't know if it will be an option under the ACA to non-Medicare-age people.

Edit: A little Internet research seems to indicate that the ACA will have high-deductible options that also allow an HSA. I didn't get too far into the details. Not exactly a major medical plan, but it's not too far off. Ideally each family/individual would be permitted to choose their own deductible based on their own finances, within reasonable limits. (Yeah, I know, what's "reasonable"?)

I have heard conflicting reports as to whether HSA's were going to be available under Obamacare.

jpete wrote:I have heard conflicting reports as to whether HSA's were going to be available under Obamacare.

Obamacare. ACA. You say tomato, I say tomahto.
By now it should not be a matter of "conflicting reports", the information should be available. Like I said, I have only researched it minimally, since I will fall under the Medicare rules about the same time ACA becomes effective.

rberq wrote:

jpete wrote:I have heard conflicting reports as to whether HSA's were going to be available under Obamacare.

Obamacare. ACA. You say tomato, I say tomahto.
By now it should not be a matter of "conflicting reports", the information should be available. Like I said, I have only researched it minimally, since I will fall under the Medicare rules about the same time ACA becomes effective.

I'd have to believe the ACA has anything to do with "affordable care" first, and I don't.

Truth be told, the Kaiser Family Foundation probably had as much to do with writing this legislation than anybody else so the are probably as good a source as any.

Exclude the costs for over-the-counter drugs not prescribed by a doctor from being reimbursed through an HRA or health FSA and from being reimbursed on a tax-free basis through an HSA or Archer Medical Savings Account. (Effective January 1, 2011)
• Increase the tax on distributions from a health savings account or an Archer MSA that are not used for qualified medical expenses to 20% (from 10% for HSAs and from 15% for Archer MSAs) of the disbursed amount. (Effective January 1, 2011)
• Limit the amount of contributions to a flexible spending account for medical expenses

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf

So they won't be eliminated, they'll just eliminate all the parts that made them attractive. Sound like what the Kaiser's did to health insurance in 1973. Which is how we got into this mess to begin with.

http://www.ahipcoverage.com/2011/03/09/ ... s-up-cost/

The provision, which went into effect January 1, restricts choices for consumers and increases paperwork for doctors. Together these consequences may create higher and unnecessary health care costs.

Shocking....

Wait until it's all free! My wife is an EMT and this happens all day every day.