Seeking Alpha

The Supreme Court healthcare opinion: The individual mandate survives as a tax. You can read the...

The Supreme Court healthcare opinion: The individual mandate survives as a tax. You can read the full opinion here.
Comments (88)
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    However, it was not 'a tax'.

     

    Is the Supreme Court now writing legislation?
    28 Jun 2012, 10:18 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12770) | Send Message
     
    Activist courts have been ignoring their legal mandates and "writing" legislation ever since FDR. No change there. The SC just confirmed it, yet again.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:12 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5349) | Send Message
     
    You can kiss your healthcare good bye. In 2 to 3 years employers will start dumping their employees onto the national exchanges, and you and I will find ourselves in a DMVish type line trying to figure out why we have been deleted from the system but still keep getting charged for premiums that we can never make claims on.
    28 Jun 2012, 10:22 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3138) | Send Message
     
    But isn't that what the Obama administration argued that it was not???

     

    Can't have your cake and eat it too. Obama just passed one of the biggest "tax" increases in US history.

     

    http://abcn.ws/MALyYl
    28 Jun 2012, 10:26 AM Reply Like
  • com58
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    If you think this is big just wait till you see the energy tax we will have to pay as Obama drives back to the Stone Age.
    28 Jun 2012, 10:46 AM Reply Like
  • Mad_Max_A_Million
    , contributor
    Comments (1175) | Send Message
     
    Millions of young Obama voters that hoped they would not be penalized by opting out, now know that they will be penalized (I mean taxed ) by their man Barack. Can't be good for Barack???
    Even crime wouldn't pay if it was managed by the Federal Government...
    28 Jun 2012, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • anonymous#12
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
     
    RomneyCare was made constitutional today....
    28 Jun 2012, 09:08 PM Reply Like
  • Spin
    , contributor
    Comments (244) | Send Message
     
    You voted for change; now, you've got it...
    28 Jun 2012, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • torahislife
    , contributor
    Comments (400) | Send Message
     
    Makes me sick.
    28 Jun 2012, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • Truthiness
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    Well, now you will have healthcare.
    28 Jun 2012, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5349) | Send Message
     
    This is also going to create a bubble in the insurance industry. First it will drastically increase their earnings, but as the subsidies for consumption kick in, soon claims will overpower what they can charge in premiums, and in 5 yrs or so we will have bailouts for the insurance carriers. Then it will be proclaimed that free markets have failed with regards to health insurers, and they must be nationalized. The Supreme Court will uphold this nationalization as a "tax", and presto the single payer system that was always desired will be in place.

     

    When you call to complain about the type of health care you receive, you will receive a similar experience that you get when you call the IRS with a problem.

     

    The trick now for the productive people will be how to start avoiding the US system. You will want to take advantage of the subsidies as much as you can, but then when it starts deteriorating, you when will want find a way to get the same sort of care elected officials and their advocates have access to but not the average citizen.
    28 Jun 2012, 10:34 AM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2575) | Send Message
     
    "When you call to complain about the type of health care you receive, you will receive a similar experience that you get when you call the IRS with a problem."

     

    Not that I buy your version of how this will play out but have you ever actually called the IRS? They're surprisingly easy to work -- certainly easier than my health insurer's billing office. Once I even sent them a hand written note in response to an official adjustment to my taxes. I pointing out to them that their instructions were unclear and said I should be able to rely on the apparent reading of their own instructions. I didn't really expect that to succeed but it did. They agreed and I received a letter in a couple weeks telling me the adjustment had been dropped. I phone the IRS from time to time asking for help and clarification and have always received prompt service and useful information. I've also had them autonomously make adjustments in my favor and send me a check. (My taxes are extremely complicated and I do them myself after having been ripped off one too many times by accountants.) I can only wish that my health insurer were so easy to work with!
    28 Jun 2012, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    heh heh

     

    It has actually come to this. To defend the indefensible, we now have someone going to bat for the IRS, with 'excellent customer service no doubt', even while they're robbing you.

     

    Bwhahahaha.

     

    What's next?

     

    Hitler sure did 'hustle' as a bell hop?
    28 Jun 2012, 11:20 AM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2575) | Send Message
     
    Wyatt, I calls it as I sees it and refuse to lie for the sake of an ideology. It's easier to deal with the IRS than it is to deal with my insurer's billing dept. And that's a fact.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You're right. The IRS cashes the checks I send them faster than a blackhole bends light.

     

    Like an endless wind tunnel, just sucking in from the poor who subscribe to work.

     

    Very efficient, like a giant mouth attached to a never ending belly.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:34 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5349) | Send Message
     
    "certainly easier than my health insurer's billing office"

     

    Yes. Your state monopoly granted health insurer that doesn't have to compete for business. You are making my point for me.

     

    Your blind adherence to you ideology of tyranny can only be supported by you selected anectodal evidence. I can offer just as many counter examples. I know of several people right now that have had to wait for over a year for a refund that they finally received after months and months of phone calls where they had to wait over an hour each call just to talk to a human being.

     

    Look if you want to be a peasant that's fine, but when you require everyone to become a peasant, then that makes you a tyrannt.

     

    What's going to happen here is that the insurance companies will do well initially. Then the rising costs due to the subsidies for consumers and restrictions on supply will bankrupt the insurance carriers. Then the insurance carriers will be nationalized, and since the gov has done nothing about increasing the supply of care, the gov will start denying people care. After all, you can't dole out what you can't create.

     

    The trick now is to start thinking about ways to escape this system. Perhaps, offshore healthcare zones, setup by Americans on other sovereign soil. One thing that tyranny does is cause people to flee. We just have to figure out how that fleeing should manifest itself.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2575) | Send Message
     
    "Then the rising costs due to the subsidies for consumers and restrictions on supply will bankrupt the insurance carriers. "

     

    You've got it backwards. The hospital-financed subsidies that were forced by Reagan's EMTALA (http://bit.ly/Mrqz8u) just got replaced by personal responsibility. I like that.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:56 AM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3007) | Send Message
     
    SDNS, I am a fan of you, but please do not be so gullible...

     

    The former can fine and jail you, while the latter simply drops you...
    28 Jun 2012, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • SimonS
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    "Replaced by personal responsibility?" I think you're the one who got it backwards. The uninsured will pay the penalty or be covered by Medicaid. Is your definition of personal responsibility mean someone other than yourself pays?
    2 Jul 2012, 08:46 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5349) | Send Message
     
    Isn't it hilarious. The people who have advocated a welfare state that is based on the very foundations of not taking responsibility for yourself suddenly now preach personal responsibility.

     

    If personal responsibility had been practiced, health care costs would be 1/3 their current price and twice the quality. As such, there would be no need for a national police state attempting to force everyone into the corals that are considered the proper place for the troglodyte masses.
    2 Jul 2012, 09:08 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2575) | Send Message
     
    "The people who have advocated a welfare state that is based on the very foundations of not taking responsibility for yourself suddenly now preach personal responsibility."

     

    I've never advocated that ... as you well know. Yet again you're demonstrating your need to fabricate because reality is incompatible with your ideology.
    2 Jul 2012, 10:25 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2575) | Send Message
     
    " Is your definition of personal responsibility mean someone other than yourself pays?"

     

    Obviously no, it doesn't mean that at all. That's what we've had for 25 years thanks to Reagan and I'm glad we're moving away from it.
    2 Jul 2012, 10:37 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3007) | Send Message
     
    SDNS, I have no idea what that statement means...It is very convoluted..
    3 Jul 2012, 04:41 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5349) | Send Message
     
    Well then, if your not advocating for that, then lets dispense with gov interventions in the economy all together. Such interventions are just consumption subsidies, and people who earn what they get don't need any subsidies at all.

     

    If your for that, then we are on the same page.
    3 Jul 2012, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • Gary Jakacky
    , contributor
    Comments (2414) | Send Message
     
    I love the emerging USA Euro-nannystate. Why bother to work? The less I earn, the less i pay for healthcare. The less I work, the more I can exercise and go on bike tours, thus being more healthy, trim, and fit. No rent, either. i don't append the suffix 'scholar' for nothing......
    28 Jun 2012, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3007) | Send Message
     
    The court has changed it's official title - The Oppressive Court....

     

    Kagan, is an absolute disgrace....May she rot in hell...
    28 Jun 2012, 10:37 AM Reply Like
  • User 353732
    , contributor
    Comments (4788) | Send Message
     
    The American Republic is now buried; Long live the US Soviet.

     

    Next a tax on babies; physical attributes; all free speech?
    Call a Gulag a tax and its legal in the US Soviet
    28 Jun 2012, 10:38 AM Reply Like
  • com58
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Soon the government will be telling us what we can drive, what we can eat, what we can own, and what we can say. We will not be allowed firearms and freedoms will be greatly limited to protect the people from the Constitution loving Conservatives who are a thorn in the flesh of the liberal progressive UN loving people.
    28 Jun 2012, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3138) | Send Message
     
    Yep. Enjoy your government-mandated broccoli
    28 Jun 2012, 10:53 AM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3007) | Send Message
     
    The Supreme Court is worthless and will not follow the Constitution...

     

    Folks, the time to revolt is near...

     

    I would like to add, that the trend for the past 50 some years, has been for
    the Court to side with Government Units...

     

    This is another blow to liberty..Could, Putin, be eligible to run as President?
    I do have a SS number and birth certificate he could use...
    28 Jun 2012, 10:51 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    Both business and individual will opt out and pay the penalty, business because it saves them money not to provide coverage and the individual because they cant be denied coverage so they pay the fine until they need to have insurance for illness, keep the coverage until they no longer need it. Anyway thats the way it seems it will be.
    28 Jun 2012, 10:54 AM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2575) | Send Message
     
    "...individual will opt out and pay the penalty...because they cant be denied coverage so they pay the fine until they need to have insurance for illness, keep the coverage until they no longer need it. Anyway thats the way it seems it will be."

     

    That's identical to having an HSA. No difference at all. The only thing new here is that it's harder for individuals to avoid taking personal responsibility for their own health insurance -- whether paid through the penalty or by some other means. As it stands now, these individuals get free emergency care and the rest of us pay for that. I prefer the route of personal responsibility, which is why I support the ACA (aka, Obamacare).
    28 Jun 2012, 11:16 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12770) | Send Message
     
    This will turn out like every other liberal endeavor, which is exactly why it was created and passed by vote-pandering liberals. The 50%, who pay no taxes, will just get another freebie that will be paid by the 50% who do pay taxes. If it's not obvious already, when the regulations to implement this law are written, it will be.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:22 AM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2575) | Send Message
     
    "it was created and passed by vote-pandering liberals"

     

    On the contrary. No single piece of legislation in my lifetime has exacted such a high political price on those who supported it. It was a huge compromise between many opposing forces -- all of whom knew they were not going to please everyone and were certainly going to displease some powerful special-interest groups.

     

    As for how it turns out downstream, that's why the U.S. system of government has many avenues for public participation. Use them.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:43 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5349) | Send Message
     
    "That's identical to having an HSA"

     

    Hardly, the US gov doesn't put people in prison for not contributing to the HSA. The advocates of tryanny always must leave out the important facts.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2575) | Send Message
     
    Well Hoop, the logical conclusion of your argument would be that the Border Patrol, FBI, the Federal Elections Commission (which oversees the election process to prevent fraud), the FAA (which keeps planes from crashing and burning), and the military should be abolished. Because those services are funded by tax money, which automatically (in your view) makes them a form of tyranny.
    28 Jun 2012, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2575) | Send Message
     
    " the US gov doesn't put people in prison for not contributing to the HSA. The advocates of tryanny always must leave out the important facts."

     

    No important facts were left out of my statements. Neither the IRS nor the gov't is empowered to imprison anyone for not paying the penalty under the mandate. Anyone who claims otherwise is being dishonest. Of course, ideologues always value their ideology over truthfulness and facts, don't they. Perhaps that's why ideologues who gain power always end up becoming tyrants themselves.
    28 Jun 2012, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5349) | Send Message
     
    Now you are just rationalizing. T

     

    The point of gov is not have it do what we wish it could do, but have it do what it can do. The populace can grant gov the use of force, thus gov can regulate things with regards to force. However, that grant of force must be limited and controlled or else gov becomes the very thing you were trying to guard against (like an entity that forces you to buy a product).

     

    So by your logic all gov agencies should have total power to do whatever they want to whomever they want whenever they want. We should just let ourselves be taxed and let people in gov do whatever they want because they are gov and they said they intended to do good.

     

    If you think a gov can control an economy, then you have to ask what an economy is. An economy is just the sum total of all human action that is engaged in for the goal of survival. To control an economy, means controlling people. What better definition of tyranny can there be than controlling people.

     

    This is the basic problem with your ideology. Your ideology is one of coercion. You believing in using force to make people believe what you think they should believe. If they fail to contribute to your favorite charity, you want them thrown in jail. If they don't live their life the way you think they should live their life, then you want them thrown in jail.

     

    I am not advocating for a gov that controls people by controlling the economy. You are. I am advocating for a gov that does the only thing it can do, which is protect the individual.

     

    This is why the argument of forcing people to be responsible is illogical. People can't be forced to be responsible, they have to learn to be responsible. They way they learn this is via prices, and prices are just nature's signals about what is efficient and what is not. Gov has guns, thus gov is blind to prices. This is why the thief uses guns. The thief is blind to prices, thus the thief can control another making the thief a tyrant.

     

    Isn't it ironic that in the process of forcing people to be responsible, we are going to punish the people who have been responsible by making them pay for other people's mistakes. Based on this logic, if you really wanted to punish people for not being responsible, you wouldn't need to make them pay a tax, all you would have to do is just let them suffer from their mistakes. What this really is about is taxing people by making them buy health insurance that they probably won't need, so someone else can have their health care consumption subsidized. Its just more thievery, and thievery is just more tyanny.
    28 Jun 2012, 06:29 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2575) | Send Message
     
    "This is the basic problem with your ideology."

     

    I don't have an ideology. Ideologies are for fools and charlatans. Which are you?
    28 Jun 2012, 06:33 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5349) | Send Message
     
    I love the way the deepest ideologues always claim they are not an ideologue.
    28 Jun 2012, 06:42 PM Reply Like
  • SimonS
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    I just don't see how this motivates uninsured to get insurance. For my family, buying insurance probably will cost around $7200 vs. $2000 penalty / yr. And now that pre-existing condition is covered, there really is no incentive for personal responsibility. Are you saying that premiums will go below $2000 / year?
    2 Jul 2012, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5349) | Send Message
     
    Then if there are no penalties for not paying taxes, then there are no point in having them. In fact, this position should be rolled out for all taxes collected to transfer wealth. Let's have no penalties, or jail time for anyone that doesn't pay taxes that is a transfer of their wealth to someone else.
    2 Jul 2012, 09:05 PM Reply Like
  • anonymous#12
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
     
    This law provides for those with low incomes a security. They aren't going bankrupt if their son gets leukemia.

     

    This act provides social justice, lowers costs and reduces the deficit over the long term. Win-win scenario for America.

     

    People were being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions, now they are provided with care.

     

    Overall good step into reaching our goal of free healthcare.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You're a good boy, aren't you?
    28 Jun 2012, 11:23 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5349) | Send Message
     
    N Korea has free healthcare, and as a result N Korea has no healthcare.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • DjarumBlack
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    Low income families are already fully covered by medical cards. Since when is the goal "free healthcare?"
    This is a free market society that pays for goods and services that we use.
    The only things this does is hurt lower middle income families that are now forced to pay for something they don't need.
    Insurance is legalized extortion. The biggest protection racket in the world and now its is being mandated by our government. You will pay one way or another. When did we elect Al Capone?
    28 Jun 2012, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • DigDeep
    , contributor
    Comments (2324) | Send Message
     
    free?
    28 Jun 2012, 01:48 PM Reply Like
  • rag2rag
    , contributor
    Comments (24) | Send Message
     
    lol lol - we have a bipolar nation to say the least, a breakup will be an interesting experiment.

     

    The majority elected Obama ( as they did George W Bush 8 years earlier and Bill Clinton 8 years prior)

     

    What Obama inherited was the mess Bush left us with, an economy in shambles, the Bank institutions had plundered the wealth of small investor and we the taxpayers footed the bill. Now Obama has done his part in creating his mess - the health care bill.

     

    Both the conservatives and the liberals have expressed themselves resoundingly. Th populace will go to the polls. The outcome will be decided by the centrist leaning majority and we will find out hcih party will get the mandate to fix the old mess and to make a new mess.

     

    My opinion is that four years are too long, this country is too big and the federal government has too much power. A breakup of the nation will mollify extremists or at least relegate them to inidividual states. Lets call this new union ASU instead of USA

     

    Funny thing is the European model does not work either.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • DigDeep
    , contributor
    Comments (2324) | Send Message
     
    "What Obama inherited was the mess Bush left us with"

     

    Not to defend Bush - but to point out: Glass-Steagall was repealed under Clintons watch - also everybody needs a house, don't regulate the derivatives mkt., BJ's from secretaries in the oval office, ETC

     

    We'll be well served to find leadership who people look to for sustainable gov't that relies on the free mkt instead of this centrally planned crap and the handout vote grabbing politico's we've had for 20 years.
    28 Jun 2012, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12770) | Send Message
     
    "Overall good step into reaching our goal of free healthcare. "

     

    One of the funniest things I've read in a while. What is free for one is merely paid by another. Nothing -- utterly nothing -- in the entire world is free.

     

    It does, however, fit modern America's mantra of the left that everything is a "right," for which you neither have to work nor pay.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2575) | Send Message
     
    " What is free for one is merely paid by another."

     

    Agreed. Before the ACA, a bunch of freeloaders were getting "free" emergency care that the rest of us had to pay for. The ACA fixes that.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:18 AM Reply Like
  • Tack
    , contributor
    Comments (12770) | Send Message
     
    SDNS:

     

    No it doesn't; it just institutionalized the free care under a different name and program.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2575) | Send Message
     
    "it just institutionalized the free care under a different name"

     

    Wrong. Without the mandate (i.e, the requirement to take personal responsibility), we'd be back to Reagan's deficit-driving, unpaid for EMTALA in which no one is required to take personal responsibility for their own healthcare costs: http://bit.ly/Mrqz8u I prefer the route of personal responsibility and the ACA.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    Nope. Its not personal responsibility when force is used at the end of an IRS agent's gun. At that point it is merely called 'survival'.

     

    Personal responsibility means actually getting up & going to work on your own, without anyone having to tell you.

     

    I would, however, agree with you that if we could move the goal posts in the other direction for once and say that 'personal responsibility' meant that those on welfare actually had to work to get their check.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • enigmaman
    , contributor
    Comments (2686) | Send Message
     
    most of those freeloaders will qualify and receive their ACA health care at drastically reduced rates subsidized by other taxpayers, so take from one pocket and put into another doesn't fix the problem of freeloaders only reclassifies them.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:10 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2575) | Send Message
     
    " if we could move the goal posts in the other direction for once and say that 'personal responsibility' meant that those on welfare actually had to work to get their check."

     

    I agree with that. Welfare recipients should work for their checks. I've always said so because I feel that everyone should have the dignity of earning their keep.
    28 Jun 2012, 06:08 PM Reply Like
  • SanDiegoNonSurfer
    , contributor
    Comments (2575) | Send Message
     
    "freeloaders will qualify and receive their ACA health care at drastically reduced rates subsidized by other taxpayers"

     

    The poorest (most of whom are disabled) are already covered by medicaid. Nothing about the ACA changes that.
    28 Jun 2012, 06:10 PM Reply Like
  • anonymous#12
    , contributor
    Comments (552) | Send Message
     
    Tack, you know people were denied coverage because they had pre-existing conditions, don't you? That's sick, letting people die just because they have low incomes and bad luck.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3138) | Send Message
     
    Yet high enough to afford iphones, TVs, tablets etc.

     

    It's interesting how many people don't want healthcare coverage until they get sick.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • surfnspy
    , contributor
    Comments (415) | Send Message
     
    @chop: +111111111111111111111...
    28 Jun 2012, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5349) | Send Message
     
    Now it will be the gov denying people healthcare, unless you think they can magically conjure up more supply up from somewhere.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:14 PM Reply Like
  • DianeLee
    , contributor
    Comments (346) | Send Message
     
    Oh, this isn't over yet. This Adm is famous for not anticipating unintended consequences. But ~ every action requires a REaction, and once the pendulum has been set in motion, the pendulum WILL swing. Won't this be interesting.
    28 Jun 2012, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • YellowLab1
    , contributor
    Comments (135) | Send Message
     
    Physician on the front lines. Have followed this closely.
    Feeling pretty bummed out right about now. More than that...... actually considering retiring if Bummer is reelected. It's agonizing on the front lines of healthcare. Enduring all the socialist policies, mandates, regulations, procedures and payment methods of the failed European model now. Only combine that WITH all the stress, risks and costs associated with the mighty legal system of tort here in the US on the other end.
    Doctors now burned on both ends and squeezed in the middle.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You are now officially a public employee yellowlab, sorry to say. You have just been told, by someone called a president, that you are a utility for someone else. Your entire existence is now not your own. You exist and live for the good of someone else.

     

    That sounds familiar doesn't it? Someone in the Eastern Bloc said that many moons ago.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:26 AM Reply Like
  • sdbray89
    , contributor
    Comments (50) | Send Message
     
    I know one thing for sure: Nearly everyone on here is just so sure this legislation will DESTROY AMERICA! I'm quite confident that no one has any idea what the healthcare dynamic will look like come 2016 and beyond.

     

    All I'm reading here is knee-jerk, emotional responses from, so far as I can tell, Limbaugh/Glenn Beck fans parroting the same old far right content. I also wonder how many of the contributors above really understand what this legislation entails. In my experience speaking with the general constituency, those for whom this legislation elicits the most vitriolic response tend to know the very least about its specifics.

     

    I don't know if this legislation is going to make everything better, or everything worse. I do know that America has a system, and the system has spoken. Go talk to the teachers in Wisconsin about sucking it up and dealing with change. It goes both ways, you know.

     

    Oh and by the way, last time I checked, this nation does have a system to deal with legislation that isn't working. As such, I'll be enjoying a tall cold beer this evening.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:17 AM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3138) | Send Message
     
    Do you understand what it entails?

     

    Show me one provision in obamacare that either 1) cuts down healthcare costs/spending or 2) creates a path for the training of more medical students or physicians, something that we need more of, especially now with obamacare's mandates.

     

    Obamacare has done nothing to solve the healthcare bubble. With all of these new "captive" customers, watch this bubble get even bigger. It's going to suck when it pops
    28 Jun 2012, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • mschultz7038
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    What are you guys whining about? You should be happy, now all the supposed freeloaders that have been getting medical treatment in emergency rooms will have to buck up and pay their fair share.

     

    Big business has been taking away employee benefits for years, first by putting you in an HSA that you have to fund an ever increasing percentage of, and then reducing the number of hours you can work to less than 40 so they don't have to pay any benefits at all.

     

    The country is still sliding into the abyss, but at least the little guy has something to cheer about . . . for a day.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:21 AM Reply Like
  • Wyatt Junker
    , contributor
    Comments (4503) | Send Message
     
    You're right, as a business owner, I will be ending my provision of offering healthcare. I will send them all over to the exchange. Hopefully, they will enjoy the long lines in DMV, shyster care.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • DjarumBlack
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    I am a little guy and I am certainly not cheering about this. These "freeloaders" will still be getting free medical care. Working men and woman who don't get free care paid for by the government and so ultimately by everyone will be forced not only to continue paying for those programs but will now be forced to pay private companies for insurance or higher taxes. There is no scenario where this is a win for any working class United States citizen.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • DjarumBlack
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    Its time to start the revolution. When the government tries to over tax me if I do not pay some private insurance company for coverage then clearly we are worse off then the original colonies when they drafted the declaration of independence.

     

    When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

     

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

     

    Our government officials have BECOME DESTRUCTIVE TO THESE ENDS.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:44 AM Reply Like
  • vanehugo
    , contributor
    Comments (12) | Send Message
     
    Even the court won't stand up to King Obama. time to Get out of Dodge.
    28 Jun 2012, 11:54 AM Reply Like
  • sdbray89
    , contributor
    Comments (50) | Send Message
     
    Bye.
    28 Jun 2012, 01:56 PM Reply Like
  • Rhianni32
    , contributor
    Comments (1995) | Send Message
     
    I came in here expecting lots of emotionally charged comments accusing others of unable to think and how this will be the savior of civilization or the destroyer of all that is good and just in the univers.
    Thanks SA for not letting me down!
    28 Jun 2012, 12:15 PM Reply Like
  • DjarumBlack
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    The supreme court basically just gave congress the power to tax us if we do not do what they want us to do. they can't make laws to force us to comply but the IRS can take all of our money if we don't do as we are told.
    I suppose in the end that works out because when the IRS takes all my money and I have nothing left then I can get on all the wonderful government programs and have everything paid for. Of course I have to do as I am told and be a good little slave if I want to eat.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:26 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5349) | Send Message
     
    So, I guess this also means that if the gov decides that you should own a Bible and a gun, then they can make you pay a penalty (tax) for not doing so, and now that is constitutional.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • alphabetavega
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    A) The healthcare "mandate" will affect less than 6% of Americans who currently do not have healthcare.

     

    B) How is this oppressive? The idea is to lower costs by forcing freeloaders to pay for their healthcare, where they are currently subsidized by responsible Americans. How is that oppressive? You like the idea that a contractor who refuses to buy health insurance ends up with a $20,000 emergency room bill that he will never pay? Which part do you like, the one where he declares bankruptcy to avoid paying the bill and ruins his credit or the part where the rest of us have to subsidize his care with higher premiums?

     

    C) If you really want to affect the "nanny" mentality in this country, reform the welfare and u/e system in this country: stop paying lazy people. But we won't do that with double digit unemployment will we? Lord knows the middle class has to support the unmotivated and underemployed that the upper class laid off to move jobs to India and China. Now THAT makes perfect sense.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:30 PM Reply Like
  • DjarumBlack
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    This is not health care reform. This is insurance reform. The tax imposed on those not paying an insurance company is going up to a little of $2000 in 2016. My wife paid premiums over $3000 for insurance with a $2500 deductible. We ended up paying $5500 for her medical treatments ($2500 for actual medical bills and$3000 to an insurance company for the privilege to pay our own medical bills.) Under this new insurance reform bill, I can save about $500 by electing to pay the tax.
    So in the end, the guy who doesn't have insurance pays a $2000 higher tax, gets a $20,000 ER bill and saves $18000.
    Financially the plan makes no sense and further more the government does not have the right to force me to buy things.
    In order to really modify our out of control health care cost, the cost needs to be reduced. There is no reason for me to end up owing $3000 because I had to spend 2 hours in an ER (2 hours of actually taking up bed space.) This insurance will do nothing to effect those outrageous cost. It will simply take more money from my pocket and I will still end up paying $35.00 a month until my insane ER bill is paid off, because whatever insurance I am forced to take will likely have a high deductible so I can still afford to put food on the table and gas in my car.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • jhooper
    , contributor
    Comments (5349) | Send Message
     
    "So in the end, the guy who doesn't have insurance pays a $2000 higher tax, gets a $20,000 ER bill and saves $18000."

     

    So what will happen is that more and more people go to the ER, and the price of the ER bill will be bid up to $50,000. The insurance companies wind up paying more and more, and wind up suffering more and more losses. They eventually go bankrupt, and then they will be nationalized. Then you will finally have a single payer system that has done nothing to improve the supply of healthcare, so then the gov will have no choice but to start denying people care.
    28 Jun 2012, 12:56 PM Reply Like
  • Wolfhounds
    , contributor
    Comments (57) | Send Message
     
    I think you've all missed a very important point, or several points. I think the Court, Justice Roberts in particular, is crazier than a fox. Roberts opinion, in part, was reached by his belief that congress can make laws that do not stop citizens from doing what they already have a right to do. That is, it can impose buying healthcare, but can't force us to buy or not buy vegetables. The court thereby put a limit on congressional meddling.
    Far more important is the basis of upholding the statute under the tax provisions. Most respondents here seem to think it's go to jail and don't collect $200. However, the penalty imposed for non-compliance is has virtually no power of enforcement. The Act prohibits the IRS from using any of it's criminal enforcement powers. In fact, the penalty can only be enforced from a tax refund. All one needs to do to opt out is increase exemptions or pay less estimated tax. You may incur a small underpayment penalty, but it will be far smaller than the opt out penalty.
    Which brings up the issue of unintended consequences. If enough healthy people get wind of this HMO's could be affected by lower premiums to cover all the new mandates. Those without insurance can buy it when they get sick because of the pre-existing conditions clause.
    How this will all play out is impossible to predict. One thing is certain. There will be dramatic changes in healthcare costs and administration.
    28 Jun 2012, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3007) | Send Message
     
    As, Dennis Pager, has stated Chef Roberts, is more concerned about the court interfering with legislative matters...

     

    He needed to write a 193 page opinion!!!

     

    Is, SA, censoring posts again?
    28 Jun 2012, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • kcr357
    , contributor
    Comments (557) | Send Message
     
    Anyone thinking drug co's are a good buy? If the working class is going to be fleeced to provide HC to all regardless, making $$$ off of it beats bitching about it....
    28 Jun 2012, 02:51 PM Reply Like
  • dlugose
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    No one seems to have qualms about requiring that drivers have auto insurance. This act does not even force anyone to have health insurance. It exerts a reasonable pressure since people who do not have health insurance impact health case costs for all of us.
    In the words of the Supreme Court on this ruling, "The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy healthinsurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation."
    28 Jun 2012, 03:14 PM Reply Like
  • BlueOkie
    , contributor
    Comments (4529) | Send Message
     
    The best thing yet for the Republicans. We have 3 old Chief Justices sitting on the court. THe next will appoint for many years to come.
    28 Jun 2012, 03:15 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3007) | Send Message
     
    The courts, including the Supremeis, have become mere extension for government...This is a disaster for anyone who believes in liberties..

     

    They and their Leftocrats friends, are using the General Health & Welfare Clause, to spread collectivism throughout the land...
    28 Jun 2012, 06:25 PM Reply Like
  • chris293
    , contributor
    Comments (181) | Send Message
     
    In the early 20s' Germany went broke by printing too much money, and spending like there was no tomorrow, sounds like U.S. today duh.
    28 Jun 2012, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • Wayne Gorsek
    , contributor
    Comments (113) | Send Message
     
    Another example of why tens of millions of jobs and manufacturing facilities are being transferred to Mexico, India, China, Philippines and other countries with less taxes, regulations, fees and fines compared to the USA! The cost to employ an American is as high as 1,000% more when compared to these other countries and I blame our city, county, state and federal governments 100% for this!
    Wayne Gorsek
    Founder, Chairman & CEO.
    http://www.drvita.com
    2 Jul 2012, 10:31 PM Reply Like
  • DigDeep
    , contributor
    Comments (2324) | Send Message
     
    Good point....
    save the self promotin
    2 Jul 2012, 11:39 PM Reply Like
  • blueice
    , contributor
    Comments (3007) | Send Message
     
    I could not agree more, Mr Gorsek! All to often, governmental units view free enterprise as only a honey pot...

     

    In many ways, government is not much different than the welfare clients they service...
    3 Jul 2012, 04:39 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|