-
We're not happy with it. Dh's a small business owner and in the higher income bracket. -.-
-
<< 1. It is unconstitutional for Congress to issue a "mandate" that forces citizens to buy any product or service. This is unprecedented, and has never been done before. (This is why the Supremes have labeled this a "tax," because they just couldn't get there through the Commerce Clause.) >>
@MsLipGloss: I'm not an expert on this stuff, but Professor Tribe posted this to scotusblog earlier today:
"While congressional action mandating economic activity is certainly not unprecedented — Congress in 1792, with nearly two dozen Framers on board and with George Washington among them, enacted a statute requiring all able-bodied men to purchase firearms, after all — Congress rarely mandates behavior on an individual level to accomplish regulatory goals."
-
@MrBee: The Supremes have never before granted Congress the ability to regulate inactivity, such as *not* buying health insurance.
-
@MsLipGloss: Was responding to your earlier comment about a Congressional mandate forcing citizens to buy a product being unprecedented...
I don't know enough to weigh in on regulation of inactivity!
-
@MrBee: I do realize you were responding to my earlier *unprecendented* comment. I should have been more precise.
This is the first time that Congress has ever directly required individuals to purchase a particular product from a private company.
-
My taxes are just going up with no added benefits to me. Hooray.
-
@MrBee: p.s. with regard to the 1792 reference you raised in your earlier comment, the Congressional authority for that *mandate* came from the authority the Constitution granted Congress to raise an army (as opposed to its authority under the Commerce Clause).
-
@Andrea: How are your taxes going up? We haven't had any tax increases since before Obama became president.
-
@Mrs. Jacks: according to the site Adira posted people who earn over 200k a year will see a tax increase of 0.9%. A small increase but those high earners who are happy with their current insurance see no personal benefit but do see a tax increase.
-
@MamaMoose: For joint returns that threshold is $250,000. (I went to the source document) starting at the end of 2012. Frankly, I'd be thrilled that I was wealthy enough to contribute to the betterment of society. Also it is only taxed on wages received during employment, so investment income, trust income and rental income don't count.
I think in general that's letting the American public off really easily!
I got this from the pdf of : COMPILATION OF PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT
-
@Mrs. Jacks: Opinions on whether the increase is fair or "worth it" will definitely vary. Just pointing out that there is a population who will have a tax increase and @Andrea must be part of that population.
-
And I was just pointing out that the numbers were different than what was stated in the hope that it would allay her fears
-
@Andrea: Ditto.
@MamaMoose: Agreed.
@MrsJacks: In terms of Americans being let off easily, while I believe you were referring to the 0.9% tax increase, there are other costs to Americans on a much broader scale, including the impact on small businesses and their employees (could contribute to unemployment and/or limit growth to the extent that businesses may try to to stay under the 50-employee trigger; it will be cheaper for businesses to pay the penalty for not offering insurance to their employees rather than to offer insurance to their employees), the increases to Medicare taxes (the same people aleady paying the 0.9% increase) and the long-term changes to Medicare that don't kick in until after the 2012 election, it creates new fees for the health care industry, and it doesn't address healthcare costs/ insurance premiums, it just re-distributes the cost to those already taxed at the highest amounts.
-
So, I was wondering how the government is going to make sure people who don't have insurance pay for it. Turns out, they are going to have to check a box on their taxes saying they don't pay for insurance and they'll deal with the costs associated through their taxes. My question is this, what about the people who don't check the box? How is the government going to track the people who are trying to get around the system down? How do they monitor that?
-
I'm surprised that the Supreme Court voted that way. A little step closer in the right direction.
-
@MsLipGloss: I think we fundamentally disagree on the costs to society... Which is fine... But I'm just sitting down at a schmancy prix fix dinner for birthday date night (even got a baby sitter). So I'll have to come back with numbers and data later
-
@MrsJacks: Awesome - enjoy!
-
@MamaG: Bear with me, I'm just trying to understand. Are you saying that right now, your employer offers insurance, not because they have to, but because it's important for employees to have insurance? And that with the new system, they can pay the fee and not have to worry about their employees having no insurance because they will be forced to get it elsewhere rather than doing without? I'm sorry if I'm sounding dense, I'm just enjoying this perspective. All the info I get tends to be from John Stewart's rants on the Daily Show!
-
@Mediagirl: I think there is a requirement (I'm not sure when it goes in effect) for employers to report health insurance on W-2's. I'm sure that will help facilitate keeping track of who has insurance and who doesn't. At any rate, I'm betting the IRS adds some staff to deal with it.
-
@Grace: this is just my opinion, it's been the American standard for employers to provide insurance as a benefit. It is by no means a requirement. I'm not sure when or how it started. I do know from doing my own checking that getting individual insurance outside of your employer is costly (and currently impossible if you have any pre-existing conditions - yes, this problem goes away with the new law). I would imagine since "everyone is doing it" most employers do it to attract and retain employees.
Going forward it will be less cost prohibitive to get individual insurance through the exchanges so where is the incentive for employers to continue to provide this benefit? My employer currently pays about $800/month toward my insurance. Paying $2,000/year in penalty would be cheaper. And they aren't at as great of risk of losing me if I can get insurance independent of my employment.
I'm not sure most employees are aware of what their employer spends on their insurance and just how costly it can be.
-
@MamaG: I guess you'll just have to see what happens. Hopefully benefits through work continue to be something that help retain good talent for the employer, thus giving them an incentive to pay for insurance benefits.
-
I'm personally happy about it. I could list a number of reasons why I'm unhappy with the current system, but instead I'll just say that this HAS to be a step in the right direction. I'm tired of hearing that good, hardworking people have to pay $1,000+ out of pocket just to get a couple of stitches in their finger.
I'd be even more thrilled if this eventually lead to dental coverage under the same umbrella. I feel like society often forgets about the importance of oral health and its effects on overall health.
As far as the increased tax for those in a higher tax bracket, I feel pretty confident that they'll be okay financially, even if they aren't happy about it. I would personally feel fortunate to be in that high of a tax bracket and would feel compelled to help those less fortunate.
-
@MamaG: You aren't kidding. DH's benefits at work are horrendous even though he has a good job. We don't have dental insurance, and health coverage for our family would be close to the cost of our mortgage. We pay privately out of pocket and it's still very costly even though we are all in perfect health. We actually originally got denied coverage because of a sprained ankle he had not long before we tried to enroll. We had to jump through too many hoops for something so ridiculous.
-
@MsLipGloss: Here's the paper I was looking for. Robert Wood Johnson foundation estimates of the impact of the Affordable Care Act on small business. The talking point that ACA will harm small business is scary, but it doesn't seem to hold up to analysis.
http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/72530quickstrike201106.pdf
-
@MrsJacks: I am still working my way through the article (thanks for the link - I absolutely want to make sure I have as much of a 360-degree view as possible!) - one thing I did notice in my skim through was the following excerpt:
"some employers with lower income workers may find that, accounting for the cost of the assessments (if they are a firm with 50 or more workers), offering coverage is no longer preferable."
HOWEVER, (I put this in caps so you might get to the next part
) I do want to add that I think the most important part of our exchange is that we absolutely agree that hcr is a vitally important issue and that " . . . with liberty and *healthcare* for all" should be our country's default operating mode (I am pretty sure that I did not convey that in any of my previous posts). While I obviously take issue with several aspects of how this bill came to pass, what I take no issue with is families/people getting the care they need.
-
@MsLipGloss: Please know that there is no animus in what I say at all (and none interpreted from your side either). I like having these discussions and I like going to source documents and trying to stick to facts as much as possible, since there is SO much spin on either side of the issue.
-
@MrsJacks: I been pickin up whatchur layin down
I totally agree regarding the *spin* and I appreciate references that help to round out my understanding of an issue.
-
Very happy. I think it is a great step towards making healthcare more affordable. We put off starting a family for several years due to unaffordable maternity coverage- $6-800 a month... after a year waiting period. Unacceptable!
I grew up in a self-employed family, so for much of my life we had NO health insurance at all. This made life very difficult multiple times.
I am married to someone with a pre-existing health problem, not being able to afford health insurance would probably prevent us from opening up our own business in the future.
This is the first time that Congress has ever directly required individuals to purchase a particular product from a private company.
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite1
67 comments