[mena je twa]

I am a bit shocked!! A conservative judge – John Roberts, appointed by G. Bush voted with the 4 liberal judges. Unbelievable!!!! Hold on to your cash, stock market will plummet.

Licensed CPA, Texas - 2012

[wickedrentlover]

@RedStorm45–I don't know what you read, but there is no “ban” on soda in New York. You can still buy soda there and drink as much of it as you want. The only change is that you now can't buy a size over 16 ounces. However, you can buy as many 16 ounce drinks as you want. So if you still want a 32 ounce (or bigger…and if you want to put all that sugar and all those chemicals into your body, that's your decision), you can still buy two 16 ounce sodas and no one will stop you. However, no one is forcing you to eat or drink certain things.

REG (2/24/12) - 89
AUD (4/5/12) - 89
FAR (5/31/12) - 91
BEC (7/7/12) - 84

[RedStorm45]

@Wicked – they want to ban the sale of popcorn (and other “less healthy” items). But why cap it at 16 oz? If it's so bad, why not make it all 8 oz? If I can buy 2 16 oz to get to 32 why not just let them sell the 32 oz cans/cups? Why force restaurants to not use unsaturated fats?

Starting all over.

FAR - 11/27/13
AUD - 1/4/14

[RedStorm45]

The Supreme Court made a mockery of our judicial system and the Constitution:

Before getting to the heart of the case, the justices first wanted to deal with what seemed to be a side issue: Was the penalty imposed by the individual mandate in Obamacare a tax?

The first question the justices had for the lawyers: Is this a tax?

“If it was, the case would run afoul of a 19th century-law known as the Anti-Injunction Act, which said a tax cannot be challenged in court until someone has actually been forced to pay it.”

So, the Administration was allowed to argue in Court both ways…that the law was Constitutional under the Commerce Clause AND (if that wasn't good enough – which it wasn't) that the law was also OK because of the government's power to tax. The Court (specifically, Chief Justice Roberts) RE-WROTE the law as a TAX…which cannot be tried in court until someone has actually been forced to pay that tax/penalty. We might as well just shred the Constitution at this point.

Starting all over.

FAR - 11/27/13
AUD - 1/4/14

[Anonymous]

RedStorm45~

Yes! This couldn't be more clear….we're being made to pay a tax on something we never purchased. And it's not a true penalty since the TAX “penalty” is less than the cost of insurance…and to be a penalty, it's got to be more.

*******************************

A top surrogate for President Obama insisted Friday that the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act was not a tax — despite the fact that the Supreme Court narrowly preserved the law on those grounds.

“Don't believe the hype that the other side is selling,” Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick told reporters on a conference call.

“This is a penalty,” Patrick said. “It's about dealing with the freeloaders.”

https://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/06/obama-campaign-its-a-penalty-not-a-tax-127721.html

*******************************

Another thing to note is that Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion on the taxing power is limited. He noted that it could not be considered punitive because the amount citizens are required to pay for not having insurance is far less than they would have to pay to obtain insurance. He strongly suggests that, if Congress were to require citizens to pay an amount greater than the costs of insurance, that would constitute a penalty, and thus would be unconstitutional. https://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/implications-of-the-new-tax-mandate/

[RedStorm45]

This is essentially walking into a 7-11, saying I don't want gum, and the cashier saying that'll be $1.99.

Starting all over.

FAR - 11/27/13
AUD - 1/4/14

[jeff]

You don't want to buy expensive renewable energy (solar/wind) for your house? No problem…just pay a $2k a year tax to offset your carbon footprint.

[momto5]

That's exactly the point! It's one thing to tax “bad” choices, (e.g. taxing the purchase of cigarettes or anything “they” deem to be negative). But this is taxing for NOT making what “they” consider to be a “good” choice!

FAR - 92 (4/27/12)
AUD - 96 (7/17/12)
BEC - 92 (8/30/12)
REG - 91 (11/12/12)

[Anonymous]

You have to pass it before you can read what's in it: “A $24 billion tax on the paper industry to control a pollutant known as black liquor.” Seriously? What else is in it?

Penalties on individuals. Individuals will pay a yearly penalty of $695, or up to 2.5 percent of their annual income, if they cannot show they have purchased a government-approved health policy.

Penalties on families. Families will pay a yearly penalty of $347 per child, up to $2,250 per family, if parents cannot show they have purchased a government- approved policy.

Penalties on employers. Business owners with more than 50 employees must buy government- acceptable health coverage or pay a yearly penalty of $2,000 per employee if at least one employee receives a tax credit.

Tax on investment income. ObamaCare imposes a 3.8 percent annual tax on investment income of individuals making $200,000 or more and on families making $250,000 or more. The new tax is not indexed to inflation, so more people will fall under it each year. Seniors on fixed incomes and people with IRAs and 401(k) plans will be hit particularly hard.

Tax on “Cadillac” health plans. Starting in 2018, imposes a 40 percent annual tax on health care plans valued at $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families.

Medicare tax increase. Requires single people earning $200,000 or more and couples earning $250,000 or more to pay an additional 0.9 percent in Medicare taxes. An $87 billion hike in Medicare payroll taxes for employees, as well as the self-employed.

Tax on Home Sales. Imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are “rich” for only one day – the day they sell their house and buy a new one. A 3.8% surtax on investment income from capital gains and dividends that applies to single filers earning more than $200,000 and married couples filing jointly earning more than $250,000.

A 2.3% excise tax on U.S. sales of medical devices that's already devastating the medical supply industry and its workforce. The levy is a $20 billion blow to an industry that employs roughly 400,000.

Several major manufacturers have been roiled, including: Michigan-based Stryker Corp., which blames the tax for 1,000 layoffs; Indiana-based Zimmer Corp., which cites the tax in laying off 450 and taking a $50 million charge against earnings; Indiana-based Cook Medical Inc., which has scrubbed plans to open a U.S. factory; Minnesota-based Medtronic Inc., which expects an annual charge against earnings of $175 million, and Boston Scientific Corp., which has opted to open plants in tax-friendlier Ireland and China to help offset a $100 million charge against earnings.

Until last year, people could pay for over-the-counter medications with tax-free Flexible Savings Accounts and Health Savings Accounts. No more, thanks to Obamacare’s medicine cabinet tax. Starting on Jan. 1, these tax-free accounts will be capped at $2,500, punishing families who face higher than normal medical expenses. The threshold for deducting those costs will also go up from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of adjusted gross income in 2013.

2014 is also when health-insurance companies face a new surcharge on sales that will result in an estimated $350 to $400 increase in annual premiums. So much for the president’s promise to reduce the cost of insurance by $2,500.

Americans who refuse to go along with Obamacare by buying a policy not approved by the government will be charged 1 percent of their income in 2014, rising to 2.5 percent in 2016. Employers with more than 50 employees who don’t offer health coverage and have at least one employee who qualifies for a health tax credit will be penalized $2,000 per person. If the employee receives coverage through this exchange, the penalty goes up to $3,000. An employer with a 30- to 60-day enrollment waiting period will have to pay $400 per person.

A 10% excise tax on indoor tanning salons. Business owners will collect the tax from customers and send it to the federal government. This appears to be the first federal sales tax in the United States.

A $50,000 excise tax on charitable hospitals that fail to meet new “community health assessment needs,” “financial assistance” and other rules set by the Health and Human Services Dept.

A $24 billion tax on the paper industry to control a pollutant known as black liquor.

A $2.3 billion-a-year tax on drug companies.

ObamaCare will be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service. The tax agency plans to hire 16,500 new auditors, agents and investigators, and to increase enforcement audits. The IRS can confiscate tax refunds, place liens on property and seek jail time if health-related penalties and taxes are not paid.

[RedStorm45]

^ Wow, that's a lot of info. I'll have to read it all after my exam Monday. Safe to say…one of, if not the largest tax increase in decades?

Starting all over.

FAR - 11/27/13
AUD - 1/4/14

[jeff]

Largest tax increase in US History.

[Hedge30]

It's actually not the largest tax increase in US History. According to Politifact, it would be the tied for 9th all time or tied for 5th in the modern era (beginning with 1968).

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/rush-limbaugh/health-care-law-not-largest-tax-increase-us-histor/

If anyone wants more info on the decision, I felt that this site had a good breakdown of the ruling and answered a bunch of questions that have been asked previously: https://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120630110614135

I'm not a fan of the law, but the ruling seems fair. The ruling doesn't expand the power of the government under the commerce clause or necessary and proper clause and just falls back to the normal power to lay and collect taxes. I get that it is a political issue, but from the law side I have nothing to disagree with. Politically if you disagree, there is an election in November.

On another note, I cannot wait to hear the story behind the scenes of this ruling whenever (if it ever does) come out. It really seems Roberts was writing the majority opinion at one point to overturn the law and then at the last moment changed sides and joined the liberal branch of the SC to write the majority to uphold the law. If you check out the dissent it reads like a majority ruling, and except for a couple of paragraphs at the end, it never attacks Roberts majority opinion to uphold. Also, Ginsburg's concurring opinion attacks Roberts awfully a lot which is really weird since he was the 5th vote and to attack the guy who gave you winning vote seems really odd.

FAR - 92
AUD - 87
REG - 91
BEC - 86

[Anonymous]

Hedge30~

“I'm not a fan of the law, but the ruling seems fair. The ruling doesn't expand the power of the government under the commerce clause or necessary and proper clause and just falls back to the normal power to lay and collect taxes.”

My problem is that I'm being taxed on something I did not purchase. In anyone's mind, how is that fair? I don't have a problem paying REASONABLE income taxes, taxes on cigarettes (if I smoked), taxes on the beer I drink or even gasoline tax. But my question again is…HOW CAN THE GOVERNMENT TAX ME ON SOMETHING I HAVE NOT PURCHASED?

[Anonymous]

So much for my high deductible plan. At 47 years old, I pay $122/mo for a high deductible plan with a maximum of $6,000 annual out of pocket. It works for me and because I pay for it myself, it means that I don't have to stay in a sucky job just to keep my health insurance. However, under ObamaCare there is no way I can keep my plan because the law says my insurer (Medica [not mediCARE]) must provide all the preventive services (see below) without charging me a deductible or co-pay. So my personal premiums will likely increase because I'm forced out of what I currently have.

My state offers a plan for those with pre-existing conditions (https://www.chand.org/rates/) and if I went that route, I'd pay in excess of $500/month plus applicable co-insurance for a total cost of approx $9,000 per year whereas right now my total out of pocket cost will not exceed $7,464.

For ObamaCare, my premiums would be $4,920 (https://www.healthcare.gov/law/features/choices/pre-existing-condition-insurance-plan/nd.html) per year and the maximum I would pay out-of-pocket for covered services in a calendar year is $6,050 in-network/$7,000 out-of-network. Assuming I stayed in-network and maxed out my policy, my total cost would be $10,970 per year.

So, since I don't have any pre-existing conditions, why would I want to change what I have? But it looks like I'll have to since Medica does not cover all of the Obama mandated preventive services for my monthly premium of $122.00. Why can't every state set up something like CHAND (run by BC/BS) for state residents with pre-existing conditions – and leave the rest of us alone?

OBAMACARE says:

“The National Academy of Sciences said the Obama administration had told its experts not to consider “the cost-effectiveness of screenings or services” in deciding which ones to recommend. Insurers expressed concern that coverage for some of the newly required preventive services could be costly.

Under the federal rules governing preventive services, insurers can use “reasonable medical management techniques” to control costs and promote the efficient delivery of care. The administration said Monday, for example, that an insurer could charge co-payments for brand-name drugs if a lower-cost generic version was available and was just as safe and effective.

In addition to contraceptive services for women, the government will require health plans to cover screening to detect domestic violence; screening for H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS; and counseling and equipment to promote breast-feeding, including breast pumps.

Other preventive services that must be covered, without co-payments, include screening for gestational diabetes in pregnant women; DNA testing for the human papillomavirus as part of cervical cancer screening; and annual preventive-care visits. Such visits could include prenatal care and preconception care, to make sure women are healthy when they become pregnant.

A major goal of the law is to increase the use of preventive services like mammograms, colonoscopies, blood pressure checks and childhood immunizations. The law generally bans co-payments, deductibles and other charges for preventive services recommended by expert professional organizations. The law directed federal health officials to pay attention to the health needs of women in particular when listing preventive services that must be covered.

The new standards require coverage of the full range of contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, as well as sterilization procedures. Among the drugs and devices that must be covered are emergency contraceptives including pills known as ella and Plan B.”

BTW: Researchers have found that people who have coverage of preventive services, under Medicare or private insurance, use them much less than recommended.

[Anonymous]

There is a simple way to solve this. Those who can afford insurance and choose not to purchase insurance must pay for all hospital visits up front before any service is rendered. If they cannot afford the price of a $25,000 hospital bill, they are not treated and are simply told to take 2 tylenol and drink plenty of fluids. Also, people with pre-existing conditions will NOT be allowed to purchase insurance plans after the law goes into effect if they have not done so in a reasonable amount of time. This will stop people from being “forced” into purchasing health insurance and will keep everyone else's premiums from going up due to people getting care from a hospital without being able to pay for it.

[Anonymous]

Entourage~

What is preventing each individual state from offering a plan for those with pre-existing conditions (https://www.chand.org/rates/)?

Seems to me that it would meet the needs of the uninsured without pulling the entire country into an abyss.

[Author]

Replies