Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

US Government sponsored healthcare... who's footing the bill?


Off-Topic Discussions

1 to 50 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

Whether or not you see this as good or bad for the country is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread...I am vehemently opposed to It. Be that as It may, It has become an inevitability that it is coming largely due to the Supreme Court's ruling that it is a tax and can be instituted on those grounds. So now the idea for this thread is to discuss how the bill for the healthcare will be covered. My understanding is that it is going to be something like car insurance with additional funds being raised by taxing companies that manufacture and sell medical devices. I believe there are several other sources. The one that has me concerned is the apparent 3.8% sales tax that can be imposed on unearned income particularly in regards to the sale of a home. I admit to being uncertain if this is true. I hope not. Since government healthcare is coming how exactly IS it going to be paid?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

It's really really not that hard to manage. This country has a population less than a tenth of the US, yet we manage.

In simple terms we all (taxpayers) pay a small charge on our taxable income, if you earn a significant wage, you pay slightly more (Levy Surcharge). If you have private health insurance (which the Govt will allow you a rebate on) then you wont pay the Surcharge.

At 1% of your TAXABLE income, its not so bad.

If something happens to you, you WILL be taken care of.

Now I don't mena to get all preachy, but what I find odd is that you'd take a firm stance on something that even you yourself admit to not fully understanding. If you are going to make a public stance on something, you migth do yourself a huge favour and get informed first - it gives you credibility.


Yes, and what was the final status of cutting into Medicare and Medicaid? And how much are they going to tax my "cadillac plan?"


Shifty wrote:

It's really really not that hard to manage. This country has a population less than a tenth of the US, yet we manage.

In simple terms we all (taxpayers) pay a small charge on our taxable income, if you earn a significant wage, you pay slightly more (Levy Surcharge). If you have private health insurance (which the Govt will allow you a rebate on) then you wont pay the Surcharge.

At 1% of your TAXABLE income, its not so bad.

If something happens to you, you WILL be taken care of.

Now I don't mena to get all preachy, but what I find odd is that you'd take a firm stance on something that even you yourself admit to not fully understanding. If you are going to make a public stance on something, you migth do yourself a huge favour and get informed first - it gives you credibility.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Australia's health care works awesomely, there's no reason to believe that the USA's is going to work the same way.


Why?

Shouldn't it be even better given that its supposed to be a competent 1st world nation with a significantly greater economy of scale?

There's every reason to assume it works the same way.


Uh, you do realize who I am, right?


the reincarnation of L Ron Hubbard?


Some of us aren't Union members, Doodlebug. Given the current economy, I love any system that gives me access to medical treatment.


Shifty wrote:
the reincarnation of L Ron Hubbard?

No, but that would be pretty cool.


Dicey the House Goblin wrote:
Some of us aren't Union members, Doodlebug. Given the current economy, I love any system that gives me access to medical treatment.

Yeah, that's fine. I'm not going to bash Obama/Romneycare here (yet).

But, you know, all my news comes from communist websites and al-Jazeera and I would like to know how much (if any) the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid ended up being, and how much and when are they going to tax my plan?

I figure AMiB or Comrade Jeff probably have that info at their fingertips.


Shifty wrote:

Why?

Shouldn't it be even better given that its supposed to be a competent 1st world nation with a significantly greater economy of scale?

There's every reason to assume it works the same way.

Anyway, and seriously, Mr. Shifty:

I'm no expert, but it sounds like you've got a credible single-payer option. That's not what O/Rcare is about. Like, at all.

Therefore, I don't think it's going to work the same way.


I live in Mass, which is where this health-care is in practice already.
It works like this: Health care is offered at $700 per year. If you can't afford that and go without health insurance for that year, you are fined $700.

Basically: "sign up, your paying for it either way, hope you can afford it D-bag!"

If you have no income you get free health care, paid for by all the people who couldn't afford it but have a job.

Brilliant really...


Off the top of my head, the cuts to Medicare are cuts to the Medicare Advantage plans, which basically were paying private companies extra to provide Medicare services along with some extra perks.
It was a recent addition, started under Clinton and expanded and made more profitable under Bush.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Campaign Setting Subscriber

Adequate medical treatment at the onset of illness or injury, in emergency situations, and both prenatal and preventative care should be a right not a privilege. I'll pay a bit more in taxes to assure that, because a healthy populace is worth it.

Ever hit the ER w/o insurance? You can outlast the bill, but it still shows up on your credit report.

I've never taken the time to break down any of my finances to percentages (family of 5, three young kids) so if Big Brother takes an extra 1-5% to give all Americans health care, awesome.

That also means that (in theory) if I ever lose my personal coverage, my children get what they need. I'm sure many families crippled by the recession this past decade would have loved to have state-sponsored health care.

It will never be perfect, but we are all in it together, no?


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:


I'm no expert, but it sounds like you've got a credible single-payer option. That's not what O/Rcare is about. Like, at all.

Therefore, I don't think it's going to work the same way.

O/Rcare certainly has a 'novel' way of levying for funding, which (based on my mininal level of understanding) seems odd, however a State run Healthcare system is a necessity.

It seemed Gendos objection was to "Government Sponsored Healthcare", with the secondary issue of the tax system.

I've simply provided an option B.

Sorry your system isn't working out so well, hopefully your ORCare fixes it.


Shifty wrote:


O/Rcare certainly has a 'novel' way of levying for funding, which (based on my mininal level of understanding) seems odd, however a State run Healthcare system is a necessity.

Again, no expert, but I don't think you can really call state-mandated purchase of private insurance a state-run health care system.

Edited.


Ven wrote:
Health care is offered at $700 per year. If you can't afford that and go without health insurance for that year, you are fined $700.

Are those numbers you listed actual ones or just to illustrate a point? Because in Upstate NY I pay double that, plus my job pays twice what I do. You can't even get bikini care (Health Insurance which covers almost nothing) for $700 per year in my area.


Shifty wrote:
Now I don't mena to get all preachy, but what I find odd is that you'd take a firm stance on something that even you yourself admit to not fully understanding. If you are going to make a public stance on something, you migth do yourself a huge favour and get informed first - it gives you credibility.

.

You need a lesson in the American Way:

1) Hear something from news/neighbors/coworkers
2) Immediately form an intractible opinion
3) ???
4) The incredibly rich profit!


@Grey Lensman--I believe, ironically, that Romneycare actually does have a single-payer option (hence the cheapness), but I couldn't say how well it's doing.


Hudax wrote:

You need a lesson in the American Way:

1) Hear something from news/neighbors/coworkers
2) Immediately form an intractible opinion
3) ???
4) The incredibly rich profit!

The incredibly rich in the insurance companies stand to profit immensely from Obamacare.


Grey Lensman wrote:
Are those numbers you listed actual ones or just to illustrate a point? Because in Upstate NY I pay double that, plus my job pays twice what I do. You can't even get bikini care (Health Insurance which covers almost nothing) for $700 per year in my area.

I'm sure it sounds great when you can afford $700.

I based that number off of my insurance from Staples. But Mass government said "Hey Staples! your insurances sucks so bad that it doesn't qualify as actual insurance in our state. So offer your employee's better insurance or none at all!" to which Staples promptly replied "We don't care about or employees anyway, we'll just take their insurance away, costing them each $700 in fines"

But I looked into it and found this:

massresources.org wrote:

Massachusetts will get extra Medicaid funding from the federal government to pay for health coverage for low-income residents


Where'd everyone go?

[Looks around]

I declare this a victory for revolutionary socialism!

Down with Obamacare!

For free health care for all!

Vive le Galt!

EDIT: Woops, too soon! [Runs back and hides]


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Hudax wrote:

You need a lesson in the American Way:

1) Hear something from news/neighbors/coworkers
2) Immediately form an intractible opinion
3) ???
4) The incredibly rich profit!

The incredibly rich in the insurance companies stand to profit immensely from Obamacare.

They're in a position to profit from any governmentally recognized system though, right? I think the super rich will always win at this game, I just want check-ups for the least among us.


Oh, thanks for the response, btw, Jeff.

@Hitdice--Yes, you're right, of course. But look at Hudax's post: let's not pretend that the filthy plutocrats at the HMOs are losing money over the ACA.


Oh pish, I have yet to see the filthy plutocrats lose money thus far. That wasn't a compliment.


They lost quite a bit in 1917!

Vive le Galt!!!!!!!!!!!

(Is this what Citizen Byers means by "yelling your ideology?")

!!!


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

They lost quite a bit in 1917!

Vive le Galt!!!!!!!!!!!

(Is this what Citizen Byers means by "yelling your ideology?")

!!!

I think Lord Beyers and Lord Teter are fine with the noise so long as we don't shout at each other; all of my Hondas shall sing in one Accord.


!!!!!


All this yelling is making me tired.

Qadira

So stop yelling. Only so much time in the day.

It won't be paid for, not properly. So another stop gap measure will happen, and another, until the whole bloody mess will need an over haul. My only issues with the payment factor of this bill, not that I don't have other issues but who really cares, is not that it is a poorly defined excuse for a payment, but rather it does such a poor job of really covering peoples healthcare. Its a command from on high to do something but not a plan on how to properly do it. If we as a country are going to go into debt to cover our health expenditures then lets at least cover the damn services.


I actually yell at my laptop while Im typing. I think its weird that the Paizo mods can tell. Surveillance state!!!

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay. Before posting any further in this thread:

READ THIS.

Anyhoo. Replies!

Gendo wrote:
So now the idea for this thread is to discuss how the bill for the healthcare will be covered. My understanding is that it is going to be something like car insurance with additional funds being raised by taxing companies that manufacture and sell medical devices. I believe there are several other sources.

There are a bunch of sales/excise taxes (tanning booths, health insurance that charges over X amount, medical equipment), but the bulk of the funding comes from new taxes on insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies and upping the FICA cap. In practice, it's a 0.9% tax on annual income over $250k (jointly) or $200k (individually).

Shifty wrote:
In simple terms we all (taxpayers) pay a small charge on our taxable income, if you earn a significant wage, you pay slightly more (Levy Surcharge). If you have private health insurance (which the Govt will allow you a rebate on) then you wont pay the Surcharge.

This is a tax you are already paying today. The FICA tax cap is being raised, and the tax on income above a certain amount is being raised. Basically, if you're not making more than $200k/$250k, then you're not seeing a payroll tax increase.

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

But, you know, all my news comes from communist websites and al-Jazeera and I would like to know how much (if any) the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid ended up being, and how much and when are they going to tax my plan?

I figure AMiB or Comrade Jeff probably have that info at their fingertips.

Medicaid is being massively expanded eligibility-wise effective 2014. In 2015, Medicaid payments to doctors are changing. This is fairly controversial, but the upshot is that reimbursements are going up but are predicated on quality-of-care measurements.

Medicare Advantage (a partial subsidy of private insurance for the retired) is getting its funding cut down to per-capita average Medicare spending, but plain old Medicare (single-payer state-funded public insurance, paid for from taxes) is not changing significantly. (This is part of the original Medicare Advantage agreement.) The Medicare drug rebate is increasing, however; this has already been implemented.

The Independent Medical Advisory Board was also set up to research ways to get Medicare costs down, but their decisions are non-binding, they aren't allowed to make recommendations that reduce healthcare quality, and, most importantly, anything they suggest merely goes to Congress for consideration.

Ven wrote:
I'm sure [Mass. health care] sounds great when you can afford $700.

I don't know about Massachusetts' system, but under the ACA, you get Medicaid free up to 133% of the poverty line, then there's a sliding cap on what overall percentage of your income insurers can charge. If you can't get insurance from anyone for a price under that cost cap, the federal government refunds you the difference (or exempts you from the going-without-insurance cost, in certain circumstances).


I do actually have a quick question that I havent been able to find the answer to. (and its not on your reddit link, AMiB.) In 2018, a 40% (IIRC) tax will be added to "cadillac" plans, but I have no idea what constitutes a cadillac plan. A pre-emptive thanks to whomever points me to the info.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

TheWhiteknife wrote:
I do actually have a quick question that I havent been able to find the answer to. (and its not on your reddit link, AMiB.) In 2018, a 40% (IIRC) tax will be added to "cadillac" plans, but I have no idea what constitutes a cadillac plan. A pre-emptive thanks to whomever points me to the info.

This tax starts in 2018. Your employer will need to pay a 40% tax on any healthcare compensation over $10,200 (single coverage) or $27,500 (family coverage) annually, with higher caps for the elderly and people in high-risk professions. This chiefly applies to insurance, but also applies to various healthcare savings accounts and whatnot.


Hudax wrote:


.
You need a lesson in the American Way:

1) Hear something from news/neighbors/coworkers
2) Immediately form an intractible opinion
3) ???
4) The incredibly rich profit!

Ok I see what I did wrong there, thanks for pointing out the error of my way! :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Modules Subscriber

I never got that Obamacare discussion, as we have had mandatory, semi-federal health insurance for decades (Germany).

It seems that there were so many half-truths and outright lies spread about it, attempting to damage Obama, that it was percieved as an assault on the Constitution by many. The link provided by AMiB was very good, explaining it thoroughly. It seems, all in all, not so much different in effect than what I´m used to here.

We do have an expensive system paid by employers and employees, both pay an roughly equal share, summing up at 15,5% of your gross income. But then, most medical treatments come at no or only nominal additional costs. These are basic treatments for the most part, some higher standards have to be payed for privately. And you get payment if you can´t continue to work due to an illness.
Poor people, unemployed people and the elderly get the same treatment as anybody else, with the elderly causing the majority of the costs. These costs are payed by all.
It does lead to an overall good health care, and people do not have to fear getting ruined (and/or losing their job) because of some illness.

As an example, my teenaged niece broke her foot recently. We brought her to the next hospital (could have called an ambulance as well, I guess). The treatment included the x-rays, the splint and anything else necessary and would have included transporting her home (several hundred kilometers) as well, at no additional cost. It was all covered by my brother-in-laws insurance.


Stebehil wrote:


It seems that there were so many half-truths and outright lies spread about it, attempting to damage Obama, that it was percieved as an assault on the Constitution by many.

You do not think that there is any potential unConstitutional abuse that could result from a precedent-setting law that forces one to buy a product from a private company? Do you believe this proposed law would be unConstitutional? Why or why not? Sometimes, it has nothing to do with Obama.

Edit- to head anything off at the pass, yes, I'm aware that this was a proposed law at the state level that failed in 2000. Just hypothetically, would you consider it unconstitutional if it were passed at the national level, now?

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Um... It's not precident setting.

It essentially was federal law between 1792 and sometime in the early 19th century that every free, able, white male had to own a musket or rifle and appropriate kit.

See the Second Militia Act of 1792.


And you think thats a good idea?


That wasn't the question you asked.
You asked if it was constitutional.

The two are not the same thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Like anything and everything else, the people who will pay for it are the people who have made good decisions and are earning income that gives them choices. I earn well less than half of the $250,000 annual that the POTUS is calling middle income these days (though I do live in one of the fly-over states where costs tend to be less), and it is PLENTY for me to have a wide variety of choices for my family and myself.

The truth is that when an insurance company is told that they may not use actuary tables to adjust costs based on risks, then either the costs go up significantly for the low and moderate risk groups, or the company can not make money.

The truth is that when an insurance company is told they may not cap expenses under a specific individual's coverage, that the company's costs go up, and if they do not charge more for the insurance, they can not make money.

Insurance companies in the USA are still private corporations, and if they are not profitable they shut their doors.

Like so much of the modern liberal agenda, this public law takes from those who earn to force them to provide for those who do not.

Our government was created to follow many ideals. One of those ideals is that what you earn is yours to do with as you choose. Another one of those ideals is that communities take care of their own. Communities in this case refers to small towns and neighborhoods, NOT the Federal and State governments. Yet another one of those ideals was that absolutely no power belongs in the hands of the Federal government that can be handled at a lower level, and the assumption that if it isn't international politics or trade then it can (and should) be handled at a lower level.

BTW, for those who complain about how little Congress accomplishes . . .. The process and balance of power defined in the US Constitution was DESIGNED to create and maintain gridlock in our government. The US House of Representatives was designed to represent the population. The Senate was designed to represent the State governments, NOT the people. The person in charge of establishing the agenda and controlling activities in the Senate was supposed to be the POTUS's most successful OPPONENT. Congress was not supposed to pass bills unless those bills were recognized as important by and for the people, by and for the states, AND by the POTUS's opposition. The "lines in the sand" were supposed to be about constituents, not parties, but they were DESIGNED to be in place.

One of the things that changed in the American assumption during/after the Civil War is one of the most basic assumptions about how our government was designed: Each state in the Union was a separate and inherently sovereign entity which willingly joined a loose coalition of such independently sovereign entities. The USA was never meant to be the equivalent of France because Maryland was recognized as the sovereign equivalent of France. The European Union is the second entity in the modern world which is trying to be the same kind of cooperative effort by still independent sovereign states.

If you read the "welfare clause" in the US Constitution, it does NOT say that Congress is responsible for seeing to the welfare of the population. It says that Congress is responsible for seeing to the welfare of the STATES. That truth, and the difference between what the US Constitution actually says and how the "modern liberal agenda" wants it to read SHOULD scare people whether they support the "modern liberal agenda" or not. After all, if we accept and encourage those who serve us to ignore what the US Constitution actually says in a way we like, what's supposed to stop them from doing so in a way THEY like instead? Our government model is being disassembled from within, while we cheer, because it is EASIER than taking responsibility for ourselves and demanding that people do what they should.


I am very thankful for our healthcare system in Canada, and it is covered by our taxes. However, it is one our biggest expenses. That differs from the US where national defence is the biggest expense. Without a americans changing their paradigm about how to spend US tax revenue (i.e. investing more of it towards the people- infrastructure, education, health care instead of such a large chunk of the pie going to things like national defence) it will be hard to support a proper healthcare system, and I don't really see such a shift happening. It seems from my outside point of view that america can be a great country to live in if you have money (then you can afford good health insurance, private schools etc..), but a tough country to get by in without a good job (especially if you get sick).

My issue with our public healthcare system is you have people like smokers leeching money out of it for treating illnesses that are perfectly preventable (like smoking related illness). I wish there was a way to force those sorts of people to have to put in extra money or have to pay for their own healthcare. It would save a lot of money, but it is hard to decide where to draw the line on that kind of situation- ie. should fat people who have obesity related illnesses because they don't eat right or get proper exercise also have to pay extra because their health issues are also preventable? That kind of thinking quickly becomes a slippery slope.


thejeff wrote:

That wasn't the question you asked.

You asked if it was constitutional.

The two are not the same thing.

You do realise that that was a second question, right?

Look, I really dont have much of a problem with nationalised healthcare. I dont. But I do think that government forcing you to buy products is not a good idea or constitutional, despite what the supreme court says.


A Man In Black wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
I do actually have a quick question that I havent been able to find the answer to. (and its not on your reddit link, AMiB.) In 2018, a 40% (IIRC) tax will be added to "cadillac" plans, but I have no idea what constitutes a cadillac plan. A pre-emptive thanks to whomever points me to the info.
This tax starts in 2018. Your employer will need to pay a 40% tax on any healthcare compensation over $10,200 (single coverage) or $27,500 (family coverage) annually, with higher caps for the elderly and people in high-risk professions. This chiefly applies to insurance, but also applies to various healthcare savings accounts and whatnot.

If last year's Verizon strike was any indication, the employer will just pass that along to the employee.

And, seeing how the Communication Workers of America were one of the biggest backers of Obamacare from the beginning...well, there's a reason I call for the unions to break with the Democrats.

I don't know why they don't listen to me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

hustonj- you do a good job of summing up some of the key differences between the US paradigm and many other countries like Canada. It seems like the big problem in the US is that people/communities looking out for each other and taking care of each other is completely neglected in many cases. The first point about people wanting to keep their money to do what they choose with it, seems to still hold true, which is fine if you have money, but given that so many americans don't have money, I imagine a lot of americans probably end up feeling like they are living in a third world country.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
I do actually have a quick question that I havent been able to find the answer to. (and its not on your reddit link, AMiB.) In 2018, a 40% (IIRC) tax will be added to "cadillac" plans, but I have no idea what constitutes a cadillac plan. A pre-emptive thanks to whomever points me to the info.
This tax starts in 2018. Your employer will need to pay a 40% tax on any healthcare compensation over $10,200 (single coverage) or $27,500 (family coverage) annually, with higher caps for the elderly and people in high-risk professions. This chiefly applies to insurance, but also applies to various healthcare savings accounts and whatnot.

If last year's Verizon strike was any indication, the employer will just pass that along to the employee.

And, seeing how the Communication Workers of America were one of the biggest backers of Obamacare from the beginning...well, there's a reason I call for the unions to break with the Democrats.

I don't know why they don't listen to me.

I was thinking close to the same thing, except I just figured that this will mean my employer will just stop offering "cadillac" health plans.


P.H. Dungeon wrote:
hustonj- you do a good job of summing up some of the key differences between the US paradigm and many other countries like Canada. It seems like the big problem in the US is that people/communities looking out for each other and taking care of each other is completely neglected in many cases. The first point about people wanting to keep their money to do what they choose with it, seems to still hold true, which is fine if you have money, but given that so many americans don't have money, I imagine a lot of americans probably end up feeling like they are living in a third world country.

There are actually a great number of community and private organizations doing an amazing amount of good within the borders of the USA. You don't hear about them in the news because that kind of news doesn't attract readers/watchers for more than a quick grin, and today's news market is about selling advertising (which seems to focus on sensationalism), not informing.

I spent 25 years as an enlisted man serving the population of the USA. I was fortunate in where I was told to serve and my experiences in TRUE third world areas is very minimal. I did get to spend time interacting with third world workers imported into wealthier nations as manual labor. I have also spent time interacting with the homeless in the USA. Those who want to compare the poorest people in the USA to people living in a third world nation have never lived in a third world nation. Our poorest are not that bad off by comparison.

Our mental incompetents who are "hiding" as homeless are different, since they would have died off much earlier in the process in one of those third world nations.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:

That wasn't the question you asked.

You asked if it was constitutional.

The two are not the same thing.

You do realise that that was a second question, right?

Look, I really dont have much of a problem with nationalised healthcare. I dont. But I do think that government forcing you to buy products is not a good idea or constitutional, despite what the supreme court says.

It was a second question, but I assumed it was related. Unlike legal or constitutional questions, thinking something is a good idea doesn't set a precedent.

I think, and the SC apparently agrees, that both are constitutional.
I think, in the modern era, mandating guns would be a bad idea. I'd think this pretty much regardless of whether we were required to buy them from private companies, a government gun firm or just handed them by the government arsenal
I think the mandate is a lousy compromise. I think in many ways it's better than the current/previous system. I'd much rather have an actual national healthcare system supported by a progressive tax, but that wasn't making it through Congress.


thejeff wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:
thejeff wrote:

That wasn't the question you asked.

You asked if it was constitutional.

The two are not the same thing.

You do realise that that was a second question, right?

Look, I really dont have much of a problem with nationalised healthcare. I dont. But I do think that government forcing you to buy products is not a good idea or constitutional, despite what the supreme court says.

It was a second question, but I assumed it was related. Unlike legal or constitutional questions, thinking something is a good idea doesn't set a precedent.

I think, and the SC apparently agrees, that both are constitutional.
I think, in the modern era, mandating guns would be a bad idea. I'd think this pretty much regardless of whether we were required to buy them from private companies, a government gun firm or just handed them by the government arsenal
I think the mandate is a lousy compromise. I think in many ways it's better than the current/previous system. I'd much rather have an actual national healthcare system supported by a progressive tax, but that wasn't making it through Congress.

Did you actually read the decision, or just accept the media's quick summary?

The majority decision laid out instructions on how to challenge the health care insurance reform bill (the bill had nothing to do with actual health care, just health care insurance) as Unconstitutional and win. The majority decision declared the belief that the bill is Unconstitutional, but not under the grounds on which it was being challenged.

The majority opinion also declared that the bill is Constitutional (under the terms used to challenge it) as long as you accept the premise (as the SCOTUS chose to) that the statements within the bill that the penalty is not a tax are meaningless, that the statements from the bill's sponsors and supporters that the penalty is not a tax are meaningless (given that the SCOTUS uses external statements from the Founding Fathers to interpret what the Constitution means, refusing to do the same for a bill seems more than a little hypocritical, don't you think?), and that the contradictory statements made by lawyers who were paid to win at all costs instead accurately reflect the intent and purpose of the bill. That one ruling declares that a targeted financial obligation created by administrative procedures for failing to comply with the law is a tax and not a penalty or fine. So, does that mean that a speeding ticket is now a tax? Does that mean that the "penalties and interest" assigned by the IRS are now also taxes and not actually penalties?

The only point in the decision that supported the Constitutionality of the bill runs contradictory to huge aspects of how our federal, state, and local governments have run since before the nation was founded.

Andoran

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Of course what the SCOTUS says about the bill is meaningless since they don't actually have the power to determine the constitutionality of law.

1 to 50 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / US Government sponsored healthcare... who's footing the bill? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.