SCOTUS Healthcare Ruling

[sanjuro893]

But that is NOT what's happening despite the best efforts by a bunch of miserable losers to spin it that way...and you know it.

Uh... We're going to have to agree to disagree on that one. I've got no love for the republicans and no delusions that things were all sunshine and roses in the 50's and 60's. This government has gotten BEYOND the bounds of limited government all for the sake of doing "what's right" despite what the people themselves want. They've devalued the dollar, increased our tax burden to the breaking point, passed so much legislation that has more to do with social acceptance than actual law and exempted THEMSELVES from anything they want us to abide by. It's CLASSIC soviet heavy-handedness in my book.

 

[Glocktogo]

Which is why the SCOTUS ruling that it could only stand as a tax is a victory in disguise.

Only if the GOP pulls their heads out of their butts and capitalizes on it. That's the equivalent to handing Barney Fife an M-60 machinegun.

 

[soonerwings]

Only if the GOP pulls their heads out of their butts and capitalizes on it. That's the equivalent to handing Barney Fife an M-60 machinegun.

Like the man said...it isn't the job of the SCOTUS to protect us from our political choices. He called a spade a spade for the whole world to see.

 

[ignerntbend]

Folks, I have a sincere question, and I hope someone can give me an answer that doesn't involve a boiling frog on a slippery slope.
The opinion rendered by the majority is that the bill is constitutional when considered as a tax. If so, is it not a selective tax?
How will it affect people who are already insured? How will it affect most of the people posting in this thread?

 

[Hobbes]

See above

Yep, I'll bet black folks are longing for the good ole days.

 

[inactive]

Folks, I have a sincere question, and I hope someone can give me an answer that doesn't involve a boiling frog on a slippery slope.
The opinion rendered by the majority is that the bill is constitutional when considered as a tax. If so, is it not a selective tax?
How will it affect people who are already insured? How will it affect most of the people posting in this thread?

The figure I saw yesterday is that 83% of Oklahomans are insured. So it will affect 17 percent of our population. That is the short, broad answer.


Me personally, it would not immediately affect as I have private insurance, but if I didn't, we would pay the $700 penalty; my children and I could be covered through IHS health care, but my wife could not.

 

[sanjuro893]

The figure I saw yesterday is that 83% of Oklahomans are uninsured. So it will affect 1 percent of our population. That is the short, broad answer.


Me personally, it would not immediately affect as I have private insurance, but if I didn't, we would pay the $700 penalty; my children and I could be covered through IHS health care, but my wife could not.

83%??? Where is that figure coming from?

 

[WhiteyMacD]

Indeed. You caught me "red-handed." I laid that out there to see if anyone would catch it.




I also believe this means I am exempt from the individual mandate penalty because I have health care provided through IHS.

I dont know if I would call that health care... I cant stand IHS.

 

[SMS]

The opinion rendered by the majority is that the bill is constitutional when considered as a tax. If so, is it not a selective tax?
How will it affect people who are already insured? How will it affect most of the people posting in this thread?

Well, we already have selective taxes right? Married people pay less, people that own houses etc...I can't stomp my feet about that.

How will it affect those of us already insured, and people posting in this thread? From my understanding, it directly affects those who are already insured if their policy doesn't meet the qualifying standards. If your plan doesn't meet standards you have to pay more to get one or pay a tax penalty. I can't go into details on what those standards are because I don't know.

But what I do know is that when government sets standards and issues mandates on coverage...rates go up. So my rates will go up. Additionally, as my insurance provider attempts to offset the cost of providing mandatory insurance for people with pre-existing conditions and 26 year old "children" on their parents policies...my rates will go up yet again.

Then, on top of those rate increases, because I made the choice at 17 to embark on 22 years of military service and earn subsidized health insurance I run the risk of my insurance plan being deemed a "Cadillac Plan" and I will therefore be subjected to additional taxes, the revenue from which will be used to fund insurance/health care for some fat ***** sitting on her ass eating twinkies who's income level qualifies her to enroll in the state run insurance 'pool'.

That's what I think I know...I'm sure I got some details wrong but the end result does not equal "If you have a policy, everythings all good bro!"....LOL.

 

[sanjuro893]

Cards, I think you had the ratio backwards. I think that should read 83% HAVE insurance. According to this, around 18% of Okies do not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Oklahoma