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.
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.
Anyone else hear of "Taxmageddon"? We are preparing for it my firm.....
Here's a calculator that the Washington Post devised: if you're single, out of college, over 26, burdened with student loans, and jobless, then you'll have to pay an additional $3,400 a year, or a $700 penalty...niiiiiice
If your 26, single, and have 0 adjusted gross income you fall under medicare, so its free. Also it won't affect your own firm if you have less than 15 employees.
So we have to do it all over again...new congress, new president is the only way
I don't qualify for MEDICAID. MEDICARE is for the elderly. So I, Like most, will be unjustly taxed.
I don't qualify for MEDICAID. MEDICARE is for the elderly and medicare is not free, the elderly have to pay for Plan B benefits.
So I, Like most, will be unjustly taxed.
In other news, the Supreme Court also ruled that the Montana Law limiting Campaign contributions was unconstitutional, refusing to re-visit the Citizens United ruling from a few years ago. Which corporation will be the next president? Any guesses??
@mena je twa - crazy reports about Roberts' epilepsy and how the medication "affects his cognitive abilities." Also, many are saying he switched at the last second since most of the documents switch "dissent" and "joint opinion" or whatever (someone with more legal expertise feel free to correct lol). They're also saying this might have been the best political move to remove Obama...it gives the GOP HUGE ammunition heading into November. Regarding the Constitutionality though is a different matter.
This is huge! Companies will keep on NOT hiring because they still don't know what their costs will be - so it will affect not only those that want to own their own firm someday, but also those looking for a traditional job both now and in the future.
Also, firms don't have an infinite pool of money to pay for salaries and benefits. Therefore, if a company wanted to pay you more money and not offer health benefits (instead you could use that higher salary to go purchase high deductible insurance at a fraction of the "company benefit" cost) - they will no longer be able to do that. They will either offer health insurance or pay a fine and there doesn't seem to be a way that the employee can choose what is best for themselves and their families.
Vote the tax raising jerks out!
This is a great analogy: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/29/a-modest-proposal/
I don't understand why people are "shocked." The Supreme Court's only responsibly is to judge the constitutionality of legislature; not to render an opinion about whether it's best for the United States. They're constitutional scholars and based on their opinion and knowledge of the constitution, they stated that the health care bill is not unconstitutional. That's it. The Republicans will certainly still have their chance to take it down, especially in an election year.
The Dems and Repubs are coming up with crazy theories about how dilusioned John Roberts is, and is on certain medication and what not...
See, i think Roberts voted on whether Obama care is constitutional or not!!!. What he also did was renamed this bill as a
"TAX" - this is not what Obama and company wanted this to be. Obama is calling this is a penalty.
This whole thing, in my opinion is a dog and pony show...
To me the "shocking" part is that the S.Ct. said that the government can "tax" me for something I'm not doing. So if the government says I must drive a 100 mpg Kia and I don't drive one, can the government "tax" me because I choose to drive a Nissan instead? What if I don't like milk...can they tax me for not drinking milk? Then when I go to the doctor and they ask me if I drink milk and I say "no", will my health insurance be in force because I didn't do everything the government mandated I do (e.g. drinking milk) to stay healthy?
The S.Ct. opinion is a clear over reach of individual liberty!
Implications of the new “tax-mandate”: http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/implications-of-the-new-tax-mandate/
@Entourage is apparently fine with being forced to buy certain commodities by a central government...or paying a tax (penalty, whatever) instead. Sure, you have to have car insurance if you're going to drive, but you can just as well use public transportation or car pool and not pay for car insurance. You literally have NO option with health insurance now...this coming from the "party of choice." My dad is in health care, and he was not planning on retiring for probably another 10+ years, but now he's seriously considering just going into teaching because this law is a mess.
It's against my religion to have health care. Our family prays when someone gets sick. If I have to purchase Obamacare, that's in direct violation of my freedom of religion.
Look on the bright side guys, think about how much this will complicate the tax code, and provide new procedures and complications for auditing and consulting engagements. This could be as lucritive as SOX for us.
And yes, as other posters are saying, the SC only rules on the constitutionality of a bill, not whether or not it is good policy. And I don't see how this would really be any less constitutional than anything else we've seen.
And also, we're highly regarded professionals, I think that we're safe when it comes to our employers providing health insurance. The only problem will be when they start taxing "Cadallac Insurance" policies. But that's so far out I expect this thing to be scrapped by then.
@RedStorm45 - I didn't say if I was for or against the bill, I simply said that the Supreme Court was doing their job. Is everyone an expert now on constitutional law? It's not up to them to decide anything else.
I don't agree with the decision but the point Judge Roberts was trying to make is, WE the people elected these bozos who pass these ridiculous laws. So if we don't like a law they pass, then WE have the right to vote the bums out and elect new representatives to repeal it. It's not the courts job to overturn constitutional laws, no matter how stupid they are. And unfortunately the power to "tax" (ie basically take money from YOU) is within their congressional power.
December 27, 2010, I passed out in Wal-mart. I fell flat on my face without any kind of warning. I spent three days in the hospital having everything under the sun done to me to find out why. My doctor, the surgeon, the hematologist and several other specialists finally concluded that I was exhausted and anemic. They gave me 2 pints of blood and sent me home. I don't have health insurance. The bill, just for the hospital, was $18,900. While I was very relieved that I didn't have cancer or something else just as bad, I was a bit miffed at $18,900 for two nights and three days. Like I said before, this was just the hospital. There were bills from every other doctor who saw me, looked at my chart, or basically passed by my room in those three days, the radiology dept, the anesthesiologist, the surgeon and the pharmacy. The total bill came to $29,500. The two pints of blood were free by the way, two friends of mine with the same blood type as me donated in my name. I started making payment arrangements at the hospital, after all, their bill was for more than I paid for my house. I knew I couldn't pay it all at once. The hospital gave me a Blue Cross rate, 50% or $9,000, if I could pay in 14 days. The surgeon sent me a bill for $4,000. He agreed to $1,000 cash in 14 days which was also the Blue Cross rate. Every other provider also gave me the Blue Cross rate. I paid a total of $11,750. I cashed out my IRA's, emptied my savings accounts, and paid my bills. I made the bills so I paid the bills. I guess I could have filed Bankruptcy, but that's not the way I handle my business.
If a surgeon charges you $4,000 and will take 25% because that's all they are going to get from the insurance company, then how is everyone having insurance supposed to make health care affordable? I can tell you, it's not. Why would anyone go into a profession that requires the amount of education, training and, some pretty hefty student loans, that doctors have, only to be limited in the amount they can earn? Most of the doctors I know are smarter than that. They won't go into that profession.
And just a side note, the hospital filled out a Medicaid application on my behalf, which is their standard procedure when they have a patient with no health insurance. Seven months after I was released, I received a notice from Medicaid saying I earned too much money to qualify for assistance. Go Figure!
@Kricket...sorry I don't understand your point, with respect...your pass out and two-night stays at the hospital just completely wiped out your IRA, but at the same time, you still feel the surgoen didn't charge you enough or his fee was to make a decent living? How much time doesn't the surgoen spend on you anyway if that isn't too personal?...politic aside, I feel we need to produce way more doctors in this country, it's supply and demand. We have eMBA fast track for master degrees, and I wish we could have a fast track system for medical students to become doctors, like 8 yrs instead of 12 years...just my two cents.
@CPA-Convertible I agree with you, doctors receive plenty of money for the work they perform, along with the hospitals. I have a basic problem with people making money, and not just a decent living, but an exorbitant amount on the suffering of others. I cannot help it if I have a debilitating disease, or some idiot runs me over with their car and speeds off; why should someone else then reap the rewards of overcharging me to save my life. Of course I am not going to refuse a drug or procedure if its life saving, so these people have a built in justification machine.
If you want to be a doctor, become one to help others not to make 400K+ per year. I also think the government needs to make med school more affordable someone so we get smart people into this profession, not just those who can afford to payback $350k of student loans.
Again @CPA-Convertible, they could shorten the education if all they required to get into med school was 1 year of prerequisites and not an entire undergraduate degree which lends nothing to learning the profession (I couldn't care less if my doctor knew about 16th century china or Walt Whitman as long as he knows how to perform brain surgery correctly).
Kricket, I'm with you on this.
Last November I traveled to Boston for superior canal dehiscence syndrome surgery and my 18 hour hospital stay was $19k and the surgeon's charge was something like $25k for a total of $55k for the medical procedure and related tests. This was after I spent thousands in my home town trying to get diagnosed and additional thousands going through the VA (even though my cost was not thousands). Fortunately I have a HDHP with $6,000 OOP limit.
When I picked my surgeon, I wanted the BEST and cost was not an issue. I don't care if Dr. Poe got rich off of my surgery - good for him. What was most important to me is that I had the BEST CARE POSSIBLE. I'm happy to read that you got the rate that the doctor and hospital would have gotten from BCBS...that tells you how much is being eaten up by the insurance "middleman". Maybe it's worth it to go the pure cash route as often as possible???!!!
I think it's important that people understand the difference between health insurance and health care. While you don't have health INSURANCE, you were not denied health CARE. ObamaCare is supposed to ensure everyone has health INSURANCE, but health INSURANCE does not guarantee health CARE (case in point...those with Medicaid often have a hard time finding a doctor who accepts it). ObamaCare also appears to be doing very little, if anything, to control health CARE costs.
Thanks for telling your story!
@JakeO...My BEC materials tell me this is a barrier to entry. It's not like everyone can become a doctor even he is wiling to put in the years. I would say most doctors come from well off families who have the financial means to back their children's education. Regardless what health care policy we have, under then current or the new one, the hospitals are going to be as crowded as used to be. Of course, their certificate board is going to argue about its legitmacy on their 12 yrs program...just like those old CPAs complaining the new testing system is "way easy it's give away." Why they complained? 'cause they are afraid more people are going to share their pie.
@CPA-Anydaynow - Yes, that is the point I was trying to make. Health insurance doesn't make you healthy. Health Care makes you healthy. I wasn't denied health CARE because I didn't have health INSURANCE.
@CPA-Convertible - I agree that we need to produce more doctors, better doctors, in this country. But where is the incentive if they can't make enough money to cover their overhead?
I was an insurance clerk at a governmental agency once upon a time. I had a bunch of people upset at one point because their personal physician wasn't going to be "in-network" any longer. He refused to sign a contract with the Office of Group Benefits (State Insurance). I called him and asked why. He told me that their contracted rate for an office visit was $7. He told me that all he asked for was $15 per visit. They refused. His argument, and it is a valid one, is that he can't keep the lights on and provide any kind of decent treatment for his patients on $7. He said he could run patients in like cattle through a slaughter house but he wasn't willing to sacrifice the health and well being of his patients. They still had the option of staying with him, paying his bill upfront and filing the claim themselves. Most of them stayed because he's a good doctor. My argument isn't with health care. It's with health insurance.
Another 69: " if you're single, out of college, over 26, burdened with student loans, and jobless, then you'll have to pay an additional $3,400 a year, or a $700 penalty...niiiiiice"
not true. under ppaca, If you have an income up to 134% of the federal poverty level, you qualify for medicaid. If you are jobless, and assuming that you dont have household income that exceeds the threshold for filling a tax return, you are exempt from having to purchase health care and exempt from having to pay the fine for not having it. also, if it is against your religion, you are exempt as well.
@Kricket...to be CPAs, we all have to put in at least 150 credits hours, pass all four exams within 18 months, and at least 1-2 years of experiences...after all, how much we make? $70-$100K as an experienced CPA. For that kinda money, there are still tons of people like you and me trying to get into this profession...the incentives are always there for the doctors too, sometimes it's more than monetary. In my personal experience, the doctors have been runing patients like cattles regardless anyway... I wasn't trying to argue on obamacare or any reforms, which I think most people have their mind set anway. I just think the cost of being sick shouldn't be this expensive, and I hope we can find a way to produce more doctors who are qualified but not need to go thru all lengthy and expensive medical schools...of course, when it comes to our body and health, we all want to the best care, but expensive cost doesn't translate quality.
@Entourage - sorry, you said you didn't understand the shock. Please tell me another commodity, good, service, etc. that all citizens are FORCED to buy or pay a tax if they don't. I know we're supposed to keep politics out, but look around...the NY ban on food/drinks. You are being told what to do, what to buy, what to eat, drink, etc. etc. Freedom of choice is gone.
This is a pretty good opinion piece written by a constitutional scholar:
@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.
@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?
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.
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."
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. http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/implications-of-the-new-tax-mandate/
You must log in to post.