| I see a long thread, so I won't just remove it, but guys, if you are going to
discuss this, at least read the decision. Otherwise nothing you say is worth
anything.
Here [PDF].
193 pages.
The health care act was not called a tax. Period. The penalty on
those who choose not to pay was viewed legally as a tax, in that Congress has
the right to tax folks by making them pay a penalty if they don't do stuff. But
if you figure out the money, it may be that it's to your advantage to pay the
tax rather than pay for insurance, and that's up to you. It's your choice, and
there is no law broken no matter which you choose.
People who are single
pay a tax that married people don't, for example. You don't have to get married,
but you save money if you do. With the penalty, it can never be greater than
what your insurace would have been and it might be less, and the normal IRS
penalties for failure to get insurance aren't there, so they can't put you in
jail. You haven't broken the law. You are allowed to pay the penalty/tax if that
is your preference.
That tax goes into the pool. The entire plan depends on
people who are healthy paying insurance, so there is a big pool of all sorts of
healthy and sick people, and the healthy pay for the sick, just like when large
companies have group insurace. No different. ANd nobody knows when he's going to
be one or the most sick, but in the meantime, you pay in. Like all insurance,
it's a gamble for both sides. By arranging it that way, with everyone paying in,
except for the very poor, it will be possible for everyone to have coverage,
even those with pre-existing conditions who currently may not be able to get
insurance at any price.
Because insurance is a gamble, the current
situation is that companies want you only when you are not sick. Once you have
cancer, they don't want to cover you or only at rates most can't afford. The
situation spreads those expenses to everyone, in the end, of course, because in
America, we don't let the sick just die, not on purpose, although there is no
doubt some have died prematurely for lack of coverage.
Some with cancer or
other long term illnesses have insurance but when they reach a certain amount of
money, they get cut off. How would you like that to happen to your mom or dad?
It's happening now.
And the problem with not carrying insurance is that
when you have an accident or get wildly ill, you show up at the hospital
emergency room, and now you can't pay your bill. So the rest of us pay for that
with higher premiums and taxes. For most of us, this bill will be a cost
reduction. It's not sustainable. So the bill forces free loaders to pay their
fair share one way or another. Since everyone eventually uses health care, this
just prevents unfairness.
Or that is the goal. Everyone wants services, but
no one wants to pay. That's what taxes do, is pay for things that are essential
and everyone needs, police, fire, health care, roads.
30 million people in
the US currently have no coverage at all. That is beyond sad, but it is also
very, very expensive, in that they only go to the emergency room when things are
serious, not when they could have been prevented.
I have a neighbor whose
daughter has needed surgery for all the years I've known them, and they couldn't
afford it and no doctor would help them. In 2014, she will be able get that
surgery.
Finally, only 2% of the population is expected to have to pay the
penalty, so if it's a tax, it's not a tax on you, 98% of you. It's a tax on
that small number that can afford health insurance but don't want it. And once
again, they break no law if that is their choice. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
