Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

Gary, this should be a very large boon for the insurance industry.

Personally, many people I know, and myself included, will be better off with Obamacare, vs our private insurers.

Ex, you did understand that Obamacare is private insurance didn't you?

Yes.

But IF my employer does not/did not offer insurance, I would be eligible for vouchered (income-proportionate) private insurance. NOT the same thing as my overpriced 1/3rd of my gross pay family plan.

...So with everyone getting the voucher, how much will income tax have to go up?

Actually Gary, you make another argument for single payer -- 'administrative costs' for Medicare run well under 10%. Administrative costs for private health insurance companies have run over 20%.

Gary, this should be a very large boon for the insurance industry.

Interesting way the stock market reacted to the news. Hospitals went up, health care insurance went down. To read that it means that Hospitals will now have carte blanche to raise rates through the ceiling. It also reads that insurers will loose their profitable contracts with employers as they all cancel their plans. So with everyone getting the voucher, how much will income tax have to go up?

Gary, just a point of order. Since when has the stock market reacted rationally? It pretty much operates as a ponzi scheem, IMO.

So now the Supremes have confirmed that: Everyone will be made to buy health insurance. This is somewhat logical since Congress has determined that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have health insurance. Not everyone wants or needs health insurance however, so if you don't buy health insurance you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

Let's look at this another way. The Federal government owns lots of GM stock, so based on today's Sup.Ct. decision the following could legally (constitutionally) take place: Everyone will be made to buy (a GM vehicle). This is somewhat logical since Congress [could determine] that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have (a GM vehicle). Not everyone wants or needs (a GM vehicle) however, so if you don't buy (a GM vehicle) you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

At least in the second scenario the value of GM stock should rise nicely.

So now the Supremes have confirmed that: Everyone will be made to buy health insurance. This is somewhat logical since Congress has determined that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have health insurance. Not everyone wants or needs health insurance however, so if you don't buy health insurance you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

Let's look at this another way. The Federal government owns lots of GM stock, so based on today's Sup.Ct. decision the following could legally (constitutionally) take place: Everyone will be made to buy (a GM vehicle). This is somewhat logical since Congress [could determine] that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have (a GM vehicle). Not everyone wants or needs (a GM vehicle) however, so if you don't buy (a GM vehicle) you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

At least in the second scenario the value of GM stock should rise nicely.

So now the Supremes have confirmed that: Everyone will be made to buy health insurance. This is somewhat logical since Congress has determined that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have health insurance. Not everyone wants or needs health insurance however, so if you don't buy health insurance you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

Let's look at this another way. The Federal government owns lots of GM stock, so based on today's Sup.Ct. decision the following could legally (constitutionally) take place: Everyone will be made to buy (a GM vehicle). This is somewhat logical since Congress [could determine] that it is in the public's interest for everyone to have (a GM vehicle). Not everyone wants or needs (a GM vehicle) however, so if you don't buy (a GM vehicle) you will be taxed some monetary amount that will accrue to the US Government. The feds can't penalize you under the commerce clause, but there are no constitutional limits on taxing you.

At least in the second scenario the value of GM stock should rise nicely.

But in the first scenario, as we've already seen, hospital stocks will rise nicely.

Either way, you pointed out my one issue with Obamacare. The positive I see here however, is perhaps more people will be in favor or a single payer system, as this whole thing comes to fruition.

It's a matter of opinion.

I feel health care should be a guaranteed right, in the US, as it is in other industrialized nations.

I don't think cars (or any material possessions) are "rights".

Your taxes (and mine) already are paying for government supplied services. Adding one service, no matter how big of a service, changes nothing about the way we are taxed.

You or I hopefully haven't needed/wanted to call the police. But if we did, they are there for us.


I don't think it's going to pan out as bad as some people think, nor do I believe Obamacare being passed will "open the floodgates" of socialism. The right, when talking about Obamacare, sound as priests did during the Salem trials. Much ado about nothing.
____________
-Dave #2


3.2.0-33