Reply With Quote
^^Yep.
I was saying if Premiums go up, it won't be because people paying the tax are going to the doctor more.
Still, being covered will likely mean they will see the doctors for more reasons and more often.
I believe one reason insurance is so expensive, is that the copays are not large enough in some plans. Some plans have a $0 copay, which leads to seeing a doctor for any silly thing.
^^Yep.
I was saying if Premiums go up, it won't be because people paying the tax are going to the doctor more.
which is better? a ~100 doctor visit, or a ~2000 ER visit every year?
holy . you don't know jack about health coverage.
There's a large group of people who will have insurance provided for them, right? Won't those people be more inclined to go to the doctor more than they were going to the ER since they're now insured on someone else's dime?
well..not to stereotype...but alot of the poor people dont neccesarily take care of themselves...they dont have gym memberships...probably eat fast food more than normal....so i think they will probably see the doctors more often.
Poor people have health insurance. It is called Medicaid. When I sold health insurance 7 years ago the fastest growing portion of uninsured were those individuals making between 65 and 85K
People actually expecting crooks to repeal crook laws
At least the government can no longer use the Commerce Clause to justify ridiculous taxation, tbh...
they'd have to pay for the office visit.
We aren't just talking about emergency room access. Add 30 million federally subsidized people to the "insured" pool and SOMEBODY is damn well going to pay for it and it's sure not going to be the newly insured.
Office visits wouldn't be covered by the insurance they're given??? Doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of giving them insurance in the first place?
hahah this ing joke of a country
theyll probably still pay a co-pay
does your insurance cover office visits? do you have a copay? do you think doctors in private practice will choose not to charge their office visit?
It's not a tax!
And this is why the ACA won't do anything to reduce premiums that the currently insured are already paying. Before we just had the hospitals overcharging insurance companies to cover the cost of the uninsured, now the insurance companies have to pay taxes to cover the costs of the insurance we're going to give away, as well as the added cost to fund an inefficient federal bureaucracy to administer it all.
Presidents don't write legislation...
I disagree with that. There are certain thing, like exchanges across state lines, that will put downward pressure on premiums. There are provisions that are downward pressure points and some that are upward pressure points.
that said, I don't like this healthcare law, because I think we've basically forced the middle-men (insurance co's), which I don't think it's necessary... but this is probably what's going to take to eventually get to any meaningful reform...
The copay is just a fraction of the cost of the office visit. Paying a copay doesn't equal paying for the office visit.
An interesting take from the comments on scotusblog:
Taxation and regulation under the health care Act
Chief Justice Roberts’ decision that sustains the individual mandate under the taxing power of the United States is filled with twists and turns that requires some words of protest. In the section of his opinion that deals with the Commerce Power, the Chief Justice accepts the view that Congress cannot regulate individuals unless and until they engage in some form of economic activity. He therefore accepts in full the arguments against the expanded reading of the Commerce Clause that were made by conservative commentators. He did so, as is his habit, without stopping a moment to analyze the enormous expansion in federal power that was ratified in Wickard v. Filburn, which authorized Congress to regulate under the Commerce Clause of the amount of wheat that a farmer could produce for home consumption. Big government, we shall have, but not that big, after all.
But when it comes to the taxing power all bets are off. Here the key statement that he makes is this: “it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income.” With all respect, the point is little short of absurd. The earlier portion of the Chief Justice’s opinion noted the huge expansion in federal power that could arise if the government were permitted to regulate various forms of inactivity. What possible argument then could be put forward to say that the same risks do not apply to the expansion of the taxing authority to those same forms of inactivity, in ways that it has never been exercised before. The two examples that the Chief Justice gives are the tax on buying gasoline or earning income. Both of those are obvious activities that have long been regarded as acceptable bases for taxation. But not buying health insurance is not an activity. I am not aware of any tax imposed on individuals for not buying gasoline and not earning income, or not taking a bath or not working in a home office. To allow this to stand as a tax is to accept the same kind of absurdity that was rejected in connection with the taxing power. Intellectually shabby, to say the least.
Ok, I am going to the coast now. Yall have fun with this.
my point is that if they visit a doctor (more often that some contend) they will be out of pocket where they weren't before.
Have fun, dude...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions