As of Friday, June 29, 2012
© Copyright 2013
Gwinnett Daily Post
"I have insurance but some people don't. I bet everyone against (the Supreme Court ruling) has or can get health insurance. I am for the new law. Everyone deserves affordable healthcare!"
Want to get something off your mind? Do you have something you want to share with others? To submit a post, click here or send an email to: webinfo@gwinnettdailypost.com. We'll select one every day to be featured on the Gwinnett Daily Post homepage.
Agree or disagree with the selected post? Share your comments below.
Comments appearing in The Daily "Post" are submitted by the public and are not necessarily the opinions of the Gwinnett Daily Post.
More like this story
- The Daily "Post" - July 5, 2012 - Seat belts ( July 5, 2012 )
- The Daily "Post" - July 26, 2012 - Conservative Republicans ( July 25, 2012 )
- The Daily "Post" - May 25, 2012 - Taxes and more taxes ( May 25, 2012 )
- The Daily "Post" - Aug. 8, 2012 - Summer break ( August 7, 2012 )
- The Daily "Post" - May 6, 2012 ( May 6, 2012 )
Comments
R 11 months, 3 weeks ago
I HAD affordable health care UNTIL this passed the senate/house.
Jan 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Such insinuations without any facts is nothing more than more than sour grapes rantings. Get some numbers to back that up - list your monthly insurance costs for the past 10 years. Calculate for each year the percentage increase. Take in the consideration of the expected rebate from your insurance company in august for them going under the 80% expenditure for your health care expenditures. Take into account the zero cost of preventive tests for which you were charged under your previous plan. Now give me some true numbers to prove your point. I am waiting to see if you are willing to apologize when you see you are wrong.
R 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Jan The truth hurts doesn't it?
This is a MAJOR direct and INDIRECT tax increase. If we want to REDUCE the cost of medical care as all who support this program approach claim, how does taxing medical devices at roughly 3 percent accomplish this? The only ones who don't see an increase are those whose doctors DON'T use or prescribe ANY medical devices to their patients!
As to publishing personal numbers you are free to do so, I decline because unfortunately its meaningless. But my drug cost has increased 150 percent since 2009, my deductible top out before co-pays apply increased 250 percent. All since 2008. so play with the pre Obama costs all you want, but its not complementary to YOUR side of the issue in the slightest.
So lets just all continue to see what was actually voted for so we could ALL see whats in it. Is the legislation really complete or are key sections STILL being developed right now?
NorcrossDot 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Jan,
Do your research. If the media you watch doesn't give you the facts there are other alternatives. You can also access the bill and/or the highlights on the web.
The above barely scratches the surface.
Sound familiar, try reading on Germany's history..
Jan 11 months, 3 weeks ago
I have done the research while you are echoing the Republican talking points. Facts are that the insurance rates have been going up. Now the insurance companies have a cap on profits and must mail out rebates. A slight increase in premiums is to be expected for those that had inferior policies since they are now given minimum coverage standard including zero copay preventive medicine, the savings from this is in the future as more illnesses are caught early enough to treat at less expense. Wait until August when you get premium rebates as required by law. This is not a tax increase unless you choose to ignore your responsibility to get insurance, then fines are assessed. As to your point number three, every insurance company utilizes such a panel. Medicare, the government program, has proven to be more responsible in making such decisions. I do not trust my, for profit, insurance company with those decisions. You need to do a serious look at health care around the world then explain why ours is poor in comparison with most developed countries and a few under developed countries. Only two reasons to not like this plan: 1, You do not have insurance and want others to supplement your emergency room visits. 2. You do not want to share medical care with others.
NorcrossDot 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Jan, I have always have health insurance that I paid for myself. Talking points LOL Like the Pot calling kettle black. You were probably for the Gwinnett County takeover of private enterprise garbage. Who do you think is going to pay for the rebates in the long run. The taxpayers.Your statement on Medicare I had to take break I laughed so hard. There is not a government program that has ever, ever been successful with the Feds leading the way. When our economy crashes there will be nothing for anyone. Now I will answer to bias assumptions regarding me. 1. Growing up we didn't have health care and my parents worked and paid the doctor bills as they came. When I started my career ( my first job as a file clerk) 50+ years ago I have always had Health Insurance and and my family. Paid for by me and sometimes an employer paid part. 2. An absolute insult. No, I want them to work and get insurance on their own. There are agencies that help people who can not work or pay for insurance.
I would rather deal with the Insurance Panels (and I have never lost an appeal) than government appointed lackeys that threaten you. i.e. IRS As to the other countries - I don't know of one that has the techology and excellent doctors where you can choose your own. Don't you read where ever one that needs surgery, cancer treaments, etc comes to the US.
Last Canda, France, England, all of those would probaly welcome you there.
Say_that_again 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Where do you get your ideas? Did get a good laugh that you believe private insurance is better than medicare. Please explain why you think so (I could use another laugh!) Do you know how to use google or do you just like to ignore sites with real facts? How you believe that an insurance program with much lower overhead, better coverage and quicker approvals is inferior--- What a laugh! When have you been threatened by "government lackeys"? Much greater evidence of denial of services and delay of services from private insurance "lackeys"
Mack711 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Jan: 'Now the insurance companies have a cap on profits and must mail out rebates. '
So they, the government, have put a cap on profits, What does that tell you? The government is telling private companies how much they can make. When that starts private companies will get out of the business of insuring and look for other ways of making a profit. Investors will pull their money from these companies because they can not get a return on investment. There are many who are eligible for Medical insurance that chose not to get it, and that is their decision. If they make that decision then they must pay for this them selves. Why should responsibe citizens have to pay for them? Maybe they want to do illegal drugs instead of health insurance, or maybe they are illegal to start with. They made the choice, not you. Most do not want to supplemnet medical cost for those who make bad descisions. Although we are doing it now through taxes colleted from taxes that we already pay. Next you will be paying for your neighbors house that is in foreclosure that he could not afford to start with. This is nothing more than 'Socialized Medicine' and once you start down that path the government will expand to other areas very quickly. This is only a stepping stone for more to come from the government.
FordGalaxy 11 months, 3 weeks ago
So forcing everyone to purchase health insurance under threat of a penalty is the way to bring about cheaper insurance? Surely tort reform would've been a better first step than handing Congress more power than they've ever had before.
Obama swore to the Heavens that the penalty was NOT a tax. The Supreme Court says it is legal only if it is a tax. And yet Obama, Pelosi, and the Democrats are celebrating the Court's upholding of the bill. This was sold to us on a lie. We the people were treated like stuttering idiots by Pelosi ("Are you serious?" and "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it..."). So much for the most transparent administration, eh?
Jan 11 months, 3 weeks ago
You really should read the Roberts ruling before taking up the Republican talking points. Roberts did not say that the penalty was a tax. He said that it was constitutional under the tax clause of the united states. There is a clear distinction that is obviously lost on Republican pundits. Most people already have insurance and will never be required to pay a penalty. If you go to the bill and read it, you will also see that the IRS is not allowed to put a take legal action in the collection of this penalty. How can it be a tax if the IRS is not allowed to enforce it? As to the Pelosi quote, obvious to any intelligent person, it is taken out of context. Read the entire speech and you will understand that this is a rebuttal to Republican rhetoric. She is trying to be diplomatic. The Republican talking points were expressing significant lies about the plan (as they continue to do) and she was explaining that the people will not understand the bill until they saw it in action. To argue that it lacked transparency is ridiculous since the entire bill has been available on line for anyone interested to read. Unfortunately, people do not like to read facts, they prefer echoing their favorite pundits. I do wish the administration was more transparent but do like that it is more transparent than the Bush administration which got us into a war by altering CIA reports to convince congress that Iraq was involved in 9/11 attack and was on the verge of having a nuclear weapon. Both accusations subsequently being proven as false.
DaKS 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Jan, do you really not understand that Justice Roberts was saying the only way the "penalty" was legal under the constitution was as a tax.?
FordGalaxy 11 months, 3 weeks ago
Wait...it's NOT a tax, but it's allowable under Congress's ability to tax? I had to stop for a minute after reading that.
I know that people with insurance won't have to pay the penalty, but we were also told we could keep our insurance if we liked it, and guess what? Businesses are dropping employees to fit within this Administration's regulations and insurance guidelines. The people who lose their jobs have nothing. But yeah, this is a great moment for America.
And I've listened to the speech by Pelosi. It was nothing but denigrating talking points. She wouldn't answer how this was Constitutionally legal. It would've been that simple. But you had her and other Democrats dancing around the topic and inventing clauses like the "Good and Welfare" clause.
Jan 11 months, 3 weeks ago
I will attempt to simplify this so you can understand the distinction. The law clearly states this is a penalty. The IRS routinely assess penalties and clearly separates what is penalty and what is tax. The IRS has the constitutional right to assess these penalties under the taxation clause. The penalty for not buying insurance is just another one collectable by the IRS. If you do not pay your taxes, the IRS can put a lien on your property and even seize property for non payment. This bill specifically states that the IRS cannon place liens on property, further making a distinction between this penalty and taxation. Of course I doubt if you understand since you do not grasp the nuances of Pelosi's speech.
FordGalaxy 11 months, 3 weeks ago
You know, Jan, I guess I'm just not as okay about being consistently lied to as you are...oh, wait...sorry, I'm not as okay about being "nuanced" to. How can you sit there and accept the "most transparent administration in our history" telling us that a bill has to be passed before we get to find out what is in it? How are you okay with Democrats making up Constitutional clauses to justify this bill?
To quote George Stephanopoulos: From Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: Tax, noun, a charge usually of money imposed by authority on person or property for public purposes. Obama told Stephanopoulos that he was reaching by quoting a definition. Tell me, how does this "penalty" not fit the definition of a tax? Because to me, it's the Democrats who are stretching by saying "Yeah, SCOTUS may have said it is legal only under the taxing authority of Congress, but that doesn't mean it's a tax."
Jan 11 months, 2 weeks ago
So, according to your broad definition, Romney significantly raised taxes when he increased the cost of license fees and judges are imposing taxes when they levy a fine. Note that your Webster's definition did not say that every charge imposed was a tax, only that tax falls into the category of charges by the government. See if you can understand by example. Webster says red is a color it also defines green as a color and yet green is not red, unless you are color blind. So to interpreting tax in such a broad term would make one politically blind.
FordGalaxy 11 months, 2 weeks ago
So...so long as we say it isn't a tax, then it's not a tax? Let's put aside the definition for a moment. You've yet to explain how you are okay with government being so deceitful in passing this bill. Or are you part of the "meh" generation? I know too many people who look at government dealings and say "Meh, doesn't immediately affect me, so who cares?" but they go on and on and on about American idol or Survivor...
Jan 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Government was not deceitful. The full text of the bill was available for anyone with the inclination to read it. We already had the Massachusetts health care that Mitt Romney had signed into law that included the same basic elements. If you find such openness to be deceitful, then you need help with your paranoia. The health care bill will effect everyone so everyone should care. It will retard the rise in medical costs which have exceeded inflation, though not nearly as much as a Medicare for all system. Competition does not work in the medical field. When you have an emergency, you don't go research all the cardiologists in the area before seeking help. Insurance policies are so complex that even the insurance specialist in the medical care facilities can't tell you how much they will pay for all procedures so how can individuals be expected to make a good choice for personal policies. The bill sets some minimum standards for insurance and sets in rules to protect the consumer. The plan has multiple parts, here are a few, with which do you disagree? 1. Insurance must cover preexisting conditions and cannot cancel your policy when you get sick. 2. Children can stay on their parents policies until age 26. 3. Insurance companies must provide preventive checkups at zero copay. 4. Freeloaders, (those using emergency rooms, etc and not paying), on the health system will be penalized to help offset the expenses they incur.
FordGalaxy 11 months, 2 weeks ago
I don't disagree with the intent. I'd love to see everyone insured and I'd sure love to see medical costs lowered. I don't think forcing everyone to purchase insurance or be fined was the way to accomplish that. Especially given that this ruling allows Congress to legal implore citizens purchase a product or be punished.
And yes, I feel it was deceitful. As I've noted, you had a respected member of cognress saying that it was allowable under the (nonexistant) Good and Welfare Clause of the Constitution. Nancy Pelosi, instead of answering a question on Congressional authority to do this, simply responded "Are you serious?" in a rather mocking manner. of course, you say it was just nuance. Pelosi has called the difference between calling it a "penalty" and a "tax" just 'Washington talk.' I can't help but feel like they feel we're not smart enough to understand them. Just recently Obama chided the Supreme Court about taking the "extraordinary and unprecedented" step of overturning a law that was passed "by strong majority of a Democratically elected Congress." But the bill passed congress by a slim majority and with ZERO Republican votes. Also, the Supreme Court has been overturning laws for 230+ years, so it isn't exactly unprecedented or extraordinary. Remember too that the White House claimed Obamacare passed with "a strong majority", but the Paul Ryan budget, which passed the Hosue with nine more votes than Obamacare did, did NOT have a strong majority.
Like I said, i agree that something needed to be done. I just truly think that we've done it the wrong way, and handed Congress too much power in the process.
Jan 11 months, 2 weeks ago
I am just surprised that you are so upset about this and I haven't seen you criticize the supreme court ruling that allows unlimited corporate giving and has resulted in superpacs that are not required to reveal their sources. We are now facing a situation that would allow massive amounts of money from foreign sources, including enemy nations and drug lords, as well as corporations buying even more influence to get more specialized rebates and deductions as well as reduced safety,health and economic regulations.
FordGalaxy 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Personally, my views on campaign finance would crush the current state of affairs. At the state and local level, I don't think a candidate should be allowed to spend more on their campaign than they will make while in office. The fact that people spend millions of dollars to get a job that pays only $100k a year is baffling, until you realize the level of corruption and kickbacks coming their way.
As for the national level (President, etc.), I think only individuals should be allowed to donate. No lobbyists, not SuperPACs, no corporations, just individuals. I know this seemingly goes against my usual freedom and liberty mantra, but a level of regulation is a good thing. Most conservatives agree that some regulation is needed, we just disagree on the amount. I say we need to regulate the campaign process. Of course, I'd also limit the number of commercials a candidate can do, I'd limit them to no phone calls until 45 days prior to an election, and I'd place laws on campaign signs that all signs must be up within a week after the election, and there is an automatic $100 fine per sign left out after that week. I can't stand campaign signs. The other day I counted 36 signs for a single candidate within a two mile stretch. That's overkill.
Jan 11 months, 2 weeks ago
I am glad that we have found something on which both of us agree! I would add one more item that should create better elections. Stop having tax payer funded primary elections, all qualifying candidates run in a non partisan election and use a runoff to determine the winner of the race. This should help avoid those extreme, uncompromising politicians on both sides of the aisle and make it so candidates are not required to endorse certain things in their platform to even be able to get on the ballot.
FordGalaxy 11 months, 2 weeks ago
I would also add that their needs to be changes to the balloting process. In some places it costs $10,000 just to get your name on the ballot, depending on the position (South Carolina charges a 1% filing fee based on expected income). Our system right now has too much access for the uber-wealthy and too little access for the middle class and poor, who quite frankly have better ideas than the uber-wealthy, just not enough money to get those ideas heard. And I'm not begrudging anyone their wealth, nor am I advocating spreading that wealth around. I just think it should be easier for everyone to have access to getting on the ballot.
Jan 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Another point of agreement! We might be more similar in ideas than originally seemed to be the case. I'll roll out another idea this evening, no time now.
Jan 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Another way our politicians have worked to improve the chances of their party winning is gerrymandering. Both sides do it. This further blocks people from having representation and elected representatives being more party oriented than people oriented. I suggest that we change the constitution to combine districts in non partisan elections so you have districts from a minimum of 3 representatives to a maximum of 10 representatives. For a district of 5 representatives, the candidates in the top 5 become the representatives for that district, etc. As the districts grow, they just get another representative until they reach 10 then the district is divided. This not only gives more voice to the people, it also reduces government costs in long battles over districts, including extensive court battles. This should also encourage voting for it increases the value of a vote.
Sigh 11 months, 2 weeks ago
Regardless of the definition of a tax, the Supreme Court ruled that the mandate is only constitutional AS A TAX. Therefore, it is a tax, or it's unconstitutional. Period. As for affordable, I work in a pharmacy, and know for a fact that deductibles and co-pays are going up, not down. In talking to numerous people, I also know for a fact that premiums are going up. To pay for those who can't afford insurance and who will receive government assistance, insurance companies will have to charge more and government will be taking more tax dollars for this. Insurance does not and will not cover everything, so for those who still can't afford to pay their emergency care costs not covered by the insurance they now have to have, the shortage will still have to be dealt with by someone, and no real solutions are posed in Obamacare. As for me, I literally can NOT afford this. I don't have insurance, having been hit by the recession and job loss. I'm working now, but at a decrease in salary that doesn't even cover the bills I got behind on. I do not have anything to spare, and when I get hit with this TAX, then the only thing I have left to cut are the essentials. Nor do I qualify for government assistance or entitlements. I make just a little too much. Funny how a person can go hungry on that 'little too much'. I fully agree our healthcare system needs reform. But Obamacare adds a lot of burdens to the people who are hurting the most right now without doing anything really to help. Ignoring either Republican or Democrat talking points, the facts are that this bill is going to hit a lot of people who can't afford the financial blows. I've already seen the evidence of it on a personal level.
Jan 11 months, 2 weeks ago
While deductibles for medicines have gone up (as they would have been doing for years without this plan), copays for preventive medicine has gone down. Catching cancers, and other sever ailments, early help reduce the treatment of those illnesses. This will be savings to total out of pocket expenses. You cannot take 1 portion of your insurance and ignore the rest when determining the viability of it. If you choose to not have insurance, it is also possible for you to delay the payment of any penalty indefinitely. Read the bill and you will see that the IRS cannot use any pressure tactics to collect the penalty other than send you a notice that you owe it.
jack 11 months, 2 weeks ago
The law allows the IRS to withhold tax refunds.
Jan 11 months, 1 week ago
True. But you are allowed to alter, without penalty, your W2 and/or your quarterly tax reports so that you do not have a refund due. Thus, the only ones that are forced to pay the penalty are those that do not plan ahead.
Sign in to comment