Amaya wrote:
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of it. That doesn't mean everyone thinks that it is right or justifiable. Public support for ACA has never been over 50%. This is a case of legislation being passed that the majority of America does not want.

1. Why is forcing people to have health insurance legal?
2. Where is the money supposed to come from to support government funded healthcare?

The big question on many people’s minds is where will the money come from to fund the deficit reduction and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the PPACA will cost $940 billion over the next 10 years. Even with the high cost of the PPACA, the CBO approximates that there will be a $143 billion reduction in the federal deficit over the next 10 years (2010-2019) and a $1.2 trillion reduction in the federal deficit in the 10 years following (2020-2029).

The PPACA and deficit reduction will be funded through new taxes, fees, and penalties on individuals, businesses, and the health care industry. This alert will touch upon the biggest changes individuals, businesses, and the health care industry will experience in the next few years.

Impact on Individuals

Individual tax payers will contribute to the PPACA funding through an additional Medicare tax imposed on wages and investment income, penalties for failure to maintain health care coverage, a higher threshold for itemized medical expense deductions, a tax on indoor tanning, and an additional tax on distributions from health and medical savings accounts.

The first tax on individuals will take effect in July of this year on indoor tanning services. For services provided on or after July 1, 2010, there will be a 10 percent excise tax imposed on each individual for whom “indoor tanning services” are performed.

Beginning in 2011, over-the-counter (OTC) medicines will only be reimbursed under a health care flexible spending account (FSA), health reimbursement arrangement (HRA), health savings account (HSA), or medical savings account (MSA) if they are prescribed by a physician. This means that OTC medications purchased without a prescription cannot be reimbursed from these accounts. Additionally, distributions from HSAs and MSAs not used for qualified medical expenses will be subject to a penalty tax of 20 percent of the distribution, an increase from the original 10 percent. Beginning in 2013, contributions to HSAs and FSAs will be limited to an annual amount of $2,500.

Higher-income individuals will have to pay an additional Medicare tax on their wages and on net investment income starting in 2013. The Medicare payroll tax will increase by 0.9 percent from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent, on wages over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples filing jointly. There will also be an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on net investment income, increasing the tax from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent, for net investment income in excess of $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples filing jointly. Net investment income includes interest, dividends, rents, royalties, gain from disposing of property, and income earned from a trade or business as a passive activity. Both self-employed individuals and estates and trusts will be liable for the tax. However, distributions from qualified retirement plans will be exempt from paying the additional tax.

Also in 2013, the threshold for itemized medical expense deductions will increase from 7.5 percent to 10 percent of adjusted gross income. However, individuals who are 65 and older will still be able to claim the itemized medical expense tax deduction at 7.5 percent through 2016.

Finally, beginning in 2014, individuals will be required to obtain minimum essential health care coverage for themselves and their dependents. Individuals who do not obtain coverage for themselves or their dependents will be required to pay a penalty for each month they fail to have coverage (“pay or play”). The penalty is the lesser of (1) the sum of the monthly penalties for the tax year or (2) the amount of the national average premium for qualified health plans. The monthly penalties will be the greater of the flat dollar amount (which cannot exceed 300 percent of the applicable dollar amount) or a percentage of income. The penalties by year will be allocated as follows:

• 2014: $95 or 1 percent of income;

• 2015: $325 or 2 percent of income;

• 2016 and beyond: $695 or 2.5 percent of income.

The penalty for dependents under the age of 18 will be one-half of the adult penalty. The penalty will not be imposed on certain individuals such as those who are members of certain religious organizations that share medical expenses, individuals who are incarcerated, or individuals who are not citizens or legal residents. Additionally, there will be exemptions for individuals who cannot afford coverage, Native Americans, and individuals who have suffered hardships. The penalty will be included in a taxpayer’s income tax return for the tax year in which the penalty occurred.

Impact on the Health Care Industry

The health care industry will be a large source of the PPACA’s funding through fees on health insurance providers and pharmaceutical manufacturers and importers, excise taxes on medical devices and high cost employer sponsored health coverage, and a limitation on remuneration paid by health insurance providers.

Beginning this year, the deduction for employee remuneration paid by health insurance providers will be limited. The amount health insurance providers will be able deduct in applicable employee remuneration will decrease from $1 million to $500,000. The limit will apply to all officers, employees, directors, and other workers or services providers performing services for or on behalf of a health insurance provider.

A prescription drug industry user fee will be implemented in 2011 on brand name prescription drug manufacturers. The non-deductible fee will be allocated across the prescription drug industry according to market share with reductions for companies with annual sales of less than $4 million. The industry fees by year will be allocated as follows:

• 2011: $2.5 billion;

• 2012-2013: $2.8 billion;

• 2014-2016: $3 billion;

• 2017: $4 billion;

• 2018: $4.1 billion;

• 2019 and beyond: $2.8 billion.

Beginning in 2013, the medical device industry will face a new tax. Any manufacturer, producer, or importer of medical devices will be required to pay a 2.3 percent excise tax on the sales price of a medical device.

Beginning in 2014, health insurance providers will be required to pay an annual non-deductible fee according to market share based on premiums collected. The fee will not apply to companies whose net premiums are $25 million or less. For those companies whose net premiums are between $25 million and $50 million, 50 percent of their premiums will be taken into account in determining their fee. For companies with net premiums of $50 million or more, 100 percent of their premiums will be taken into account in determining their portion of the fee. The health insurance fees by year will be allocated as follows:

• 2014: $8 billion;

• 2015-2016: $11.3 billion;

• 2017: $13.9 billion;

• 2018: $14.3 billion;

• 2019: $14.3 billion plus the rate of premium growth.

Finally, beginning in 2018, healthcare providers will be charged a tax on high cost employer sponsored health coverage, also know as “Cadillac” health care plans. A 40 percent excise tax will be imposed on health care plans that cost more then $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. The threshold for the tax will be adjusted for age, gender, and high risk professions. The tax will be paid by insurance companies, which may choose to pass along the tax to their customers in the form of higher premiums.

While there are several significant new fees and taxes on the health care industry, the industry will benefit from the influx of 32 million people who will now be insured as a result of the PPACA

 Amaya wrote:

It is legal only because it was shoved down our throats. I do not consider that to be legal. I consider that to be an abuse of power.

 Amaya wrote:

You mean other countries where most people actually pay an income tax?

 Amaya wrote:

The government's role is to serve the people not to further their own political agendas.

 Amaya wrote:

Along with another 160 million Americans apparently.

 Amaya wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You keep on making the claim that it is illegal because you or a majority of people don't like it.

Which just doesn't have anything to do with how laws are made or why they are legal.

If the purpose of the government is to serve the people it should at no point should it pass a law that the majority of people are against.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 Amaya wrote:

It is legal only because it was shoved down our throats. I do not consider that to be legal. I consider that to be an abuse of power.

Shocking though it may be, you don't get much of a say in what is, and isn't, legal.

Along with another 160 million Americans apparently.

 Amaya wrote:
The correct answer would be the majority. The actual answer is apparently themselves first, their voting base second, everyone else can suck on it.

 Amaya wrote:
The correct answer would be the majority.

The actual answer is apparently themselves first

their voting base second,

everyone else can suck on it.

 Amaya wrote:
The correct answer would be the majority. The actual answer is apparently themselves first, their voting base second, everyone else can suck on it.

 Amaya wrote:

This is the most beautifully elitist thing I have seen posted on Dakkadakka.

 Amaya wrote:

That bolded statement can be used to justify tyranny.

 Amaya wrote:

This is the most beautifully elitist thing I have seen posted on Dakkadakka.

 Amaya wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
The correct answer would be the majority.

False.

John Adams defined a republic as "a government of laws, and not of men." Constitutional republics attempt to weaken the threat of majoritarianism and protect dissenting individuals and minority groups from the "tyranny of the majority" by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.The power of the majority of the people is limited to electing representatives who legislate within the limits of an overarching constitutional law that a simple majority cannot modify.

The actual answer is apparently themselves first

The ACA surely lined their pockets, and nobody got voted out of office because of it. Surely they served themselves greatly by passing it.

their voting base second,

Isn't that the very definition of a representative democracy? We vote for people to represent us?

everyone else can suck on it.

That is the concept of political parties to begin with.

Most of that was good, but a democratic support for ACA never went over 56% and independent support was also in the low 50s. IIRC the actual votes in Congress did not reflect that.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
If a Welshman moves to France, he has to learn a whole lot more to adapt and get a job than I would if I were to move to Chicago, or even Texas.

I have to disagree there mate.

I mean, I know the Welsh live in caves and don't have running water.., but your doing them a disservice there.

From the first instance when I landed in the US, and started having a craic with all my American cousins, I have never felt it to have been significantly different to require any "adaptation" and I have lived and worked all over, I always felt welcome and at home, and comfortable. I suppose Virginia was the most backwater in comparison with LA and NY and whatnot, but I really think that it is far to similar to the UK to require a real effort to adapt... there is no huge noticeable difference in our cultures, languages and lifestyles.

In a nutshell, the number one issue is being away from family and friends, I dare say if my Californian missus moved to Virginia she would find it about as difficult as I would. She fit into living in Yorkshire with no issues whatever as well.

Have you ever been to the UK incidentally? You seem to think its a largely different culture, and aside from less traffic, gakker weather and smaller portions on your "not the same size as a fething dumptruck wheel" plates, it really isn't.

 Amaya wrote:

2/3 majority vote needed to amend the Constitution. Such a bill would never pass.

 Amaya wrote:

There are problems with that sentiment though. You can use it to justify questionable actions such as America's involvement in Vietnam.

 dogma wrote:

 Amaya wrote:

This is the most beautifully elitist thing I have seen posted on Dakkadakka.

Don't blame me, blame the Founders for designing the US government this way. You can also look into their writings, plenty of them have to do with the negative effects of populism.

 Amaya wrote:
Naturally, it should be a balancing act not one or the other.

 Amaya wrote:
Hardly. The ACA did not warrant the government ignoring the people entirely.

 Amaya wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Amaya wrote:
Naturally, it should be a balancing act not one or the other.

Oh good, glad to see you're backing off of your previous statements.

Hardly. The ACA did not warrant the government ignoring the people entirely.