Who is ready for some ACA rulin' today?

[Stupid Fitz]

I guess I would rather have liars at the White House than the gov be able to make me do whatever and "tax" me when I don't do it.  Unless it is to buy a reasonably priced flying car.  I would do that if the gov made me.

[Rage Against the McKee]

So, does this ruling mean that tax exempt entities do not have to provide insurance to their employees?

[Trim]

Poor people still aren't going to buy health insurance.

[Rage Against the McKee]

Poor people still aren't going to buy health insurance.

I was referring to employers such as the catholic church. I admittedly don't know how the "tax" in Obamacare works, but I'm assuming it's a fee on employers who do not provide insurance to their employees.

[Stevesie60]

Poor people aren't the main reason I want this to go through. My issue is that kids who are born with diseases are being denied insurance. A friend of mine found out she had MS when she was 23, so as soon as she was off her parents' insurance, no one would accept her.

Also, 50% of people who file for bankruptcy file because of medical expenses. So a lot of our taxes are already going to people who can't afford insurance (or refuse to buy it).

[Trim]

Also, 50% of people who file for bankruptcy file because of medical expenses. So a lot of our taxes are already going to people who can't afford insurance (or refuse to buy it).

It's more than your taxes.  It's the prices you pay, as a responsible person who pays for stuff, for your medical charges and health insurance.

Most people approach the health care debate from the perspective of people who generally keep their lives in order, which isn't a very practical perspective in reality.

[Cire]

Justice roberts it's un insurable under the old system

[Stevesie60]

Also, 50% of people who file for bankruptcy file because of medical expenses. So a lot of our taxes are already going to people who can't afford insurance (or refuse to buy it).

It's more than your taxes.  It's the prices you pay, as a responsible person who pays for stuff, for your medical charges and health insurance.

Most people approach the health care debate from the perspective of people who generally keep their lives in order, which isn't a very practical perspective in reality.

A lot of people right now who don't have insurance are not getting medical treatment until they have to go to the ER. Then they can't pay for it, and our insurance charges us for it. If they go when problems first begin, they will be much cheaper than that ER visit. At least I like to think so.

My other point is that as of right now, one out of 8 children are uninsured, and 20% of children are not receiving proper immunizations. They have no control over that, their parents do. Maybe some of them still won't get them them because their parents are being dicks. Who knows. But I would pay double my taxes (WAY over what taxes are estimated to rise, in case you haven't looked) to save a handful of kids' lives. I understand that the money that will be gained won't be spent in the most efficient way, but if only a few kids' lives are saved because of this tax increase, how can you say it's not worth it? What if you knew all the kids, would it be worth it then?

[Trim]

Also, 50% of people who file for bankruptcy file because of medical expenses. So a lot of our taxes are already going to people who can't afford insurance (or refuse to buy it).

It's more than your taxes.  It's the prices you pay, as a responsible person who pays for stuff, for your medical charges and health insurance.

Most people approach the health care debate from the perspective of people who generally keep their lives in order, which isn't a very practical perspective in reality.

A lot of people right now who don't have insurance are not getting medical treatment until they have to go to the ER. Then they can't pay for it, and our insurance charges us for it. If they go when problems first begin, they will be much cheaper than that ER visit. At least I like to think so.

My other point is that as of right now, one out of 8 children are uninsured, and 20% of children are not receiving proper immunizations. They have no control over that, their parents do. Maybe some of them still won't get them them because their parents are being dicks. Who knows. But I would pay double my taxes (WAY over what taxes are estimated to rise, in case you haven't looked) to save a handful of kids' lives. I understand that the money that will be gained won't be spent in the most efficient way, but if only a few kids' lives are saved because of this tax increase, how can you say it's not worth it? What if you knew all the kids, would it be worth it then?

You can keep saying that people against this policy want children dead, but that's not really the issue.

I'll have you tag along to court with me sometime soon and you can decide yourself whether ANY policy is going to be effective with/for people who don't give a crap about anything except their next cig.

[Cire]

Understand your point about dirtbags but there are many more people without insurance that would love to have some.

[Stevesie60]

Also, 50% of people who file for bankruptcy file because of medical expenses. So a lot of our taxes are already going to people who can't afford insurance (or refuse to buy it).

It's more than your taxes.  It's the prices you pay, as a responsible person who pays for stuff, for your medical charges and health insurance.

Most people approach the health care debate from the perspective of people who generally keep their lives in order, which isn't a very practical perspective in reality.

A lot of people right now who don't have insurance are not getting medical treatment until they have to go to the ER. Then they can't pay for it, and our insurance charges us for it. If they go when problems first begin, they will be much cheaper than that ER visit. At least I like to think so.

My other point is that as of right now, one out of 8 children are uninsured, and 20% of children are not receiving proper immunizations. They have no control over that, their parents do. Maybe some of them still won't get them them because their parents are being dicks. Who knows. But I would pay double my taxes (WAY over what taxes are estimated to rise, in case you haven't looked) to save a handful of kids' lives. I understand that the money that will be gained won't be spent in the most efficient way, but if only a few kids' lives are saved because of this tax increase, how can you say it's not worth it? What if you knew all the kids, would it be worth it then?

You can keep saying that people against this policy want children dead, but that's not really the issue.

I'll have you tag along to court with me sometime soon and you can decide yourself whether ANY policy is going to be effective with/for people who don't give a crap about anything except their next cig.

I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.

[Trim]

I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.

Those people get charity write-offs from the medical providers (assuming they legitimately want it enough to fill out a form).

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Also, 50% of people who file for bankruptcy file because of medical expenses. So a lot of our taxes are already going to people who can't afford insurance (or refuse to buy it).

It's more than your taxes.  It's the prices you pay, as a responsible person who pays for stuff, for your medical charges and health insurance.

Most people approach the health care debate from the perspective of people who generally keep their lives in order, which isn't a very practical perspective in reality.

A lot of people right now who don't have insurance are not getting medical treatment until they have to go to the ER. Then they can't pay for it, and our insurance charges us for it. If they go when problems first begin, they will be much cheaper than that ER visit. At least I like to think so.

My other point is that as of right now, one out of 8 children are uninsured, and 20% of children are not receiving proper immunizations. They have no control over that, their parents do. Maybe some of them still won't get them them because their parents are being dicks. Who knows. But I would pay double my taxes (WAY over what taxes are estimated to rise, in case you haven't looked) to save a handful of kids' lives. I understand that the money that will be gained won't be spent in the most efficient way, but if only a few kids' lives are saved because of this tax increase, how can you say it's not worth it? What if you knew all the kids, would it be worth it then?

LOLZ if you think the ACA is going to make poor people stop using the ER as a primary care physician or cause them to suddenly give a crap about the well being of their children. If anyone needs a dose of practicality and reality its sheltered morons like you.

The best thing we could do for health care is to start sterilizing imbeciles. Ruth Bader and Sys concur.

[Trim]

Oh, eff.  Not sure how to handle this.

[Stevesie60]

I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.

Those people get charity write-offs from the medical providers (assuming they legitimately want it enough to fill out a form).

Are people with pre-existing conditions getting write-offs?

[Stevesie60]

Oh man, Trim and FSD on the same team. This is great.

[Trim]

I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.

Those people get charity write-offs from the medical providers (assuming they legitimately want it enough to fill out a form).

Are people with pre-existing conditions getting write-offs?

Especially so.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Understand your point about dirtbags but there are many more people without insurance that would love to have some.

The fact that almost no one in Mass bothered to sign up directly disproves this point.  The fact that the ACA has brought almost no new people into the insurance pool directly disproves your point. These people are hopeless.

[Trim]

Oh man, Trim and FSD on the same team. This is great.

[Stevesie60]

I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.

Those people get charity write-offs from the medical providers (assuming they legitimately want it enough to fill out a form).

Are people with pre-existing conditions getting write-offs?

Especially so.

Fair enough. Then how come nobody knows about it? Can we raise taxes to inform everyone of this?

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Oh man, Trim and FSD on the same team. This is great.

Trim is my sock crap-for-brains

[Trim]

I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.

Those people get charity write-offs from the medical providers (assuming they legitimately want it enough to fill out a form).

Are people with pre-existing conditions getting write-offs?

Especially so.

Fair enough. Then how come nobody knows about it? Can we raise taxes to inform everyone of this?

Nope.  Just post up in a hospital lobby and figuratively hold everyone's hand through the process.

[Stevesie60]

I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.

Those people get charity write-offs from the medical providers (assuming they legitimately want it enough to fill out a form).

Are people with pre-existing conditions getting write-offs?

Especially so.

Fair enough. Then how come nobody knows about it? Can we raise taxes to inform everyone of this?

Nope.  Just post up in a hospital lobby and figuratively hold everyone's hand through the process.

There are plenty of people who have looked for ways to decrease their medical bills and did not know this was an option. If the ACA is able to take care of these people, even if they had this option before and were uniformed about it, then I think it's worth paying for. But now I won't be pissed at people who are oppose to the ACA, assuming it's for similar reasons that you're against it.

[Trim]

I know there are people like that. Lots of them. But there are also people who legitimately want health insurance but can't afford it.

Those people get charity write-offs from the medical providers (assuming they legitimately want it enough to fill out a form).

Are people with pre-existing conditions getting write-offs?

Especially so.

Fair enough. Then how come nobody knows about it? Can we raise taxes to inform everyone of this?

Nope.  Just post up in a hospital lobby and figuratively hold everyone's hand through the process.

There are plenty of people who have looked for ways to decrease their medical bills and did not know this was an option. If the ACA is able to take care of these people, even if they had this option before and were uniformed about it, then I think it's worth paying for. But now I won't be pissed at people who are oppose to the ACA, assuming it's for similar reasons that you're against it.

I'm against the absurdly large number of americans who live their lives in disarray.  I'm not necessarily against the motivation behind the ACA, but I don't think it'll make a difference.  The takeaway for a shitload of people will be "Obama made hospitals free" as they roll into their local ER.

[p1k3]

welcome to the Pit, trim