Expand Quote
I'm on my parents plan, so I have no worried until I turn 23 next year.
So with this new bill. Am I required to buy health insurance or is this universal health care paid by taxes? I haven't been keeping up with the news lately.
you're good until 26.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I don't have health insurance. Haven't been to a doctor's office in over 8 years and don't think we should live in a commie country that forces you to pay for it or be fined.
Also, if you don't buy health insurance because you can't afford it, part of the act is that your insurance will be subsidized, and medicaid will now be available to all people making under a certain amount of money. So even without going to the doctor, you can feel safe knowing that your next medical problem won't financially ruin you. Even with the housing crisis, the number one cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is healthcare costs.
I'm really surprised Roberts was the deciding vote. It makes me respect him more. I bet he still doesn't like it, but it seems like he voted based on a principled, Constitutional perspective. Views on what a Constitutional perspective are differ, but he clearly has one defined, and based his vote on that. Fox is flipping their shit about the fact that Roberts called it a tax.
Some people are saying the right will use it against Obama to claim it means he raised taxes, but the thing is, that means Romney did the same thing with his health care act as Governor.
In the end, I'm of the view that this law is not enough, and that there needs to be a complete overhaul of the private insurance system, but this is a positive step, and if it is successful, can be the springboard to something that at least more closely resembles a single payer system.
I was initially surprised about the Roberts vote but I wonder less the more I've thought about the "legacy" of his court. Bush v. Gore and Citizens United are unarguable partisan decisions that have seriously damaged the validity of the SC. It's been declared that Bush v. Gore was so improper that it cannot be used as a precedent in future rulings. Look at the recent SC reversal of the Montana SC ruling on Citizen's United, reaffirming that corporate person hood and campaign spending does not encourage political corruption, and it is not difficult to see the malleability of Constitutional interpretation. Of course, this is a step in the right direction, but, was not put in place with the intention of reaching the right end.
Actually, with Bush v. Gore the court themselves said that the ruling couldn't be used as a precedent at the time, one of the many strange things about it. Its actually not a stain on Roberts though, as he was appointed after the ruling while Bush was in office. Citizens United is though, and I feel like there is another big fucked up one that is on his court too that I am forgetting.
To the kid who thought it was until he was 23, you WERE right, but part of the affordable care act is that you stay on your parents plan until you are 26 now. So it helps you out immediately.
To those in other countries talking about taxes and stuff. Ready to hear the fucked up thing? The U.S. spends a LARGER portion of its GDP on healthcare than a vast majority of countries with socialized healthcare. Between health insurance subsidies, dealing with the costs of non-payment at public hospitals, and a bunch of other costs I don't quite understand, it costs the U.S. public more to have a system where they end up having to pay private insurance companies for care in the end on top of it. Our taxes should be higher. To the person saying they pay in the low 20's- so do most Americans, and as far as a top rate of 60%- there isn't any valid reason we don't have that, aside from the fact that rich people control the government and won't tax their own.
Topic: How many of you broke fools ain't got no health insurance? (Read 3161 times)