General Category > General Questions
Is Obamacare Good for Billing business?
DMK:
Once again, Linda, you astound me with your common sense and knowledge of this industry, and your ability to put it in terms without emotion. (Something I can't seem to do, I'm pretty emotional about our income!)
Being prepared and well informed will help us educate others. It's great for people to be optimistic, but they have to hear it ALL, not just what they want to hear. There are big changes coming in health care, and they are not all going to be good.
PMRNC:
--- Quote ---Once again, Linda, you astound me with your common sense and knowledge of this industry, and your ability to put it in terms without emotion. (Something I can't seem to do, I'm pretty emotional about our income!)
--- End quote ---
Hmm.. See I can't HELP but get emotional when it comes to this topic...But I thank you for the compliment if I'm hiding it well!!! I do hold back a lot of things I could say.. My tongue has been very sour now for the last 4 years. LOL
RichardP:
rdmoore2003 - you said "I posted a "sarcastic" reply ..." I couldn't tell whether or not many comments were being sarcastic or serious. Which is why I began my comment with the question Am I missing something here? Thanks for clarifying your position for me. Maybe other readers who don't know you will also think you were being serious, and will benefit from your response.
DMK - thanks for the heads-up about some religeous folks equating buying insurance to gambling. Hadn't heard that one before. Wonder if these folks also do not have car insurance.
My personal opinion is that the ACA is a very poorly-put-together piece of legislation. Hopefully, over time, the bad stuff can be fixed piecemeal. My political opinion is that the ACA was passed for the benefit of the healthcare insurance industry, not for the benefit of the common folk. But I agree that this is not a political board, and I am not intentionally putting political opinion into my posts.
Finally, you said "My insurance company cites ... as well as "increased physician fees". That one throws me. The insurance carriers tell my clients what they will be paid, take it or leave it. My clients do not begin to have the clout to tell the insurance carriers what they demand to be paid. However, I do understand that doctors and doctors groups are begining to form into large affiliations so that they can indeed negotiate better payments for their member physicians. Perhaps this is what your insurance carrier meant by what they said.
Linda - you seem to be saying that it is not a tax - the ACA "penalty" for not purchasing health insurance. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I believe that was the pivot point of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion. I think I remember the analysts saying that the genius of Roberts' opinion was that he carefully laid out all of the reasons why the Federal Government could not force folks to purchase something under the Commerce clause (this sets very clear boundaries on what liberal Federal governments can try to foist on the public in the future, but there has not been much focus on that part of the opinion). Then Roberts affirmed the right of the Federal Government to levy taxes. Basically, he said that the Federal Government had no constitutional ground to force you to buy something, but they could penalize you with a tax for not buying it. If I remember correctly, there were mighty squeals when the opinion was released, and all of the sound-bites were hauled out where Obama - selling the idea to the public - kept insisting that the penalty was not a tax. And then the ACA survived the U.S. Supreme Court only because Roberts labeled the penalty a tax, and then said the act was constitutional because the Federal Government has a constitutionally-given power to tax. The President sold the act on the basis that he was not raising taxes, and then Roberts ruled in his favor by ruling that the penalty was indeed a tax. Does any of that sound familiar to you?
This is border-line political discussion here. But you have many readers passing by and I don't want them to be misled or you embarrassed. When I have the time, I will research this (or someone else might beat me to it). If I am remembering things incorrectly about the Roberts' opinion, I will be the first to admit to it.
PMRNC:
--- Quote ---Linda - you seem to be saying that it is not a tax - the ACA "penalty" for not purchasing health insurance. I don't have time to look it up right now, but I believe that was the pivot point of Chief Justice Roberts' opinion. I think I remember the analysts saying that the genius of Roberts' opinion was that he carefully laid out all of the reasons why the Federal Government could not force folks to purchase something under the Commerce clause (this sets very clear boundaries on what liberal Federal governments can try to foist on the public in the future, but there has not been much focus on that part of the opinion). Then Roberts affirmed the right of the Federal Government to levy taxes. Basically, he said that the Federal Government had no constitutional ground to force you to buy something, but they could penalize you with a tax for not buying it. If I remember correctly, there were mighty squeals when the opinion was released, and all of the sound-bites were hauled out where Obama - selling the idea to the public - kept insisting that the penalty was not a tax. And then the ACA survived the U.S. Supreme Court only because Roberts labeled the penalty a tax, and then said the act was constitutional because the Federal Government has a constitutionally-given power to tax. The President sold the act on the basis that he was not raising taxes, and then Roberts ruled in his favor by ruling that the penalty was indeed a tax. Does any of that sound familiar to you?
--- End quote ---
the Supreme Court decided in 5-4 decision that Obamacare’s individual mandate was a constitutional “tax,” even though Congress did not consider it to be a tax but rather a penalty for not buying health insurance. So in essence we're both right.."Penalty Tax" where it will differ however is that if you owe for example back TAXES... the IRS can impose levy's and garnishments.. with this particular tax/penalty they won't be able to. So that's where it gets "fuzzy" on what we call it.. tax/penalty. It's still a screw either way. :P ::)
RichardP:
Thanks.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version