The "Affordable" Healthcare Act.....

Well, the healthcare marketplace thingy is open. And now the lies are beginning to be exposed. Or confirmed. Or re-lied. Or covered up and sugarcoated.

Taxes, fees, and more lies.

Remember back in September 2009 when Mr. Obama said that requiring health insurance (individual mandate) is NOT a tax increase? (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/20/obama.health.care/)

"For us to say you have to take responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase," Obama said in response to persistent questioning, later adding: "Nobody considers that a tax increase."

Cool. Wait.....

Remember back in June 2012 when the Supreme court said that as a fee or fine (penalty) the individual mandate would be unconstitutional, however it is Constitutional as a tax? (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-ruling/index.html)

"It is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax." He later added: "The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. ... The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance."

Now that the healthcare marketplace is available.... guess what? It's not a tax anymore! It's a FEE! A PENATLY! (https://www.healthcare.gov/get-covered-a-1-page-guide-to-the-health-insurance-marketplace/, https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-someone-doesnt-have-health-coverage-in-2014/)

"If you don’t have coverage in 2014, you’ll have to pay a penalty of $95 per adult, $47.50 per child, or 1% of your income (whichever is higher). The fee increases every year."

So, lets take a look at these "affordable" healthcare plans. By the way, for all you folks who voted for Obama and cheering on the "free health insurance" you thought you were going to get... There's no such thing as free.

What's it gonna cost?

According to the Obamacare site, "The plans are presented in 5 categories: Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum, and Catastrophic" (https://www.healthcare.gov/health-plan-information/)

One caveat here. I am not going to be able to give final prices without filling out an application, and I sure as heck am not going to be filling out an application, so these prices may vary. I'm going to show the prices as listed for my state and county (Shelby County in Alabama), and my situation (Family with both parents) As the site says, family size and income affect the final price:

"IMPORTANT NOTE: The prices here don’t reflect the lower costs an applicant may qualify for based on household size and income. Many people who apply will qualify for reduced costs through tax credits that are automatically applied to monthly premiums. These credits will significantly lower the prices shown for a majority of those applying. Final price quotes are available only after someone has completed a Marketplace application."

In my area there are 2 companies listed for healthcare insurance providers. Humana Insurance Company and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama. Both are offering PPO type plans. These figures are per month and are straight from the https://www.healthcare.gov/how-do-i-choose-marketplace-insurance/ website as of the writing of this post. By the way, this is just the monthly premium, not the copays, coinsurance and deductibles.

Humana Catastrophic: $473.50
Humana Bronze: $622.96
Humana Silver: $706.50
Humana Gold: $805.82
Humana Platinum: $908.50

BCBSAL Blue Protect Catastrophic: $497.94
BCBSAL Blue Saver Bronze: $575.72
BCBSAL Blue Value Silver: $713.56
BCBSAL Blue Saver Silver: $756.90
BCBSAL Blue Value Gold: $923.62
BCBSAL Blue Choice Platinum: $1111.46

Welcome to the world of "Free" healthcare. You can estimate your costs with the Kaiser Family Foundation health insurance costs and savings calculator. (https://www.healthcare.gov/how-can-i-get-an-estimate-of-costs-and-savings-on-marketplace-health-insurance/)

I plugged in my numbers and it says I would pay, for me and my family (taking in account the $1,691 annual tax subsidy they say I would get):

Catastrophic: "With a catastrophic plan, you would pay out-of-pocket for most health services until you reach the annual limit on cost sharing ($12,700 in 2014)."
Bronze: $791.66
Silver: "The plan will pay for 70% of expenses in total for covered benefits, with enrollees responsible for the rest"
Gold: Not listed
Platinum: Not listed

Based on the website , all plans cover "10 essential health benefits"  which include the following:

• ambulatory patient services
• emergency services
• hospitalization
• maternity and newborn care
• mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment
• prescription drugs
• rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices
• laboratory services
• preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management
• pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

This page shows an example of the difference between plans. Basically the more of a premium you pay, the lower percentage you pay when you actually use healthcare. So, if you have to see a doctor and get medicine, you'll pay a percentage of that cost on top of what you are already paying for the monthly premium. Here's how it shakes out for that:

Bronze plan: 40%

Silver plan: 30%

Gold plan:  20%

Platinum plan: 10%

So if I'm on a Bronze plan and take my child to the dermatologist for severe acne, and they prescribe Accutane, I can expect to pay my monthly premium of $791.66 PLUS 40% of  doctors charges and medicine costs. Lets just say the doctor is pretty cheap and only charges $100 for the office visit. My part of that is $40. Accutane is a pretty expensive drug and my 40% of about $420 (actual cost when we had to get it for one of my kids) comes to $168. So I've just paid $208 for a doctor visit and 1 month supply of medicine under Obamacare.

Under my current plan, I pay $439 monthly premium ($352.66 less than Obamacare Bronze), I pay a $30 office visit copay ($10 less than Obamacare Bronze) and $30 for a premium level medication ($130 less than Obamacare). Therefore, under the Affordable Healthcare Act, for one month's premium, 1 doctor office visit, and 1 month supply of medication, I will pay $500.66 MORE than I do now.

I currently pay $439/month in healthcare insurance. This is expected to rise by as much as 30% next year (if our employer still offers it!) thanks to Obamacare. Affordable? For those of you that voted for Obama and our current set of Democratic congress, when will you pull your heads out of your collective socialist asses?

Obamacare in 1 sentence

I have not heard anyone put it so perfectly. So succinctly. This lady hits a home run with her description of Obamacare.

Obamacare Upheld. Sorta. November just got a lot more interesting.

"The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax." ~Chief Justice John Roberts

"The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage it."


This statement makes this ruling a victory for those against Obamacare. This was the most critical point. For this to be ruled a TAX is a huge blow to Obama who stated that it was "ABSOLUTLEY NOT A TAX".

EDIT: Here's the video: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/#.T-xtyHsqo_Y.twitter

Here's an article about an interview with Obama and George Stephanopoulos (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/06/28/read-obamas-2009-abc-news-interview-health-care-law-is-not-a-tax/) Obama said,

OBAMA: ...for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is ***absolutely not a tax increase.*** What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs....

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Brilliant move on Robert's part.


Edit:
The following portion of the decision is the crux of the issue and Roberts really did a fantastic job explaining it:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30. (a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated.This Court’s precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive as this Court’s cases construing the scope of the commerceCite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 3 Syllabus power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity.” E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce."

I say Roberts was brilliant because I believe he voted on the side he doesn't necessarily agree with so that:

1. He could write the majority opinion himself, and, 
2. He would have the more liberal justices 'on his side'  in the majority which, to the American people who largely don't understand how this stuff works, it will appear as if they agree with his opinion.

Wikipedia gives a good description of the Chief Justice's power and duties. Check this out (emphasis mine):

Despite the seniority and added prestige, the Chief Justice's vote carries the same legal weight as each of the other eight justices. In any decision, he has no legal authority to overrule the verdicts or interpretations of the other eight judges or tamper with them. However, in any vote, the most senior justice in the majority decides who will write the Opinion of the Court. Being the most senior member, the Chief Justice—when in the majority—decides who writes the Court's opinion. This power to determine the opinion author (including the option to select oneself) allows a Chief Justice in the majority to influence the historical record. Two justices in the same majority, given the opportunity, might write very different majority opinions (as evidenced by many concurring opinions); being assigned the opinion may also cement the vote of an Associate who is viewed as only marginally in the majority (a tactic that was reportedly used to some effect by Earl Warren). A Chief Justice who knows the Associate Justices can therefore do much—by the simple act of selecting the justice who writes the Opinion of the Court—to affect the "flavor" of the opinion, which in turn can affect the interpretation of that opinion in cases before lower courts in the years to come. It is said that some chief justices, notably Earl Warren^{[citation needed]} and Warren Burger, sometimes switched votes to a majority they disagreed with to be able to use this prerogative of the Chief Justice to dictate who would write the opinion.^[5]

This is exactly what I think Roberts did today, "It is said that some chief justices...sometimes switched votes to a majority they disagreed with to be able to use this prerogative of the Chief Justice to dictate who would write the opinion."


Roberts ensured that the decision would cement the fact that the Commerce Clause could now never be used to allow Congress to mandate that individuals purchase something (which is what this whole law was about to begin with, not healthcare). He also ensured that the decision revealed the intent of the democrats for what it is, a new, HUGE tax on the American people. Further, he ensured that it appears that the liberal justices agree with his opinion.

This is a HUGE Constitutional victory. **The whole issue was not about healthcare.** Democrats pushed this under the guise of healthcare, but it really was about control. The whole issue was whether or not Congress can mandate that an individual purchase a certain product. Had this been upheld under the Commerce Clause (which the decision very pointedly stated it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL) then Congress would have the precedent and could then mandate that an individual purchase anything they saw fit. Roberts was brilliant. He ensured that this did not get passed under the Commerce Clause and also showed that this really was a tax, which Obama very specifically stated that it is not, thus this decision hurts his campaign by showing that once again he was not truthful with the American people.