Supreme Court Upholds ObamaCare!!!

Is this going to affect the VI or is the government there able to bypass it?

Is this going to affect the VI or is the government there able to bypass it?

Federal law prevails in US territories.

Yippeee!! Let's get that VI exchange up and running.

PS: TamiP. - You can go out to HHS web site and see how much funding VI has received already. You can't, of course, see how the VI has managed to spend/ misspend it. Or at least, I can't find it.

So, does this mean the VI will offer "affordable" health insurance now instead of the ridiculously expensive monthly rates they offer now? Just got a quote a couple of weeks ago from United Healthcare for a small business, 2 people insured, for $1300 + a month with a $10,000 deductible each person. $1300 a month is too expensive. Will the VI now have to offer individual coverage? Anyone know?

this really had little to do with actual health care. It had to do with the constitutionality on interstate commerce, as per the HC Bill.

Also, is the Congress has the ability to charge for your inaction towards commerce, which it doesn't, although by calling it a tax, that everybody must pay, to have your own HCP. If you pay it, no fine (tax exempt), if you don't have your own insurance you do pay that tax and with that, you are allowed to have HC.

Did that make sense?

this really had little to do with actual health care. It had to do with the constitutionality on interstate commerce, as per the HC Bill.

Also, is the Congress has the ability to charge for your inaction towards commerce, which it doesn't, although by calling it a tax, that everybody must pay, to have your own HCP. If you pay it, no fine (tax exempt), if you don't have your own insurance you do pay that tax and with that, you are allowed to have HC.

Did that make sense?

No. I read it 4 times and really couldn't understand what you were trying to say.

My initial understanding of this was that no matter what the companies are charging you have to pay it. The government would decide if you could afford it to the tune of, making $40,000 a year means you can afford a little over $900 a month for health care for 2 people. They will not be regulating the premiums. Is this true?

Please someone tell me I'm wrong 😮

This is just frightening.

It's more than frightening- it's going to have catastrophic economic effects on small business owners throughout our territory- some will close as a result....

This means that either the employer or the employee in companies with more than 50 employees will be fined for refusing to supply or get health insurance. These fines are per employee.....

My understanding is that they have to have a plan in place not pay for it. I know that my hubby right now is offered health insurance through his job but it is completely employee funded, the company chips in a big fat $0.

Are they trying to make the companies pay for it? That will sound the death knell across the country for all small business.

People without health care get the treatment they need now. The question is, should they be required to pay or should we?

In KIentucky, some small communities have subscription fire departments, no taxes involved. The property owner pays an annual fee and they fire department contracts to provide fire protection. There was a story recently about someone who had not paid the annual fee, had a catastropic fire and then bitched becaused the fire department did not fight the fire. They did arrive at the scene to protect the adjactent homes. I don't want to see people turned away from ER's because they can't pay for treatment, but neither do I want to pay for it. It is a huge problem. I don't know if mandated health insurance is the answer, but at least it's a stab at solving the problem. And for those young folks who say they don't need insurance - accidents happen.

this really had little to do with actual health care. It had to do with the constitutionality on interstate commerce, as per the HC Bill.

Also, is the Congress has the ability to charge for your inaction towards commerce, which it doesn't, although by calling it a tax, that everybody must pay, to have your own HCP. If you pay it, no fine (tax exempt), if you don't have your own insurance you do pay that tax and with that, you are allowed to have HC.

Did that make sense?

No. I read it 4 times and really couldn't understand what you were trying to say.

Okay, today was about if the bill was constitutional.

Does the Fed have the power to force it on the states, the answer is no.

However, it is constitutional to say if you don't raise the drinking age to 21, we won't fund your federal highways.

interstate commerce.

It also covered if a tax was a fine and if that was unconstitutional. Think of it like this, everybody at some point in their life will use the health care system in place, it's inevitable. Just like the schools and the highway and the parks. We all use them, tax dollars pay for them. So now, we all pay a tax for everybody to have healthcare.

Now, if you get a plan for health care, you become tax exempt and don't have to pay for it. If you look at it like that, I'd say it's constitutional and so would the SCotUS, in a 5-3 ruling (sort of).

If you look at it as a fine from the federal government for not having your own health care, personally, I see that as legit also, I'd say it's unconstitutional.

One of the (R) talking points is that why would a business offer to pay for a health care plan for employees if that tax is less money for them and I think it has a point, but we've been moving away from employers offering HCPs (health care plans).

Better?

All insurance is SUPPOSED by regulated by the indivual state's department of insurance. To be "admitted" a carrier must file all forms, advertising, rates, commission each year.

"If you think it's expensive now, wait til its free".......Can't remember who....

In Canada, that wonderful country to the north....They love their free health care. Its the 70% tax rate that irks them.....

I am quite content paying my own way.....

My favorite part is that "Obamacare" is basically the same plan the Mitt had put in place in Mass and now he is condemning it.

It won't matter come the electionbowl, because facts are rarely important, when it comes to the elections.

The benefit to us, as I understand is that in 2014 if we can't get a provider then we can go YO the federal pool of providers and that it brings VI Medicare a step or two forward. Right now there is NO supplemental plan available. The page is blank in the list of providers.

Some good links for more information about the Affordable Care Act:

Articles on impact on small businesses:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/What-small-business-can-expect-after-health-ruling-3671244.php
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577495002747661124.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Calculator on what you may have to pay for insurance if don't have employer plan:
http://healthreform.kff.org/SubsidyCalculator.aspx

If your employer does decide not to provide coverage and pay a penalty, you will be able to buy an affordable, individual family plan. EVEN if you have pre-exisitng conditions!

Thanks stxem for posting the links.

this really had little to do with actual health care. It had to do with the constitutionality on interstate commerce, as per the HC Bill.

Also, is the Congress has the ability to charge for your inaction towards commerce, which it doesn't, although by calling it a tax, that everybody must pay, to have your own HCP. If you pay it, no fine (tax exempt), if you don't have your own insurance you do pay that tax and with that, you are allowed to have HC.

Did that make sense?

No, because you got it all garbled-up. Been watching Fox?

this really had little to do with actual health care. It had to do with the constitutionality on interstate commerce, as per the HC Bill.

Also, is the Congress has the ability to charge for your inaction towards commerce, which it doesn't, although by calling it a tax, that everybody must pay, to have your own HCP. If you pay it, no fine (tax exempt), if you don't have your own insurance you do pay that tax and with that, you are allowed to have HC.

Did that make sense?

No. I read it 4 times and really couldn't understand what you were trying to say.

Okay, today was about if the bill was constitutional.

Does the Fed have the power to force it on the states, the answer is no.

However, it is constitutional to say if you don't raise the drinking age to 21, we won't fund your federal highways.

interstate commerce.

It also covered if a tax was a fine and if that was unconstitutional. Think of it like this, everybody at some point in their life will use the health care system in place, it's inevitable. Just like the schools and the highway and the parks. We all use them, tax dollars pay for them. So now, we all pay a tax for everybody to have healthcare.

Now, if you get a plan for health care, you become tax exempt and don't have to pay for it. If you look at it like that, I'd say it's constitutional and so would the SCotUS, in a 5-3 ruling (sort of).

If you look at it as a fine from the federal government for not having your own health care, personally, I see that as legit also, I'd say it's unconstitutional.

One of the (R) talking points is that why would a business offer to pay for a health care plan for employees if that tax is less money for them and I think it has a point, but we've been moving away from employers offering HCPs (health care plans).

Better?

Much much better!

this really had little to do with actual health care. It had to do with the constitutionality on interstate commerce, as per the HC Bill.

Also, is the Congress has the ability to charge for your inaction towards commerce, which it doesn't, although by calling it a tax, that everybody must pay, to have your own HCP. If you pay it, no fine (tax exempt), if you don't have your own insurance you do pay that tax and with that, you are allowed to have HC.

Did that make sense?

No, because you got it all garbled-up. Been watching Fox?

I don't watch Fox, ever! They weren't even the ones to drop the ball yesterday.

I talked to a bunch of lawyer actually and all this was about was if it was constitutional.

Had nothing really to do with the actual bill, that's why people think Roberts or Scalia are leaninjg left. Because they have o idea what this was even about.

Actually, not interfering with legislature is a traditionally "right" position.
Frankly, I'm still unclear about who this helps or who it will hurt--time will tell.
I suppose it helps boost the political talk show ratings.

"If you think it's expensive now, wait til its free".......Can't remember who....

In Canada, that wonderful country to the north....They love their free health care. Its the 70% tax rate that irks them.....

I am quite content paying my own way.....

70% Tax Rate? Where do you get your information? Do some research before you shoot your mouth off and make yourself look like an idiot.

My favorite part is that "Obamacare" is basically the same plan the Mitt had put in place in Mass and now he is condemning it.

It won't matter come the electionbowl, because facts are rarely important, when it comes to the elections.

And while Mitt's healthcare program is able to ensure more people in his state, it also drove up the cost of his government, making his state rank lowest in economic growth.

For the USVI residents, here's where we stand on the ObamaCare:

The individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act is not a requirement for the territories, but government may request it thru local legislation. Two things are being considered by our local VI government - the Exchange option or expanded Medicaid coverage. However, funding for the Medicaid expansion for territories is still on the table and access to it will depend on compliance of certain provisions.
For the VI, the likely funding for Medicaid expansion is close to $300M phased out thru 2019. If we choose healthcare exchange, the funding to establish it is $30M. My understanding is we can't have both - that it's one or the other, but I am not sure on this one.
As for the other stipulations of the Act, like coverage of dependents under family plan till age 26, or coverage of children with pre-existing conditions, I was told by good authority we are covered.