Obamacare mandate is precedent setting, in a BIG way

[Quantum Windbag]

If you don't get it, you pay a tax penalty.

Last time I checked tax penalties were legal.

Are you aware that the one thing that every judge that has ruled on the mandate agrees on is that the penalty is not a tax? Given that simple agreement even among the judges that say the mandate is Constitutional why do you insist on basing your defense of the mandate on the one argument that is flat out wrong?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...e/173434-individual-mandate-is-not-a-tax.html

lol. If you pay it to the IRS, it is a tax.

The law itself went out of its way to make sure it is not a tax so that Obama could not be accused of raising taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year. By the way, if you pay interests and penalties to the IRS they are not taxes, they are interests and penalties. They would be unconstitutional if they were taxes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

lol. If you pay it to the IRS, it is a tax.

The net effect is the same as a tax, granted, but it wasn't voted on as a tax, it wasn't justified via the government's power to tax, and it was loudly and repeatedly declared not to be a tax by the president.

Mostly that technicality only matters when it comes to the pending court case, but it does matter a great deal. Obama went with a fairly dangerous gambit there. He sacrificed solid constitutional footing, in exchange for political expedience, by forming ACA around the mandate instead of an actual tax increase. He seemed to assume that our distaste for taxes would outweigh our aversion to being ordered around.

The Obama administration's lawyers now want to argue that the mandate is a tax because it will make it constitutional. But if we are now going to call it a tax, then the entire bill was a fraud and should be struck down on those grounds alone.

And it was loudly and repeatedly declared a tax by Republicans.

Republicans are always right?

The point is that the law itself calls it a penalty, not a tax, and every judge has completely rejected the argument that it is actually a tax when that has been argued by the administration. That is the only thing all the judges are unanimous about, so you arguing otherwise proves only that you reject reality. Believe it or not, that is not a problem the rest of the universe has, it does not care what your delusions tell you, all it cares about is what is real.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe I've been swayed by the fact that ever since it passed every rightwing Obama hater on the planet has been screaming that it's a violation of their civil rights.

It looks like a tax to me. It looks the government is imposing a healthcare tax, but allowing an exemption for those with their own qualifying healthcare. I know it's not worded that way,

but de facto that's what it looks like to me.

The funny thing about laws is that no one cares what they look like to some random person in NY, what they care about is what they actually say. That explains why, since the law is specifically written to make the penalty not a tax, it is not a tax.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...e/173434-individual-mandate-is-not-a-tax.html

So all the people who've been calling this a violation of their civil rights are full of shit?

No, you are. If it were actually a tax it might pass constitutional muster. Since it is an order to engage in a specific action just because people are alive, it does not, and that makes it a violation of everyone's civil rights, even if they like it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

On another note, I always find it completely laughable when someone says the mandate is just another evil way by Liberals to try and control everything.

History of the Individual Health Insurance Mandate, 1989-2010 - Health Care Reform - ProCon.org

While the new healthcare bill does some good things (getting rid of pre-existing conditions for starters), the ones who are probably most happy with the bill at the end of the day are the Health insurance companies.

Does the fact that Republicans had the idea at one point somehow prove that it is not an evil attempt on the part government to take control of people's lives?

We're supposed to say, "Oh, the GOP wanted it? Well, that's okay, then."

That might work for partisan hacks, not sure why it would make a difference to me.

 

[Cuyo]

Congress can regulate inter-state commerce. An uninsured person from Arkansas getting injured, without insurance, in Hawaii costs Hawaii, not the state in which they reside.

That's close to the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Ummm, what's dumb about it? It appears to be factually correct.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Congress can regulate inter-state commerce. An uninsured person from Arkansas getting injured, without insurance, in Hawaii costs Hawaii, not the state in which they reside.

That's close to the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Ummm, what's dumb about it? It appears to be factually correct.

Is that your standard? How about this one: Congress can make laws to enforce ratified treaties. There are wild grapes in Italy that taste wonderful.

Factually correct, but when strung together it is completely idiotic. Since one has nothing to do with another, they make no sense at all.

 

[clevergirl]

That is exactly what I mean and with our tax issues, they would be able to charge you $25,000/year for family coverage, hell they could do it for single coverage, and there would not be a damned thing you could do about it.

Obviously, I do not support the public option because we would have no control over our ONE option.

Immie

You seemed to have confused what the public option is exactly. The public option would not be the only option available. If the government decides to have coverage at such a price, then you can clearly go ahead and get your insurance from a private insurance company.

Universal Health Care in some form has clearly worked in other countries. I think there is a number of policies that has worked in other countries that we should be trying here.

Public options would become the only option- It's a backdoor to single payer. "Other countries" are having to ration care at staggering rates due to the lack of affordability to budgets. Brits and Canuks are taxed at unsustainable rates- Free is never free.

 

[dblack]

You are making it sound as though the non-insured have nothing to worry about.

That's certainly not my intent. But the standard low-deductible, high-premium insurance plan isn't the only way to deal with health care costs. In fact, it's proven to be an extraordinarily bad way. The last thing we need is to have it cemented in place by state mandate.

Or federal mandate.

ahh.. well, by 'state' I meant 'coercive governmental authority' or somesuch. I doesn't much matter to me whether it's attempted at the state level or the federal level, I'd still be opposed. The only difference is that it would likely be constitutional at the state level and easier to avoid (e.g. by moving to another state).

 

[dblack]

The problem with the ACA's approach is that it dictates what will be 'acceptable' insurance - and then mandates that we all buy it.

What do you mean here by "'acceptable' insurance"?

I meant that the government (in concert with insurance industry 'leaders') will dictate the kinds of insurance that satisfy the mandate - effectively banning all other approaches.

 

[Cuyo]

That's close to the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Ummm, what's dumb about it? It appears to be factually correct.

Is that your standard? How about this one: Congress can make laws to enforce ratified treaties. There are wild grapes in Italy that taste wonderful.

Factually correct, but when strung together it is completely idiotic. Since one has nothing to do with another, they make no sense at all.

False equivalency, but I think that was kinda your intention.

Maybe you don't agree with the analysis that based upon the facts its the 'Right' thing to do, but the statement is after all correct, and far from the 'Dumbest thing' anyone here has ever heard.

That's harsh, even for Mani.

 

[Greenbeard]

I meant that the government (in concert with insurance industry 'leaders') will dictate the kinds of insurance that satisfy the mandate - effectively banning all other approaches.

Again, it's not clear to me what "other approaches" you're referring to. Are we talking about benefit designs, cost sharing structures, what? High-deductible plans remain options (and may well be prevalent in the Exchanges), flexibility for experimenting with value-based insurance is built right into the statute, and the degree to which benefit floors are specified for certain insurance plans is a topic that won't be ripe for discussion until the Institute of Medicine's recommendations go out for public comment in a few months.

So I'm wondering what, specifically, these approaches you want to pursue are and how the ACA will prevent that.

 

[bripat9643]

I meant that the government (in concert with insurance industry 'leaders') will dictate the kinds of insurance that satisfy the mandate - effectively banning all other approaches.

Again, it's not clear to me what "other approaches" you're referring to. Are we talking about benefit designs, cost sharing structures, what? High-deductible plans remain options (and may well be prevalent in the Exchanges), flexibility for experimenting with value-based insurance is built right into the statute, and the degree to which benefit floors are specified for certain insurance plans is a topic that won't be ripe for discussion until the Institute of Medicine's recommendations go out for public comment in a few months.

So I'm wondering what, specifically, these approaches you want to pursue are and how the ACA will prevent that.

He's talking about allowing insurance companies to offer whatever plans they want to offer. The fact that you can't conceive of such a thing just goes to show that your mentality is thoroughly statist. All you can imagine is government choosing between one government mandated plan over another. Businesses and consumers make their own choices is simply incomprehensible to you.

You're a drone, servile to the bone.

 

[bripat9643]

That's close to the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Ummm, what's dumb about it? It appears to be factually correct.

Is that your standard? How about this one: Congress can make laws to enforce ratified treaties. There are wild grapes in Italy that taste wonderful.

Factually correct, but when strung together it is completely idiotic. Since one has nothing to do with another, they make no sense at all.

In formal logic it's called a "non sequitur." That's when the premise has no relationship to the conclusion.

 

[Immanuel]

That is exactly what I mean and with our tax issues, they would be able to charge you $25,000/year for family coverage, hell they could do it for single coverage, and there would not be a damned thing you could do about it.

Obviously, I do not support the public option because we would have no control over our ONE option.

Immie

You seemed to have confused what the public option is exactly. The public option would not be the only option available. If the government decides to have coverage at such a price, then you can clearly go ahead and get your insurance from a private insurance company.

Universal Health Care in some form has clearly worked in other countries. I think there is a number of policies that has worked in other countries that we should be trying here.

Public options would become the only option- It's a backdoor to single payer. "Other countries" are having to ration care at staggering rates due to the lack of affordability to budgets. Brits and Canuks are taxed at unsustainable rates- Free is never free.

That was the way the public option was written in this case as well, however, if you remember correctly once he became President, he didn't actually press for the public option. Instead he ended up giving this one industry skyrocketing revenues.

The question is what did the devil demand in return?

Immie

 

[dblack]

Again, it's not clear to me what "other approaches" you're referring to. Are we talking about benefit designs, cost sharing structures, what? High-deductible plans remain options (and may well be prevalent in the Exchanges), flexibility for experimenting with value-based insurance is built right into the statute, and the degree to which benefit floors are specified for certain insurance plans is a topic that won't be ripe for discussion until the Institute of Medicine's recommendations go out for public comment in a few months.

So I'm wondering what, specifically, these approaches you want to pursue are and how the ACA will prevent that.

You seem to be missing the point entirely. I hope it's not deliberate, but assuming it's not, I'll try again.

'All other approaches' means anything creative people might cook up to deal with their health care costs. It means solutions that aren't controlled by an unholy alliance of corporate insurance and government regulators. It means the freedom of each of us to decide for ourselves how best to pay for health care.

 

[clevergirl]

You seemed to have confused what the public option is exactly. The public option would not be the only option available. If the government decides to have coverage at such a price, then you can clearly go ahead and get your insurance from a private insurance company.

Universal Health Care in some form has clearly worked in other countries. I think there is a number of policies that has worked in other countries that we should be trying here.

Public options would become the only option- It's a backdoor to single payer. "Other countries" are having to ration care at staggering rates due to the lack of affordability to budgets. Brits and Canuks are taxed at unsustainable rates- Free is never free.

That was the way the public option was written in this case as well, however, if you remember correctly once he became President, he didn't actually press for the public option. Instead he ended up giving this one industry skyrocketing revenues.

The question is what did the devil demand in return?

Immie

He mouthed single payer at the very beginning- but as per his usual manner over controversial issues he let others (Pelosi/Reid) act as the heavy hitters- Remember all of his voting present over controversial issues while a Senator? Basically that is how he handled this piece of crap bill.

 

[Immanuel]

Public options would become the only option- It's a backdoor to single payer. "Other countries" are having to ration care at staggering rates due to the lack of affordability to budgets. Brits and Canuks are taxed at unsustainable rates- Free is never free.

That was the way the public option was written in this case as well, however, if you remember correctly once he became President, he didn't actually press for the public option. Instead he ended up giving this one industry skyrocketing revenues.

The question is what did the devil demand in return?

Immie

He mouthed single payer at the very beginning- but as per his usual manner over controversial issues he let others (Pelosi/Reid) act as the heavy hitters- Remember all of his voting present over controversial issues while a Senator? Basically that is how he handled this piece of crap bill.

But rather than ACA becoming a step towards a single payer healthcare plan, it became a gift to health insurance companies.

I highly doubt that gift comes without strings attached.

Immie

 

[daveman]

Does the fact that Republicans had the idea at one point somehow prove that it is not an evil attempt on the part government to take control of people's lives?

We're supposed to say, "Oh, the GOP wanted it? Well, that's okay, then."

That might work for partisan hacks, not sure why it would make a difference to me.

He expects us to fall for it, because he'd fall for it. He can't understand that some people can arrive at their views on their own without having them handed to them.