Tax Incentive vs Mandate

[bendog]

Banks don't 'issue a mortgage' idiot. The borrower gives the Bank a mortgage on which the Bank issues a loan.

Any more brilliant thoughts?

The bank has to sell the mortage. You really make a living at this?

Moron

listen Dickhead. You said the govt forces a homeower to buy flood insurance. It doesn't. It prevents a homeowner from getting a mortage without it. You mistated facts and have nothing but isults. Go F yourself.

 

[dblack]

Because people will pay the miniscule fine and still, when they end up in the E-Room with a gunshot wound, won't have Health Insurance to pay for their treatment.

Guess who will?

The Tooth Fairy?

What are you getting at?

To reiterate, I'm asking, if the numbers are the same - if the fine for the mandate is the same as the deduction offered for the incentive - if it's the same amount of money out of your pocket in either case, why does it matter what it's called?

You are completely illogical

Heh.... uh, ok.

 

[Edgetho]

What are you getting at?

To reiterate, I'm asking, if the numbers are the same - if the fine for the mandate is the same as the deduction offered for the incentive - if it's the same amount of money out of your pocket in either case, why does it matter what it's called?

You are completely illogical

Heh.... uh, ok.

I can only take so many hypotheticals at a time.

You seem to revel in them.

Illogical

 

[dblack]

You are completely illogical

Heh.... uh, ok.

I can only take so many hypotheticals at a time.

You seem to revel in them.

Illogical

Well, I don't want to over-burden you. Anyway, thanks for responding.

 

[Edgetho]

How can any manly-man or fair maid resist an ad like this anyway?

Barack Obama

✔ @BarackObama
Follow
How do you plan to spend the cold days of December? It's time to have the talk #GetTalking
5:54 PM - 17 Dec 2013

Go get 'em, Tiger

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The bank can't force anyone to buy flood insurance. The govt prevents the bank from issuing a mortgage. The individual then has a choice.

You do realize how silly of a post this is?
I have a gun to your head and demand you give me $100...or die.
I am not forcing you...it is your choice.

 

[g5000]

For illustration purposes, let's say my neighbor and I each earn $100,000.

I have a mortgage. My neighbor rents.

I get a mortgage interest deduction on my taxes. My neighbor does not.

My neighbor pays more in taxes than I do, even though we earn identical incomes, because he does not have a mortgage.


I buy the right kind of health insurance. My neighbor does not.

My neighbor has to pay a tax penalty for not buying the right health insurance.

My neighbor pays more in taxes than I do, even though we earn identical incomes, because he did not buy the right insurance.



Distinction without a difference!

 

[Edgetho]

For illustration purposes, let's say my neighbor and I each earn $100,000.

I have a mortgage. My neighbor rents.

I get a mortgage interest deduction on my taxes. My neighbor does not.

My neighbor pays more in taxes than I do, even though we earn identical incomes, because he does not have a mortgage.


I buy the right kind of health insurance. My neighbor does not.

My neighbor has to pay a tax penalty for not buying the right health insurance.

My neighbor pays more in taxes than I do, even though we earn identical incomes, because he did not buy the right insurance.



Distinction without a difference!

 

[dblack]

For illustration purposes, let's say my neighbor and I each earn $100,000.

I have a mortgage. My neighbor rents.

I get a mortgage interest deduction on my taxes. My neighbor does not.

My neighbor pays more in taxes than I do, even though we earn identical incomes, because he does not have a mortgage.


I buy the right kind of health insurance. My neighbor does not.

My neighbor has to pay a tax penalty for not buying the right health insurance.

My neighbor pays more in taxes than I do, even though we earn identical incomes, because he did not buy the right insurance.



Distinction without a difference!

Exactly. I don't really understand Republicans, or anyone else for that matter, who are opposed to the mandate, but ok with an equivalent tax incentive.

 

[Vox]

Some Republican proposals to 'replace' ACA have offered up the idea of a tax incentive to encourage insurance coverage, rather than the individual mandate. In my view the two approaches are functionally equivalent and equally offensive. But it seems mine is a minority opinion. Thus the poll.

What do you think?

For the purposes of the poll, assume that the numbers are the same in either case. In other words, the incentive option would involve a tax increase of exactly the same amount as the fine for the mandate - with the incentive that you would get it back as a deduction if you were adequately insured.

No, they are NOT functionally equivalent.

One gives you money, the other takes it away for the same thing.

you do not have to buy insurance if you do not want to with tax incentive.
abolishing all that stupid mandatory scope of coverage, like maternity for 65 y olds and other crap would significantly reduce the prices as well.

there should be a wide variety of possibilities, with catastrophic insurance to start with.

 

[Edgetho]

For illustration purposes, let's say my neighbor and I each earn $100,000.

I have a mortgage. My neighbor rents.

I get a mortgage interest deduction on my taxes. My neighbor does not.

My neighbor pays more in taxes than I do, even though we earn identical incomes, because he does not have a mortgage.


I buy the right kind of health insurance. My neighbor does not.

My neighbor has to pay a tax penalty for not buying the right health insurance.

My neighbor pays more in taxes than I do, even though we earn identical incomes, because he did not buy the right insurance.



Distinction without a difference!

Exactly. I don't really understand Republicans, or anyone else for that matter, who are opposed to the mandate, but ok with an equivalent tax incentive.

FTR, I'm the one that's saying only a mandate will work. It's the only way to make a National Health Care plan work.

It should be done by the States, but that's a moot point at this Stage.

dimocraps are too stupid to have power. Or even to vote. They're so stupid, they don't know how stupid they are.

If they had wanted this thing to work, they should have found a way to get Republicans on board. It is an idea whose time has come. And Republicans..... Not all, certainly, but most..... Would have gone for the idea.

It was a no-brainer. But dimocraps are arrogant, dictatorial, brute-force scumbags who should never be allowed to hold power.

Now? Now this whole thing is going to go down in flames. And that is a shame. A real shame.

And it's dimocraps' fault. Completely. 100%

 

[Vox]

Well, to answer as best I can, I believe the mandate is constitutional as a tax, but also that beyond debate was even more so a valid exercise of the commerce clause. Imo Roberts' decision was politically motivated because people always don't like taxes. Moreover, by not going the commerce route, which was the constitutional justification for medicaid, he freed himself to insert the poison pill of allowing states to opt out of the medicaid expansion, which everyone knew would cover the most the fastest.

That said, I never liked Obamacare. Imo, govt functions best when it does not tell people how to behave. We are a market economy. The RW idealogues controlling the gop argue govt has no role in markets. That's bs. Reagonomics (or Thatcherism or neoliberalism which are the same thing) all used govt to influence market choice BY MAKING IT EASIER FOR INDIVIDUALS TO ENTER, AND EXIT, MARKETS. In fact, doing just that is the rationale that justifies govt confiscating wealth in taxes. (There's a message there for people like take a step back)

If people have the opportunity to purchase insurance affordably, they will. Young people don't need the insurance I do, being a middle aged guy with dependents. The families with those 40K deductable "insurance" policies didn't chose those because they thought it was a good policy; they bought them because that was all they could afford, and I know privately employed professionals who surprisingly are in that boat. Some cheapskates will try and skate, but as with medicare, govt can impose a stiff penalty on those who try and go without insurance, only to try and get into the market after they get sick.

To me there's a philosophical difference in being told you have to do something compared to govt affecting the markets to make it easier for you to make a rational decision in your best self interest.

In shot, that's why I'm not a dem.

nope, it is not. and that is the major win of that court decision. I even think Roberts traded what he thinks is much more important) - individual mandate is not regulated as a commerce clause. It was missed by the outrage that obamacare stands, but that decision ( and that was deliberate) about what Congress can and what it can not push under commerce clause is very important for the future.

If we going to stay the law abiding country.

 

[dblack]

Some Republican proposals to 'replace' ACA have offered up the idea of a tax incentive to encourage insurance coverage, rather than the individual mandate. In my view the two approaches are functionally equivalent and equally offensive. But it seems mine is a minority opinion. Thus the poll.

What do you think?

For the purposes of the poll, assume that the numbers are the same in either case. In other words, the incentive option would involve a tax increase of exactly the same amount as the fine for the mandate - with the incentive that you would get it back as a deduction if you were adequately insured.

No, they are NOT functionally equivalent.

One gives you money, the other takes it away for the same thing.

you do not have to buy insurance if you do not want to with tax incentive.

If the numbers work out the same, I fail to see the difference. You'd be out the same amount of money for failing to insure yourself. Why does it matter what it's called?

 

[Edgetho]

Some Republican proposals to 'replace' ACA have offered up the idea of a tax incentive to encourage insurance coverage, rather than the individual mandate. In my view the two approaches are functionally equivalent and equally offensive. But it seems mine is a minority opinion. Thus the poll.

What do you think?

For the purposes of the poll, assume that the numbers are the same in either case. In other words, the incentive option would involve a tax increase of exactly the same amount as the fine for the mandate - with the incentive that you would get it back as a deduction if you were adequately insured.

No, they are NOT functionally equivalent.

One gives you money, the other takes it away for the same thing.

you do not have to buy insurance if you do not want to with tax incentive.

If the numbers work out the same, I fail to see the difference. You'd be out the same amount of money for failing to insure yourself. Why does it matter what it's called?

You're only looking at the front end.

You have no idea what you're doing here. You just don't

QUIZ: One's mom tells him he's a special snowflake who can live at home forever. The other prays for him every nite.

 

[Vox]

Some Republican proposals to 'replace' ACA have offered up the idea of a tax incentive to encourage insurance coverage, rather than the individual mandate. In my view the two approaches are functionally equivalent and equally offensive. But it seems mine is a minority opinion. Thus the poll.

What do you think?

For the purposes of the poll, assume that the numbers are the same in either case. In other words, the incentive option would involve a tax increase of exactly the same amount as the fine for the mandate - with the incentive that you would get it back as a deduction if you were adequately insured.

No, they are NOT functionally equivalent.

One gives you money, the other takes it away for the same thing.

you do not have to buy insurance if you do not want to with tax incentive.

If the numbers work out the same, I fail to see the difference. You'd be out the same amount of money for failing to insure yourself. Why does it matter what it's called?

that is YOUR problem.

I do see the difference if somebody is forced to buy a product( at the extremely exaggerated price with no service for it) with the punishment in form of a penalty looming and not getting a prize if you choose to.

 

[dblack]

No, they are NOT functionally equivalent.

One gives you money, the other takes it away for the same thing.

you do not have to buy insurance if you do not want to with tax incentive.

If the numbers work out the same, I fail to see the difference. You'd be out the same amount of money for failing to insure yourself. Why does it matter what it's called?

that is YOUR problem.

I do see the difference if somebody is forced to buy a product( at the extremely exaggerated price with no service for it) with the punishment in form of a penalty looming and not getting a prize if you choose to.

It sounds like you're assuming that there's a net financial difference, and the premise of my question is that there isn't. If your taxes go up by $400 and you get a $400 deduction for having insurance, it's functionally no different than a $400 fine for not having insurance.

 

[zeke]

For illustration purposes, let's say my neighbor and I each earn $100,000.

I have a mortgage. My neighbor rents.

I get a mortgage interest deduction on my taxes. My neighbor does not.

My neighbor pays more in taxes than I do, even though we earn identical incomes, because he does not have a mortgage.


I buy the right kind of health insurance. My neighbor does not.

My neighbor has to pay a tax penalty for not buying the right health insurance.

My neighbor pays more in taxes than I do, even though we earn identical incomes, because he did not buy the right insurance.



Distinction without a difference!

Exactly. I don't really understand Republicans, or anyone else for that matter, who are opposed to the mandate, but ok with an equivalent tax incentive.

FTR, I'm the one that's saying only a mandate will work. It's the only way to make a National Health Care plan work.

It should be done by the States, but that's a moot point at this Stage.

dimocraps are too stupid to have power. Or even to vote. They're so stupid, they don't know how stupid they are.

If they had wanted this thing to work, they should have found a way to get Republicans on board. It is an idea whose time has come. And Republicans..... Not all, certainly, but most..... Would have gone for the idea.

It was a no-brainer. But dimocraps are arrogant, dictatorial, brute-force scumbags who should never be allowed to hold power.

Now? Now this whole thing is going to go down in flames. And that is a shame. A real shame.

And it's dimocraps' fault. Completely. 100%

Not sure exactly how you get to the "it's all the dims fault" so easily. It's not like, at various points in time, Republicans had the opportunity to do something with health care. And it is not like the Republicans didn't IMMEDIATELY announce their objections to the Dems plans for healthcare and the Repubs never relented in their fight against health care reform.

There is no Republican calling for national health care like you and I would like to see.
There are a couple of Democrats that would like that right now.

Of course the legislators didn't "write" the existing law. Their staffers did. And in particular, two chiefs of staff who formerly worked for two major health care companies wrote most of the legislation, according to the show Frontline.

And then the Dems screwed up the roll out.

Pitiful. Absolutely pitiful they couldn't do a better job up front. And nobody got fired.

But yes, we need national healthcare now. I agree.

Supposedly we are the most innovative country with all the smart people. But we can't figure out a problem that other countries figured out some time ago.

Pitiful.

 

[Care4all]

Some Republican proposals to 'replace' ACA have offered up the idea of a tax incentive to encourage insurance coverage, rather than the individual mandate. In my view the two approaches are functionally equivalent and equally offensive. But it seems mine is a minority opinion. Thus the poll.

What do you think?

For the purposes of the poll, assume that the numbers are the same in either case. In other words, the incentive option would involve a tax increase of exactly the same amount as the fine for the mandate - with the incentive that you would get it back as a deduction if you were adequately insured.

I think if we want to be truthful, then we would have to acknowledge that government intervention and tax incentives got us to where we were with astronomical health care costs, before Obamacare.

The government giving tax write offs to employers for what they spend on employee health Insurance coverage.

The government giving tax write offs to individuals for their Health Care expenses that are over 7%? of their earned income when filing the long IRS form..

The government giving those who pay premiums for their portion of health care insurance at work, gets to pay these premiums out of their salaries TAX FREE......without having to meet the 7%? requirement.

The government creating HSA's, health savings accounts... tax free for the individual participating.

The government funding Hospitals, and Clinics....

The government(s) paying/contributing to medical schools and nursing schools.

The government(s) paying for the schooling of doctors through grants and through paying doctor's loans at the State level in unpopulated States for 3 years of practice in the State.

The governments funding 50% of all medical research and development....

Medicaid, and Medicare, and CHIP all government funded.

What would a truly FREE MARKET look like in the arena of healthcare, if there was not all of this intervention?

My guess is that most people would not have health care insurance, and health care costs would be much lower than what they are now because the "market" would resist paying these very high prices....?

I dunno?

And giving insurance companies 25% of our total health care spending for just being a pencil pusher seems ridiculous, and feels like rape, to me....

Why the heck congress critters didn't in the least accept the public option being available on the exchange to give these insurance companies at least SOME competition is beyond reason to me....shows whose pockets got lined with gold imho.


sooooooooo, taking all of that, (with a few sidebar comments in between) I see no real difference in giving a tax credit verses the ACA as it stands, other than leaving those that are very poor out of the picture and once again, giving some tax write off to some people and not to others, making the tax system once again, more unfair.

I think Edtheho....is saying, imo, that the mandate or a mandate, is actually better, because it does force people in to the system, and forces people to be responsible for themselves, which also makes a larger pool of people, to prorate healthcare costs over.....IF I am understanding him correctly?

Again, I dunno?

 

[g5000]

No, they are NOT functionally equivalent.

One gives you money, the other takes it away for the same thing.

you do not have to buy insurance if you do not want to with tax incentive.

If the numbers work out the same, I fail to see the difference. You'd be out the same amount of money for failing to insure yourself. Why does it matter what it's called?

that is YOUR problem.

I do see the difference if somebody is forced to buy a product( at the extremely exaggerated price with no service for it) with the punishment in form of a penalty looming and not getting a prize if you choose to.

You are not forced to buy health insurance. You just pay more taxes if you don't.

You are not forced to get a mortgage. You just pay more taxes if you don't.

Distinction without a difference. You are giving up more of your own money either way. For not buying a commercial product.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Some Republican proposals to 'replace' ACA have offered up the idea of a tax incentive to encourage insurance coverage, rather than the individual mandate. In my view the two approaches are functionally equivalent and equally offensive. But it seems mine is a minority opinion. Thus the poll.

What do you think?

For the purposes of the poll, assume that the numbers are the same in either case. In other words, the incentive option would involve a tax increase of exactly the same amount as the fine for the mandate - with the incentive that you would get it back as a deduction if you were adequately insured.

Equally offensive.