Healthcare Passed

[Daniel]

It's not complicated. It is a tax. The Constitution clearly spells out that the Federal government is allowed to tax you. The bill does have an opt-out. If you don't want to pay for health insurance you don't have to. You just have to pay a tax instead. If you don't think the Government is allowed to use taxes to encourage behavior then I suppose you don't take any deductions?

You can't backdoor an otherwise unconstitutional command like this, and just say the penalty of non-compliance is a "tax". A few years back, the Supreme Court, rightfully in my opinion, invalidated a federal law that made it illegal to possess a firearm on or near school property on the grounds that it was beyond the scope of the commerce clause. It would be hard to argue that a law that did the same thing, but made the consequences of non-compliance a "tax", would pass muster.

Again, it is beyond any dispute that the powers of the federal government are limited and enumerated. Taking your argument to it's logical end, Congress can pass any law it wants so long as there is a "tax' involved. The line's gotta be drawn somewhere.

It is more complicated than you think.

[squishyx]

I don't know if you believe this (or maybe you were just making a rhetorical point), but the idea that people are "hoarding medical supplies [and] doctors" is just bizarre. Compared to every country that has some sort of universal health care plan (be it a single payer system or a public option type system in Great Britain) the US is oozing with supply of cutting edge medical devices. It might be a bit of exaggeration, but there are more MRI machines in Ohio than there are in Germany.

To make a single payer system work, you have to ration. We'll see what happens with Obama care.

It's more of a logical proposition, I'm trying to point out the hypocritical flaw. If giving 32 million people health care causes rationing then the inverse is that we are avoiding rationing by keeping 32 million people from having it, which is just another variant of rationing care.

I don't buy into any of that though, if 32 million people are buying health insurance who didn't yesterday there will be a lot more money in the system. Now as I stated before there could be an adjustment period where we simply don't have the doctors, supplies, clinics or whatever at first, but I don't see why we wouldn't come to the same kind of equilibrium we have now. These people are buying private insurance, you can't even make the argument that the government is going to stiff doctors on payments (at least, no more then they are doing now).

[Daniel]

If giving 32 million people health care causes rationing then the inverse is that we are avoiding rationing by keeping 32 million people from having it, which is just another variant of rationing care.

Only a third party with a monopoly (or near monopoly), i.e. the government, on the means of violence can "ration." This is not semantics, and is in fact a very important distinction between a quasi free market health care system and a government mandated universal health care plan.

The Canadian government can, and does, flat out tell people that you cannot have that operation. In the US, an insurance company or medicaid or whoever, for a valid or invalid reason, can only say we won't pay for that operation, but you're free to pay for it yourself. Again, the distinction matters.

ADDENDUM: To a certain extent the US government rations organ transplant by making it illegal for someone to pay for a transplant. Notice how hard it is to get an organ transplant compared to any other medical procedure.

Edited March 24, 2010 by Daniel

[squishyx]

Only a third party with a monopoly (or near monopoly), i.e. the government, on the means of violence can "ration." This is not semantics, and is in fact a very important distinction between a quasi free market health care system and a government mandated universal health care plan.

The Canadian government can, and does, flat out tell people that you cannot have that operation. In the US, an insurance company or medicaid or whoever, for a valid or invalid reason, can only say we won't pay for that operation, but you're free to pay for it yourself. Again, the distinction matters.

And this bill that adds 32 million people to private insurance changes that how exactly?

[Daniel]

And this bill that adds 32 million people to private insurance changes that how exactly?

I never said it did, at least for the time being. Although maybe down the road when Uncle Sam is picking up more of the tab that it expected it might resort to that.

Again, you were, at least I think you were saying that "we already may be rationing now." I was pointing out the flaw in this assertion.

[squishyx]

I never said it did, at least for the time being. Although maybe down the road when Uncle Sam is picking up more of the tab that it expected it might resort to that.

Again, you were, at least I think you were saying that "we already may be rationing now." I was pointing out the flaw in this assertion.

It's more of a logical proposition, I'm trying to point out the hypocritical flaw. If giving 32 million people health care causes rationing then the inverse is that we are avoiding rationing by keeping 32 million people from having it, which is just another variant of rationing care.

I don't buy into any of that though...

not sure how I could have been less ambiguous. I was just speaking in hypotheticals with SC, I don't think we are rationing care now, nor do I see how this bill lead to it.

[Daniel]

not sure how I could have been less ambiguous. I was just speaking in hypotheticals with SC, I don't think we are rationing care now, nor do I see how this bill lead to it.

Ok fine.

[Neutral Zone Trap]

Merely probabilities related to aging, etc.

But as you bring it up, what would you do if that did happen after you "choose" not to have health insurance?

So all people who age are destined to suffer from chronic health

There are plenty of senior citizens who enjoy a healthy lifestyle. Whatever they did in their lifetime was done in moderation, with absolutely no health care.

Probabilities are not definates.

It is probable that the Caps will reach the Stanley Cup finals. I bet you a dime to a donut they don't. Why ? too many variables. Which does not always swing to the negative as often assumed.

To answer your question, I'd pay for it as needed with the money I am able to save because I don't have to buy health insurance. It has enabled me to buy a house, a car, go on nice vacations. It's amazing how much you can save without that extra added "tax"

[thegame346]

It's not complicated. It is a tax. The Constitution clearly spells out that the Federal government is allowed to tax you. The bill does have an opt-out. If you don't want to pay for health insurance you don't have to. You just have to pay a tax instead. If you don't think the Government is allowed to use taxes to encourage behavior then I suppose you don't take any deductions?

So ok let me get this straight. If I choose to NOT utilize the government approved healthcare plan I don't have to but either way I am having to pay the same amount one way or the other. So they are going to take money out of my pocket when I am not receiving any services while at the same time I need that money to secure my own healthcare? fvck you and fvck this bill. It is a complete step in the wrong direction. I can not believe that in these economic times our government is approving a bill where if the public chooses not to opt into their contrived, piece of sh!t attempt to solve our healthcare problem that I will be taxed for a service which I can't use.

In short what you are telling me STILL does not change the fact that this bill is way fvcking wrong. This is figuratively like a mobster coming to your place of business and saying "You will pay us X amount of dollars and we will protect you, but if you don't we are going to take the money anyway as well as rough up your business"

Edited March 25, 2010 by thegame346

[squishyx]

So ok let me get this straight. If I choose to NOT utilize the government approved healthcare plan I don't have to but either way I am having to pay the same amount one way or the other. So they are going to take money out of my pocket when I am not receiving any services while at the same time I need that money to secure my own healthcare? fvck you and fvck this bill. It is a complete step in the wrong direction. I can not believe that in these economic times our government is approving a bill where if the public chooses not to opt into their contrived, piece of sh!t attempt to solve our healthcare problem that I will be taxed for a service which I can't use.

In short what you are telling me STILL does not change the fact that this bill is way fvcking wrong. This is figuratively like a mobster coming to your place of business and saying "You will pay us X amount of dollars and we will protect you, but if you don't we are going to take the money anyway as well as rough up your business"

Your entirely inappropriate attitude aside; it isn't the same amount. Most likely you would be paying less, in the event you were exceptionally rich you would be paying more (but why would you do that? might as well buy insurance to pay less and have "something" for it). The fine is 2.5% of your income, the average health care plan for an individual is about $8,000 (13k for a family of 4). That makes the "break even" point around $320,000 ($520,000 for a family of 4). If you make less and did not want health insurance for whatever reason it would be cheaper for you to pay the fee.

On the other end of the spectrum is the subsidies, the rule of thumb is your insurance won't cost you more then 10% of your income if you make less then $44,000 as a single person, ($88,000 for a family of 4).

I'm sure those numbers are adjusted for inflation every year.

By the way, I see that argument a lot. "In these tough economic times we can't afford this.." While I don't think is true right now, it's sort of irrelevant. We should be considering what the economy will be like in 2014 since that's when the mandate (and fee) kicks in. I'm not a fortune teller, who knows, we could be better could be worse but saying this is an unfair burden now seems moot to me.

Edited March 25, 2010 by squishyx

[thegame346]

Your entirely inappropriate attitude aside; it isn't the same amount. Most likely you would be paying less, in the event you were exceptionally rich you would be paying more (but why would you do that? might as well buy insurance to pay less and have "something" for it). The fine is 2.5% of your income, the average health care plan for an individual is about $8,000 (13k for a family of 4). That makes the "break even" point around $320,000 ($520,000 for a family of 4). If you make less and did not want health insurance for whatever reason it would be cheaper for you to pay the fee.

On the other end of the spectrum is the subsidies, the rule of thumb is your insurance won't cost you more then 10% of your income if you make less then $44,000 as a single person, ($88,000 for a family of 4).

I'm sure those numbers are adjusted for inflation every year.

Did you just read exactly what I said or just decide to comment only on the parts you actually had an opinion on? What about the point that I would be paying a tax IN WHICH I RECEIVE NO SERVICES FROM BECAUSE I HAVE MY OWN HEALTHCARE PLAN!!!??? I will be paying TWICE for my fvcking healthcare you do realize that right? The real kick in the balls is that I can only receive care from my own healthcare plan.

Lets say I opposed being taxed for public transportation because I own a car... I CAN AT LEAST UTILIZE THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION I AM BEING TAXED ON! If I have my own healthcare coverage I CAN'T use this healthcare that I am being taxed for. It is in this that it makes this... whether you want to call it a tax, or a blatant backdoor punishment for not aggreeing with thier backwards thinking STILL WRONG TO IMPOSE ON US!

Edited March 25, 2010 by thegame346

[squishyx]

Did you just read exactly what I said or just decide to comment only on the parts you actually had an opinion on? What about the point that I would be paying a tax IN WHICH I RECEIVE NO SERVICES FROM BECAUSE I HAVE MY OWN HEALTHCARE PLAN!!!??? I will be paying TWICE for my fvcking healthcare you do realize that right? The real kick in the balls is that I can only receive care from my own healthcare plan.

Lets say I opposed being taxed for public transportation because I own a car... I CAN AT LEAST UTILIZE THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION I AM BEING TAXED ON! If I have my own healthcare coverage I CAN'T use this healthcare that I am being taxed for. It is in this that it makes this... whether you want to call it a tax, or a blatant backdoor punishment for not aggreeing with thier backwards thinking STILL WRONG TO IMPOSE ON US!

If you already have health insurance you aren't going to have to pay the fee. Is that what you are asking?

[MantaRay]

the US is oozing with supply of cutting edge medical devices. It might be a bit of exaggeration, but there are more MRI machines in Ohio than there are in Germany.

To make a single payer system work, you have to ration. We'll see what happens with Obama care.

LOL. The cutting edge MRI machines in Ohio are built in Germany.

The US Healthcare already rations, decisions are made by insurance company's about what is and what is not covered.

[Daniel]

LOL. The cutting edge MRI machines in Ohio are built in Germany.

The US Healthcare already rations, decisions are made by insurance company's about what is and what is not covered.

See my earlier posts on what it means to ration. Long story short, it is impossible for a health insurance company to ration anything. That is what governments do. As I said, in Canada, the government says when and when not you can have a medical procedure, regardless of whether you are willing to pay for out of your own pocket or not. That is rationing. In the US, all a health insurance company can say is that it will or will not pay for it. That is NOT rationing. In other words, most parents are not going to buy their teenagers a Mercedes. That does not mean Mercedes are being rationed.

ADDENDUM: Here's a quick link I found on the comparison of mris in the US v. Canada. Probably a bit of an exaggeration in my earlier post, but it doesn't change the analysis.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Daniel

[thegame346]

If you already have health insurance you aren't going to have to pay the fee. Is that what you are asking?

If you say that this is true I'll buy that. There is no reason I believe you would not be forthcoming with me. So whats going to happen when the regular average joe like me who have our own healthcare has our paperwork lost by the US government proving we have our own healthcare and wind up having to pay that 2.5% of our income anyway? This WILL wind up happening to a number of people who can not afford that to happen to them. When will they be re-imbursed for this tax hiccup? Income tax filing? Sorry but insurance payments are monthly and by the time the government realizes the mistake they made those people can't afford to wait for income tax time. So they wind up having to drop thier private health insurance because they can't afford it anymore and wind up with healthcare from the government they didn't want because the government fvcked them over. So the government wins.

You are not talking to someone who has been opposed to healthcare for all from the beginning but as this plan went along and took more shape I became more and more aware of its overall purpose.

[Daniel]

If you say that this is true I'll buy that. There is no reason I believe you would not be forthcoming with me. So whats going to happen when the regular average joe like me who have our own healthcare has our paperwork lost by the US government proving we have our own healthcare and wind up having to pay that 2.5% of our income anyway? This WILL wind up happening to a number of people who can not afford that to happen to them. When will they be re-imbursed for this tax hiccup? Income tax filing? Sorry but insurance payments are monthly and by the time the government realizes the mistake they made those people can't afford to wait for income tax time. So they wind up having to drop thier private health insurance because they can't afford it anymore and wind up with healthcare from the government they didn't want because the government fvcked them over. So the government wins.

You are not talking to someone who has been opposed to healthcare for all from the beginning but as this plan went along and took more shape I became more and more aware of its overall purpose.

I don't know how the nitty-gritty details will work, but as much as we all hate government bureaucrats (I firmly believe that Reagan was right when he said the scariest words in the English language are "I'm with the government, and I'm here to help") I'll venture a guess that it will be exceedingly rare that the government will lose your paperwork and you'll end up paying the "tax" anyway.

[thegame346]

I don't know how the nitty-gritty details will work, but as much as we all hate government bureaucrats (I firmly believe that Reagan was right when he said the scariest words in the English language are "I'm with the government, and I'm here to help") I'll venture a guess that it will be exceedingly rare that the government will lose your paperwork and you'll end up paying the "tax" anyway.

I'll believe it when I see it. I'm sorry I don't want to come off as doubting you but I don't have a lot of confidence in our government (republican or democrat).

[squishyx]

If you say that this is true I'll buy that. There is no reason I believe you would not be forthcoming with me. So whats going to happen when the regular average joe like me who have our own healthcare has our paperwork lost by the US government proving we have our own healthcare and wind up having to pay that 2.5% of our income anyway? This WILL wind up happening to a number of people who can not afford that to happen to them. When will they be re-imbursed for this tax hiccup? Income tax filing? Sorry but insurance payments are monthly and by the time the government realizes the mistake they made those people can't afford to wait for income tax time. So they wind up having to drop thier private health insurance because they can't afford it anymore and wind up with healthcare from the government they didn't want because the government fvcked them over. So the government wins.

You are not talking to someone who has been opposed to healthcare for all from the beginning but as this plan went along and took more shape I became more and more aware of its overall purpose.

It's like your other taxes, it probably won't ever come up. Like your dependents, you can lie and say you have 3 instead of 2 to get a bigger tax break, but if you get audited you will have to prove have 3 kids or pay up for the years you lied plus interest.

I think it will just be a tax credit you get to take on your taxes every year if you have insurance while those who don't cant take it (without fear of cheating their taxes). I'm not totally sure that's how it will be implemented, but I think it is, someone a little more knowledgeable about it can correct me.

In this situation you wouldn't get "fvcked" for anyone "losing" paper work, their wouldn't be any to begin with. In the event you do get audited, it will be really easy to prove you had insurance from your insurance company and proving you had insurance will be the least of your concerns if you do get audited.

By the way, I think you are a little confused (based on your last post and this one).

There is no government health insurance you can buy or be forced to buy.

This was dropped months ago, there is no public option, or Medicare buy-in. The mandate is that you must have insurance of some kind. If you are in the military (and to be honest I thought you mentioned you were a while ago, maybe my memory fails me) you are covered by the VA, if you are a senior you are covered by Medicare, if you make less then 133% of the poverty line you will be covered by Medicaid. The rest of us (more or less) in the middle will have to carry private insurance or pay the fee.

Does that help clear up things?

[devilsadvoc8]

LOL. The cutting edge MRI machines in Ohio are built in Germany.

The US Healthcare already rations, decisions are made by insurance company's about what is and what is not covered.

Your point number 1 means absolutely nothing. Those MRIs are probably made by Siemens but its the US that uses them. Where they are made has no bearing whatsoever on the issue.

Everything is rationed by supply anyway. Every service or product has a limit so by definition is rationed. As for healthcare in the US right now prior to the travesty of a healthcare plan being enacted, a large number of us can switch plans, switch providers or pay out of pocket. So I think you are misrepresenting what is being rationed.

Edited March 25, 2010 by devilsadvoc8

[Devilish34]

I'll believe it when I see it. I'm sorry I don't want to come off as doubting you but I don't have a lot of confidence in our government (republican or democrat).

^This

I really have no idea why people want our government in control of this. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Postal Service, Amtrak. They will fvck this up too.

[SC Devs Fan]

^^ This

Show me where government control makes anthing better and when it screws up they just rasie taxes to pay for their mistakes

[squishyx]

I saw this today and I wanted to correct myself about the fee.

An adult who does not have health insurance by 2014 would be penalized $95 or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, so long as the amount does not exceed the price tag of a basic health plan. But by 2016, the penalty increases to $695 for an uninsured adult, and up to $2,085 per household, or 2.5 percent of income, whichever is greater.

While initially it will be a very minor slap on the wrist it does ramp up. And people making less then 84,000 who do not get insurance will have to pay 2,085 dollars in 2016, not 2.5% (which would be less). After that people people would be paying the 2.5% until they started making the 300k number I quoted from before, at that point they might as well buy a basic insurance plan.

Also it does appear that the way this will be administered is everyones taxes will be increased 2.5%, those with insurance will be able to take the deduction those without will not (or, should not). More or less the honor system.

[Devilish34]

I saw this today and I wanted to correct myself about the fee.

While initially it will be a very minor slap on the wrist it does ramp up. And people making less then 84,000 who do not get insurance will have to pay 2,085 dollars in 2016, not 2.5% (which would be less). After that people people would be paying the 2.5% until they started making the 300k number I quoted from before, at that point they might as well buy a basic insurance plan.

Also it does appear that the way this will be administered is everyones taxes will be increased 2.5%, those with insurance will be able to take the deduction those without will not (or, should not). More or less the honor system.

88k a year is the cut off I believe and the problem I have with that is 88k isn't the same in NYC as it is in Topeka.

Oh you don't make enough we'll pay for your insurance but you well we're going to be taxed you bc you make more than X

[squishyx]

88k a year is the cut off I believe and the problem I have with that is 88k isn't the same in NYC as it is in Topeka.

Oh you don't make enough we'll pay for your insurance but you well we're going to be taxed you bc you make more than X

Sounds right, my number was just 2k number I saw in the article and divided by 2.5%. The more accurate number must be slightly higher then what I used.

By in large all that really means is it's more of a fixed cost fine (of $2k) rather then dynamically adjusting with your income. The latter seems more appropriate to me.

Edited March 25, 2010 by squishyx