SCOTUS Upholds ObamaCare

[Altair]

Just as a point of info, there already was a tax increase for those who didn't buy an electric car.  Or rather, there was a tax credit for buying an electric car.  Really, the same thing at the end.

And then there are "sin" taxes, on cigarettes and alcohol. Gov't has used tax policy in an effort to influence behavior for a long time.

[Altair]

So now this means that we don't HAVE to buy health coverage, but if we don't we're taxed? Where's the logic in that?

The idea is to strongly encourage *everyone* to buy coverage, and provide subsidies, etc., for those who otherwise couldn't afford to buy coverage. Only by having nearly the entire population covered can the costs and risks of insurance be spread around enough folks to make it viable.

This is imperfect--I'd prefer a nationalized system, like Canada or the UK--but it's *far* better than what we had prior to ObamaCare, with millions left uninsured, folks trapped in jobs simply for the health insurance, and "previous conditions" keeping people from being able to get insurance at all.

[Holdasown]

double post

[Holdasown]

The idea is to strongly encourage *everyone* to buy coverage, and provide subsidies, etc., for those who otherwise couldn't afford to buy coverage. Only by having nearly the entire population covered can the costs and risks of insurance be spread around enough folks to make it viable.

This is imperfect--I'd prefer a nationalized system, like Canada or the UK--but it's *far* better than what we had prior to ObamaCare, with millions left uninsured, folks trapped in jobs simply for the health insurance, and "previous conditions" keeping people from being able to get insurance at all.

I still think there is going to be a fringe group told they make too much for subsides but can't afford coverage. I run into that all the time. I also think if you get health care with your job and have to pay out of pocket if you leave people will still feel trapped.

I do think the previous condition is great. My concern is that if four people enter a doctors office or hospital for treatment and all get the same care they are all billed differently depending on their coverage. I don't see how that gets fixed and more reasonable rates applied to everyone.

Just as a point of info, there already was a tax increase for those who didn't buy an electric car.  Or rather, there was a tax credit for buying an electric car.  Really, the same thing at the end.

A tax credit is getting a discount for doing something, like a health insurance discount for not smoking. It is different than an increase.

[Skyth]

A tax credit is getting a discount for doing something, like a health insurance discount for not smoking. It is different than an increase.

 
Functionally, they're the same.  With a credit, you get an effective increase in taxes for everyone but if you do 'x' you get your taxes lowered.  With a penalty you pay extra if you don't do 'x'.   In the end, if you do 'x' you end up in the same situation either way and the same if you don't do 'x'.

It's just a psychological thing where things called 'penalties' people will try harder to avoid.  Same as 'extra credit' assignments for homework.

[Owl]

I didn't say anything about those who are uninsured completely.

I said that for the majority of folks--the majority are insured in some way--there won't be much difference.

I can only hope that the exchanges are up and running if I end up uninsured.

 
I realize I was mixing up the actual numbers and the percentages - I was thinking 40% uninsured when it seems it's more like 16.7%, but the number 49 million was talked about a lot when this was being pushed.

Even so - 49 million is lot of people to force insurance payments on when many of those are unemployed or underemployed.  For those there will be a big difference.  I am sensitive to this because in 54 years of my life I have had health insurance maybe 6 of those years.

[Starglade]

I realize I was mixing up the actual numbers and the percentages - I was thinking 40% uninsured when it seems it's more like 16.7%, but the number 49 million was talked about a lot when this was being pushed.

Even so - 49 million is lot of people to force insurance payments on when many of those are unemployed or underemployed.  For those there will be a big difference.  I am sensitive to this because in 54 years of my life I have had health insurance maybe 6 of those years.

I'm the same age as you. I've been luckier in that for MOST of my life I've been insured. Right now I'm covered by Medicaid because of our household's status w/r/t unemployment (both adults out of work) and number of dependents.

The 49 million number applied before the ACA went into effect in 2010. As of now the number's closer to 30 million, because of folks who were able to get coverage/be covered post-ACA. A fair number of folks who are un- or under-employed are supposed (I say, "supposed") to be able to get coverage from the government, via Medicare/Medicaid. Between those and the exchanges that are due to be active as of 2014, folks who currently can't afford coverage *should* have better options. (Notice, I don't claim that every individual will. I say that more people should be able to find options that are better than what's currently available.)

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/index.html

I find that URL has an excellent visual timeline that makes most of the ACA easier to get a handle on.

The system's still broken, but it's not as broken as it was before. And without nuking the whole thing from orbit to be sure, this kind of thing is the only way we really have with which to proceed.

[MadZealot]

Just as a point of info, there already was a tax increase for those who didn't buy an electric car.  Or rather, there was a tax credit for buying an electric car.  Really, the same thing at the end.

 
Yes.  Manipulation of the people through tax policies.

[Altair]

without nuking the whole thing from orbit

Heh. The Hicks-Ripley Healthcare Plan: "The Only Way To Be Sure".

[sailor]

The system's still broken, but it's not as broken as it was before. And without nuking the whole thing from orbit to be sure, this kind of thing is the only way we really have with which to proceed.

 
Now that it is a tax, it is not subject to Senate filibuster rules. So only a 51 vote majority is needed to repeal it, and for the House they don't have the filibuster rule.

Then there is the power for the President, acting thru the Sec HHS, to issue waivers on essentially a whim.

Or for Congress to repeal the mandate tax in the next round of working class tax cuts (whether tied to tax cuts for the rich or not is a seperate issue).  The mandate tax now falls into the same catagory of negiable items as the FICA payroll holiday, EIC, etc.

[Starglade]

Now that it is a tax, it is not subject to Senate filibuster rules. So only a 51 vote majority is needed to repeal it, and for the House they don't have the filibuster rule.

Then there is the power for the President, acting thru the Sec HHS, to issue waivers on essentially a whim.

Or for Congress to repeal the mandate tax in the next round of working class tax cuts (whether tied to tax cuts for the rich or not is a seperate issue).  The mandate tax now falls into the same catagory of negiable items as the FICA payroll holiday, EIC, etc.

 
Um . . . okay. I was referring to the health care system, not the law. I know too little about law to debate it. I know just enough about the health care system to be dangerous. At least I know what I don't know.

[MadZealot]

Now that it is a tax, it is not subject to Senate filibuster rules. So only a 51 vote majority is needed to repeal it, and for the House they don't have the filibuster rule.

Then there is the power for the President, acting thru the Sec HHS, to issue waivers on essentially a whim.

Or for Congress to repeal the mandate tax in the next round of working class tax cuts (whether tied to tax cuts for the rich or not is a seperate issue).  The mandate tax now falls into the same catagory of negiable items as the FICA payroll holiday, EIC, etc.

 

[Owl]

 

This is hilarious:  http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/the_daily_show_jon_stewart_mocks_cnn_fox_news_health_20120629/

Watch the video......gotta love John Stewart!

[sailor]

So now this means that we don't HAVE to buy health coverage, but if we don't we're taxed? Where's the logic in that?

 
The logic of economics.

You need to collect enough money from the young who do not use much health care to provide for the usage by the middle aged on up. You either get most people to buy insurance or you have to seriously raise taxes on everybody. There is a reason Europe has a VAT, it's an easy way to collect lots of money from most of the population.

Oh, and don't be surprised if the mandate tax penalty goes up every year.

I'm waiting to see what will happen to folks who show up at the emergency room without insurance for non-immediately life threatening events. Tax audit to see if you payed the penalty?

Any of our Canadian or EU members want to tell about their countries handle non-citizens who do not have insurance?

[sailor]

This just made me snort Pepsi out my nose...  :whis:

Though I have to admit I'm a disturbed about all the "2nd Civil War" comments I keep seeing.

 
Ignore the 2nd civil war.  The terms you need to be on look out for are Bleeding Kansas, Lebanon and or Spanish Civil War.  Expect 75 to 150 million dead in the US and up to a billion more world wide. China devolves into 1920's warlordism as the Best outcome.