Long live Obamacare - Page 8 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-28-2012, 02:45 PM   #141
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
+1.

I don't understand how it can violate the commerce section and still be constitutional; I know I don't care to pay for healthcare to people who didn't make their health a priority.
There's a ---- ton of misunderstanding how our system works throughout this thread, and I don't have hours to spend (Minutes at best :() so I'll just respond to this one.

The logic of the so-called "Individual Mandate", i.e. each citizen has to pay a penalty due to it, was found in violation of it. Or, to be more specific, the court found it was stupid to try to argue that people not engaging in commerce was a reason to fine them/slap a penalty on them. (I am actually thankful for this, although not an expansion of Congress' power per se, it has never before been affirmed by the court directly to be an actual power held by Congress, only indirectly.)

However, if the Individual Mandate is a tax, and not a penalty, then it falls within the government's power. I.e., it is well-established that the government has the ability to tax people for doing X or not doing Y. Mg's friends posts are a good example of this, although I'd chime in one addition to them...

Let's say the penalty/fine/tax/deduction is 5k - whether it's deducted, or fined, or whatever.

Let's say you get insurance that costs 4k a year.

If it's a deduction, you'd subtract 4k from that 5k, and pay 4k less in taxes.

If it's a fine/penalty, you'd not pay that 5k in the first place, saving 1k since you only paid 4k.

If I had a choice, all my taxes would be of the penalty/fine/etc. type, and not deduction type for the above reason.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 02:50 PM   #142
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
fooger03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 4,132
Total Cats: 187
Default

Gotcha. So the question stated isn't really an "1 or 2" question, it's more of a "2.0.0.1b or 2.0.0.1c" question.

There is no significant theoretical difference between the government forcing you to buy insurance or else pay a fine of $X, or raising taxes by $X and providing tax reductions of $X if you prove you have maintained insurance. In practice, however; the method whereby the government levies a fine of $X for those who didn't pay will likely draw in fewer dollars than the method of providing a tax credit of $X for those who did pay for insurance. In the fines method, the government has to show that you didn't have insurance, but in the credits method, the individual has to file for the credits.

My greatest worry in all of this is a system where the government asks a high-income earner to "pay a little bit more" for health insurance than a low income earner. IMO, any healthcare system which asks someone to pay more based on their ability to pay more is outright unacceptable. Also, how do we make the unemployed homeless pay for insurance? They live in the same "free" country that I live in, I expect them to pay their own way just like I do. Does this law mean that if someone doesn't purchase insurance, they will be denied basic care if they can't afford to pay? I sure f*cking hope so.
fooger03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 02:53 PM   #143
Senior Member
iTrader: (14)
 
brgracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ambler, PA
Posts: 1,275
Total Cats: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
A friend of mine just posted this. A fairly persuasive argument, actually...I'm struggling to respond to it.
Almost wrote a long post about this, and it's not about being for or against obamacare, but your friend fails to take into account the other aspects of the whole law such as no denial for pre-existing conditions, coverages, etc...

If the entire law was simply a tax/penalty for not having health insurance, it wouldn't be over nine hundreds of pages, would it? Just saying, for better or for worse, they're making a lot more changes than simply a penalty for not having health insurance.
brgracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 02:58 PM   #144
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (7)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,656
Total Cats: 447
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brgracer View Post
Almost wrote a long post about this, and it's not about being for or against obamacare, but your friend fails to take into account the other aspects of the whole law such as no denial for pre-existing conditions, coverages, etc...

If the entire law was simply a tax/penalty for not having health insurance, it wouldn't over nine hundreds of pages, would it? Just saying, for better or for worse, they're making a lot more changes than simply a penalty for not having health insurance.
Are we discussing the bill in its entirety, or the Supreme Court ruling?

My friend's argument is about the Supreme Court ruling on the consititutionality of the individual mandate, not whether the law will be good or bad.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 03:10 PM   #145
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
fooger03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 4,132
Total Cats: 187
Default

It's time for a 2 new constitutional amendments:

No man shall be forced to provide, either directly or indirectly, for the well being of another which he does not have voluntary direct custody of.

No man shall be taxed for the provision of any goods or services which does not directly improve his own well being.
fooger03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 03:12 PM   #146
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,867
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

how about starting more amendments with:

congress shall not...


ya know, keep it old skool?
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 03:14 PM   #147
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
fooger03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 4,132
Total Cats: 187
Default

genious
fooger03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 03:14 PM   #148
Senior Member
iTrader: (14)
 
brgracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Ambler, PA
Posts: 1,275
Total Cats: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
Are we discussing the bill in its entirety, or the Supreme Court ruling?

My friend's argument is about the Supreme Court ruling on the consititutionality of the individual mandate, not whether the law will be good or bad.
Gotcha. I thought he was talking about the effects of the bill in it's entirety. As for the Supreme Court ruling, I've always thought that lawyers were experts at crafting arguments for their purposes, and I did not read the bill, nor did I read the oral arguments, nor am I lawyer, so that's why we have them....I guess.

Can't really argue against Congress's constitutional power to tax (unless you are Wesley Snipes), but that Commerce clause arguement (which they struck down) was garbage.
brgracer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:16 PM   #149
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savington View Post
Your friend is one omnipotent dude.
I believe the correct word is prescient, not omnipotent

</semantics>
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:16 PM   #150
Tour de Franzia
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
There's a ---- ton of misunderstanding how our system works throughout this thread, and I don't have hours to spend (Minutes at best :() so I'll just respond to this one.
I'll let my GF explain it to me, she's the one with the alphabet soup of credentials behind her name related to economics and finance. lol
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:20 PM   #151
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,867
Total Cats: 1,790
Default



3:00
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:24 PM   #152
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,867
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

here's what I need answering:

if i drop my medical coverage and pay the tax. and I say need to go to the hospital. will i then get "free" coverage?
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:35 PM   #153
y8s
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
 
y8s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,038
Total Cats: 407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fooger03 View Post
It's time for a 2 new constitutional amendments:

No man shall be forced to provide, either directly or indirectly, for the well being of another which he does not have voluntary direct custody of.

No man shall be taxed for the provision of any goods or services which does not directly improve his own well being.
Guess we hire our own police-fire-ambulance-man to sit out in front of our house with a gun and a hose in his ambulance.
y8s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:37 PM   #154
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,867
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

federal vs state.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 04:48 PM   #155
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
fooger03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Columbus, OH
Posts: 4,132
Total Cats: 187
Default

"In a supreme court showdown today, the healthcare industry again tightens its grip on the ***** of America - the entire healthcare field rejoiced as their government provided job security and benefits now outstrips that of the next nearest industry by 3:1 - in light of this success, the HLA (Healthcare Lobbyists of America) have begun working on new legislation which would grant them veto power over all new laws concerned with healthcare. The legislation is expected to pass in the senate later this week by unanimous decision."


Quote:
Originally Posted by y8s View Post
Guess we hire our own police-fire-ambulance-man to sit out in front of our house with a gun and a hose in his ambulance.
I played about 10 minutes with the idea of putting in "directly or indirectly" but "indirectly" is far too vague and open to debate... for instance, it's easily possible to argue that funding the college education of another person could indirectly improve the well-being of a person - but at the same time, essential services such as fire and police protection might not ever be directly used by an individual, but without public funding, they wouldn't exist. I was under the impression that the government does not provide ambulance services, and that those were private companies which directly billed the care recipient or his insurance for their services.
fooger03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 06:02 PM   #156
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 14,363
Total Cats: 1,324
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hustler View Post
+1.

I don't understand how it can violate the commerce section and still be constitutional; I know I don't care to pay for healthcare to people who didn't make their health a priority.
Tell us more about how taxes are unconstitutional.
Savington is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 07:11 PM   #157
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

‘Mandate struck down’: ‘Dewey Defeats Truman’ moment for CNN, Fox News | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

By far the best part of this entire charade.

Truly, a Dewey Defeats Truman moment.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 07:17 PM   #158
Tour de Franzia
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savington View Post
Tell us more about how taxes are unconstitutional.
Thanks for the help. I'm not a constitutional scholar...but I will have to pay more in health-care premiums to cover hair plugs and sexual reassignment surgery.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 07:31 PM   #159
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,476
Total Cats: 114
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fooger03 View Post
So instead of asking the healthy to pay for the sick, we're now forcing the wealthy to again pay for the poor. We're once again providing an incentive for people to stay poor, and we're providing a de-incentive for businesses to produce profit. Pre-Obamacare, it was an incentive to become/remain sick or a de-incentive to stay healthy; but that is more than balanced out by the fact that no one ever really wants to be sick - most people are smart enough to think "I probably shouldn't jump off of my roof onto those large rocks" - or - "My broken ankle hurts when I put pressure on it, perhaps I shouldn't stand on that foot"

The incentive to produce profit is profit itself - in a world where profits are an exact and quantifiable measurement of economic gain, adopting policy which undeniably reduces profits isn't going to do anything to improve our national economic crisis, which is PE#1 on nearly every American's political radar.
I dont see it this way at all. Wealthy people will have insurance and the mandate will have zero effect on them. Now with the mandate which in fact was the brainchild of right wing think tanks. Poor people that cant afford our ridiculous system of healthcare set up to enrich insurance companies will have to pay a penalty.

It is a tax on the poor to make healthcare more universal and to make it cheaper for the wealthy. It is far from a liberal Idea in the effort to get a few desired results. I still think its an improvement though.

Single payer government healthcare I feel would be a better solution. Put most of the greedy insurance companies out of business.

Bob
bbundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2012, 08:13 PM   #160
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 3,284
Total Cats: 178
Post

Not exactly related to the SCOTUS ruling today, but tangentially linked:
Massachusetts would help the uninsured buy private insurance; it would create a deregulated online marketplace; and it would require that everyone carry insurance. Uninsured citizens no longer would use the emergency room as a primary-care facility and then fail to pay their bills.

Its a Republican way of reforming the market, Romney said later that day. Because, let me tell you, having thirty million people in this country without health insurance and having those people show up when they get sick, and expect someone else to pay, thats a Democratic approach. Thats the wrong way. The Republican approach is to say, You know what? Everybody should have insurance. They should pay what they can afford to pay. If they need help, we will be there to help them, but no more free ride.
LONG but interesting article on Romneycare. WARNING: Likely too nuanced for many of the political readers here (I'm looking at you, Bbundy and Braineack).
Scrappy Jack is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Need help - Stock Balancer and Fastforward overlay pulleys Frank_and_Beans Supercharger Discussion 13 09-12-2016 09:17 PM
Noob to Miataturbo from MA JxPhan Meet and Greet 3 10-02-2015 03:17 AM
"Chimney Ethanol" E100 MiataGarage Engine Performance 5 09-30-2015 12:04 AM
WTB HPDE miata - Texas Voltwings Cars for sale/trade 0 09-27-2015 07:40 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:29 PM.