PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues So, let's assume the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare...


AustinChief
06-24-2012, 12:57 AM
If so, what should be the next step?

I think if Romney was willing to piss off the insurance lobby he could make serious waves by presenting his own national reform plan. I'm not talking about just general ideas and such, but an actual plan with clear objectives.

I would imagine that he would have to keep the pre-existing conditions part of Obamacare, even though that is just plain stupid from a practical economic standpoint.

The way I see it, in a perfect world, you'd create a system that completely marginalizes the insurance industry down to a reasonable state.

Make it far easier for individuals to be insured and far harder for "groups" like employers. That way people don't take insurance for granted and abuse it like we currentlydo.

Create a system that encourages people to only purchase catastrophic insurance and pay for most things out of pocket. THAT is the only way we are going to drive down prices without just going with mandated price controls. Yes, at first it would be a painful transition for everyone involved.. but we are past the point of easy solutions.

And the easiest thing.. get rid of all the just plain stupid regs that limit consumer choices and are basically protections for big insurance.

Now, I've just done what I said I DON'T want Romney to do.. which is to lay out general ideas with few specifics...

Anyone have more specific ideas to add?

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 01:00 AM
OK, to add to my thoughts here...

The health insurance industry needs to be more like the auto insurance industry in many ways. You don't use your car insurance when you need an oil change or when you get a flat tire. IF we did, rates would be through the roof and the cost of a tire change would be $1000.

cdcox
06-24-2012, 01:01 AM
Catastrophic injury with no insurance or ability to pay, you bleed out on the side of the road.

La literatura
06-24-2012, 01:05 AM
I would imagine that he would have to keep the pre-existing conditions part of Obamacare, even though that is just plain stupid from a practical economic standpoint.

I think the pre-existing conditions law must necessarily have an individual mandate in order for it to be economically sensible. Without the mandate, the responsible people who purchase, or the companies who provide, health insurance get to see their premiums shoot way up.

If the individual mandate goes, so must the pre-existing conditions law, as I see it.

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 01:08 AM
Catastrophic injury with no insurance or ability to pay, you bleed out on the side of the road.

From a purely economic standpoint that makes perfect sense.. but obviously is not palatable to the majority.

Which is why I said that insurance should be focused on catastrophic injury coverage at reasonable rates.

AND if the govt has to pick up the bill on those that don't have insurance, possibly create a repayment system for when that happens. IF you can't repay with money maybe a health care works program where you can repay via labor.

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 01:09 AM
I think the pre-existing conditions law must necessarily have an individual mandate in order for it to be economically sensible. Without the mandate, the responsible people who purchase, or the companies who provide, health insurance get to see their premiums shoot way up.

If the individual mandate goes, so must the pre-existing conditions law, as I see it.

I agree but too many people aren't willing to admit to the reality.

Mr. Kotter
06-24-2012, 01:12 AM
Kyle, your thoughts are right on....except that the Health Care Industry, and the Insurance folks in particular, OWN the pols in D.C. Hence, Obamacare is the best we are gonna get at this point.


Hell, single-payer with large deductibles and reasonable out-of-pocket expenses is the best option, but as long as the Insurers own Pols and citizens refuse to ante-up their fair share...."ObamaCare" is better than the current shell-game bullshit we play.


The Individual "mandate" may be controversial, but since ALL of us eventually enter the healthcare system....it makes complete sense, regardless of what the SC may say--hopefully, Roberts or some other "conservative" will see the necessity of that...and come down on the sensible side of this "debate."

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 01:14 AM
Another point. Everyone talks about all the costs in health care and waste, etc etc.. The problem is... how do you MANDATE efficiency? Simple answer... you don't. There is waste and high costs because there isn't enough reason (in most cases) to reduce those costs and eliminate waste.

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 01:17 AM
Kyle, your thoughts are right on....except that the Health Care Industry, and the Insurance folks in particular, OWN the pols in D.C. Hence, Obamacare is the best we are gonna get at this point.


But this is unnecessary defeatism! I watched Ann Richards take on the Texas insurance industry and beat them into submission. It cost her the next election, but it CAN be done. It simply becomes a question of having a few leaders who are willing to stand up to big insurance.. the public is ready to rally behind that.

cdcox
06-24-2012, 01:19 AM
The key problem is that there is that insurance for the elderly is not viable from a profit motive.

The elderly are a high risk group.

Many of their health problems are financially catastrophic to normal Americans, but in many cases treatment is effective and can extend quality life more than 5 years.

You have to defer the costs of treatment for the elderly over 1) a broad population AND 2) over the life of individuals. If you don't do both (or use a government funded model which essentially does both of these things), most Americans who need an angioplasty a routine procedure that can extend life 5, 10, 20 years or more, need to die because profitable insurance for the elderly is unaffordable by the elderly. And they can't afford to pay for angioplasty out of pocket. Ignoring these facts is the bald face lie of the Ryan plan.

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 01:29 AM
The key problem is that there is that insurance for the elderly is not viable from a profit motive.

The elderly are a high risk group.

Many of their health problems are financially catastrophic to normal Americans, but in many cases treatment is effective and can extend quality life more than 5 years.

You have to defer the costs of treatment for the elderly over 1) a broad population AND 2) over the life of individuals. If you don't do both (or use a government funded model which essentially does both of these things), most Americans who need an angioplasty a routine procedure that can extend life 5, 10, 20 years or more, need to die because profitable insurance for the elderly is unaffordable by the elderly. And they can't afford to pay for angioplasty out of pocket. Ignoring these facts is the bald face lie of the Ryan plan.

Fantastic points. Ok, so what solutions could you see OTHER then a govt plan? What if the pre-existing conditions part of the law is applied to only 60+ and applies to private insurance and Medicare takes care of the rest?

I doubt you will find many people (even hard core conservatives) who would object to keeping Medicare going. The only problem I see with this is that Medicare is underfunded. I'd personally have no problem with simply increasing taxes for that. What would it take? A .55% increase in FICA (with employers.. that would be 1.1% to get it to a total of 4%)? That shouldn't be too hard to get done, politically speaking.

cdcox
06-24-2012, 01:41 AM
In many ways, health insurance is the inverse of life insurance.

In life insurance, the need is highest when the risks are lowest. When you are young you need insurance because your house isn't paid for, you have children that depend on you, and you have accumulated very little wealth. But your risk of dying is low, so insurance is affordable. Later in life, when you have your house paid for, your children are independent, and you've accumulated some wealth, the need for insurance is less. If it gets too expensive, you can drop it without putting yourself or your loved ones at too much risk.

In health insurance, the need is highest when the risk is greatest. When you are young, your risks of needing a catastrophic policy are low. Even though market rates for catastrophic insurance are relatively low, most young people can get away without having it. And under current policies, if you really need catastrophic medical treatment, you are going to get it. The temptation to forego health insurance when you are young is tremendous.

Now consider the late middle aged and elderly. They are likely to encounter some disease that is treatable, but expensive. From an insurer's POV the rates for catastrophic treatment needs to be very high to pay for these expensive procedures. So high that most American's can't afford it.

Everyone needs to be in the same pool. And most people need to be participating. If you can do that and get competitive pressures to bear to keep costs low, winner winner chicken dinner.

cdcox
06-24-2012, 01:44 AM
I doubt you will find many people (even hard core conservatives) who would object to keeping Medicare going.

The Ryan plan would kill Medicare for people of my age and yours and younger. And one of the presidential candidates endorses that approach.

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 01:46 AM
Everyone needs to be in the same pool. And most people need to be participating. If you can do that and get competitive pressures to bear to keep costs low, winner winner chicken dinner.

I'm all for this... so long as it isn't mandated. The way I see it.. we first need to remove the idea that if a young person doesn't have insurance they will get "free" treatment anyway. You can either let them die(no one wants this) or I think my "health works" plan would work. Pay for cheap catastrophic insurance or risk A)having to pay out of pocket B)do 100 hours(total guess) of work mopping up at a hospital or C)got to jail for theft of services.

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 01:51 AM
The Ryan plan would kill Medicare for people of my age and yours and younger. And one of the presidential candidates endorses that approach.

The Ryan plan is crap on the health care front. It simply addresses cutting Federal cost without looking at the big picture. Although i agree that Medicaid needs serious reworking.. I don't think NOW is the time to screw with Medicare. Raise FICA to 4%, fix the system for everyone else so that overall costs drop and call it a day.

This is why I think Romney has a HUGE opportunity to make a statement next week.. but I'm 99% sure he won't and we'll get the same old crap.

Chiefspants
06-24-2012, 01:56 AM
It cost her the next election, but it CAN be done.

And there lies the root of the problem, the sad reality is that the almost all of our leaders in Washington are more than willing to sacrifice what's right if it preserves their own self image.

cdcox
06-24-2012, 02:00 AM
1. Since everyone needs to be in the same pool for catastrophic coverage, let the government take over that portion. They can bully the health care providers to make cost efficiencies for life/death issues. And you are going to have to limit what procedures will be covered, given the age, health, and prognosis of the individual. Some people will call this a death panel.

2. If the death panel votes thumbs down, people could have two options 1) pay for it out of pocket or 2) private insurance. Insurance might become viable here since expensive routine things like angioplasty are covered by the government. Even among the elderly, very few might need to access this insurance. Policies could be made affordable by excluding things like experimental cancer therapy for an 85 year old. Maybe only the upper middle class and above can access this treatment. We can't afford expensive, low effectiveness treatment for everyone. This is the biggest reason why the current system is broken.

3. Routine stuff is 1) out of pocket, 2) buy insurance if you want it, 3) government assistance for the truly poor and 4) gov assistance on a sliding needs scale for stuff that saves money on 1.

That's my plan.

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 02:00 AM
And there lies the root of the problem, the sad reality is that the almost all of our leaders in Washington are more than willing to sacrifice what's right if it preserves their own self image.

I agree... BUT I am thinking that it has ALMOST come to a point where the public outcry over health care would outweigh the influence of big insurance. ESPECIALLY if Obamacare gets struck down .. a law that almost everyone hates because they can see it panders to big insurance. Before anyone jumps on my "almost everyone" comment.. I am including those that "support" obamacare simply because they see it as a step in the right direction toward single payer or some such.. people who don't truly like it on its own merits.

cdcox
06-24-2012, 02:04 AM
B)do 100 hours(total guess) of work mopping

C-section that saves 2 lives is probably $30K

100 hours of mopping is worth $1000 bucks.

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 02:08 AM
1. Since everyone needs to be in the same pool for catastrophic coverage, let the government take over that portion. They can bully the health care providers to make cost efficiencies for life/death issues. And you are going to have to limit what procedures will be covered, given the age, health, and prognosis of the individual. Some people will call this a death panel.

2. If the death panel votes thumbs down, people could have two options 1) pay for it out of pocket or 2) private insurance. Insurance might become viable here since expensive routine things like angioplasty are covered by the government. Even among the elderly, very few might need to access this insurance. Policies could be made affordable by excluding things like experimental cancer therapy for an 85 year old. Maybe only the upper middle class and above can access this treatment. We can't afford expensive, low effectiveness treatment for everyone. This is the biggest reason why the current system is broken.

3. Routine stuff is 1) out of pocket, 2) buy insurance if you want it, 3) government assistance for the truly poor and 4) gov assistance on a sliding needs scale for stuff that saves money on 1.

That's my plan.

I definitely would support this over Obamacare.. by a long shot.. but I still don't like it overall.

I just don't trust the government to efficiently handle it AND how do you propose it is paid for? You have to increase FICA by a huge amount to get this done.

I still prefer the idea that it is private.

How about this as a compromise. Fed govt only handles catastrophic in cases of the uninsured and pays for it by a slight increase in FICA and uses my model of requiring people to pay it back or work it off.

This sounds like the current system but instead of the hospitals and local govt taking the hit.. it would be paid for (and enforced) through a fed fund.

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 02:14 AM
C-section that saves 2 lives is probably $30K

100 hours of mopping is worth $1000 bucks.

#1 there is no excuse on the planet for a c-section costing $30k... I understand that it does... but it sure as hell shouldn't. Hopefully the new system would significantly reduce costs and this would go down. Let's pretend we could drop that to $15k.

#2 ok, so my guess was way off, let's say you "pay" a premium at $15/hour for the work and required 1000 hours ($15k). It'd take a year to pay back(20 hours per week), but them's the breaks.

cdcox
06-24-2012, 02:15 AM
I definitely would support this over Obamacare.. by a long shot.. but I still don't like it overall.

I just don't trust the government to efficiently handle it AND how do you propose it is paid for? You have to increase FICA by a huge amount to get this done.

I still prefer the idea that it is private.

How about this as a compromise. Fed govt only handles catastrophic in cases of the uninsured and pays for it by a slight increase in FICA and uses my model of requiring people to pay it back or work it off.

This sounds like the current system but instead of the hospitals and local govt taking the hit.. it would be paid for (and enforced) through a fed fund.

It can't be private for those over 50 or 55 without a mechanism for getting a high participating rate for the young and healthy all in the same pool. The economics just aren't there on the individual side or the insurance side. And without a mandate or letting them bleed on the curb, how are you going to get 90% plus of young people to participate?

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 02:16 AM
#1 there is no excuse on the planet for a c-section costing $30k... I understand that it does... but it sure as hell shouldn't. Hopefully the new system would significantly reduce costs and this would go down. Let's pretend we could drop that to $15k.

#2 ok, so my guess was way off, let's say you "pay" a premium at $15/hour for the work and required 1000 hours ($15k). It'd take a year to pay back(20 hours per week), but them's the breaks.

#3 you could also pay back some money and reduce the hours

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 02:18 AM
It can't be private for those over 50 or 55 without a mechanism for getting a high participating rate for the young and healthy all in the same pool. The economics just aren't there on the individual side or the insurance side. And without a mandate or letting them bleed on the curb, how are you going to get 90% plus of young people to participate?

My solution is not to let them bleed but to pay out of Fed fund that instead of being "free" requires repayment.. or work..or jail time. Young people would quickly start buying insurance the second a buddy is on the hook for 1000 hours of work at a local hospital... or goes to jail for not paying back the money or time. Let's face the facts.. it would be THEFT and should be treated as such.

cdcox
06-24-2012, 02:20 AM
#1 there is no excuse on the planet for a c-section costing $30k... I understand that it does... but it sure as hell shouldn't. Hopefully the new system would significantly reduce costs and this would go down.

#2 ok, so my guess was way off, let's say you "pay" a premium at $15/hour for the work and required 800 hours ($12k). It'd take a year to pay back, but them's the breaks.

Let's implement your plan. How many c-sections at $12K are there? How many square feet of hospital? I think you will end up increasing the cost of treatment due to the need to replace worn out hospital tile every 6 mos. :D

I know mopping floors is an example, but there is only so much menial labor that needs to be done around a hospital. The hospital is still taking it in the shorts, and they will pass those along just like they do now.

cdcox
06-24-2012, 02:23 AM
My solution is not to let them bleed but to pay out of Fed fund that instead of being "free" requires repayment.. or work..or jail time. Young people would quickly start buying insurance the second a buddy is on the hook for 1000 hours of work at a local hospital... or goes to jail for not paying back the money or time. Let's face the facts.. it would be THEFT and should be treated as such.

How is jail time for not being able to pay different from a tax penalty for not having insurance? Both are mandates. I'd sure as hell rather pay a fine than serve jail time. The difference is that tax penalties are a smaller penalty applied more uniformly while your jail sentences are a more severe penalty applied stochastically.

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 02:24 AM
Let's implement your plan. How many c-sections at $12K are there? How many square feet of hospital? I think you will end up increasing the cost of treatment due to the need to replace worn out hospital tile every 6 mos. :D

I know mopping floors is an example, but there is only so much menial labor that needs to be done around a hospital. The hospital is still taking it in the shorts, and they will pass those along just like they do now.

HAHA.. actually hospitals are just one place for the labor.. there are MORE than enough "menial" jobs in the health care industry to go around. I don't see this as a problem.. but I'll bite and pretend it is... then let the Fed Fund hire them out to other sectors of govt or even private industries. Yes, there would be a loss... let's say you could only get $10/hour but you give them credit for $15/hour... but that is well worth it.

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 02:28 AM
How is jail time for not being able to pay different from a tax penalty for not having insurance? Both are mandates. I'd sure as hell rather pay a fine than serve jail time. The difference is that tax penalties are a smaller penalty applied more uniformly while your jail sentences are a more severe penalty applied stochastically.

Because the mandate assumes I will need services.. the jail time makes no assumption and only applies to those who actually use the services and don't pay it back in some way.

A young person could legally not buy insurance and live to 45 before getting hit by a bus and not affect the system at all if they so chose.

Jail time for failure to pay for a service you took, is NOT a mandate.

Now, you do have an interesting problem.. what if I decide to opt out AND I want to REFUSE care no matter what. I chose to bleed out. There would have to be an option on my DL to check a box and a requirement that if care is provided... the provider pays. No reimbursement from me or the govt. I'd be 1000% fine with that.

cdcox
06-24-2012, 02:30 AM
It's a scale:

small requirement spread broadly <----> severe requirement applied to a few

buy insurance, pay a fine if you don't, applied to everyone <--------> get injured and die if you are unlucky

Your jail time scenario falls in the middle, but drives up costs because 1) medical bills go unpaid and 2) we have to house deadbeats in jail.

cdcox
06-24-2012, 02:34 AM
The Lottery by Shirley Jackson comes to mind.

AustinChief
06-24-2012, 03:30 AM
It's a scale:

small requirement spread broadly <----> severe requirement applied to a few

buy insurance, pay a fine if you don't, applied to everyone <--------> get injured and die if you are unlucky

Your jail time scenario falls in the middle, but drives up costs because 1) medical bills go unpaid and 2) we have to house deadbeats in jail.

Jail time is an extreme that I don't see being applied very often. BUT if you want to replace it with a tax fine(just to those who refuse to pay back or work it off), go ahead.. but I don't see how that would be any different... don't pay the tax fine=go to jail anyway.

Iz Zat Chew
06-24-2012, 08:01 AM
This country needs health reform in the worst way. I don't begrudge doctors and hospitals making a profit. One of the problems is with the escalating costs that are driven by the insurance companies.


There should be a nationwide scale for procedures that are sane and those price scales should not be at the whim of the insurance companies. Right now you can pay little if you are in the right group. If you have no insurance and are a self payer you get the larger cost that the health care provider can charge. If you have insurance the accepted cost is lower and the health care provider writes off the difference. The problem lies with the self payer is usually not insured due to the inability to pay the premiums or chooses not to pay the premium and play the odds. If you are poor, illegal or classed as un-insurable there are times you walk out free of charge and the charges end up being tacked on to standard charges and those insured end up with the higher premiums.


The current Affordable Care Act (ACA) was never really vetted by any other than the democrats and should have never been allowed to be presented without review and modification. I think if there had of been a fair review of the bill there would have been changes that might have made it something that could have been useful. As it stands now it seems as if there were plenty of "big brother" additions that need not be there.


I think in the next 10 years or so a viable bill can be written that will appease most. If the SCOTUS does not strike down the ACA I think we are fooked. There may be some decent sections in it, but it is just not good for America and I don't feel it can be.


Start from scratch and build something that the country can use and afford. I would not force a new Health Care Act on anyone that has health insurance through their employer or are now paying for their own health care. The main point of health care for the country is to cover those that do not and cannot afford insurance.

As an adder, I think lobbyists should be outlawed completely. I feel that would lessen the temptation of take money for a vote.

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 10:52 AM
If so, what should be the next step?

I think if Romney was willing to piss off the insurance lobby he could make serious waves by presenting his own national reform plan. I'm not talking about just general ideas and such, but an actual plan with clear objectives.

I would imagine that he would have to keep the pre-existing conditions part of Obamacare, even though that is just plain stupid from a practical economic standpoint.

The way I see it, in a perfect world, you'd create a system that completely marginalizes the insurance industry down to a reasonable state.

Make it far easier for individuals to be insured and far harder for "groups" like employers. That way people don't take insurance for granted and abuse it like we currentlydo.

Create a system that encourages people to only purchase catastrophic insurance and pay for most things out of pocket. THAT is the only way we are going to drive down prices without just going with mandated price controls. Yes, at first it would be a painful transition for everyone involved.. but we are past the point of easy solutions.

And the easiest thing.. get rid of all the just plain stupid regs that limit consumer choices and are basically protections for big insurance.

Now, I've just done what I said I DON'T want Romney to do.. which is to lay out general ideas with few specifics...

Anyone have more specific ideas to add?

You are assuming waaaaaaaaaay to much here that it is allllll the Insurance Cos. fault, and the Fed Govt 'still' has to be the answer under Romney, BUT your common sense kicked in when you recanted not wanting Romney to do anything but rather let the free market work asking for ideas.:thumb:

Health "care" is just fine in this country but it IS the health "cost" that IS the issue. Many have bought into the class warfare evil private corp argument in reference to the evil Ins cos 'F'Ning everyone" by the Dems for decades. Many don't realize how invasive the "courts" have already become in forcing Hosp and Ins.cos. to pay regardless. Thus Hospitals and Ins.cos. have to be more aggressive in price and more stringent in paying claims.

1. Huge Tort reform- not allowing slimy guys like John Edwards to sue for just about any damn thing that looks like they have deep pockets.

2. Allowing competition across state lines. The more competition the lower the price gets.

3. Enforce our immigration laws.

4. Paul Ryan's budget plan-CUT TAXES and STOP SPENDING which allows Medicare not to go bankrupt and allow those elderly to maintain their healthcare with their own choice and not the govt dictating. Ryan's budget plan would also help Medicaid as well for the states.

Bottom line: The system is already in place and works fine if you get the courts in line, allow for free competition, get rid of Govt parasite forced regulations(covering and paying for every Tom, Dick and Harry) and get our Fiscal House in order by cutting spending and cutting taxes allowing our FREE MARKET to truly provide jobs thus provide good health benefits and coverage for all !!!

RINGLEADER
06-24-2012, 11:00 PM
Stop trying to give people something for nothing.

And quit trying to make everything "fair" - the world isn't fair and never will be no matter how much money the government wastes trying to persuade you otherwise.

Chiefshrink
06-24-2012, 11:10 PM
Stop trying to give people something for nothing.

And quit trying to make everything "fair" - the world isn't fair and never will be no matter how much money the government wastes trying to persuade you otherwise.

Precisely:thumb: America was not created for "able envious parasites" who feel 'the successful' OWES THEM because they chose not to be ambitious in life or their ancestors were wronged and now they think they can right the wrongs of our past.

Hell I deal with that everyday and when you continually try to right the wrongs of the past you end up living in the past as opposed to remembering the past. Our culture really needs to learn to truly grieve and move on:thumb:

La literatura
06-24-2012, 11:19 PM
Stop trying to give people something for nothing.

And quit trying to make everything "fair" - the world isn't fair and never will be no matter how much money the government wastes trying to persuade you otherwise.

Precisely:thumb: America was not created for "able envious parasites" who feel 'the successful' OWES THEM because they chose not to be ambitious in life or their ancestors were wronged and now they think they can right the wrongs of our past.

Hell I deal with that everyday and when you continually try to right the wrongs of the past you end up living in the past as opposed to remembering the past. Our culture really needs to learn to truly grieve and move on:thumb:

What exactly does this have to do with Obamacare? These posts almost sound like they could be an endorsement of the bill. Cut Medicare, enforce individual mandate.

Cave Johnson
06-25-2012, 10:29 AM
Jail time is an extreme that I don't see being applied very often. BUT if you want to replace it with a tax fine(just to those who refuse to pay back or work it off), go ahead.. but I don't see how that would be any different... don't pay the tax fine=go to jail anyway.

And if you don't pay the penalty under Obamacare, jail time is also a possibility. All you're arguing for is an analogue that's bound to be inefficient due to poor matches between unpaid providers and their alleged need for additional labor.

Regarding high deductibles as a means of cost containment, that assumes medical pricing is understandable and opaque. That's far, far from the case.

qabbaan
06-25-2012, 10:35 AM
I think the WH was tipped off about the decision (by I wonder who?) because they started signaling last week that they were going to try to retool and come up with something else.

qabbaan
06-25-2012, 11:06 AM
I think it's foregone that the individual mandate is toast. I am interested in the other major provisions, that insurers can't charge people different rates based on health and can't deny coverage to anyone. I don't see how these could survive and there wouldn't be much left otherwise

alnorth
06-25-2012, 11:12 AM
1. Huge Tort reform- not allowing slimy guys like John Edwards to sue for just about any damn thing that looks like they have deep pockets.

2. Allowing competition across state lines. The more competition the lower the price gets.

3. Enforce our immigration laws.

4. Paul Ryan's budget plan-CUT TAXES and STOP SPENDING which allows Medicare not to go bankrupt and allow those elderly to maintain their healthcare with their own choice and not the govt dictating. Ryan's budget plan would also help Medicaid as well for the states.

Of these, only #3 would significantly impact health care costs, and #3 is, apparently, politically impossible.

I'm fine with #1, but tort reform is not a significant driver of health care costs, at all.

#2 is a ridiculous Republican talking point. Health insurance companies do not offer the plan they offer to people in Kansas to people who live elsewhere for the same reason that auto rates and coverages vary by state. Where you live has a significant impact on what you pay. There are no competitive barriers here because insurance companies are offering what they want to offer in each state. If you passed a law forbidding them from offering different rates by location, then people in rural areas with lower jury awards will be paying too much, because they'll be subsidizing people in cities who would begin to pay too little.

#4 I don't even understand what you are talking about in #4. How do you cut health care costs without cutting medicare's coverage?

alnorth
06-25-2012, 11:18 AM
I would imagine that he would have to keep the pre-existing conditions part of Obamacare, even though that is just plain stupid from a practical economic standpoint.

Without the individual mandate, you cant end the pre-existing conditions exclusion.

This is one thing that the GOP has no answer for, the pre-existing conditions portion is wildly popular, and the people will be PISSED if it goes away. They won't want to hear about how its impossible without the individual mandate or about how death spirals work, all they'll know is that those greedy insurance bastards shouldn't be denying coverage, so the politicians should go get 'em.

If Obamacare fails, then the endgame is simple: we'll eventually have single-payer. Health insurance will either disappear, or will continue on in a much lesser form to perhaps provide coverage above what single-payer provides. Maybe not next election, maybe not in a decade, but the next time the Dems have the votes, thats what they'll do.

The conservative opposition to Obamacare strikes me as idiotic, because it was originally their conservative alternative to Clintoncare, and by fighting it, they'll only ensure that we'll go to something that they'd view as far, far worse. Once we have single-payer, we'll never get rid of it.

vailpass
06-25-2012, 12:22 PM
Without the individual mandate, you cant end the pre-existing conditions exclusion.

This is one thing that the GOP has no answer for, the pre-existing conditions portion is wildly popular, and the people will be PISSED if it goes away. They won't want to hear about how its impossible without the individual mandate or about how death spirals work, all they'll know is that those greedy insurance bastards shouldn't be denying coverage, so the politicians should go get 'em.

If Obamacare fails, then the endgame is simple: we'll eventually have single-payer. Health insurance will either disappear, or will continue on in a much lesser form to perhaps provide coverage above what single-payer provides. Maybe not next election, maybe not in a decade, but the next time the Dems have the votes, thats what they'll do.

The conservative opposition to Obamacare strikes me as idiotic, because it was originally their conservative alternative to Clintoncare, and by fighting it, they'll only ensure that we'll go to something that they'd view as far, far worse. Once we have single-payer, we'll never get rid of it.

The collective appreciates your attitude comrade.

suzzer99
06-25-2012, 12:26 PM
Lol at thinking a republican is going to put forth anything but the status quo. Greatest healthcare system in the WORLD (assuming you work for the govt or a corporation or are married to someone who does, or are poor or old, or live in Mass or HI). THE WORLD!

vailpass
06-25-2012, 12:31 PM
Lol at thinking a republican is going to put forth anything but the status quo. Greatest healthcare system in the WORLD (assuming you work for the govt or a corporation or are married to someone who does, or are poor or old, or live in Mass or HI). THE WORLD!

Yep, it is the greatest health care in the world. Any attempt to lessen the quality by removing the incentives for excellence within the medical profession should be met with fierce resistance.

alnorth
06-25-2012, 12:59 PM
The collective appreciates your attitude comrade.

Rather than being a smartass, maybe you could intelligently respond.

I don't want single-payer, I'd vastly prefer Obamacare over "Medicaid for everyone", which is pretty much the left's fondest dream.

But, the failure of Obamacare is going to unfortunately lead to single-payer.

cosmo20002
06-25-2012, 01:12 PM
Yep, it is the greatest health care in the world.

Maybe it is, I don't know. But how did you come to that conclusion?

alnorth
06-25-2012, 01:32 PM
Maybe it is, I don't know. But how did you come to that conclusion?

Its probably the greatest, or close to the greatest, for some of the people who either have great insurance or who are wealthy.

For the average American, not so much.

This is a classic case of "F you, got mine" where people who have excellent wait-free access to health care don't want to see the poors clogging up the system and taking more tax money.

The status quo is not going to be permitted to continue. Sometime, maybe now if the supreme court lets it all stand, or maybe 20 years from now if not, the people are going to force the have-nots to receive better access to health care. I would have preferred to make them pay whatever they can for it (ie the individual mandate, with subsidies for those who really cant afford it) and keep the inevitable tax increases as small as possible, but it looks like the GOP, unwittingly, wants to see taxes get jacked up massively to fund "Medicaid for all".

vailpass
06-25-2012, 01:34 PM
Rather than being a smartass, maybe you could intelligently respond.

I don't want single-payer, I'd vastly prefer Obamacare over "Medicaid for everyone", which is pretty much the left's fondest dream.

But, the failure of Obamacare is going to unfortunately lead to single-payer.

:D You know I can't help myself on that count.

Agreed on single payer. My best answer is to focus on doing everything and anything it takes to righ our economic ship. Once that occurs we can take care of what needs to be taken care of, until then we can't.
High tide raises all ships.

cosmo20002
06-25-2012, 02:12 PM
Its probably the greatest, or close to the greatest, for some of the people who either have great insurance or who are wealthy.

For the average American, not so much.

This is a classic case of "F you, got mine" where people who have excellent wait-free access to health care don't want to see the poors clogging up the system and taking more tax money.

The status quo is not going to be permitted to continue. Sometime, maybe now if the supreme court lets it all stand, or maybe 20 years from now if not, the people are going to force the have-nots to receive better access to health care. I would have preferred to make them pay whatever they can for it (ie the individual mandate, with subsidies for those who really cant afford it) and keep the inevitable tax increases as small as possible, but it looks like the GOP, unwittingly, wants to see taxes get jacked up massively to fund "Medicaid for all".

I agree. I'm sure the doctors and technology here is as good or better than any place in the world. That doesn't mean much if you don't have access to it. I often read how US medical outcomes certainly aren't the best in the world, especially in terms of dollars spent compared to results.

Cave Johnson
06-25-2012, 02:12 PM
:D You know I can't help myself on that count.

Agreed on single payer. My best answer is to focus on doing everything and anything it takes to righ our economic ship. Once that occurs we can take care of what needs to be taken care of, until then we can't.
High tide raises all ships.

That's not even remotely true. Basically all the income growth for the last 30 years is at the top of the pyramid (spare me the redistributionist rhetoric for pointing out facts). A larger part of that is wages being squeezed out by insane inflation in the cost of heath care.

And good luck for your plan to grow our way out the problem. Health care inflation has exceeded GDP growth for decades, and the only thing that will slow that growth is when it reaches an unsustainable portion of our economy. It's currently 1/6th, so I guess that point is somewhere above that.

As alnorth said, the status quo won't be sustainable much longer.

vailpass
06-25-2012, 02:16 PM
That's not even remotely true. Basically all the income growth for the last 30 years is at the top of the pyramid.* And a larger part of that is wages being squeezed out by insane inflation in the cost of heath care.

As alnorth said, the status quo won't be sustainable much longer.

*Spare me the redistributionist rhetoric for pointing out facts.

Sure Pittsie, thanks for your usual input. Fight the man even though your daddy is one of us. Very cute.
Check in with us in a few years and let us know if you are still with them.

Cave Johnson
06-25-2012, 02:21 PM
I agree. I'm sure the doctors and technology here is as good or better than any place in the world. That doesn't mean much if you don't have access to it. I often read how US medical outcomes certainly aren't the best in the world, especially in terms of dollars spent compared to results.

The system incentivizes doctors to perform more procedures/tests as a way of paying for their high infrastructure costs and (with respect to specialists) incomes. That's why tort reform in TX didn't lead to any appreciable decrease in healthcare inflation.

Otter
06-25-2012, 02:21 PM
That's not even remotely true. Basically all the income growth for the last 30 years is at the top of the pyramid (spare me the redistributionist rhetoric for pointing out facts). A larger part of that is wages being squeezed out by insane inflation in the cost of heath care.

And good luck for your plan to grow our way out the problem. Health care inflation has exceeded GDP growth for decades, and the only thing that will slow that growth is when it reaches an unsustainable portion of our economy. It's currently 1/6th, so I guess that point is somewhere above that.

As alnorth said, the status quo won't be sustainable much longer.

How's that wealth distribution working out anyway? Rich people own business have more wealth, shocking isn't it? Soon the pumpkin pie, fairy unicorn will wave his magic pixie dust and make everyone will be smart, rich and healthy as a horse.

Reality is a bitch.

Cave Johnson
06-25-2012, 02:21 PM
Sure Pittsie, thanks for your usual input. Fight the man even though your daddy is one of us. Very cute.
Check in with us in a few years and let us know if you are still with them.

My dad's an asshole? ;)

vailpass
06-25-2012, 02:23 PM
My dad's an asshole? ;)

LMAO I so asked for that.

Cave Johnson
06-25-2012, 02:24 PM
How's that wealth distribution working out anyway? Rich people own business have more wealth, shocking isn't it?

I guess 450/1 CEO to average worker pay is cool if you're the CEO. Not sure if it's sustainable as an economic system, however.

Otter
06-25-2012, 02:29 PM
I guess 450/1 CEO to average worker pay is cool if you're the CEO. Not sure if it's sustainable as an economic system, however.

Why aren't you a CEO?

I accept why I'm not not in the 450/1 percentile. My weekends are spent fly fishing, mountain biking, kayaking and camping and hunting elk. It's really not that important to me to be stinky rich. I also don't expect to be rewarded because I enjoy off time a little too much.

It's crazy how what you put in is what you should expect to get out. Innit?

Otter
06-25-2012, 02:39 PM
I guess 450/1 CEO to average worker pay is cool if you're the CEO. Not sure if it's sustainable as an economic system, however.

BTW, my sister is a EO for a major pharmaceutical corp, 'the' major one to be exact. She has no life and spent the last 30 years of her life either in school, in seminars or kissing somebody ass. It doesn't come without cost and your not always born into it but lets not let details get in the way. Those evil bastards should be sharing the wealth with everyone who decides to not work as hard.

alnorth
06-25-2012, 04:22 PM
The hilarious/sad thing is the Dems even had a relatively politically painless way to make this unquestionably constitutional.

The Bush tax cuts are expiring soon. They could have just said that if you want the Bush rates, you must earn it by being insured. All they'd have to do is pass a law that says beginning in the year the tax cuts are scheduled to expire, you get a tax cut equal to the Bush cut if you are insured.

Boom, done, constitutional. That would get them over the legal hump, and if that mandate ends up being not powerful enough to get the young to buy in, then raise taxes later with an even larger corresponding tax cut for being insured if necessary.

suzzer99
06-25-2012, 05:34 PM
Its probably the greatest, or close to the greatest, for some of the people who either have great insurance or who are wealthy.

For the average American, not so much.

This is a classic case of "F you, got mine" where people who have excellent wait-free access to health care don't want to see the poors clogging up the system and taking more tax money.

The status quo is not going to be permitted to continue. Sometime, maybe now if the supreme court lets it all stand, or maybe 20 years from now if not, the people are going to force the have-nots to receive better access to health care. I would have preferred to make them pay whatever they can for it (ie the individual mandate, with subsidies for those who really cant afford it) and keep the inevitable tax increases as small as possible, but it looks like the GOP, unwittingly, wants to see taxes get jacked up massively to fund "Medicaid for all".

I think we could do a lot worse than modeling ourselves after the NHS, or the Canadian system.

vailpass
06-25-2012, 05:43 PM
I think we could do a lot worse than modeling ourselves after the NHS, or the Canadian system.

And that's all we need to know about you.

AustinChief
06-25-2012, 06:52 PM
And if you don't pay the penalty under Obamacare, jail time is also a possibility. All you're arguing for is an analogue that's bound to be inefficient due to poor matches between unpaid providers and their alleged need for additional labor.

Regarding high deductibles as a means of cost containment, that assumes medical pricing is understandable and opaque. That's far, far from the case.

This type of thinking amazes and saddens me. How in the WORLD can you not see the VAST difference in what I am proposing? Do you simply not understand/appreciate the idea of CHOICE? In my system, you have a CHOICE. Obamacare gives you NO CHOICE.

Let's take this slowly...

Obamacare = jail time if I do NOTHING (I don't get insurance, I don't pay the fee)

My System= jail time if I ACCEPT SERVICES AND THEN REFUSE TO PAY

you may be ready to give up a freedom you don't feel you need, I AM NOT.

alnorth
06-25-2012, 07:18 PM
On a lighter note, lets all take a moment to laugh at the GOP's Indiana nominee for Senate.

Mourdock campaign accidently releases 4 different reactions to Obamacare ruling (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/richard-mourdock-obamacare-youtube-accident.php).

Sort of like a bizarre choose-your-own-adventure book, Richard Mourdock prepared 4 different reactions to release immediately after the Obamacare ruling, depending on how the ruling turns out.

He's got one for if the whole law is tossed out

http://mediacast.realgravity.com/sharing/abd3f6b0-4082-012f-2a8c-12313d00d151/aec28ec0-9e15-012f-302b-12313d00d151.html

one for if the whole thing is upheld

http://mediacast.realgravity.com/sharing/abd3f6b0-4082-012f-2a8c-12313d00d151/5ac6d280-9e15-012f-bdbb-12313b01b22c.html

one for the EXTREMELY unlikely case that the Supreme Court punts it to 2014 and decides the plaintiffs do not yet have standing

http://mediacast.realgravity.com/sharing/abd3f6b0-4082-012f-2a8c-12313d00d151/225931f0-9e15-012f-bdcb-12313b01b22c.html

and one for anything in between

http://mediacast.realgravity.com/sharing/abd3f6b0-4082-012f-2a8c-12313d00d151/b7713630-9e15-012f-bdcb-12313b01b22c.html

cosmo20002
06-25-2012, 07:41 PM
This type of thinking amazes and saddens me. How in the WORLD can you not see the VAST difference in what I am proposing? Do you simply not understand/appreciate the idea of CHOICE? In my system, you have a CHOICE. Obamacare gives you NO CHOICE.

Let's take this slowly...

Obamacare = jail time if I do NOTHING (I don't get insurance, I don't pay the fee)

My System= jail time if I ACCEPT SERVICES AND THEN REFUSE TO PAY

you may be ready to give up a freedom you don't feel you need, I AM NOT.

When fully phased in I believe the individual penalty is up to around $700. However, the law specifically says there will not be a criminal penalty and no liens or levies on your property for not paying. I think about the only way they could actually get the money if you don't pay would be to withhold it from a tax refund, if you were getting one.

alnorth
06-25-2012, 07:50 PM
I think about the only way they could actually get the money if you don't pay would be to withhold it from a tax refund, if you were getting one.

At some point everyone gets social security. Well, I guess you could die early.

cosmo20002
06-25-2012, 07:56 PM
At some point everyone gets social security. Well, I guess you could die early.

That's possible I suppose, but it is set up as a tax penalty, although they can't prosecute you for tax evasion if you don't pay it. Not sure if they could take your social security to pay it.

Pawnmower
06-25-2012, 08:19 PM
We (the citizens of the US) already pay for free health care for any person who walks into an emergency room.

What we need to do is figure a way out to do that cheaper.....local clinics, more accessible free options for the lower classes...NOT less options.

Taking away people's healthcare is going backwards, since the same people will just walk into an emergency room when they get sick enough anyway , and then it costs everyone 10x more.

Cave Johnson
06-26-2012, 11:57 AM
This type of thinking amazes and saddens me. How in the WORLD can you not see the VAST difference in what I am proposing? Do you simply not understand/appreciate the idea of CHOICE? In my system, you have a CHOICE. Obamacare gives you NO CHOICE.

Let's take this slowly...

Obamacare = jail time if I do NOTHING (I don't get insurance, I don't pay the fee)

My System= jail time if I ACCEPT SERVICES AND THEN REFUSE TO PAY

you may be ready to give up a freedom you don't feel you need, I AM NOT.

I understand the distinction, Kyle. It's just an incredibly ill-conceived idea.

LVNHACK
06-26-2012, 12:40 PM
My dad's an asshole? ;)


Son....Whent did you join the Planet ?

ChiefsCountry
06-26-2012, 01:17 PM
Greatest healthcare system in the WORLD (assuming you work for the govt or a corporation or are married to someone who does, or are poor or old, or live in Mass or HI). THE WORLD!

Or pay for your own damn insurance like I do.

suzzer99
06-26-2012, 02:59 PM
When fully phased in I believe the individual penalty is up to around $700. However, the law specifically says there will not be a criminal penalty and no liens or levies on your property for not paying. I think about the only way they could actually get the money if you don't pay would be to withhold it from a tax refund, if you were getting one.

I'm fairly sure you could tell a republican this every day for the rest of their life and they still wouldn't hear, process or believe it.

Just like the whole idea that mandates were the republican plan from 1994-2008. It simply will not bear purchase in their brain pan. Just falls out like a rock.

suzzer99
06-26-2012, 03:00 PM
Or pay for your own damn insurance like I do.

My uncle is a general contractor. Had health insurance. Fell of a ladder and shattered his ankles. They're fixed but there could be ongoing complications so that's considered a pre-existing condition. His insurance went up 4 times and now he's uninsurable. What is he supposed to do?

America is the richest country on earth. The next 25 after us all have some kind of UHC and people like my uncle don't get the shaft. On top of that we spend 2x more per capita on health care than the rest of the world. How on earth do any of you think our dysfunctional system the best option?

vailpass
06-26-2012, 03:02 PM
Or pay for your own damn insurance like I do.

What!? Pay your *gasp* own way in this world? *shudder* People can't do that. They are too poor, weak, dumb, to be able to pay their own way.
They can't. They need the federal government to do it for them with money they take from those who earn it instead of begging for hand outs.

Iz Zat Chew
06-26-2012, 05:40 PM
When fully phased in I believe the individual penalty is up to around $700. However, the law specifically says there will not be a criminal penalty and no liens or levies on your property for not paying. I think about the only way they could actually get the money if you don't pay would be to withhold it from a tax refund, if you were getting one.

The jail time everyone is talking about and it's addressed in the link as to what it means and how it might be implimented.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/

It's not jail time imposed by the healthcare act, but failure to pay the $685 tax (if that's the number) can result in a $25,000 and a year in jail per the U.S. Tax Code. Failure to pay your health care tax.

cosmo20002
06-26-2012, 05:54 PM
The jail time everyone is talking about and it's addressed in the link as to what it means and how it might be implimented.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/

It's not jail time imposed by the healthcare act, but failure to pay the $685 tax (if that's the number) can result in a $25,000 and a year in jail per the U.S. Tax Code. Failure to pay your health care tax.

Iz, you are a special guy. That article discusses the health care BILLS that were in various stages PRIOR to being law. Apparently you didn't catch that in the HEADING of the article, nor did you read to the end where you would see:

"Update, May 11: The health care bill that was signed into law by President Obama says criminal penalties will not apply to those who refuse to get coverage and refuse to pay the penalty tax. As we wrote in a March 2010 post on the IRS’ responsibilities, the law says on page 131: "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

Iz Zat Chew
06-26-2012, 05:58 PM
Iz, you are a special guy. That article discusses the health care BILLS that were in various stages PRIOR to being law. Apparently you didn't catch that in the HEADING of the article, nor did you read to the end where you would see:

"Update, May 11: The health care bill that was signed into law by President Obama says criminal penalties will not apply to those who refuse to get coverage and refuse to pay the penalty tax. As we wrote in a March 2010 post on the IRSí responsibilities, the law says on page 131: "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure."

Apparently you didin't read all that was written. The penalty for not buying healthcare is a tax, levied by the IRS. Their rules are clear, even for a dolt like you.

cosmo20002
06-26-2012, 06:04 PM
Apparently you didin't read all that was written. The penalty for not buying healthcare is a tax, levied by the IRS. Their rules are clear, even for a dolt like you.

Yes, they are clear. Why you can't comprehend them is pretty much beyond explanation other than you must have some sort of severe mental disability.

That you are able to type sometimes-understandable words with your condition (in addition to your physical impairment you told us about) is impressive, but you should probably refrain from making strong, easily-rebutted assertions because it makes you look pretty foolish.

Iz Zat Chew
06-26-2012, 06:06 PM
Yes, they are clear. Why you can't comprehend them is pretty much beyond explanation other than you must have some sort of severe mental disability.

That you are able to type sometimes-understandable words with your condition (in addition to your physical impairment you told us about) is impressive, but you should probably refrain from making strong, easily-rebutted assertions because it makes you look pretty foolish.

OK you win. Don't buy your obamacare, we will watch from a distance.

The trouble with you is that trust the liar that is currently living in the WH.

cosmo20002
06-26-2012, 06:13 PM
OK you win. Don't buy your obamacare, we will watch from a distance.

The trouble with you is that trust the liar that is currently living in the WH.

Not sure who you are referring to. You've never been able to point out anything the president has lied about. Did Malia or Sasha fib about something?

Iz Zat Chew
06-26-2012, 06:22 PM
Cosmo, do you not realize the discussion is over. I said you win, have it all your way.

Your standard actions are no longer requried.

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2012, 07:50 AM
Without the individual mandate, you cant end the pre-existing conditions exclusion.

This is one thing that the GOP has no answer for, the pre-existing conditions portion is wildly popular, and the people will be PISSED if it goes away. They won't want to hear about how its impossible without the individual mandate or about how death spirals work, all they'll know is that those greedy insurance bastards shouldn't be denying coverage, so the politicians should go get 'em.

If Obamacare fails, then the endgame is simple: we'll eventually have single-payer. Health insurance will either disappear, or will continue on in a much lesser form to perhaps provide coverage above what single-payer provides. Maybe not next election, maybe not in a decade, but the next time the Dems have the votes, thats what they'll do.

The conservative opposition to Obamacare strikes me as idiotic, because it was originally their conservative alternative to Clintoncare, and by fighting it, they'll only ensure that we'll go to something that they'd view as far, far worse. Once we have single-payer, we'll never get rid of it.

Best post to date on the topic that I've seen in this cess pool. Nice. :thumb:

|Zach|
06-28-2012, 07:55 AM
Do we know when the rulings is being announced more than "today" ?

Mr. Kotter
06-28-2012, 07:56 AM
Do we know when the rulings is being announced more than "today" ?

900 AM Central, IIRC.

|Zach|
06-28-2012, 08:04 AM
900 AM Central, IIRC.

Thanks.

Inspector
06-28-2012, 09:33 AM
I wonder what will happen for folks who have paid into medicare / social security for 50+ years and have never used it. Not sure it would be the right thing to just take that away from them without giving them their money back after they paid so much into it for all those years.

And debtors prison? Been a long long time since we put people in jail for not being able to pay a bill.

This is really a tough situation to figure out.

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 09:35 AM
I wonder what will happen for folks who have paid into medicare / social security for 50+ years and have never used it. Not sure it would be the right thing to just take that away from them without giving them their money back after they paid so much into it for all those years.

And debtors prison? Been a long long time since we put people in jail for not being able to pay a bill.

This is really a tough situation to figure out.

What are you talking about?

|Zach|
06-28-2012, 09:38 AM
And debtors prison? Been a long long time since we put people in jail for not being able to pay a bill.



wut

Inspector
06-28-2012, 09:45 AM
wut

I was thinking about this statement from earlier in the thread:
"goes to jail for not paying back the money "

CoMoChief
06-28-2012, 10:05 AM
They upheld the indivdual mandate from what I heard.

Inspector
06-28-2012, 10:11 AM
What are you talking about?

I was thinking about this statement from earlier in the thread:
"goes to jail for not paying back the money "

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 10:38 AM
I was thinking about this statement from earlier in the thread:
"goes to jail for not paying back the money "

The law says there is no criminal penalty for not paying the penalty. Frankly, I'm not sure how they can get it from you if you refused to pay, other than maybe withholding it from a tax refund if you are getting one.

La literatura
06-28-2012, 10:40 AM
The law says there is no criminal penalty for not paying the penalty. Frankly, I'm not sure how they can get it from you if you refused to pay, other than maybe withholding it from a tax refund if you are getting one.

There's no direct penalty, but that doesn't mean you don't have to pay it and not risk getting audited and find you willfully withheld. Yo ass payin a fine then.

Inspector
06-28-2012, 10:47 AM
The law says there is no criminal penalty for not paying the penalty. Frankly, I'm not sure how they can get it from you if you refused to pay, other than maybe withholding it from a tax refund if you are getting one.

I was thinking about this statement from earlier in the thread:
"goes to jail for not paying back the money "

No really. I actually saw that earlier in this thread. Not saying it was part of any law, just a note I saw earlier in this thread.

It's like somebody typed on their keyboard and those words were formed in their post. In this thread. Earlier.

At least I think I saw it. Maybe the 70's are cauing me to have hallucinations. Dang 70s.

BucEyedPea
06-28-2012, 10:50 AM
They upheld the indivdual mandate from what I heard.
Not exactly. They said the mandate, itself, was unconstitutional under the commerce clause and necessary and proper. So the majority, with Robert's agreement, re-wrote the bill by calling it a tax instead. As a tax, it could be upheld.

mnchiefsguy
06-28-2012, 12:35 PM
The law says there is no criminal penalty for not paying the penalty. Frankly, I'm not sure how they can get it from you if you refused to pay, other than maybe withholding it from a tax refund if you are getting one.

Or the IRS could just take your house and other property, like they do when people fail to pay their taxes.

mlyonsd
06-28-2012, 09:15 PM
This thread lost it's burst.

Iz Zat Chew
06-28-2012, 09:23 PM
Not exactly. They said the mandate, itself, was unconstitutional under the commerce clause and necessary and proper. So the majority, with Robert's agreement, re-wrote the bill by calling it a tax instead. As a tax, it could be upheld.

So yet another tax (penalty by default) created to make the population toe the line. As others have said, the IRS is incharge of the tax and if you don't pay it you can lose all.

No penalty? I don't think so. By the SCOTUS changing the penalty to a tax they are now doing the same as Obama by going around the congressional process? Rather than interpeting the constitution the bench is now legislating?

cosmo20002
06-28-2012, 11:27 PM
So yet another tax (penalty by default) created to make the population toe the line. As others have said, the IRS is incharge of the tax and if you don't pay it you can lose all.

No penalty? I don't think so. By the SCOTUS changing the penalty to a tax they are now doing the same as Obama by going around the congressional process? Rather than interpeting the constitution the bench is now legislating?

You pretty much got every single point wrong. Good going.

Iz Zat Chew
06-29-2012, 12:32 PM
You pretty much got every single point wrong. Good going.

Prove it, point by point.

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 01:42 PM
So yet another tax (penalty by default) created to make the population toe the line. As others have said, the IRS is incharge of the tax and if you don't pay it you can lose all.

No penalty? I don't think so. By the SCOTUS changing the penalty to a tax they are now doing the same as Obama by going around the congressional process? Rather than interpeting the constitution the bench is now legislating?

They've been legislating for awhile now, but to my knowledge they usually rewrite the Constitution to make a new law on the bench. Now, we see a law rewritten to fit the Constitution being done by an alleged conservative so it appears to be strict construction. Who would have figured there was a new trick in the bag?

BucEyedPea
06-29-2012, 01:45 PM
You pretty much got every single point wrong. Good going.
Everyone knew how the four of the justices would decide. The concern was Kennedy, as the moderate and swing vote, who actually opted to throw the whole bill out. I thought he might have not agreed with the commerce clause on the mandate but leave the rest intact which would have left it to congress to tweak or re-tool as it wouldn't really work without the mandate. That would have respected an elected legislature while knocking down an expansion of the commerce clause as if it had no limits at all. In fact, I thought it possible one of the alleged conservatives ( aka strict constructionist or stricter) may have done the same.