OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Jenksismyhero]

No, I really do not see the difference. In either case, the person who does not purchase the privately-owned product pays a higher tax rate than the person who does.

 

In both cases, there is a tax advantage for purchasing a certain type of qualifying, privately-owned product.

 

The structure of the law is/should be identical for both of them. You set the general tax rate, you specify the type of purchases that qualify for the tax credit, and if people make those qualifying purchases, they receive a lower tax rate.

 

If I choose not to purchase insurance, the tax penalty is actually smaller than the tax penalty for not having a mortgage at most interest rates.

 

You don't see a societal benefit to people that purchase homes, have kids, get an advanced degree, etc?

 

I agree with NSS here, I dunno how you can equate the two unless you're totally changing the meaning of the words incentive and mandate.

[Balta1701]

You don't see a societal benefit to people that purchase homes, have kids, get an advanced degree, etc?

 

I agree with NSS here, I dunno how you can equate the two unless you're totally changing the meaning of the words incentive and mandate.

You don't get to argue societal benefit here. You don't see the societal benefit of a functioning insurance market and not having uninsured? If you're giving "Societal benefit" as your standard, then you're giving up on the constitutionality on this case, because tons of things have societal benefit.

 

Yes, there is a fundamental difference in speaking terms between incentive and mandate, but the law itself is not structured that way. The law itself is structured such that the individual mandate is a tax incentive for this purchase. If you choose not to pay it, that's fine, you just have to forego the incentive.

[Jenksismyhero]

You don't get to argue societal benefit here. You don't see the societal benefit of a functioning insurance market and not having uninsured? If you're giving "Societal benefit" as your standard, then you're giving up on the constitutionality on this case, because tons of things have societal benefit.

 

Yes, there is a fundamental difference in speaking terms between incentive and mandate, but the law itself is not structured that way. The law itself is structured such that the individual mandate is a tax incentive for this purchase. If you choose not to pay it, that's fine, you just have to forego the incentive.

 

The way I read what you're saying, you're arguing that if I give person A a gift but don't give person B a gift, then I've just "taxed" B. I don't get how that's the same. It's an incentive. It's open to everyone. It's not a mandate that forces everyone to do something.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

You don't get to argue societal benefit here. You don't see the societal benefit of a functioning insurance market and not having uninsured? If you're giving "Societal benefit" as your standard, then you're giving up on the constitutionality on this case, because tons of things have societal benefit.

 

Yes, there is a fundamental difference in speaking terms between incentive and mandate, but the law itself is not structured that way. The law itself is structured such that the individual mandate is a tax incentive for this purchase. If you choose not to pay it, that's fine, you just have to forego the incentive.

Yes, it is. A mandate requires an action of everyone, an incentive does not. This is a clear, obvious line.

 

[BigSqwert]

Just give us single-payer and be done with all this bulls***.

This

[StrangeSox]

The way I read what you're saying, you're arguing that if I give person A a gift but don't give person B a gift, then I've just "taxed" B. I don't get how that's the same. It's an incentive. It's open to everyone. It's not a mandate that forces everyone to do something.

 

I agree with what you and NSS are saying regarding mandate vs. incentive, but I think Balta's got you on the societal benefit point. If you're going to allow things because they benefit society, then clearly universal healthcare, in some fashion or another, would be allowable and desirable.

[Jenksismyhero]

I agree with what you and NSS are saying regarding mandate vs. incentive, but I think Balta's got you on the societal benefit point. If you're going to allow things because they benefit society, then clearly universal healthcare, in some fashion or another, would be allowable and desirable.

 

I said that because it sounded like Balta thinks those incentives are BS. But maybe I read it the wrong way.

[StrangeSox]

I said that because it sounded like Balta thinks those incentives are BS. But maybe I read it the wrong way.

 

I think he's just trying to justify his position by showing it in the same light as things you support.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think he's just trying to justify his position by showing it in the same light as things you support.

One can support incentives and public good without agreeing that the mandate was a good idea. I think all of us would agree that the health care system needs a lot of work... just not necessarily in the way this was handled.

 

[bmags]

well, if you want it to work you need the mandate.

[StrangeSox]

well, if you want it to work you need the mandate.

 

Which is why the judge struck down the entire law.

[Balta1701]

Let me spell out the law in more detail here and why either the mandate itself is constitutional or Congress's ability to give tax advantages on anything is unconstitutional.

 

The "Mandate" is set up as a tax increase on every taxpayer. That tax increase is then rebated to every taxpayer that purchases an insurance contract which meets certain standards. That is how the law is written, which is why it had to go through the House and Senate budget committees; it includes a tax increase.

 

First step...is it Constitutional for Congress to pass a bill which raises taxes by $1000 on every taxpayer? I think the constitutionality here is clear.

 

Secondly, is it constitutional for Congress to give targeted tax credits to specific groups of taxpayers? This is of course the basis for our tax structure where different groups pay different rates. If you proposed a bill which raised taxes on everyone by $100 and used that money to cut the tax rate paid by hedge fund managers to 1/3 the rate everyone else pays, that would be a targeted tax credit, and it'd be constitutional (side note; this is actually on the books right now).

 

Hopefully I've established that it's constitutional for Congress to raise taxes by different groups. Also worth noting, its constitutional for Congress to do more than 1 constitutional thing in the same bill; bundling 3 constitutional actions together doesn't make them unconstitutional.

 

Finally, the only remaining part is that the tax credit is only qualified for if you purchase a product from a private company.

 

This is the part I'm focusing on in this thread, because Congress's ability to levy income taxes is clear. If you want to find the bill unconstitutional, this is the only part you can legitimately attack.

 

I would argue that Congress does exactly this all the time. It gives tax credits for all kinds of purchases. It gives tax credits for purchasing of private mortgages, for purchasing shares in certain kinds of retirement accounts, for purchasing fuel efficient vehicles, for insulating your home, etc. If targeted tax rebates based on private sector purchases of health insurance are unconstitutional, then all of these other tax credits are equally unconstitutional. Hence, my focus on them. This part happens all the time.

 

If you want to find the individual mandate unconstitutional, you have to find 1 of those 3 parts unconstitutional.

 

These judges have played games with these parts, trying to say "Oh Harry Reid said it's not a tax, therefore it's not a tax" or things to that effect, but that's not how the law works, the text of the law doesn't care about what focus-group tested slogan you use to describe things in public.

 

It's worth pointing out again that this description is actually how the mandate works; if you choose not to purchase health insurance, you are unable to claim that deduction, just as I am unable to claim the mortgage-interest deduction or the electric car deduction this year. With how the law is written, providing an $8000 tax credit for electric cars is effectively an "Electric car purchase mandate" based on how this language is being applied.

 

The CBO in fact estimates that a non-zero percentage of Americans will choose this route once the bill is fully in force. In the Massachusetts example this is exactly what happened, some 98% of the population had insurance, but 2% or so chose to forego claiming that deduction and remained uninsured.

[NorthSideSox72]

well, if you want it to work you need the mandate.

 

More clearly, if you want THIS BILL to work the way it was designed, you need the mandate. You do not need the mandate to make health care better.

 

Let me spell out the law in more detail here and why either the mandate itself is constitutional or Congress's ability to give tax advantages on anything is unconstitutional.

 

The "Mandate" is set up as a tax increase on every taxpayer. That tax increase is then rebated to every taxpayer that purchases an insurance contract which meets certain standards. That is how the law is written, which is why it had to go through the House and Senate budget committees; it includes a tax increase.

 

First step...is it Constitutional for Congress to pass a bill which raises taxes by $1000 on every taxpayer? I think the constitutionality here is clear.

 

Secondly, is it constitutional for Congress to give targeted tax credits to specific groups of taxpayers? This is of course the basis for our tax structure where different groups pay different rates. If you proposed a bill which raised taxes on everyone by $100 and used that money to cut the tax rate paid by hedge fund managers to 1/3 the rate everyone else pays, that would be a targeted tax credit, and it'd be constitutional (side note; this is actually on the books right now).

 

Hopefully I've established that it's constitutional for Congress to raise taxes by different groups. Also worth noting, its constitutional for Congress to do more than 1 constitutional thing in the same bill; bundling 3 constitutional actions together doesn't make them unconstitutional.

 

Finally, the only remaining part is that the tax credit is only qualified for if you purchase a product from a private company.

 

This is the part I'm focusing on in this thread, because Congress's ability to levy income taxes is clear. If you want to find the bill unconstitutional, this is the only part you can legitimately attack.

 

I would argue that Congress does exactly this all the time. It gives tax credits for all kinds of purchases. It gives tax credits for purchasing of private mortgages, for purchasing shares in certain kinds of retirement accounts, for purchasing fuel efficient vehicles, for insulating your home, etc. If targeted tax rebates based on private sector purchases of health insurance are unconstitutional, then all of these other tax credits are equally unconstitutional. Hence, my focus on them. This part happens all the time.

 

If you want to find the individual mandate unconstitutional, you have to find 1 of those 3 parts unconstitutional.

 

These judges have played games with these parts, trying to say "Oh Harry Reid said it's not a tax, therefore it's not a tax" or things to that effect, but that's not how the law works, the text of the law doesn't care about what focus-group tested slogan you use to describe things in public.

 

It's worth pointing out again that this description is actually how the mandate works; if you choose not to purchase health insurance, you are unable to claim that deduction, just as I am unable to claim the mortgage-interest deduction or the electric car deduction this year. With how the law is written, providing an $8000 tax credit for electric cars is effectively an "Electric car purchase mandate" based on how this language is being applied.

 

The CBO in fact estimates that a non-zero percentage of Americans will choose this route once the bill is fully in force. In the Massachusetts example this is exactly what happened, some 98% of the population had insurance, but 2% or so chose to forego claiming that deduction and remained uninsured.

 

I wonder how you'd see this method of accounting/booking if Goldman Sachs was doing it. You are making circles financially in order to make something into something its not.

 

[Balta1701]

I wonder how you'd see this method of accounting/booking if Goldman Sachs was doing it. You are making circles financially in order to make something into something its not.

Which is exactly how they wrote the bill. They wrote the mandate as step 1; across the board $800 tax increase. Step 2; across the board $800 tax credit if you purchase health insurance meeting standards x, y, and z.

[NorthSideSox72]

Which is exactly how they wrote the bill. They wrote the mandate as step 1; across the board $800 tax increase. Step 2; across the board $800 tax credit if you purchase health insurance meeting standards x, y, and z.

Again, circular reasoning. Its a mandate to purchase a product, no matter how you futz around with it.

 

[Balta1701]

Again, circular reasoning. Its a mandate to purchase a product, no matter how you futz around with it.

Then by your definition, all of those other tax credits are mandates to purchase those products as well, no matter how you futz with it.

 

Otherwise, please explain to me how they aren't. Raising taxes across the board coupled with a targeted tax increase for purchase of a private product is how this bill is structured, and it's how every other one of those tax credits works.

[Balta1701]

Let me try asking a different way...how is it a purchase mandate if you can choose not to make the purchase?

[NorthSideSox72]

Then by your definition, all of those other tax credits are mandates to purchase those products as well, no matter how you futz with it.

 

Otherwise, please explain to me how they aren't. Raising taxes across the board coupled with a targeted tax increase for purchase of a private product is how this bill is structured, and it's how every other one of those tax credits works.

No, that's YOUR definition. No one is being penalized for not buying a home and taking out a mortgage. Everyone was on the same playing field in that case, then an incentive was added, to pay LESS money. Your mandate had everyone on the same playing field, then forced SPENDING. I just don't understand how you can't see this difference.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Let me try asking a different way...how is it a purchase mandate if you can choose not to make the purchase?

You can't! You can choose to pay for it one way, or pay for it another, and its the same product - health insurance.

 

I'm done with this conversation, you're not going to see what everyone else here sees.

 

[Balta1701]

No, that's YOUR definition. No one is being penalized for not buying a home and taking out a mortgage. Everyone was on the same playing field in that case, then an incentive was added, to pay LESS money. Your mandate had everyone on the same playing field, then forced SPENDING. I just don't understand how you can't see this difference.

Because that is simply not how the law works.

 

As a non-homeowner who has to pay a higher tax rate to cover the fact that there is a homeowner tax credit, I am absolutely being penalized, by your definition of penalizing, for not claiming that tax credit. I pay more in taxes than I would if the money I spend on rent were to go to paying for a mortgage of equal price. That is, by your definition, a penalty.

[Balta1701]

I'm done with this conversation, you're not going to see what everyone else here sees.

I have a real urge to take a cheap shot here but I'm going to pass.

[southsider2k5]

Let me spell out the law in more detail here and why either the mandate itself is constitutional or Congress's ability to give tax advantages on anything is unconstitutional.

 

The "Mandate" is set up as a tax increase on every taxpayer. That tax increase is then rebated to every taxpayer that purchases an insurance contract which meets certain standards. That is how the law is written, which is why it had to go through the House and Senate budget committees; it includes a tax increase.

 

First step...is it Constitutional for Congress to pass a bill which raises taxes by $1000 on every taxpayer? I think the constitutionality here is clear.

 

Secondly, is it constitutional for Congress to give targeted tax credits to specific groups of taxpayers? This is of course the basis for our tax structure where different groups pay different rates. If you proposed a bill which raised taxes on everyone by $100 and used that money to cut the tax rate paid by hedge fund managers to 1/3 the rate everyone else pays, that would be a targeted tax credit, and it'd be constitutional (side note; this is actually on the books right now).

 

Hopefully I've established that it's constitutional for Congress to raise taxes by different groups. Also worth noting, its constitutional for Congress to do more than 1 constitutional thing in the same bill; bundling 3 constitutional actions together doesn't make them unconstitutional.

 

Finally, the only remaining part is that the tax credit is only qualified for if you purchase a product from a private company.

 

This is the part I'm focusing on in this thread, because Congress's ability to levy income taxes is clear. If you want to find the bill unconstitutional, this is the only part you can legitimately attack.

 

I would argue that Congress does exactly this all the time. It gives tax credits for all kinds of purchases. It gives tax credits for purchasing of private mortgages, for purchasing shares in certain kinds of retirement accounts, for purchasing fuel efficient vehicles, for insulating your home, etc. If targeted tax rebates based on private sector purchases of health insurance are unconstitutional, then all of these other tax credits are equally unconstitutional. Hence, my focus on them. This part happens all the time.

 

If you want to find the individual mandate unconstitutional, you have to find 1 of those 3 parts unconstitutional.

 

These judges have played games with these parts, trying to say "Oh Harry Reid said it's not a tax, therefore it's not a tax" or things to that effect, but that's not how the law works, the text of the law doesn't care about what focus-group tested slogan you use to describe things in public.

 

It's worth pointing out again that this description is actually how the mandate works; if you choose not to purchase health insurance, you are unable to claim that deduction, just as I am unable to claim the mortgage-interest deduction or the electric car deduction this year. With how the law is written, providing an $8000 tax credit for electric cars is effectively an "Electric car purchase mandate" based on how this language is being applied.

 

The CBO in fact estimates that a non-zero percentage of Americans will choose this route once the bill is fully in force. In the Massachusetts example this is exactly what happened, some 98% of the population had insurance, but 2% or so chose to forego claiming that deduction and remained uninsured.

 

A massive hole in your argument is that about 40% of the country doesn't pay federal income taxes. That means the circular logic here is missing a big arc, because then about 40% of the country isn't "penalized" at all, if you buy this line of rationale.

[Balta1701]

A massive hole in your argument is that about 40% of the country doesn't pay federal income taxes. That means the circular logic here is missing a big arc, because then about 40% of the country isn't "penalized" at all, if you buy this line of rationale.

I was actually waiting for someone to say this...because the law actually takes care of this.

 

First of all, that 40% doesn't pay "Federal income taxes", however, they do file tax returns and they do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, which are non-exempt. But you are correct, there is a non-zero number of people who do not have to file a tax return.

 

The mandate itself is structured such that it is an $800(ish) tax on everyone who files a tax return. If you are exempt from filing a tax return, for example in the case that you earned no income, you are also exempt from that tax, and therefore exempt from the mandate. If you then purchase qualifying insurance, you can then claim that deduction.

 

But, that's where the rest of the bill comes in. The bill includes a large expansion of community health centers and Medicaid, funded by the federal government, specifically to catch as many of these people as possible. There are a good number of them who are missed, (~10 million in the final version), but that's how we come up to the ~32 million in additional covered individuals when there are currently ~50 million uninsured at any given time.

[southsider2k5]

I was actually waiting for someone to say this...because the law actually takes care of this.

 

First of all, that 40% doesn't pay "Federal income taxes", however, they do file tax returns and they do pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, which are non-exempt. But you are correct, there is a non-zero number of people who do not have to file a tax return.

 

The mandate itself is structured such that it is an $800(ish) tax on everyone who files a tax return. If you are exempt from filing a tax return, for example in the case that you earned no income, you are also exempt from that tax, and therefore exempt from the mandate. If you then purchase qualifying insurance, you can then claim that deduction.

 

But, that's where the rest of the bill comes in. The bill includes a large expansion of community health centers and Medicaid, funded by the federal government, specifically to catch as many of these people as possible. There are a good number of them who are missed, (~10 million in the final version), but that's how we come up to the ~32 million in additional covered individuals when there are currently ~50 million uninsured at any given time.

 

Which means your mandate is flawed anyway.

[bmags]

I'm done with this conversation, you're not going to see what everyone else here sees.

 

Incorrect.