OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Y2HH]

You had the option to divert some of your FICA funds into private investment vehicles, but you could not simply keep the money. You were mandated to invest in certain types of private investments or to pay higher FICA taxes. You could not do anything you wanted with that money.

 

None of this happened, so why do you keep trying to discuss it? There is no discussion here...it was and is a hypothetical. It was a ridiculous bill the Republicans introduced and it was shot down, as it should have been. For many of the same reasons they never should have done this bill the way they did it.

 

Pointing to the republicans and saying, well they tried it, too...nah nah nah, doesn't do much here.

[StrangeSox]

None of this happened, so why do you keep trying to discuss it? There is no discussion here...it was and is a hypothetical. It was a ridiculous bill the Republicans introduced and it was shot down, as it should have been. For many of the same reasons they never should have done this bill the way they did it.

 

Pointing to the republicans and saying, well they tried it, too...nah nah nah, doesn't do much here.

 

It points out that the hysterics of how this removes the last shreds of freedom are laughable, and it points out that no one thought this was a constitutional problem until very recently. It shows that the arguments against the mandate are not based on long-standing precedence but are novel arguments that directly counter policies and proposals that anti-mandaters were advocating for a short while ago. It questions the legitimacy of their arguments.

[Soxbadger]

Comes down to choice, and lack of choice.

 

You don't HAVE to buy a car or drive, therefore they're not telling you that you HAVE to purchase something.

 

You HAVE to do this. In this case, they're outright telling you that you HAVE to buy a product, even if you don't want it. And I know, it's silly that a person wouldn't want health insurance, right? That's the point.

 

Y2hh,

 

Well that is what Im arguing, you dont have to get private health insurance. If you dont get private health insurance you wont be able to get treated at hospital.

 

Maybe the law was written poorly, maybe they should have simply written it this way. That if you do not have private health insurance, you do not have the privilege of getting treated at a hospital.

 

No one is forcing anyone to buy that product, no one is forcing you to go to a hospital or dr for medical treatment.

 

As I said, Im not very well versed, but I do believe that getting free medical treatment that is paid for by state tax payers, is not a right and therefore the govt can make insurance a condition precedent to receiving those benefits.

 

If that was the law, would you disagree with that theory?

Edited March 30, 2012 by Soxbadger

[StrangeSox]

Hospitals are required to treat you in emergency situations.

[Y2HH]

What is the substantial difference between a tax and a penalty? You're not forced to buy something, but you face a penalty if you do not.

 

2) I'm not forced to buy a home, but I'll pay higher federal income taxes for not having a mortgage.

 

3) Isn't this merely a distinction of semantics?

 

1) The difference is one is a tax and one is not.

 

2) It's more complicated than you are all making it sound. It's not like they're saying, if you buy a home, you're income tax rate is 20% instead of 25%. They're simply giving you a tax write off on the interest you paid. I laid out why the math in this is MUCH different than people seem to think in an earlier post. You guys are making it sound like if you buy a house, you'll save thousands of dollars on your federal tax. I paid over 10K on interest this year, amongst other fees for owning my house, not to mention 3800$ in property tax, and my federal tax liability was reduced by about 1500$. That's a net loss of over 10k compared to what you had to pay out.

 

3) No. This precedent allows congress the power to tell you to purchase things. Just because you happen to agree with THIS thing they want you to purchase, doesn't mean you'll agree with the next thing they want you to purchase. Can they raise taxes and in a round about way force you to buy that same thing? Sure. And when the tax rates get too high, people can start slaying them, too.

[Jenksismyhero]

Hospitals are required to treat you in emergency situations.

 

Not by law though I don't think. That's just an ethical obligation that's turned into the governments promise to repay if the person can't.

[Soxbadger]

Hospitals are required to treat you in emergency situations.

 

As I said, Im not that well versed, but I would argue that this is not actually a "right", I believe it is a "privilege."

 

And using that argument it would have most likely been upheld by the Conservative Judges, because precedent clearly establishes that the govt can put a restriction on a privilege.

 

I just dont understand why you wouldnt make this argument as it is the path of least resistance.

[StrangeSox]

1) The difference is one is a tax and one is not.

 

So, semantics then. FWIW the SCOTUS has found in the past that the Congress doesn't need to explicitly use the word "tax" when they enact a policy that is, for all intents and purposes, a tax.

 

2) It's more complicated than you are all making it sound. It's not like they're saying, if you buy a home, you're income tax rate is 20% instead of 25%. They're simply giving you a tax write off on the interest you paid. I laid out why the math in this is MUCH different than people seem to think in an earlier post. You guys are making it sound like if you buy a house, you'll save thousands of dollars on your federal tax. I paid over 10K on interest this year, amongst other fees for owning my house, not to mention 3800$ in property tax, and my federal tax liability was reduced by about 1500$. That's a net loss of over 10k compared to what you had to pay out.

 

It's not about the dollar values of how big the tax credits are. It's about an easy comparison to tax credits for certain purchases.

 

3) No. This precedent allows congress the power to tell you to purchase things. Just because you happen to agree with THIS thing they want you to purchase, doesn't mean you'll agree with the next thing they want you to purchase. Can they raise taxes and in a round about way force you to buy that same thing? Sure. And when the tax rates get too high, people can start slaying them, too.

 

 

But this still comes down to Congress having the same power. It's just that, in your view, they can only exercise it in a round-about way with the exact same results and the exact same coercion. They're just as politically accountable for a mandate-or-penalty scheme as they are for a tax-and-credit scheme.

[StrangeSox]

Not by law though I don't think. That's just an ethical obligation that's turned into the governments promise to repay if the person can't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Med...ctive_Labor_Act

[Soxbadger]

Not by law though I don't think. That's just an ethical obligation that's turned into the governments promise to repay if the person can't.

 

This is my thinking as well. Drs have an ethical duty to provide health care, but that does not mean people have the right to receive health care that is paid for by tax payers.

 

If anything, it should be that the Dr/Hospital has to absorb the costs of their free services or write them off on their taxes.

[Soxbadger]

Strangesox,

 

That article you linked is explaining my point exactly. Just because the dr has to provide care, does not mean we the taxpayers have to reimburse the hospital/dr.

 

That is the privilege, having the tax payers bail you out.

[StrangeSox]

This is my thinking as well. Drs have an ethical duty to provide health care, but that does not mean people have the right to receive health care that is paid for by tax payers.

 

If anything, it should be that the Dr/Hospital has to absorb the costs of their free services or write them off on their taxes.

 

It is not necessarily or entirely covered by federal reimbursement, but the care is mandated.

[StrangeSox]

Strangesox,

 

That article you linked is explaining my point exactly. Just because the dr has to provide care, does not mean we the taxpayers have to reimburse the hospital/dr.

 

That is the privilege, having the tax payers bail you out.

 

But that's why the "inactivity/activity" argument is a canard. Your "inactivity" of not buying insurance increases the risk pool for everyone else, since ultimately the people with insurance will be the ones covering your bill through higher costs from doctors/hospitals and higher premiums.

[Soxbadger]

Right and this is about "who pays for the care".

 

And the law does not require that the govt pay for the care.

 

So the fact that you get free medical care, is a privilege. (at least in my opinion). Otherwise, the person who receives the care should be liable for the care, and the taxpayer/govt should have 0 expense for it.

[StrangeSox]

Right and this is about "who pays for the care".

 

And the law does not require that the govt pay for the care.

 

So the fact that you get free medical care, is a privilege. (at least in my opinion). Otherwise, the person who receives the care should be liable for the care, and the taxpayer/govt should have 0 expense for it.

 

The person who receives the care may be liable but unable to repay medical bills in the tens of thousands of dollars. This results in an increased cost on everyone else, which eliminates the inactivity/activity distinction because the inactivity has clear economic impact on commerce.

 

Or so the argument goes.

[Soxbadger]

Right that may be true, but once again I ask, why not take the path of least resistance.

 

Why not call it a privilege and anyone who doesnt want to buy the insurance are specifically excluded from the Emergency Medical Act.

 

Now it is your choice, if you want the ability to be treated, the ability to not be denied treatment, buy the insurance.

 

If you dont care, if you want that personal freedom, dont buy the insurance.

 

Isnt that the easier argument to get what they want, which is more people buying health care?

 

Because I assure you, if people knew that they would not get medical treatment unless they had health insurance, more people would buy health insurance. Also it would reduce costs because those who did not buy insurance would not be able to get health care, which would then mean less costs for the whole.

 

Personally I would prefer if it was universal healthcare or whatever, but you cant always get what you want.

[Jenksismyhero]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Med...ctive_Labor_Act

 

Yeah so that's still pretty limited to emergent care, and they still bill you for it. That's not really an obligation to treat without any strings attached. That's just mandating that they can't deny you emergency treatment at the time you need it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Right that may be true, but once again I ask, why not take the path of least resistance.

 

Why not call it a privilege and anyone who doesnt want to buy the insurance are specifically excluded from the Emergency Medical Act.

 

Now it is your choice, if you want the ability to be treated, the ability to not be denied treatment, buy the insurance.

 

If you dont care, if you want that personal freedom, dont buy the insurance.

 

Isnt that the easier argument to get what they want, which is more people buying health care?

 

Because I assure you, if people knew that they would not get medical treatment unless they had health insurance, more people would buy health insurance. Also it would reduce costs because those who did not buy insurance would not be able to get health care, which would then mean less costs for the whole.

 

Personally I would prefer if it was universal healthcare or whatever, but you cant always get what you want.

 

But you can't do that because the Hippocratic Oath is pretty much law now.

[Soxbadger]

So you change the law.

 

You cant just box yourself into an untenable position and do nothing about it.

 

The fact is, the US can not continue down this path. You cant continue giving health care for everyone and having a few pay for it. It just wont work, so something has to be done, and I personally dont think we should change the law to prevent people from getting treatment, but maybe that is what have to gives.

 

Because you just cant have it where people are guaranteed treatment and the govt/tax payers end up paying the bills. This just cant last forever.

[StrangeSox]

Yeah so that's still pretty limited to emergent care, and they still bill you for it. That's not really an obligation to treat without any strings attached. That's just mandating that they can't deny you emergency treatment at the time you need it.

 

That's one of the central arguments over the ability to regulate the "inactivity" of not buying health insurance. The uninsured frequently pass on medical costs to the insured or to the government via emergency care they cannot pay for. Every time there's a medical bankruptcy, we're all paying for it.

[StrangeSox]

Right that may be true, but once again I ask, why not take the path of least resistance.

 

Why not call it a privilege and anyone who doesnt want to buy the insurance are specifically excluded from the Emergency Medical Act.

 

Now it is your choice, if you want the ability to be treated, the ability to not be denied treatment, buy the insurance.

 

If you dont care, if you want that personal freedom, dont buy the insurance.

 

Isnt that the easier argument to get what they want, which is more people buying health care?

 

Because I assure you, if people knew that they would not get medical treatment unless they had health insurance, more people would buy health insurance. Also it would reduce costs because those who did not buy insurance would not be able to get health care, which would then mean less costs for the whole.

 

Personally I would prefer if it was universal healthcare or whatever, but you cant always get what you want.

 

Before the PPACA, many people simply couldn't buy insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Private insurance is still prohibitively expensive for millions more, so removing emergency care mandates simply results in the poor losing access to what little medical care they get now.

[StrangeSox]

I'm unsure of who has the better argument over what to do with the severability between Scalia and Ginsburg. There's a whole boatload of provisions in the bill that are plainly constitutional and don't rely on the mandate while there's a couple (guaranteed issue for example) that clearly do. Should the SCOTUS strike down the entire law if the mandate is found unconstitutional? Excise only the parts that are tied to the mandate, effectively giving them a line-item veto? Remand the whole thing back to Congress to fix?

[Soxbadger]

Strangesox,

 

Correct me if im wrong, but isnt the pre-existing condition part entirely unrelated to the mandate part?

 

I believe that the law about pre-existing conditions would be enforceable but for the mandate.

 

Furthermore, couldnt the govt/insurance companies provide some sort of cheaper insurance (like liability insurance for cars), that would at least provide minimum levels of coverage. Or couldnt the govt give insurance and count it as a benefit, such as food stamps, etc.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

That's one of the central arguments over the ability to regulate the "inactivity" of not buying health insurance. The uninsured frequently pass on medical costs to the insured or to the government via emergency care they cannot pay for. Every time there's a medical bankruptcy, we're all paying for it.

 

But it's not the Court's role to determine policy for the country. It's their job to interpret the law and decide its constitutionality. This is a legislative problem, not a judicial one.

[Jenksismyhero]

Before the PPACA, many people simply couldn't buy insurance due to pre-existing conditions. Private insurance is still prohibitively expensive for millions more, so removing emergency care mandates simply results in the poor losing access to what little medical care they get now.

 

They COULD, but it would have been pricey.