OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Balta1701]

And if the CBO's estimates are correct, the cost of this will be trillions over what it was initially. So what.

False again. To get to anything resembling that, you must compare a CBO estimate covering the years 2010-2019 to one covering the years 2012-2021, thus adding 3 years when the bill is actually in force. The actual apples to apples comparison of the same years actually showed that in the 2012 update, the costs over those years declined by $48 billion.

[StrangeSox]

Yes, because then you can't hind behind the farce of it NOT being a tax increase. Kinda like putting that computer on sale for 10% off, after you jacked it up 20% first. Any way you slice it, the tax burden that is now there was NOT there before. So this bill increased taxes.

This is a political argument, not a constitutional argument.

[Y2HH]

If the CBO's estimates are correct, the mandate penalty will raise $25 billion over its first 10 years.

 

The CBO's estimates are NEVER correct.

[Jenksismyhero]

you lost, get over it.

 

This isn't a competition. We're all f***ed based on this law. Enjoy your "penalty" increase.

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes, because then you can't hind behind the farce of it NOT being a tax increase. Kinda like putting that computer on sale for 10% off, after you jacked it up 20% first. Any way you slice it, the tax burden that is now there was NOT there before. So this bill increased taxes.

Yes of course it did. It increased taxes, in the form of a penalty, for the 1-2% of the population that will be without health insurance for a significant length of time, even though they can afford it. One could argue this is a good or bad thing, but it only effects a small % of people.

 

And Balta, you need to get past this idea that this is comparable to a tax credit based on elective commerce. The logical leap you are making is laughably huge.

[Balta1701]

Yes of course it did. It increased taxes, in the form of a penalty, for the 1-2% of the population that will be without health insurance for a significant length of time, even though they can afford it. One could argue this is a good or bad thing, but it only effects a small % of people.

 

And Balta, you need to get past this idea that this is comparable to a tax credit based on elective commerce. The logical leap you are making is laughably huge.

This is entirely elective commerce. You just outlined how you can elect to pay the tax.

[Y2HH]

This is entirely elective commerce. You just outlined how you can elect to pay the tax.

 

In other words, you can choose buy insurance OR you can choose buy insurance.

 

There is no elective choice here. You are buying insurance.

[Balta1701]

In other words, you can choose buy insurance OR you can choose buy insurance.

 

There is no elective choice here. You are buying insurance.

Some might note that $700/year comes no where near the cost of actually providing comprehensive insurance. One might instead suggest that it covers the cost of free-riding when you can afford insurance, since as many have noted, a hospital is required to provide emergency care you whether you are insured or not.

[Jenksismyhero]

Some might note that $700/year comes no where near the cost of actually providing comprehensive insurance. One might instead suggest that it covers the cost of free-riding when you can afford insurance, since as many have noted, a hospital is required to provide emergency care you whether you are insured or not.

 

I don't get your point here.

 

Nor do I understand how you are comparing elective purchases resulting in tax credits with a mandate resulting in a tax "credit." Missing out on a credit (benefit) is =/= paying a penalty (tax).

[Balta1701]

I don't get your point here.

 

Nor do I understand how you are comparing elective purchases resulting in tax credits with a mandate resulting in a tax "credit." Missing out on a credit (benefit) is =/= paying a penalty (tax).

The effect is the exact same in both cases. The government believes that there is a positive benefit to society that occurs by using the tax code to subsidize some behaviors and penalize others. The government subsidizes home ownership hugely. The goverment has substantial tax penalties for tobacco use. The government in this case uses the tax code to do exactly that...it creates a tax credit that is cashed in by purchasing health insurance of a certain quality, reflecting the fact that society as a whole benefits from larger insurance pools and reflecting the fact that there is a substantial cost associated with the portion of the population that remains uninsured by choice. That is all the "Mandate" is.

 

People can choose to purchase tobacco, people can choose to not purchase a home, people can choose not to purchase insurance. In each of those cases though, there is a sociaetal cost to people making that choice, and therefore it is logical for the government to use the tax code to reflect that cost and to benefit people who make the opposite decision.

[Jenksismyhero]

The effect is the exact same in both cases. The government believes that there is a positive benefit to society that occurs by using the tax code to subsidize some behaviors and penalize others. The government subsidizes home ownership hugely. The goverment has substantial tax penalties for tobacco use. The government in this case uses the tax code to do exactly that...it creates a tax credit that is cashed in by purchasing health insurance of a certain quality, reflecting the fact that society as a whole benefits from larger insurance pools and reflecting the fact that there is a substantial cost associated with the portion of the population that remains uninsured by choice. That is all the "Mandate" is.

 

People can choose to purchase tobacco, people can choose to not purchase a home, people can choose not to purchase insurance. In each of those cases though, there is a sociaetal cost to people making that choice, and therefore it is logical for the government to use the tax code to reflect that cost and to benefit people who make the opposite decision.

 

But you're glossing over the major difference - the mandate to be subject to that credit/tax. Regardless of the intentions of the government, it's not the same.

[Balta1701]

But you're glossing over the major difference - the mandate to be subject to that credit/tax. Regardless of the intentions of the government, it's not the same.

The effect both in a legal sense and in a real-world sense is identical.

 

In both cases...if you make the appropriate purchase...your tax rate decreases. If you choose not to make a qualifying purchase, you pay a higher tax rate by not claiming that tax credit.

 

That really is all this is. The only difference here is that there was an increase and a credit tied together, rather than just the creation of an independent credit. That is all the mandate is...a tax that few are expected to pay because of a very substantial and easy to qualify for tax credit.

[Jenksismyhero]

The effect both in a legal sense and in a real-world sense is identical.

 

In both cases...if you make the appropriate purchase...your tax rate decreases. If you choose not to make a qualifying purchase, you pay a higher tax rate by not claiming that tax credit.

 

That really is all this is. The only difference here is that there was an increase and a credit tied together, rather than just the creation of an independent credit. That is all the mandate is...a tax that few are expected to pay because of a very substantial and easy to qualify for tax credit.

 

If they had created an independent credit it still wouldn't have been the same because people would have the alternative to not buy any insurance and therefore not receive the credit. You're granting people a credit as if it's money that is owed to them despite the fact they've done nothing to earn it. You can't count that as a loss which is equal to a tax.

 

[EvilMonkey]

This is a political argument, not a constitutional argument.

I never said it was. I said if it was a tax, to own it. You can't claim it as a tax to get it past the court, then try and go to the people and say 'nah, just kidding, it's not a tax'. it is a very poitical argument, which is why every Obamanaut is out there trying to tell the people that it isn't a tx, when they just argued that it was to get it passed. it is a tax. There are people who won't like hearing that, of all political stripes. But Dems got it, they should own it. Dems passed a tax on the American people. Come on, this is Obama's crowning achievement!

 

Oh, and even more along the classless Dems crowing about this, there is a shirt for sale on the Obama campaign sight that says "Universal healthcare: still a BFD" yup, classy alright.

[Reddy]

This isn't a competition. We're all f***ed based on this law. Enjoy your "penalty" increase.

I don't consider being taxed an extra small percentage so that everyone can get access to health care to be "f***ed". I'm totally cool with it, and that's the option I'm going to take when the time comes.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Dems passed a tax on the American people.

 

Yup. They also passed a huge tax credit that offsets it. But apparently that won't get a mention.

[greg775]

Lol, incredibly rare situation involving a pre pre term baby needing round the clock care from specialists =/= some emergency procedure.

 

Oh, and since this country is so morally and ethically bankrupt when it comes to healthcare, i'm assuming this baby is now dead because if you can't pay medical bills you're just thrown out on the street to die. I see that happen all the time.

 

Why LOL? Really a funny situation to mock here.

I'm saying the bill of $997,000 was for the initial surgery of the poor baby.

I'm asking a simple question, asking people to educate me on why our system is so great when in Europe a friend of mine walked into a hospital for emergency care, had to stay a couple days and there's no bill. Free.

As far as not treating the baby and throwing him on the street to die ... educate me again. If you have no insurance and head to emergency room, a.) will they treat you at all? b.) if you do get treated and they immediately find a brain tumor on the MRI, you mean to tell me they will do brain surgery for free? I don't think so. I think they tell you about free clinics, etc.

I'm asking if Europe's system is better; cause it seems so. 997,000 bucks?? For one surgery?

[Y2HH]

Yup. They also passed a huge tax credit that offsets it. But apparently that won't get a mention.

 

It's not a zero sum game which is why you just tried to make it sound like.

 

Something has to help pay for this. IMO, I don't mind it...it's a "TAX" that I don't mind paying. Such taxes do exist...and this is one of them. I'm happy to pay this knowing more people will have access to care -- IF they end up actually having that access.

[Balta1701]

It's not a zero sum game which is why you just tried to make it sound like.

 

Something has to help pay for this. IMO, I don't mind it...it's a "TAX" that I don't mind paying. Such taxes do exist...and this is one of them. I'm happy to pay this knowing more people will have access to care -- IF they end up actually having that access.

You're right. And there are other taxes built into this bill. The tax on the "Cadillac" plans, the tax on some medical devices, there is a small upper income tax somewhere in there, there's a tax on tanning, etc.

 

The main method of paying for it though is to realize...we already do. When we're spending 1.5 times the fraction of GDP on health care of any other country in the world, and getting care of the same quality or worse...we're already spending the money. We just have to figure out how to spend it more wisely. This bill takes steps in that direction.

[Jake]

The CBO's estimates are NEVER correct.

 

The CBO is as accurate as they come. May not always be correct, but it will be the best figure available.

[Y2HH]

The CBO is as accurate as they come. May not always be correct, but it will be the best figure available.

 

Do you have any facts/figures to back this up? I'm not asking to be snarky, I'm asking because it'd be interesting to actually see how historically accurate they are (if they are), versus all of us just saying one thing or another.

 

I don't know how by much, but I know a few times they've been pretty wrong about future costs, mostly because they base them on nothing changing.

[Y2HH]

You're right. And there are other taxes built into this bill. The tax on the "Cadillac" plans, the tax on some medical devices, there is a small upper income tax somewhere in there, there's a tax on tanning, etc.

 

The main method of paying for it though is to realize...we already do. When we're spending 1.5 times the fraction of GDP on health care of any other country in the world, and getting care of the same quality or worse...we're already spending the money. We just have to figure out how to spend it more wisely. This bill takes steps in that direction.

 

Our care, for those that can get it, is pretty damn good here...the only way you get poor quality care here is if you allow it to happen since there are tons of doctors...go find a new one if you feel your care is lousy. That exists over there, too. Some doctors are just bad doctors, regardless of their educations.

 

Our healthcare is so expensive because of bureaucratic nonsense, laws being written and passed by people bought and paid for by big pharm, insurance companies, or other corporate interests. It's not expensive because it sucks, however. It's expensive because our lawmakers helped make it that way.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Our care, for those that can get it, is pretty damn good here...the only way you get poor quality care here is if you allow it to happen since there are tons of doctors...go find a new one if you feel your care is lousy. That exists over there, too. Some doctors are just bad doctors, regardless of their educations.

 

Our healthcare is so expensive because of bureaucratic nonsense, laws being written and passed by people bought and paid for by big pharm, insurance companies, or other corporate interests. It's not expensive because it sucks, however. It's expensive because our lawmakers helped make it that way.

Right there is the key. If everyone could get it, we literally wouldn't need to have this discussion in the first place. When nearly 1/6 of the country at the peak can't get that care, and then another large portion is substantially underinsured...then the system is flat broken.

[Jenksismyhero]

Why LOL? Really a funny situation to mock here.

I'm saying the bill of $997,000 was for the initial surgery of the poor baby.

I'm asking a simple question, asking people to educate me on why our system is so great when in Europe a friend of mine walked into a hospital for emergency care, had to stay a couple days and there's no bill. Free.

As far as not treating the baby and throwing him on the street to die ... educate me again. If you have no insurance and head to emergency room, a.) will they treat you at all? b.) if you do get treated and they immediately find a brain tumor on the MRI, you mean to tell me they will do brain surgery for free? I don't think so. I think they tell you about free clinics, etc.

I'm asking if Europe's system is better; cause it seems so. 997,000 bucks?? For one surgery?

 

Because the two situations aren't really comparable, unless your friend had an incredibly rare emergency procedure. Yes, a million dollars is insane and you won't get any argument from me that our system is crazy overpriced, but putting X millions on the gov't payroll isn't going to fix that problem. That's why this Obamacare is such a joke. It did nothing to address the actual problems with the system, it just created MORE problems with the system. And btw, the middle class will, yet again, pay for this s***. Not the poor, not the rich, but the middle class, who happens to pay for just about everything in this society these days.

 

And i'm tired of comparing the US to other countries. Look at the lifestyles. We live in different cultures. Look at the goods we buy (expect to have) and the things we do. Look at the vast geographic differences and the associated differences in costs of living. Why should we have the same systems for everything? Universal healthcare in other countries isn't some perfect solution either. They have to wait longer for surgical procedures and treatment, most have to buy private insurance on top of their public coverage, they don't have access to the same medications, especially new medications or really expensive preventative care medications, like we do, etc. etc. There are pros and cons for both sides yet everyone thinks the european model is some perfect system. It's not. They pay for it one way or the other, just like you and I do, and in most cases it's inferior care.

 

And yes, unless that baby is cleared to go home he's going to continue receiving free medical care in this s***ty healthcare system of ours. He's going to undergo a free brain surgery if that's what is required. Free because of the many rich people out there that finance huge hospitals and specialized departments specifically for a situation like that.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

And i'm tired of comparing the US to other countries. Look at the lifestyles. We live in different cultures. Look at the goods we buy (expect to have) and the things we do. Look at the vast geographic differences and the associated differences in costs of living. Why should we have the same systems for everything? Universal healthcare in other countries isn't some perfect solution either. They have to wait longer for surgical procedures and treatment, most have to buy private insurance on top of their public coverage, they don't have access to the same medications, especially new medications or really expensive preventative care medications, like we do, etc. etc. There are pros and cons for both sides yet everyone thinks the european model is some perfect system. It's not. They pay for it one way or the other, just like you and I do, and in most cases it's inferior care.

If the spending were equal and the systems were all universal, I'd say you'd ahve a point here. I think the French/German system works the best, but yes, wait times for elective surgeries for people with insurance are longer there. If we both spent the same amount on the system, and we had better coverage for some drugs than they did, while they had longer/shorter wait times, great. That's just not the case though.

 

If we spent the same %age of GDP on health care as the french, that would save this country somewhere between $500 billion and $1 trillion per year.

 

And we're spending that money and still missing nearly 20% of the population. Yes, our wait times are lower for surgeries...but they're not lower when you factor in the number of people who put off procedures because they're uninsured or because they simply can't afford it. When you add in the people who never get the procedures they need, those averages would shoot up. If we're spending that much more money than everyone else, then we ought to get care that is vastly better than everyone else, not competitive with...and we don't.

 

Solve those issues and I'll agree that there are pros and cons to each side...but these are the 2 things that are simply completely broken about the U.S. system. It leaves a huge chunk of it's population out to dry, and it costs an absolute fortune at the same time...and that is compared to systems that have much more government intrusion than ours. The PPACA is hopefully a big step towards solving both of them and letting the U.S. actually innovate its way to a quality health care system.