Buh Bye Obamacare

[busybee01]

Here's the thing about an insurance mandate.

A "mandate" is simply a fine for not behaving in a way the government wants you to behave. For example, if you don't buy health insurance, you have to pay more tax than someone who did buy health insurance.

That's all it is.

Well, if you don't get a mortgage, you have to pay more taxes than someone who did get a mortgage. You are punished for not buying a house! We have a mortgage mandate. The government punishes you for not behaving in a way the government wants you to behave.

If you don't have kids, you have to pay more taxes than someone who does have kids. We have a child mandate. The government punishes you for not behaving in a way the government wants you to behave.


Americans have actually demanded this kind of tax scheme for a very long time. So it was not a big leap to make you pay more taxes if you don't buy insurance.

People who think they are conservatives are actually the biggest defenders of this insanity. They mandate you pay a tax fine for not having kids or not having a mortgage.

So it is no surprise these same fake conservatives came up with the idea of taxing you more for not buying health insurance.

A mandate is used to force people into a behavior. It should be used only when there is a public good. In the case of healthcare there is a public good. People will receive healthcare and if they don't have healthcare insurance everyone who pays will pay more. The fact is that you were already paying the tax if you had insurance. That is why healthcare costs were rising before Obamacare.

Your examples have a huge flaw in them. You actually have to spend more to get the tax breaks. The tax code recognizes that there are higher costs for certain activities that are desirable and partially compensates you. Your taxes do not go up for not having a child.

"A mandate is used to force people into a behavior."
Exactly!



"Your examples have a huge flaw in them. You actually have to spend more to get the tax breaks."
You actually have to spend more (buy insurance) to not pay more taxes!



"Your taxes do not go up for not having a child."
You pay more taxes than the person who has a child! You pay more taxes than the person who buys health insurance!



A distinction without a difference.



That's why the insurance mandate was no big leap. We already have tax mandates. Mortgage mandate, child mandate, etc., etc., etc.

They are all examples of government forcing people into a behavior.

'You actually have to spend more (buy insurance) to not pay more taxes!'
As you do with a requirement to buy car insurance. The public good outweighs the individual. The mandate has nothing to do with taxes but Roberts seemed to feel a need to justify it.

"You pay more taxes than the person who has a child! You pay more taxes than the person who buys health insurance!"
The costs of having a child are far more than what a couple get from a deduction. It is a distinction with a big difference.

"That's why the insurance mandate was no big leap. We already have tax mandates. Mortgage mandate, child mandate, etc., etc., etc."
They encourage people to do certain things. You are not penalized.​

 

[g5000]

Here's the thing about an insurance mandate.

A "mandate" is simply a fine for not behaving in a way the government wants you to behave. For example, if you don't buy health insurance, you have to pay more tax than someone who did buy health insurance.

That's all it is.

Well, if you don't get a mortgage, you have to pay more taxes than someone who did get a mortgage. You are punished for not buying a house! We have a mortgage mandate. The government punishes you for not behaving in a way the government wants you to behave.

If you don't have kids, you have to pay more taxes than someone who does have kids. We have a child mandate. The government punishes you for not behaving in a way the government wants you to behave.


Americans have actually demanded this kind of tax scheme for a very long time. So it was not a big leap to make you pay more taxes if you don't buy insurance.

People who think they are conservatives are actually the biggest defenders of this insanity. They mandate you pay a tax fine for not having kids or not having a mortgage.

So it is no surprise these same fake conservatives came up with the idea of taxing you more for not buying health insurance.

A mandate is used to force people into a behavior. It should be used only when there is a public good. In the case of healthcare there is a public good. People will receive healthcare and if they don't have healthcare insurance everyone who pays will pay more. The fact is that you were already paying the tax if you had insurance. That is why healthcare costs were rising before Obamacare.

Your examples have a huge flaw in them. You actually have to spend more to get the tax breaks. The tax code recognizes that there are higher costs for certain activities that are desirable and partially compensates you. Your taxes do not go up for not having a child.

"A mandate is used to force people into a behavior."
Exactly!



"Your examples have a huge flaw in them. You actually have to spend more to get the tax breaks."
You actually have to spend more (buy insurance) to not pay more taxes!



"Your taxes do not go up for not having a child."
You pay more taxes than the person who has a child! You pay more taxes than the person who buys health insurance!



A distinction without a difference.



That's why the insurance mandate was no big leap. We already have tax mandates. Mortgage mandate, child mandate, etc., etc., etc.

They are all examples of government forcing people into a behavior.

'You actually have to spend more (buy insurance) to not pay more taxes!'
As you do with a requirement to buy car insurance. The public good outweighs the individual. The mandate has nothing to do with taxes but Roberts seemed to feel a need to justify it.

"You pay more taxes than the person who has a child! You pay more taxes than the person who buys health insurance!"
The costs of having a child are far more than what a couple get from a deduction. It is a distinction with a big difference.

"That's why the insurance mandate was no big leap. We already have tax mandates. Mortgage mandate, child mandate, etc., etc., etc."
They encourage people to do certain things. You are not penalized.​

You most certainly are penalized with MUCH higher taxes if you do not behave the way the government mandates you behave. You pay higher taxes for not buying a house, having a kid, or even for not buying the right kind of refrigerator!

So it was no big leap for you to pay higher taxes for not buying the right kind of health insurance.

This is one of many reasons why I have always opposed tax expenditures. They open the door to numerous evils.

 

[EverCurious]

Yes, but that wasn't the discussion, it was what SHOULD happen.....

Are you saying what should happen is those that can’t pay get no care?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

yes, get insurance, if not, you gotta pay directly.......

So. What you are saying is that someone that is denied insurance and does not have the money to pay the bill should receive no care at all?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

denied? what do you mean by that?

Here is an example,

John Jacobs graduates college with a nice degree and goes to work for a small company that does not provide health insurance but offers him a nice salary of 30 grand a year. Mr Jacobs then goes to an insurance company and applies for medical insurance coverage. They look at his medical record and go "oh ,you have Type-1 diabetes, so we are forced to deny your application for insurance. Mr Jacobs goes to 10 other companies and they all tell him the same thing

Since he does not have insurance he chooses to use cheap WalMart insulin and 2 months later ends in the ER due to hyperglycemia. He is rushed to the hospital where they discover he has no insurance and does not have the available means to cover the ER visit or the 2 to 3 day stay that normally accompanies such an event.

At this point, should the hospital tell him to leave since he does not have the means to pay?

The FDA requires that all "cheap" (aka generic) drugs have the same dosage as name brand drugs. As per FDA:

Do generic medicines work the same as brand-name medicines?

Yes. Any generic medicine modeled after a brand-name medicine must perform the same in the body as the brand-name medicine. This standard applies to all generic medicines. A generic medicine is the same as a brand-name medicine in dosage, safety, effectiveness, strength, stability, and quality, as well as in the way it is taken and the way it should be used. Generic medicines use the same active ingredients as brand-name medicines and work the same way, so they have the same risks and benefits as the brand-name medicines. The FDA Generic Drugs Program conducts a rigorous review to make certain generic medicines meet these standards, in addition to conducting 3,500 inspections of manufacturing plants a year and monitoring drug safety after the generic medicine has been approved and brought to market.

It is important to note that there will always be a slight, but not medically important, level of natural variability—just as there is for one batch of brand-name medicine compared with the next batch of brand-name product. This variability can and does occur during manufacturing, for both brand-name and generic medicines. When a medicine, generic or brand-name, is mass produced, very small variations in purity, size, strength, and other parameters are permitted. FDA limits how much variability is acceptable.

For example, in a very large research study1 comparing generics with brand-name medicines, it was found that there were very small differences (approximately 3.5%) in absorption into the body between generic and the brand-name medicines. Some generics were absorbed slightly more, some slightly less. This amount of difference is expected and acceptable, whether for one batch of brand-name medicine tested against another batch of the same brand, or for a generic tested against a brand-name medicine. As a rule, the difference for the generic-to-brand comparison was about the same as the brand-to-brand comparison. - Generic Drugs: Questions & Answers

 

[TNHarley]

how awesome is this??
Department of Justice Declares ObamaCare To Be Unconstitutional and the Progressive Meltdown Begins

Welcome to TrumpCare. Skyrocketing to record high costs in every neighborhood! Making America Bankrupt and Sick Again.

Karma's a bitch.

My deductible just went down almost 40% and my co insurance dropped from 70 to 50%.
Imagine that.

 

[g5000]

how awesome is this??
Department of Justice Declares ObamaCare To Be Unconstitutional and the Progressive Meltdown Begins

Welcome to TrumpCare. Skyrocketing to record high costs in every neighborhood! Making America Bankrupt and Sick Again.

Karma's a bitch.

My deductible just went down almost 40% and my co insurance dropped from 70 to 50%.
Imagine that.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

Imagine that.

The fact is, health care costs are at record highs. And will continue to climb into the forseeable future.

And you don't have to imagine that, because it's real.

 

[g5000]

U.S. healthcare tab to keep rising, led by higher costs for drugs and services, government report says

Driven by rising prices for drugs and medical services, the nation's healthcare tab will continue to outpace economic growth over the next decade, according to a new government report.

And by 2026, healthcare spending will account for almost one-fifth of the U.S. economy, an all-time record.

So as I said, Trump will continue to sabotage ObamaCare, making it more and more dysfunctional. But he will never repeal it.

That way, he can keep blaming ObamaCare for skyrocketing health care costs and take credit for trying to do something about it at the same time, while never actually fixing anything. While actually making things even worse.

 

[g5000]

Here's just how fucking stupid Trump knows the rubes are. Here is just how much contempt Trump has for everyone. Here he is, depending on them never catching on.

"My first day in office, I'm going to ask Congress to put a bill on my desk getting rid of this disastrous law, and replacing it with reforms that expand choice, freedom, affordability. You're going to have such great health care at a tiny fraction of the cost, and it's going to be so easy."

 

[TNHarley]

how awesome is this??
Department of Justice Declares ObamaCare To Be Unconstitutional and the Progressive Meltdown Begins

Welcome to TrumpCare. Skyrocketing to record high costs in every neighborhood! Making America Bankrupt and Sick Again.

Karma's a bitch.

My deductible just went down almost 40% and my co insurance dropped from 70 to 50%.
Imagine that.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

Imagine that.

The fact is, health care costs are at record highs. And will continue to climb into the forseeable future.

And you don't have to imagine that, because it's real.

You call it an anecdote, i call it my reality.
You say we are ALL fucked, i say you are wrong.
Maybe you should watch the hyperbole

 

[g5000]

]

You're gonna love my health care plan, bleev me. It will be terrific. ObamaCare is a disaster. Total. Disaster. I can't wait to run this guy out of town on a rail, folks. (cheers, applause, hoots) Won't it be great? No more Obama! (yeehaws, applause) You're gonna get tired of winning. My beautiful health care plan will cure cancer. It will pay for my daughter's fake tits. And no Mexicans will ever be able to get insurance again! (wild stomping, cheers) We are going to build more hospitals, more clinics, hire more doctors, and hot nurses, I promised hot nurses didn't I? (laughter) Yeah! I love nurses. Sometimes I wish I was as sick as Hillary so I could visit some nurses, you know what I mean? (laughter, applause, "locker up! locker up!") You got that right! Locker up!

And that's my health care plan, folks. What do you think? Do you love it? (applause, cheers, whistles, music) It's beautiful! Beautiful.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Little by little, inch by inch, Trump is turning the GOP into what the Democratic Party was a little over 50 years ago.

Well good. The Dems will have someone to vote for in the next election. ~Trump 2020

 

[jc456]

I don't agree that the mandate was unconstitutional whether it was a tax or not. The mandate had a reason for being and it was to prevent freeloaders from gaming the system. They refuse to buy insurance when they are healthy and then buy insurance when they are sick then drop it when they are healthy. They commit a fraud on the system. The mandate was created by a conservative Heritage Foundation to lower insurance costs.

I find it hilarious you call the people who choose not to buy insurance "freeloaders".

The freeloaders are the high school dropouts who receive health insurance subsidies paid for by taxpayers like me for the rest of their lives.

One third of all "involutarily uninsured" people are high school dropouts, and I have to pay for their bad life choices.

You have a lot of nerve calling someone a freeloader when they will be forced to buy insurance, at much higher rates than they would have, in order to carry others on their backs.

A lot of goddam nerve.

You are the one who has the goddam nerve.

Freeloaders were people who gamed the insurance industry by committing a fraud against it and ultimately me. These were people who were perfectly capable of buying and paying the insurance premiums. Instead they left people like me holding the bag and paying. I support either a mandate or requiring a 6 month waiting period if you do not have continuous coverage.

The subsidies are one of the provisions that have the most support because people agree we should help people who need it. That being said, they also realize that Obamacare has issues and that is why they want it fixed. That is why I hope a lot of these Democrat moderates running in the House and Senate win. So we can fix Obamacare and lower the costs.

Look at the rhetoric you are using. "Gaming the system". You are parroting words given to you to parrot. You have no evidence to support this. Show me they are a net cost to taxpayers.

It's a fact that one third of the involuntarily uninsured are high school dropouts. Those are the freeloaders who taxpayers are carrying on their backs. They are costing far, far, far, far more than what your made-up "freeloaders" cost.

You are parroting the word "freeloaders". That was a left wing talking point. That word was deliberately attached to the people being forced to pay high insurance rates against their will.

It's fucking Orwellian.

The mandate is forcing people to not only buy insurance, it is forcing them to pay much higher rates in order to carry the REAL freeloaders. That's the whole reason the mandate exists! To pay for the subsidies of the real freeloaders.

So like I said. You have a lot of goddam nerve. You drank the piss.

You still have a lot of goddamned nerve you pissass.

I am a person who thinks which you are apparently not. Go read the Heritage report. It clearly states that these FREELOADERS are people who have the means to buy and pay for health insurance but refuse to do so.

The mandate exists to require people to pay into the system to keep health insurance down unlike what existed before. Subsidies are used to increase coverage so they will have the means to see a doctor sooner rather than waiting until it becomes more serious and more expensive.

can't make this up at all. Nope not at alllllll!

 

[jc456]

Here's the thing about an insurance mandate.

A "mandate" is simply a fine for not behaving in a way the government wants you to behave. For example, if you don't buy health insurance, you have to pay more tax than someone who did buy health insurance.

That's all it is.

Well, if you don't get a mortgage, you have to pay more taxes than someone who did get a mortgage. You are punished for not buying a house! We have a mortgage mandate. The government punishes you for not behaving in a way the government wants you to behave.

If you don't have kids, you have to pay more taxes than someone who does have kids. We have a child mandate. The government punishes you for not behaving in a way the government wants you to behave.


Americans have actually demanded this kind of tax scheme for a very long time. So it was not a big leap to make you pay more taxes if you don't buy insurance.

People who think they are conservatives are actually the biggest defenders of this insanity. They mandate you pay a tax fine for not having kids or not having a mortgage.

So it is no surprise these same fake conservatives came up with the idea of taxing you more for not buying health insurance.

A mandate is used to force people into a behavior. It should be used only when there is a public good. In the case of healthcare there is a public good. People will receive healthcare and if they don't have healthcare insurance everyone who pays will pay more. The fact is that you were already paying the tax if you had insurance. That is why healthcare costs were rising before Obamacare.

Your examples have a huge flaw in them. You actually have to spend more to get the tax breaks. The tax code recognizes that there are higher costs for certain activities that are desirable and partially compensates you. Your taxes do not go up for not having a child.

"A mandate is used to force people into a behavior."
Exactly!



"Your examples have a huge flaw in them. You actually have to spend more to get the tax breaks."
You actually have to spend more (buy insurance) to not pay more taxes!



"Your taxes do not go up for not having a child."
You pay more taxes than the person who has a child! You pay more taxes than the person who buys health insurance!



A distinction without a difference.



That's why the insurance mandate was no big leap. We already have tax mandates. Mortgage mandate, child mandate, etc., etc., etc.

They are all examples of government forcing people into a behavior.

'You actually have to spend more (buy insurance) to not pay more taxes!'
As you do with a requirement to buy car insurance. The public good outweighs the individual. The mandate has nothing to do with taxes but Roberts seemed to feel a need to justify it.

"You pay more taxes than the person who has a child! You pay more taxes than the person who buys health insurance!"
The costs of having a child are far more than what a couple get from a deduction. It is a distinction with a big difference.

"That's why the insurance mandate was no big leap. We already have tax mandates. Mortgage mandate, child mandate, etc., etc., etc."
They encourage people to do certain things. You are not penalized.​

what the fk are you rambling on about?

 

[bendog]

It strikes me as ironic that what we may be left with is the Medicaid expansion largely in Blue states that "gave" coverage to people up to 130% of poverty that is largely funded with federal deficit dollars. For single parent with two kids that's a little over 28K. If we can afford a tax cut for the 1%, I think we can afford this too. JMO.

The irony is twofold. First, some gopers in the senate would have gone along with that in 2008, so it's certainly ironic that Obama ceded any goodwill for bipartisanship. Second, the Trumpbots who are the lower earners making too much for Medicaid expansion but lacking job benefits, are actually fucked over twice. LOL

 

[g5000]

"You're going to have such great health care at a tiny fraction of the cost, and it's going to be so easy."

This implies Trump had or saw a plan which had been empirically tested and proven to lower health care costs to a tiny fraction.

This plan has never been revealed. Trump has never unveiled legislation which meets this criteria.

Clearly a hoax. That's just how fucking stupid Trump knows the rubes to be.

And the rubes have STILL not caught on.

 

[jc456]

It strikes me as ironic that what we may be left with is the Medicaid expansion largely in Blue states that "gave" coverage to people up to 130% of poverty that is largely funded with federal deficit dollars. For single parent with two kids that's a little over 28K. If we can afford a tax cut for the 1%, I think we can afford this too. JMO.

The irony is twofold. First, some gopers in the senate would have gone along with that in 2008, so it's certainly ironic that Obama ceded any goodwill for bipartisanship. Second, the Trumpbots who are the lower earners making too much for Medicaid expansion but lacking job benefits, are actually fucked over twice. LOL

dude, it's always middle america getting fked over. It's why there's trump. we're tired of it.

 

[bendog]

It strikes me as ironic that what we may be left with is the Medicaid expansion largely in Blue states that "gave" coverage to people up to 130% of poverty that is largely funded with federal deficit dollars. For single parent with two kids that's a little over 28K. If we can afford a tax cut for the 1%, I think we can afford this too. JMO.

The irony is twofold. First, some gopers in the senate would have gone along with that in 2008, so it's certainly ironic that Obama ceded any goodwill for bipartisanship. Second, the Trumpbots who are the lower earners making too much for Medicaid expansion but lacking job benefits, are actually fucked over twice. LOL

dude, it's always middle america getting fked over. It's why there's trump. we're tired of it.

He is no different, and actually worse, but you don't notice it.

 

[jc456]

It strikes me as ironic that what we may be left with is the Medicaid expansion largely in Blue states that "gave" coverage to people up to 130% of poverty that is largely funded with federal deficit dollars. For single parent with two kids that's a little over 28K. If we can afford a tax cut for the 1%, I think we can afford this too. JMO.

The irony is twofold. First, some gopers in the senate would have gone along with that in 2008, so it's certainly ironic that Obama ceded any goodwill for bipartisanship. Second, the Trumpbots who are the lower earners making too much for Medicaid expansion but lacking job benefits, are actually fucked over twice. LOL

dude, it's always middle america getting fked over. It's why there's trump. we're tired of it.

He is no different, and actually worse, but you don't notice it.

or not.

 

[bendog]

Because of Trump the workers without healthcare on the job, and without Medicaid, are getting less federal dollars to supplement their care. It's actually funny. But sad.

 

[jc456]

Because of Trump the workers without healthcare on the job, and without Medicaid, are getting less federal dollars to supplement their care. It's actually funny. But sad.

you mean without insurance? they can have healthcare anytime they want. dude, I do not understand why you want to call insurance healthcare.

 

[Doc1]

Sure it was . Figures you don’t see that.

'An individual mandate to purchase healthcare was initially proposed by the politically conservative Heritage Foundation in 1989 as an alternative to single-payer health care.[13][14][15][16][17] Stuart Butler, an early supporter of the individual mandate at the Heritage Foundation, wrote:

If a young man wrecks his Porsche and has not had the foresight to obtain insurance, we may commiserate, but society feels no obligation to repair his car. But health care is different. If a man is struck down by a heart attack in the street, Americans will care for him whether or not he has insurance.[18]

The Heritage Foundation changed its position in 2011, calling the individual mandate unconstitutional.[19]

From its inception, the idea of an individual mandate was championed by Republican politicians as a free-market approach to health care reform.[18][20] Supporters included Charles Grassley, Mitt Romney, and the late John Chafee.[21] The individual mandate was felt to resonate with conservative principles of individual responsibility, and conservative groups recognized that the healthcare market was unique.'

Health insurance mandate - Wikipedia

It figures because I don't like people who commit a fraud against me that I have to pay for. You apparently have no conscience.

You apparently cannot stand to be corrected. Roberts labeled it a tax and cast the deciding vote. It has nothing to do with me. It simply is what it is. Now.....if you need to yell at someone yell at Roberts.

So what. Roberts was right to allow the mandate even if he had to go through legalistic gymnastics to do it. I am yelling at you because you are the one who insists it is unconstitutional.

You're sharp as a tack son. You said.....

"
"Republicans are relying on a judge to legislate from the bench. That seems okay to you."

I responded...

Wow. You do realize that Roberts "legislated" from the bench, right? The Gov was arguing that it wasn't a tax, he decided it WAS a tax and thus it the mandate was "Constitutional".

You don't seem to mind legislation from the "bench" if you "like" it. How very hypocritical of you. The administration's lawyers were arguing that the mandate WASN'T a "tax". Roberts said "yes it is" and thus it became "Constitutional". You aren't very good at this.

The fact is that Roberts was not legislating from the bench. Obamacare was legally passed by Congress. It should not have come down to whether it is a tax or not. You are not good at all.

LOL, you're incorrect but not real bright so I understand. You assume that EVERYTHING Congress does is "Constitutional , well unless Pubs do it. Shall we try this again? The Obama Lawyers were arguing that the mandate was NOT a tax. For whatever reason, Roberts (all on his very own) CORRECTED Obama's Lawyers saying it WAS a tax. Why? Because Congress and ONLY Congress has the power to levy taxes.

"Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

They do NOT have the authority to "make" you buy something. Roberts CORRECTED their argument (bench legislation" so that he could rule that it was Constitutional. Now I know that every bit of that is over your head but it is true none the less.