NCPA: 10 necessary changes to repeal/replace with ACA/Obamacare

[Sun Devil 92]

I wonder what you consider 'force' when it comes to legal mandates? By the insane reasoning you keep repeating, there is no law that forces anyone to do, or not do, anything. You've rendered the term meaningless. Is this deliberate?

Amazing to watch you post this while we were already over this just last month - Obamacare, unlike other laws, very specifically, very intently gives no teeth to enforcement of the personal mandate. YES, there IS something SPECIAL about this law and you were already explained why what you said above is simply FALSE.

And yet, here you are making very same argument again as if nothing ever happened. I'd say this is a degree of learning disability.

Then why create the mandate ?

 

[AntonToo]

Then why create the mandate ?

Because it's still good incentive for people to get insurance.

Most people are not ideological zealots flailing about how their freedom is being stolen because their government says our body is potentially an expensive liability and needs to get insured for everyone's sake.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Then why create the mandate ?

Because it's still good incentive for people to get insurance.

"incentive" ?

Please explain how you see this as being an incentive.

 

[AntonToo]

"incentive" ?

Please explain how you see this as being an incentive.

yes incentive - when government makes laws people generally want to comply with those laws, they want to get insured, because it makes sense and because government says you should. It is reinforcing to a behavior.

Just looking at facts it is OBVIOUSLY SO.

Fact - IRS has no teeth to enforce tax penalty.
Fact - uninsured rates have fallen by nearly 50%.

 

[Arianrhod]

This article is from 2004.

http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/466706

Even then, access to good health care (the whole ER discussion aside) was a challenge.

But hasn't your side been claiming the Old Way was fine and there was no reason to change it? It's as if there are two different personalities posting under your account.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"incentive" ?

Please explain how you see this as being an incentive.

yes incentive - when government makes laws people generally want to comply with those laws, they want to get insured, because it makes sense and because government says you should. It is reinforcing to a behavior.

Just looking at facts it is OBVIOUSLY SO.

Fact - IRS has no teeth to enforce tax penalty.
Fact - uninsured rates have fallen by nearly 50%.

This is hysterical.

You are saying that people are getting more insurance just because government says they should.

Am I getting this right ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Then why create the mandate ?

Because it's still good incentive for people to get insurance.

Most people are not ideological zealots flailing about how their freedom is being stolen because their government says our body is potentially an expensive liability and needs to get insured for everyone's sake.

What is the incentive....that government says yous should ?

That's it ?

 

[AntonToo]

"incentive" ?

Please explain how you see this as being an incentive.

yes incentive - when government makes laws people generally want to comply with those laws, they want to get insured, because it makes sense and because government says you should. It is reinforcing to a behavior.

Just looking at facts it is OBVIOUSLY SO.

Fact - IRS has no teeth to enforce tax penalty.
Fact - uninsured rates have fallen by nearly 50%.

This is hysterical.

You are saying that people are getting more insurance just because government says they should.

Am I getting this right ?

just skip to the point I'm not going to repeat myself over and over

 

[dblack]

I wonder what you consider 'force' when it comes to legal mandates? By the insane reasoning you keep repeating, there is no law that forces anyone to do, or not do, anything. You've rendered the term meaningless. Is this deliberate?

Amazing to watch you post this while we were already over this just last month - Obamacare, unlike other laws, very specifically, very intently gives no teeth to enforcement of the personal mandate. YES, there IS something SPECIAL about this law and you were already explained why what you said above is simply FALSE.

And yet, here you are making very same argument again as if nothing ever happened. I'd say this is a degree of learning disability.

Heh... I suppose I understand how you might see it that way (see my sig-line).

The classic adage of experienced con-artists is that "you can't con an honest person". A good con relies on convincing the mark that they are somehow "in" on the scam. That makes them less likely to ask questions up front, or to even report the crime if they realize they've been conned.

It's true that the letter of law does offer a nice loophole for those planning to evade the mandate. All you need to do is adjust your withholdings at the beginning of the tax year to ensure you don't overpay your taxes, and you're scot-free*. But those who didn't plan far enough in advance, or perhaps just aren't looking for an "angle" in the first place, will feel the "teeth" of the enforcement penalty. They already have - to the tune of $1.6 billion in 2014.

* it's also hard to take this at face value. This IS the IRS we're dealing with after all. For example, I've seen nothing in ACA lawyering that prevents the following collection approach: If the IRS really wants to enforce the mandate, all they need to do is collect the penalty first. Let's say you owed $2500 in taxes and $750 for the mandate penalty. You send them a check for $2500. They allocate the first $750 of that toward the mandate and apply the rest to your tax bill. But you still own $750 on your taxes, and they can certainly punish you for not paying your taxes.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

"incentive" ?

Please explain how you see this as being an incentive.

yes incentive - when government makes laws people generally want to comply with those laws, they want to get insured, because it makes sense and because government says you should. It is reinforcing to a behavior.

Just looking at facts it is OBVIOUSLY SO.

Fact - IRS has no teeth to enforce tax penalty.
Fact - uninsured rates have fallen by nearly 50%.

This is hysterical.

You are saying that people are getting more insurance just because government says they should.

Am I getting this right ?

just skip to the point I'm not going to repeat myself over and over

Just to make sure that you are saying that people are only buying insurance because government is telling them to, but not coercing them.

Of course, that never worked before.

That you somehow think your two facts work together is simply insane.