Supreme Court Health Care Decision Thread - Page 9

Freddy · 29th June 2012, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

So a question for the legal minds here: is the holding on the CC authority dictum since it wasn't necessary to dispose of the controversy before the court? If not, does it change anything wrt CC authority jurisprudence?

I don't think it's dictum, but I'm not entirely sure. I think Roberts crafted the opinion in such a way that the commerce clause section is necessary to the holding. The majority opinion construes the mandate as a tax, even though that is admittedly a stretch (according to the opinion; I'm not editorializing here).

Because the mandate clearly was not written or intended as a tax, the question of whether the mandate is constitutional under the taxing power is raised only because the commerce power does not justify it. Were it not for the holding that the commerce clause does not justify the mandate, such a reworking of the statute (turning the mandate into a tax when it was not written or intended as one) would clearly be improper. However, when it is the only way to construe the law as constitutional, and the re-interpretation is at least reasonably plausible, the court can (and has in the past) change a law to make it constitutional, as long as Congress's intent is sufficiently clear. An example would be the case where the Federal Sentencing guidelines were changed by the court to make them advisory rather than mandatory, because they would be unconstitutional if mandatory. Whether the conditions necessary to justify judicial reworking of the statute are met is debatable, but the fact that Roberts relied on that principle of statutory interpretation seems to make the Commerce Clause analysis a necessary part of the holding.

As to whether it changes CC jurisprudence, I'd have to say it does, assuming a future Supreme Court does not overrule it. It is the clearest limitation of the commerce power that the Court has ever articulated, although I think those who say that the Court has "gutted" the commerce clause with this ruling are greatly exaggerating.

That's my take, anyway. I'm curious what others have to say on the matter.

EDIT: Also, as has been mentioned already, whether it is holding or dictum is of little practical consequence. Lower courts are not going to ignore it just because they think it's dictum, and a future Supreme Court can overrule it even if it's part of the holding.

triforcharity · 29th June 2012, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You directly benefit just as much from that ED being in your town.

It's interesting to me how you are conceptualizing these things in your head.

You have roads you don't use, but you could use them, police and fire you don't use but you could use them, and hospitals you don't use but you could use them, yet all these things seem different to you.

Same strange parsing here. I pay for people who don't pay. It's not the government causing me to pay that cost, it is the uninsured person who used care he/she didn't pay for.

There are two ways to deal with this. Either the burden for this unpaid care is unevenly put on the people who do pay, or it is more fairly distributed through public funding.

The government requires insurance when someone costs other people money by driving and crashing. The government requires everyone to pay for police, fire and military services.

You seem to be saying it's OK that those uninsured people cost me money but it is not OK the government protects me by making them pay.

Not taking anything personally, I take it as strange but true: human brains experience reality differently.

We'll have to agree to let it go. I see some of their side, and it has some legitimate points, but it is FAR outweighed by the benefits of all.

Cheers!

triforcharity · 29th June 2012, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Just Google "13 million rebates".

Nearly 13 Million Expected To Get Insurance Rebate

Cool! Another part I did not know about......$151 bucks!! Nice! I can take the family out on the boat!!

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

By repeating the right wing narrative, we are contributing to those idiots' beliefs. Fighting talking points with talking points is a problem Progressives just haven't gotten a handle on.

Again, I don't really follow politics, so you'll have to dumb this down for me. Republicans and democrats are about the gist of my political knowledge...

triforcharity · 29th June 2012, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

That's not what I was referring to. Here's your full quote:
Perhaps I didn't read that right but the bolding is what my comment referred to.

Gotcha, we were talking past each other. See, this is why I stay FAR away from the politics section. I don't speak politics.....

Cheers ma'am!

Skeptic Ginger · 29th June 2012, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

...
Again, I don't really follow politics, so you'll have to dumb this down for me. Republicans and democrats are about the gist of my political knowledge...

Back in the 80s the Republicans began adopting the campaign technique of doing focus groups (Google Frank Luntz) and finding single, emotionally triggering talking points that swayed voters. Using the best marketing techniques Madison Avenue researchers had to offer, (they put Goebbals to shame), Karl Rove and Frank Luntz teamed up. Rove developed the "Play Book" using Luntz's focus group data. The result was an extremely powerful method of manipulating beliefs via how issues are framed.

A narrative is essentially a way of framing an issue so that the images called up influence what people believe about the facts.

So, for a related-to-the-thread example, the AHCA is either an important piece of legislation moving the country forward, or it is a socialist milestone marking the government takeover of your health care, complete with death panels and new heavily burdensome taxes.

The Republican playbook of framing issues has been so successful they regularly influence the mainstream media's narrative: The Latest Proof that the Karl Rove Playbook Has Become the MSM's Bible

The more Progressives buy into these narratives instead of countering them, the more the right wing ideology invades our lives.

gnome · 29th June 2012, 06:28 PM

Karl Rove may have been very good at it, but I don't think he invented it, and I don't think he inspired everyone that does it.

triforcharity · 29th June 2012, 07:04 PM

Gotcha. Let's not get TOO far into the political realm, as it may end up split, and some shiny yellow cards given.....

Skeptic Ginger · 29th June 2012, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

Karl Rove may have been very good at it, but I don't think he invented it, and I don't think he inspired everyone that does it.

I was discussing recent history, not who invented what or who was first. To keep it thread topic, the point is there are many narrative lies about the AHCA and it is unfortunate that such propaganda is so effective.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos · 30th June 2012, 08:18 AM

My father may have a letter in Monday's Wall Street Journal on this issue.

~~ Paul

AlBell · 30th June 2012, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by daredelvis

By partisan hacks and ill informed mouth breathers.

Daredelvis

If not a tax, what is it?

Skeptic Ginger · 30th June 2012, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by AlBell

If not a tax, what is it?

A choice. And only deadbeat health care system users need make it.

AlBell · 30th June 2012, 10:05 AM

Anyone know of an analysis that predicts what will happen to married man-wife, primary for both Medicare excluding Part D drugs, plus a ex-employer supplied supplemental that includes drug coverage ($300 deductible) and major medical ($3000 deductible).

Cost for all currently exceeds $5000/yr.

triforcharity · 30th June 2012, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

A choice. And only deadbeat health care system users need make it.

No, a tax is not a choice. It's the law.

The government is leveling a tax on anyone who doesn't carry their own heath insurance. To call it anything else, is painting a pile of **** red, and calling it a rose.

It's a tax. And me personally, I am ok with it.

If someone chooses not to purchase health insurance, they will be taxed. No if ands or buts about it. (With a few exceptions of course....) What other choice do they have?

Skeptic Ginger · 30th June 2012, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

No, a tax is not a choice. It's the law.

The choice is, buy the insurance you can afford, OR, pay the tax. You really are looking through some pretty narrow glasses there. You can't seem to see any bigger part of the picture than the Republic narrative.

Given that choice, buy insurance or pay the tax, how does this differ from forcing you to buy fire or EM services? You don't have a choice. You have to pay the tax whether you like it or not, whether you choose to use the service or not. You don't hear a lot of grumbling about that mandate.

Unabogie · 30th June 2012, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

No, a tax is not a choice. It's the law.

The government is leveling a tax on anyone who doesn't carry their own heath insurance. To call it anything else, is painting a pile of **** red, and calling it a rose.

It's a tax. And me personally, I am ok with it.

If someone chooses not to purchase health insurance, they will be taxed. No if ands or buts about it. (With a few exceptions of course....) What other choice do they have?

I think you actually have it backwards. The vast, vast majority will not be faced with this situation as they will have medicare, medicaid, subsidies, and employer based plans. The tiny fraction left will face this choice. I believe in Massachusettes the percentage is around 2% of the population who are affected by the penalty.

triforcharity · 30th June 2012, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The choice is, buy the insurance you can afford, OR, pay the tax. You really are looking through some pretty narrow glasses there. You can't seem to see any bigger part of the picture than the Republic narrative.

Republic narrative? Really? Come on SG, I've already stated 100%, without question, I am for the AHCA. While I still have my doubts on how this will really work. If it works, awesome! Now, on to step two of a national healthcare system. If not, we go back, retool it, rewire it, and give that a shot.

Exactly. There IS no choice. Either you give the money to the insurance companies, or you give money to the government to cover your fair share. I understand that. Believe me, I do. I'm all for it. But, I am parting ways with some of my hard earned money, one way or another. It's a tax.

I personally think it would have been easier to just implement a national tax, that everyone pays, no matter who you are, through an increase in sales tax, and cut out the insurance companies. It most likely wouldn't have taken 900 pages to explain either. I don't mind a little extra tax, really. Now, 20% extra......no. 1-2% on everything (excluding food) and all that money goes to UHC. Simple. Nobody can skirt the law, people working under the table pay it, criminals pay it, everyone pays it. No matter what. (Homeless of course....)

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Given that choice, buy insurance or pay the tax, how does this differ from forcing you to buy fire or EM services?

Because everyone that owns a property pays it. People are not allowed to self insure, or bill upon service. It's a tax that everyone pays, no matter what. Every business, school, private club, residence, daycare, and fast food joint, pays a property tax. People can't buy their own insurance that says that their own personal fire department will show up....

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You don't have a choice. You have to pay the tax whether you like it or not, whether you choose to use the service or not. You don't hear a lot of grumbling about that mandate.

Correct. because EVERYONE pays the tax. Some aren't exempt, because they have their own personal fire department. Even Disney World, (Who actually has their own fire department {Reedy Creek Fire District}) pays their property tax.

Everyone pays it, there's no way around it. Even unimproved land pays the property tax. I have 5 acres out in Holopaw Florida that I bought, and use as a hunting camp. I pay, every year, $433 to Osceola County for fire protection. In the 15 years that I have owned it, i've never had a fire. Not even a small one. But I couldn't tell Osceola County that I am not paying it, because I will take care of it myself.

triforcharity · 30th June 2012, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I think you actually have it backwards. The vast, vast majority will not be faced with this situation as they will have medicare, medicaid, subsidies, and employer based plans. The tiny fraction left will face this choice. I believe in Massachusettes the percentage is around 2% of the population who are affected by the penalty.

No, I had it right. There are a few exceptions to the tax. I think Native Americans, living on tribe owned land, don't have to pay it, and people who've had a religious belief that they can prove they adhere to, that prevents the use of medicine or medical care. Those are the only people whom are exempt from paying the "No insurance" tax. I do agree that very few will be faced with the tax much past about 2014.

Well, unless you live in Florida. Not sure how this is going to work....

http://www.floridatoday.com/viewart/...news|text|Home

Skeptic Ginger · 30th June 2012, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Republic narrative? Really? Come on SG, I've already stated 100%, without question, I am for the AHCA.

Why would your position negate the Republic narrative? Why would your position make you immune from buying said narrative or repeating it?

Originally Posted by triforcharity

....Exactly. There IS no choice. Either you give the money to the insurance companies, or you give money to the government to cover your fair share.

Either-or is not a choice?

Limited choices are not the same as no choices. This whole semantic argument resulted from you not recognizing the choice I referred to. If you want to debate the merits of limited choice vs no choice, that is a different discussion.

So let's discuss that. If you chose not to carry health care, that forces a tax on me that I have no choice over. I cannot chose to let you die on the ED steps. I am therefore forced to pay the tax/penalty/cost (it all comes out to the same dollar amount no matter what you call it) because you get care you don't pay for.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

I am parting ways with some of my hard earned money, one way or another. It's a tax.

If I part ways with some of my hard earned money because the law says I can't chose to let you die on the ED steps, how does that differ from your tax? Keep in mind the law says the hospital cannot turn you away even if it knows you will not pay.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

I personally think it would have been easier to just implement a national tax, that everyone pays, no matter who you are, through an increase in sales tax, and cut out the insurance companies. It most likely wouldn't have taken 900 pages to explain either. I don't mind a little extra tax, really. Now, 20% extra......no. 1-2% on everything (excluding food) and all that money goes to UHC. Simple. Nobody can skirt the law, people working under the table pay it, criminals pay it, everyone pays it. No matter what. (Homeless of course....)

When you say, "easier", what do you base that on? The Republics in Congress absolutely refused to vote for anything called a tax.

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Because everyone that owns a property pays it. People are not allowed to self insure, or bill upon service. It's a tax that everyone pays, no matter what. Every business, school, private club, residence, daycare, and fast food joint, pays a property tax. People can't buy their own insurance that says that their own personal fire department will show up ....

And?

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Correct. because EVERYONE pays the tax. Some aren't exempt, because they have their own personal fire department. Even Disney World, (Who actually has their own fire department {Reedy Creek Fire District}) pays their property tax.

And?

Originally Posted by triforcharity

Everyone pays it, there's no way around it. Even unimproved land pays the property tax. I have 5 acres out in Holopaw Florida that I bought, and use as a hunting camp. I pay, every year, $433 to Osceola County for fire protection. In the 15 years that I have owned it, i've never had a fire. Not even a small one. But I couldn't tell Osceola County that I am not paying it, because I will take care of it myself.

And?

How is that relevant to grumbling about one tax and ignoring another equivalent tax?

Skeptic Ginger · 30th June 2012, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

No, I had it right. There are a few exceptions to the tax. I think Native Americans, living on tribe owned land, don't have to pay it, and people who've had a religious belief that they can prove they adhere to, that prevents the use of medicine or medical care. Those are the only people whom are exempt from paying the "No insurance" tax. I do agree that very few will be faced with the tax much past about 2014.

Well, unless you live in Florida. Not sure how this is going to work....

http://www.floridatoday.com/viewart/...news|text|Home

No, you had it wrong because 98% of the population is not going to pay the penalty/tax and that is many many exceptions.

Unabogie · 30th June 2012, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

No, I had it right. There are a few exceptions to the tax. I think Native Americans, living on tribe owned land, don't have to pay it, and people who've had a religious belief that they can prove they adhere to, that prevents the use of medicine or medical care. Those are the only people whom are exempt from paying the "No insurance" tax. I do agree that very few will be faced with the tax much past about 2014.

Well, unless you live in Florida. Not sure how this is going to work....

http://www.floridatoday.com/viewart/20120630/NEWS01/120630002/Gov-Rick-Scott-Florida-won-t-comply-health-care-law?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home

No there are lots of exceptions:

Religious exemptions.
People incarcerated.
Americans living abroad.
Hardship.

Then there are people who won't qualify for the penalty even though they aren't buying coverage for themselves:

Medicare patients
Medicaid patients
Employer plans

People who don't make enough money will get subsidies. The number of people who will likely pay the penalty (which is $95 in 2014) will be <5%, and those will be 100% made up of people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it.

Not to mention that having insurance is a huge exception to the tax, which is of course the whole point of having it.

Kestrel · 30th June 2012, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by triforcharity

No, I had it right. There are a few exceptions to the tax. I think Native Americans, living on tribe owned land, don't have to pay it, and people who've had a religious belief that they can prove they adhere to, that prevents the use of medicine or medical care. Those are the only people whom are exempt from paying the "No insurance" tax. I do agree that very few will be faced with the tax much past about 2014.

Well, unless you live in Florida. Not sure how this is going to work....

http://www.floridatoday.com/viewart/...news|text|Home

If I recall correctly, the Federal government is allowed to set up health insurance exchanges if a state doesn't act. But if Florida doesn't cooperate, they will end up with a greater percentage of uninsured residents than other states and more people paying the penalty for not having insurance. Florida residents will also have to pay the other taxes that are part of the bill regardless of state cooperation.

Hospitals will end up treating some of these people regardless, and shifting the costs to insured patients. Florida residents will end up paying more for insurance. Florida emergency rooms will also have more uninsured patients clogging the waiting rooms.

gnome · 30th June 2012, 07:31 PM

And they'll happily blame the new law.

OnlyTellsTruths · 30th June 2012, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

The choice is, buy the insurance you can afford, OR, pay the tax.

Do you have an estimate for what the cheapest possible health insurance would be then?

For instance, the cheapest possible car insurance, that still meats all the legal guidelines, is around $30 a month.

Remember, someone making minimum wage in this country and working 30 hours a week barely brings home $1000 a month.

Puppycow · 1st July 2012, 04:01 AM

Rightwing Blogger’s Shocking Discovery: John Roberts Was Blackmailed, Arrests To Come Soon!

Quote:

Later this afternoon, it’s going to come out that Roberts was coerced. A Secret Service agent overheard Obama and Axelrod discussing the Roberts blackmail. He managed to get them on tape discussing it. Later this afternoon, the whole story will come out, Roberts will issue his REAL opinion, and Obama and Axelrod will be taken away in handcuffs.

Puppycow · 1st July 2012, 04:09 AM

A Children’s Treasury Of Wingnut Obamacare Freakouts

Quote:

benshapiro @benshapiro

This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.

Quote:

Pamela Geller @pamelageller

Obama yappin' again-why aren't there any American flags in the frame? Typical The flag to Obama is like the siver cross to Dracula #obamatax

Really?? Obama was on the teevee and there wasn't an American flag visible in the background?? This is important somehow??

Foolmewunz · 1st July 2012, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

A Children’s Treasury Of Wingnut Obamacare Freakouts

Really?? Obama was on the teevee and there wasn't an American flag visible in the background?? This is important somehow??

Well, if that's the real Pamela Geller, I'm sure it's further proof of the incursion of Sharia law.

quadraginta · 1st July 2012, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

<snip>

Then there are people who won't qualify for the penalty even though they aren't buying coverage for themselves:

Medicare patients

<snip>

Just a small nit to pick here. Most Medicare patients do buy coverage for themselves of one sort or another. If they are not already paying for insurance through some other means (spouse, pension plan, elective private policy,...) they are supposed to purchase Part B coverage from the government. This cost is deducted from any benefits they might receive as a monthly stipend from SSA. Around $100 per month (or more, depending on income.)

For some (couples especially) living on disability or retirement income alone this can amount to a substantial percentage of their income.

Yes, they can "opt out". But if they choose to do so, and do not provide alternative coverage then up the road they will very likely encounter penalties.

Not all that different from the ACA approach.

Kestrel · 1st July 2012, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Do you have an estimate for what the cheapest possible health insurance would be then?

For instance, the cheapest possible car insurance, that still meats all the legal guidelines, is around $30 a month.

Remember, someone making minimum wage in this country and working 30 hours a week barely brings home $1000 a month.

The law provides subsidies for households that earn less than 400% of the Federal poverty level. The subsidy limits their total expenditures for health insurance to the range of 2% to 9.5% of total income.

A single person household earning minimum wage for 30 hours a week would be very near the poverty level and qualify for the highest subsidy. They would probably qualify for Medicaid, but if they didn't they would pay only 2% of their total income, or roughly $20 a month for health insurance.

gnome · 1st July 2012, 09:01 AM

Once this begins, a very good statistic to pay attention to is how many people actually are assessed the penalty.

Unabogie · 1st July 2012, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Just a small nit to pick here. Most Medicare patients do buy coverage for themselves of one sort or another. If they are not already paying for insurance through some other means (spouse, pension plan, elective private policy,...) they are supposed to purchase Part B coverage from the government. This cost is deducted from any benefits they might receive as a monthly stipend from SSA. Around $100 per month (or more, depending on income.)

For some (couples especially) living on disability or retirement income alone this can amount to a substantial percentage of their income.

Yes, they can "opt out". But if they choose to do so, and do not provide alternative coverage then up the road they will very likely encounter penalties.

Not all that different from the ACA approach.

Thank you. Putting the E in JREF!

Unabogie · 1st July 2012, 01:55 PM

Originally Posted by gnome

Once this begins, a very good statistic to pay attention to is how many people actually are assessed the penalty.

I wonder if it will differ wildly from the rates in Mass? In Mass, it's 98% participation. But will there be a segment of the nation who will do some sort of crazy civil disobedience that will result in more people incurring the penalty than there should be?

We know Jindal is making noises like he won't institute the exchanges, but not Rick Scott is saying the same thing. I wonder if Red Staters will end up with objectors who bring the penalty on themselves so they can scream about TYRANNY?

By the way, I'm going to start a thread on what the exchanges will look like in each state. I'm curious about how this is being handled.

Kestrel · 1st July 2012, 02:10 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I wonder if it will differ wildly from the rates in Mass? In Mass, it's 98% participation. But will there be a segment of the nation who will do some sort of crazy civil disobedience that will result in more people incurring the penalty than there should be?

We know Jindal is making noises like he won't institute the exchanges, but not Rick Scott is saying the same thing. I wonder if Red Staters will end up with objectors who bring the penalty on themselves so they can scream about TYRANNY?

Lots of people will make noise, encouraged by the usual right wing pundits on talk radio. The web sites already devoted to idiot legal theories and freeman on the land woo will take up the cause. But in the end, the IRS will collect the tax and assess penalties. And a few of these nut cases will end up in bankruptcy due to medical bills.

The brighter residents of the states that don't cooperate will notice that they are paying all the new taxes, but not getting the same level of benefits as the states that do. Perhaps they can convince their neighbors to vote in a new set of politicians.

Unabogie · 1st July 2012, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

Lots of people will make noise, encouraged by the usual right wing pundits on talk radio. The web sites already devoted to idiot legal theories and freeman on the land woo will take up the cause. But in the end, the IRS will collect the tax and assess penalties. And a few of these nut cases will end up in bankruptcy due to medical bills.

The brighter residents of the states that don't cooperate will notice that they are paying all the new taxes, but not getting the same level of benefits as the states that do. Perhaps they can convince their neighbors to vote in a new set of politicians.

Yeah, I've even read some stuff recently about Teabaggers objecting to the very concept of health insurance and asking "why can't we just pay our doctors in cash, like John Adams did?"

It's just so over the top. I hope they get better soon.

Kestrel · 1st July 2012, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Yeah, I've even read some stuff recently about Teabaggers objecting to the very concept of health insurance and asking "why can't we just pay our doctors in cash, like John Adams did?"

I suspect you can find someone to do a bit of bloodletting for a fraction of the cost of visiting a licensed doctor. And most likely they will want to be paid in cash.

The Dark Lord · 1st July 2012, 03:49 PM

I imagine most health care providers would prefer to be paid upfont in cash rather than having to deal with insurance companies. Nobody is stopping these morons from doing that. Well, except reality as few people can afford to pay for any kind of healthcare they might need in cash.

Skeptic Ginger · 1st July 2012, 06:27 PM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Do you have an estimate for what the cheapest possible health insurance would be then?

For instance, the cheapest possible car insurance, that still meats all the legal guidelines, is around $30 a month.

Remember, someone making minimum wage in this country and working 30 hours a week barely brings home $1000 a month.

Are you forgetting the ACA has assistance for the poor built in?

Are you interpreting "you can afford" to only mean unsupplemented coverage when some of it is indeed supplemented?

OnlyTellsTruths · 1st July 2012, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by Kestrel

The law provides subsidies for households that earn less than 400% of the Federal poverty level. The subsidy limits their total expenditures for health insurance to the range of 2% to 9.5% of total income.

A single person household earning minimum wage for 30 hours a week would be very near the poverty level and qualify for the highest subsidy. They would probably qualify for Medicaid, but if they didn't they would pay only 2% of their total income, or roughly $20 a month for health insurance.

Thank you very much for the info!

OnlyTellsTruths · 1st July 2012, 10:31 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Are you forgetting the ACA has assistance for the poor built in?

Are you interpreting "you can afford" to only mean unsupplemented coverage when some of it is indeed supplemented?

Sorry, I was looking for direct answers to my question. I wasn't trying to spin anything. I know there is so much of that going on it is hard to tell!

JFrankA · 2nd July 2012, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I wonder if it will differ wildly from the rates in Mass? In Mass, it's 98% participation. But will there be a segment of the nation who will do some sort of crazy civil disobedience that will result in more people incurring the penalty than there should be?

We know Jindal is making noises like he won't institute the exchanges, but not Rick Scott is saying the same thing. I wonder if Red Staters will end up with objectors who bring the penalty on themselves so they can scream about TYRANNY?

By the way, I'm going to start a thread on what the exchanges will look like in each state. I'm curious about how this is being handled.

I took the time to make this graphic as to which states have chosen to take the ACA or not; or have at least accepted or rejected the grant that goes with it.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B__...VBHY0EyNFYtVzQ

This information is based upon this article, which I thought was very interesting.

http://m.apnews.mobi/ap/db_6776/cont...tguid=S4ha0QCe

quadraginta · 2nd July 2012, 04:50 AM

Originally Posted by JFrankA

I took the time to make this graphic as to which states have chosen to take the ACA or not; or have at least accepted or rejected the grant that goes with it.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B__...VBHY0EyNFYtVzQ

This information is based upon this article, which I thought was very interesting.

http://m.apnews.mobi/ap/db_6776/cont...tguid=S4ha0QCe

Nice chart. Thanks, Frank.

29th June 2012, 04:48 PM	#321
Freddy Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: South Bend, IN Posts: 1,024	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler So a question for the legal minds here: is the holding on the CC authority dictum since it wasn't necessary to dispose of the controversy before the court? If not, does it change anything wrt CC authority jurisprudence? I don't think it's dictum, but I'm not entirely sure. I think Roberts crafted the opinion in such a way that the commerce clause section is necessary to the holding. The majority opinion construes the mandate as a tax, even though that is admittedly a stretch (according to the opinion; I'm not editorializing here). Because the mandate clearly was not written or intended as a tax, the question of whether the mandate is constitutional under the taxing power is raised only because the commerce power does not justify it. Were it not for the holding that the commerce clause does not justify the mandate, such a reworking of the statute (turning the mandate into a tax when it was not written or intended as one) would clearly be improper. However, when it is the only way to construe the law as constitutional, and the re-interpretation is at least reasonably plausible, the court can (and has in the past) change a law to make it constitutional, as long as Congress's intent is sufficiently clear. An example would be the case where the Federal Sentencing guidelines were changed by the court to make them advisory rather than mandatory, because they would be unconstitutional if mandatory. Whether the conditions necessary to justify judicial reworking of the statute are met is debatable, but the fact that Roberts relied on that principle of statutory interpretation seems to make the Commerce Clause analysis a necessary part of the holding. As to whether it changes CC jurisprudence, I'd have to say it does, assuming a future Supreme Court does not overrule it. It is the clearest limitation of the commerce power that the Court has ever articulated, although I think those who say that the Court has "gutted" the commerce clause with this ruling are greatly exaggerating. That's my take, anyway. I'm curious what others have to say on the matter. EDIT: Also, as has been mentioned already, whether it is holding or dictum is of little practical consequence. Lower courts are not going to ignore it just because they think it's dictum, and a future Supreme Court can overrule it even if it's part of the holding.
	__________________ William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? Last edited by Freddy; 29th June 2012 at 05:00 PM.

29th June 2012, 05:40 PM	#322
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger You directly benefit just as much from that ED being in your town. It's interesting to me how you are conceptualizing these things in your head. You have roads you don't use, but you could use them, police and fire you don't use but you could use them, and hospitals you don't use but you could use them, yet all these things seem different to you. Same strange parsing here. I pay for people who don't pay. It's not the government causing me to pay that cost, it is the uninsured person who used care he/she didn't pay for. There are two ways to deal with this. Either the burden for this unpaid care is unevenly put on the people who do pay, or it is more fairly distributed through public funding. The government requires insurance when someone costs other people money by driving and crashing. The government requires everyone to pay for police, fire and military services. You seem to be saying it's OK that those uninsured people cost me money but it is not OK the government protects me by making them pay. Not taking anything personally, I take it as strange but true: human brains experience reality differently. We'll have to agree to let it go. I see some of their side, and it has some legitimate points, but it is FAR outweighed by the benefits of all. Cheers!
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

29th June 2012, 05:45 PM	#323
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Just Google "13 million rebates". Nearly 13 Million Expected To Get Insurance Rebate Cool! Another part I did not know about......$151 bucks!! Nice! I can take the family out on the boat!! Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger By repeating the right wing narrative, we are contributing to those idiots' beliefs. Fighting talking points with talking points is a problem Progressives just haven't gotten a handle on. Again, I don't really follow politics, so you'll have to dumb this down for me. Republicans and democrats are about the gist of my political knowledge...
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

29th June 2012, 05:47 PM	#324
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger That's not what I was referring to. Here's your full quote: Perhaps I didn't read that right but the bolding is what my comment referred to. Gotcha, we were talking past each other. See, this is why I stay FAR away from the politics section. I don't speak politics..... Cheers ma'am!
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

29th June 2012, 06:22 PM	#325
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Originally Posted by triforcharity ... Again, I don't really follow politics, so you'll have to dumb this down for me. Republicans and democrats are about the gist of my political knowledge... Back in the 80s the Republicans began adopting the campaign technique of doing focus groups (Google Frank Luntz) and finding single, emotionally triggering talking points that swayed voters. Using the best marketing techniques Madison Avenue researchers had to offer, (they put Goebbals to shame), Karl Rove and Frank Luntz teamed up. Rove developed the "Play Book" using Luntz's focus group data. The result was an extremely powerful method of manipulating beliefs via how issues are framed. A narrative is essentially a way of framing an issue so that the images called up influence what people believe about the facts. So, for a related-to-the-thread example, the AHCA is either an important piece of legislation moving the country forward, or it is a socialist milestone marking the government takeover of your health care, complete with death panels and new heavily burdensome taxes. The Republican playbook of framing issues has been so successful they regularly influence the mainstream media's narrative: The Latest Proof that the Karl Rove Playbook Has Become the MSM's Bible The more Progressives buy into these narratives instead of countering them, the more the right wing ideology invades our lives.
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 29th June 2012 at 06:24 PM.*

29th June 2012, 06:28 PM	#326
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	Karl Rove may have been very good at it, but I don't think he invented it, and I don't think he inspired everyone that does it.
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	__________________

29th June 2012, 07:04 PM	#327
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Gotcha. Let's not get TOO far into the political realm, as it may end up split, and some shiny yellow cards given.....
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

29th June 2012, 08:09 PM	#328
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Originally Posted by gnome Karl Rove may have been very good at it, but I don't think he invented it, and I don't think he inspired everyone that does it. I was discussing recent history, not who invented what or who was first. To keep it thread topic, the point is there are many narrative lies about the AHCA and it is unfortunate that such propaganda is so effective.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

30th June 2012, 08:18 AM	#329
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: a little toolshed Posts: 18,592	My father may have a letter in Monday's Wall Street Journal on this issue. ~~ Paul
	__________________ Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. ---Susan Ertz RIP Mr. Skinny

30th June 2012, 08:49 AM	#330
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,497	Originally Posted by daredelvis By partisan hacks and ill informed mouth breathers. Daredelvis If not a tax, what is it?
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,497	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

30th June 2012, 08:58 AM	#331
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Originally Posted by AlBell If not a tax, what is it? A choice. And only deadbeat health care system users need make it.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

30th June 2012, 10:05 AM	#332
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,497	Anyone know of an analysis that predicts what will happen to married man-wife, primary for both Medicare excluding Part D drugs, plus a ex-employer supplied supplemental that includes drug coverage ($300 deductible) and major medical ($3000 deductible). Cost for all currently exceeds $5000/yr.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,497

30th June 2012, 10:42 AM	#333
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger A choice. And only deadbeat health care system users need make it. No, a tax is not a choice. It's the law. The government is leveling a tax on anyone who doesn't carry their own heath insurance. To call it anything else, is painting a pile of **** red, and calling it a rose. It's a tax. And me personally, I am ok with it. If someone chooses not to purchase health insurance, they will be taxed. No if ands or buts about it. (With a few exceptions of course....) What other choice do they have?
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

30th June 2012, 11:29 AM	#334
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Originally Posted by triforcharity No, a tax is not a choice. It's the law. The choice is, buy the insurance you can afford, OR, pay the tax. You really are looking through some pretty narrow glasses there. You can't seem to see any bigger part of the picture than the Republic narrative. Given that choice, buy insurance or pay the tax, how does this differ from forcing you to buy fire or EM services? You don't have a choice. You have to pay the tax whether you like it or not, whether you choose to use the service or not. You don't hear a lot of grumbling about that mandate.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

30th June 2012, 11:51 AM	#335
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,847	Originally Posted by triforcharity No, a tax is not a choice. It's the law. The government is leveling a tax on anyone who doesn't carry their own heath insurance. To call it anything else, is painting a pile of **** red, and calling it a rose. It's a tax. And me personally, I am ok with it. If someone chooses not to purchase health insurance, they will be taxed. No if ands or buts about it. (With a few exceptions of course....) What other choice do they have? I think you actually have it backwards. The vast, vast majority will not be faced with this situation as they will have medicare, medicaid, subsidies, and employer based plans. The tiny fraction left will face this choice. I believe in Massachusettes the percentage is around 2% of the population who are affected by the penalty.

30th June 2012, 05:41 PM	#336
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger The choice is, buy the insurance you can afford, OR, pay the tax. You really are looking through some pretty narrow glasses there. You can't seem to see any bigger part of the picture than the Republic narrative. Republic narrative? Really? Come on SG, I've already stated 100%, without question, I am for the AHCA. While I still have my doubts on how this will really work. If it works, awesome! Now, on to step two of a national healthcare system. If not, we go back, retool it, rewire it, and give that a shot. Exactly. There IS no choice. Either you give the money to the insurance companies, or you give money to the government to cover your fair share. I understand that. Believe me, I do. I'm all for it. But, I am parting ways with some of my hard earned money, one way or another. It's a tax. I personally think it would have been easier to just implement a national tax, that everyone pays, no matter who you are, through an increase in sales tax, and cut out the insurance companies. It most likely wouldn't have taken 900 pages to explain either. I don't mind a little extra tax, really. Now, 20% extra......no. 1-2% on everything (excluding food) and all that money goes to UHC. Simple. Nobody can skirt the law, people working under the table pay it, criminals pay it, everyone pays it. No matter what. (Homeless of course....) Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Given that choice, buy insurance or pay the tax, how does this differ from forcing you to buy fire or EM services? Because everyone that owns a property pays it. People are not allowed to self insure, or bill upon service. It's a tax that everyone pays, no matter what. Every business, school, private club, residence, daycare, and fast food joint, pays a property tax. People can't buy their own insurance that says that their own personal fire department will show up.... Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger You don't have a choice. You have to pay the tax whether you like it or not, whether you choose to use the service or not. You don't hear a lot of grumbling about that mandate. Correct. because EVERYONE pays the tax. Some aren't exempt, because they have their own personal fire department. Even Disney World, (Who actually has their own fire department {Reedy Creek Fire District}) pays their property tax. Everyone pays it, there's no way around it. Even unimproved land pays the property tax. I have 5 acres out in Holopaw Florida that I bought, and use as a hunting camp. I pay, every year, $433 to Osceola County for fire protection. In the 15 years that I have owned it, i've never had a fire. Not even a small one. But I couldn't tell Osceola County that I am not paying it, because I will take care of it myself.
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

30th June 2012, 05:46 PM	#337
triforcharity Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: The South! Posts: 12,176	Originally Posted by Unabogie I think you actually have it backwards. The vast, vast majority will not be faced with this situation as they will have medicare, medicaid, subsidies, and employer based plans. The tiny fraction left will face this choice. I believe in Massachusettes the percentage is around 2% of the population who are affected by the penalty. No, I had it right. There are a few exceptions to the tax. I think Native Americans, living on tribe owned land, don't have to pay it, and people who've had a religious belief that they can prove they adhere to, that prevents the use of medicine or medical care. Those are the only people whom are exempt from paying the "No insurance" tax. I do agree that very few will be faced with the tax much past about 2014. Well, unless you live in Florida. Not sure how this is going to work.... http://www.floridatoday.com/viewart/...news\|text\|Home
	__________________ "The horse has been led to the water, the horse is in fact standing up to its knees in the water, but the horse is telling you in a loud voice that there's no water to be had....he's still so very thirsty!" ~alienentity

30th June 2012, 05:58 PM	#338
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Originally Posted by triforcharity Republic narrative? Really? Come on SG, I've already stated 100%, without question, I am for the AHCA. Why would your position negate the Republic narrative? Why would your position make you immune from buying said narrative or repeating it? Originally Posted by triforcharity ....Exactly. There IS no choice. Either you give the money to the insurance companies, or you give money to the government to cover your fair share. Either-or is not a choice? Limited choices are not the same as no choices. This whole semantic argument resulted from you not recognizing the choice I referred to. If you want to debate the merits of limited choice vs no choice, that is a different discussion. So let's discuss that. If you chose not to carry health care, that forces a tax on me that I have no choice over. I cannot chose to let you die on the ED steps. I am therefore forced to pay the tax/penalty/cost (it all comes out to the same dollar amount no matter what you call it) because you get care you don't pay for. Originally Posted by triforcharity I am parting ways with some of my hard earned money, one way or another. It's a tax. If I part ways with some of my hard earned money because the law says I can't chose to let you die on the ED steps, how does that differ from your tax? Keep in mind the law says the hospital cannot turn you away even if it knows you will not pay. Originally Posted by triforcharity I personally think it would have been easier to just implement a national tax, that everyone pays, no matter who you are, through an increase in sales tax, and cut out the insurance companies. It most likely wouldn't have taken 900 pages to explain either. I don't mind a little extra tax, really. Now, 20% extra......no. 1-2% on everything (excluding food) and all that money goes to UHC. Simple. Nobody can skirt the law, people working under the table pay it, criminals pay it, everyone pays it. No matter what. (Homeless of course....) When you say, "easier", what do you base that on? The Republics in Congress absolutely refused to vote for anything called a tax. Originally Posted by triforcharity Because everyone that owns a property pays it. People are not allowed to self insure, or bill upon service. It's a tax that everyone pays, no matter what. Every business, school, private club, residence, daycare, and fast food joint, pays a property tax. People can't buy their own insurance that says that their own personal fire department will show up .... And? Originally Posted by triforcharity Correct. because EVERYONE pays the tax. Some aren't exempt, because they have their own personal fire department. Even Disney World, (Who actually has their own fire department {Reedy Creek Fire District}) pays their property tax. And? Originally Posted by triforcharity Everyone pays it, there's no way around it. Even unimproved land pays the property tax. I have 5 acres out in Holopaw Florida that I bought, and use as a hunting camp. I pay, every year, $433 to Osceola County for fire protection. In the 15 years that I have owned it, i've never had a fire. Not even a small one. But I couldn't tell Osceola County that I am not paying it, because I will take care of it myself. And? How is that relevant to grumbling about one tax and ignoring another equivalent tax?
	__________________ (Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.) Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 30th June 2012 at 06:00 PM.*

30th June 2012, 06:02 PM	#339
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,566	Originally Posted by triforcharity No, I had it right. There are a few exceptions to the tax. I think Native Americans, living on tribe owned land, don't have to pay it, and people who've had a religious belief that they can prove they adhere to, that prevents the use of medicine or medical care. Those are the only people whom are exempt from paying the "No insurance" tax. I do agree that very few will be faced with the tax much past about 2014. Well, unless you live in Florida. Not sure how this is going to work.... http://www.floridatoday.com/viewart/...news\|text\|Home No, you had it wrong because 98% of the population is not going to pay the penalty/tax and that is many many exceptions.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

30th June 2012, 06:22 PM	#340
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,847	Originally Posted by triforcharity No, I had it right. There are a few exceptions to the tax. I think Native Americans, living on tribe owned land, don't have to pay it, and people who've had a religious belief that they can prove they adhere to, that prevents the use of medicine or medical care. Those are the only people whom are exempt from paying the "No insurance" tax. I do agree that very few will be faced with the tax much past about 2014. Well, unless you live in Florida. Not sure how this is going to work.... http://www.floridatoday.com/viewart/20120630/NEWS01/120630002/Gov-Rick-Scott-Florida-won-t-comply-health-care-law?odyssey=tab\|topnews\|text\|Home No there are lots of exceptions: Religious exemptions. People incarcerated. Americans living abroad. Hardship. Then there are people who won't qualify for the penalty even though they aren't buying coverage for themselves: Medicare patients Medicaid patients Employer plans People who don't make enough money will get subsidies. The number of people who will likely pay the penalty (which is $95 in 2014) will be <5%, and those will be 100% made up of people who can afford insurance but choose not to buy it. Not to mention that having insurance is a huge exception to the tax, which is of course the whole point of having it.

30th June 2012, 06:23 PM	#341
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by triforcharity No, I had it right. There are a few exceptions to the tax. I think Native Americans, living on tribe owned land, don't have to pay it, and people who've had a religious belief that they can prove they adhere to, that prevents the use of medicine or medical care. Those are the only people whom are exempt from paying the "No insurance" tax. I do agree that very few will be faced with the tax much past about 2014. Well, unless you live in Florida. Not sure how this is going to work.... http://www.floridatoday.com/viewart/...news\|text\|Home If I recall correctly, the Federal government is allowed to set up health insurance exchanges if a state doesn't act. But if Florida doesn't cooperate, they will end up with a greater percentage of uninsured residents than other states and more people paying the penalty for not having insurance. Florida residents will also have to pay the other taxes that are part of the bill regardless of state cooperation. Hospitals will end up treating some of these people regardless, and shifting the costs to insured patients. Florida residents will end up paying more for insurance. Florida emergency rooms will also have more uninsured patients clogging the waiting rooms.

30th June 2012, 07:31 PM	#342
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	And they'll happily blame the new law.
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	__________________

30th June 2012, 10:38 PM	#343
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,790	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger The choice is, buy the insurance you can afford, OR, pay the tax. Do you have an estimate for what the cheapest possible health insurance would be then? For instance, the cheapest possible car insurance, that still meats all the legal guidelines, is around $30 a month. Remember, someone making minimum wage in this country and working 30 hours a week barely brings home $1000 a month.
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,790	__________________ ________________________

1st July 2012, 04:01 AM	#344
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,757	Rightwing Blogger’s Shocking Discovery: John Roberts Was Blackmailed, Arrests To Come Soon! Quote: Later this afternoon, it’s going to come out that Roberts was coerced. A Secret Service agent overheard Obama and Axelrod discussing the Roberts blackmail. He managed to get them on tape discussing it. Later this afternoon, the whole story will come out, Roberts will issue his REAL opinion, and Obama and Axelrod will be taken away in handcuffs.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

1st July 2012, 04:09 AM	#345
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,757	A Children’s Treasury Of Wingnut Obamacare Freakouts Quote: benshapiro @benshapiro This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration. Quote: Pamela Geller @pamelageller Obama yappin' again-why aren't there any American flags in the frame? Typical The flag to Obama is like the siver cross to Dracula #obamatax Really?? Obama was on the teevee and there wasn't an American flag visible in the background?? This is important somehow??
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

1st July 2012, 06:38 AM	#346
Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance Leader Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 20,516	Originally Posted by Puppycow A Children’s Treasury Of Wingnut Obamacare Freakouts Really?? Obama was on the teevee and there wasn't an American flag visible in the background?? This is important somehow?? Well, if that's the real Pamela Geller, I'm sure it's further proof of the incursion of Sharia law.
	__________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele Don't you wish someone had slapped baby Hitler really really hard? [i] Dr. Buzzo 02/13 [i]

1st July 2012, 06:47 AM	#347
quadraginta What was the question? Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility Posts: 7,908	Originally Posted by Unabogie <snip> Then there are people who won't qualify for the penalty even though they aren't buying coverage for themselves: Medicare patients <snip> Just a small nit to pick here. Most Medicare patients do buy coverage for themselves of one sort or another. If they are not already paying for insurance through some other means (spouse, pension plan, elective private policy,...) they are supposed to purchase Part B coverage from the government. This cost is deducted from any benefits they might receive as a monthly stipend from SSA. Around $100 per month (or more, depending on income.) For some (couples especially) living on disability or retirement income alone this can amount to a substantial percentage of their income. Yes, they can "opt out". But if they choose to do so, and do not provide alternative coverage then up the road they will very likely encounter penalties. Not all that different from the ACA approach.

1st July 2012, 07:12 AM	#348
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths Do you have an estimate for what the cheapest possible health insurance would be then? For instance, the cheapest possible car insurance, that still meats all the legal guidelines, is around $30 a month. Remember, someone making minimum wage in this country and working 30 hours a week barely brings home $1000 a month. The law provides subsidies for households that earn less than 400% of the Federal poverty level. The subsidy limits their total expenditures for health insurance to the range of 2% to 9.5% of total income. A single person household earning minimum wage for 30 hours a week would be very near the poverty level and qualify for the highest subsidy. They would probably qualify for Medicaid, but if they didn't they would pay only 2% of their total income, or roughly $20 a month for health insurance.
	Last edited by Kestrel; 1st July 2012 at 07:14 AM.

1st July 2012, 09:01 AM	#349
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	Once this begins, a very good statistic to pay attention to is how many people actually are assessed the penalty.
gnome Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,869	__________________

1st July 2012, 01:51 PM	#350
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,847	Originally Posted by quadraginta Just a small nit to pick here. Most Medicare patients do buy coverage for themselves of one sort or another. If they are not already paying for insurance through some other means (spouse, pension plan, elective private policy,...) they are supposed to purchase Part B coverage from the government. This cost is deducted from any benefits they might receive as a monthly stipend from SSA. Around $100 per month (or more, depending on income.) For some (couples especially) living on disability or retirement income alone this can amount to a substantial percentage of their income. Yes, they can "opt out". But if they choose to do so, and do not provide alternative coverage then up the road they will very likely encounter penalties. Not all that different from the ACA approach. Thank you. Putting the E in JREF!

1st July 2012, 01:55 PM	#351
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,847	Originally Posted by gnome Once this begins, a very good statistic to pay attention to is how many people actually are assessed the penalty. I wonder if it will differ wildly from the rates in Mass? In Mass, it's 98% participation. But will there be a segment of the nation who will do some sort of crazy civil disobedience that will result in more people incurring the penalty than there should be? We know Jindal is making noises like he won't institute the exchanges, but not Rick Scott is saying the same thing. I wonder if Red Staters will end up with objectors who bring the penalty on themselves so they can scream about TYRANNY? By the way, I'm going to start a thread on what the exchanges will look like in each state. I'm curious about how this is being handled.

1st July 2012, 02:10 PM	#352
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by Unabogie I wonder if it will differ wildly from the rates in Mass? In Mass, it's 98% participation. But will there be a segment of the nation who will do some sort of crazy civil disobedience that will result in more people incurring the penalty than there should be? We know Jindal is making noises like he won't institute the exchanges, but not Rick Scott is saying the same thing. I wonder if Red Staters will end up with objectors who bring the penalty on themselves so they can scream about TYRANNY? Lots of people will make noise, encouraged by the usual right wing pundits on talk radio. The web sites already devoted to idiot legal theories and freeman on the land woo will take up the cause. But in the end, the IRS will collect the tax and assess penalties. And a few of these nut cases will end up in bankruptcy due to medical bills. The brighter residents of the states that don't cooperate will notice that they are paying all the new taxes, but not getting the same level of benefits as the states that do. Perhaps they can convince their neighbors to vote in a new set of politicians.

1st July 2012, 02:18 PM	#353
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,847	Originally Posted by Kestrel Lots of people will make noise, encouraged by the usual right wing pundits on talk radio. The web sites already devoted to idiot legal theories and freeman on the land woo will take up the cause. But in the end, the IRS will collect the tax and assess penalties. And a few of these nut cases will end up in bankruptcy due to medical bills. The brighter residents of the states that don't cooperate will notice that they are paying all the new taxes, but not getting the same level of benefits as the states that do. Perhaps they can convince their neighbors to vote in a new set of politicians. Yeah, I've even read some stuff recently about Teabaggers objecting to the very concept of health insurance and asking "why can't we just pay our doctors in cash, like John Adams did?" It's just so over the top. I hope they get better soon.

1st July 2012, 03:15 PM	#354
Kestrel Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: DM79 Posts: 4,203	Originally Posted by Unabogie Yeah, I've even read some stuff recently about Teabaggers objecting to the very concept of health insurance and asking "why can't we just pay our doctors in cash, like John Adams did?" I suspect you can find someone to do a bit of bloodletting for a fraction of the cost of visiting a licensed doctor. And most likely they will want to be paid in cash.

1st July 2012, 03:49 PM	#355
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860	I imagine most health care providers would prefer to be paid upfont in cash rather than having to deal with insurance companies. Nobody is stopping these morons from doing that. Well, except reality as few people can afford to pay for any kind of healthcare they might need in cash.
The Dark Lord Suspended Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 1,860