Affordable Care Act / ObamaCare

[carlfense]

Lengthy article from the New Yorker about the individual mandate.

What is notable about the conservative response to the individual mandate is not only the speed with which a legal argument that was considered fringe in 2010 had become mainstream by 2012; it’s the implication that the Republicans spent two decades pushing legislation that was in clear violation of the nation’s founding document. Political parties do go through occasional, painful cleansings, in which they emerge with different leaders who hold different positions. This was true of Democrats in the nineteen-nineties, when Bill Clinton passed free trade, deficit reduction, and welfare reform, despite the furious objections of liberals. But in this case the mandate’s supporters simply became its opponent

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/06/25/120625fa_fact_klein?currentPage=all

Fascinating stuff about motivated reasoning and the effect of the partisan press' influence on group thinking.

 

[HuskerFanChuck]

There will be another release on decisions on Thursday. It MIGHT come then, but I wouldn't count on it. Another one next Monday, and then potentially next Wednesday or Thursday, which at this time is the last scheduled decision day. Doesn't mean they can't give out another potential day then, just the last one scheduled at this time. Many pundits think that they'll wait until the last minute because of the magnitude of the decision. It'll be interesting to see the timing nonetheless.

 

['SkersRule]

My objections to Obamacare are:

1) We simply can not afford it. We already borrow from China and have the Federal Reserve print money out of thin air in the neighborhood of hundreds of billions of dollars annually to cover our federal budget now. And the idiots who wrote this ridiculous trash of legislation think we have even more dollars to cover 20-40 million (depending on which numbers you believe) uninsured people? This bill will only cause our debt to go up even higher.

2) That it will be a criminal offense if you refuse to buy in.

 

[krill]

My objections to Obamacare are:

1) We simply can not afford it. We already borrow from China and have the Federal Reserve print money out of thin air in the neighborhood of hundreds of billions of dollars annually to cover our federal budget now. And the idiots who wrote this ridiculous trash of legislation think we have even more dollars to cover 20-40 million (depending on which numbers you believe) uninsured people? This bill will only cause our debt to go up even higher.

2) That it will be a criminal offense if you refuse to buy in.

I don't understand the point of these extremely generalized post...you have time to make a post, but you don't have 5 minutes to fact check your proclamations? The bill has ridged controls for expenditures and according the CBO will reduce spending by $220 billion over the next ten years. The savings projected with changes to Medicare have actually been higher than expected already, somewhat flattening years of uncontrolled growth.

As far as the penalty for not having health insurance, what's so hard to understand about the fact that we all already pay for the uninsured? According to USA Today, in 2009 there were $43 billion in unpaid medical bills, which worked out to each family with insurance absorbing an extra $1,000 in health care cost; i.e. a penalty for having insurance and being responsible. That's like half my yearly out of pocket expenses going strait to the uninsured. I'm sorry but people without insurance that have the ability to obtain it are the real freeloaders here. It's no different than the extra $800 a year I get to pay for my auto and motorcycle insurance for under and uninsured motorist coverage, but at least that's not a hidden expense.

 

['SkersRule]

I don't understand the point of these extremely generalized post...you have time to make a post, but you don't have 5 minutes to fact check your proclamations? The bill has ridged controls for expenditures and according the CBO will reduce spending by $220 billion over the next ten years. The savings projected with changes to Medicare have actually been higher than expected already, somewhat flattening years of uncontrolled growth.

As far as the penalty for not having health insurance, what's so hard to understand about the fact that we all already pay for the uninsured? According to USA Today, in 2009 there were $43 billion in unpaid medical bills, which worked out to each family with insurance absorbing an extra $1,000 in health care cost; i.e. a penalty for having insurance and being responsible. That's like half my yearly out of pocket expenses going strait to the uninsured. I'm sorry but people without insurance that have the ability to obtain it are the real freeloaders here. It's no different than the extra $800 a year I get to pay for my auto and motorcycle insurance for under and uninsured motorist coverage, but at least that's not a hidden expense.

1. Generalized post? Are you making the claim that we can afford our CURRENT federal budget without borrowing from China and the Fed printing money?

2. Your estimation of, and faith in, these "rigid controls to reduce spending" is nothing more than a pie-in-the-sky dream. Government programs, and the bureaucrats who run them, spend money, they don't save it. Every government program ever created has done nothing but grow in size, scope, and funding since the launch of FDR's New Deal. But right, somehow expanding medical coverage will save money. Here's the stupidest part: In a liberal's warped mind, if he's planning on spending 300 billion dollars and only spends 280 billion, then that's a "savings" of 20 billion! One simply can not create, or expand, a social welfare program and save money. The two ideas are diameterically opposed.

It's the same principle liberals take concerning cutting taxes. This is how the left "cuts" taxes: if the current tax rate is 10% and a liberal wants to raise it to 20% but then it only gets raised to 15%, then liberals consider that a 5% tax cut. It doesn't even register in their mind that taxes actually went up 5% because it's a 5% cut in the amount of the increase.

3. I'm talking about being fined or thrown in jail if Obamacare passes because it will then be illegal to not buy in.

 

[carlfense]

1. Generalized post? Are you making the claim that we can afford our CURRENT federal budget without borrowing from China and the Fed printing money?

2. Your estimation of, and faith in, these "rigid controls to reduce spending" is nothing more than a pie-in-the-sky dream. Government programs, and the bureaucrats who run them, spend money, they don't save it. Every government program ever created has done nothing but grow in size, scope, and funding since the launch of FDR's New Deal. But right, somehow expanding medical coverage will save money. Here's the stupidest part: In a liberal's warped mind, if he's planning on spending 300 billion dollars and only spends 280 billion, then that's a "savings" of 20 billion! One simply can not create, or expand, a social welfare program and save money. The two ideas are diameterically opposed.

It's the same principle liberals take concerning cutting taxes. This is how the left "cuts" taxes: if the current tax rate is 10% and a liberal wants to raise it to 20% but then it only gets raised to 15%, then liberals consider that a 5% tax cut. It doesn't even register in their mind that taxes actually went up 5% because it's a 5% cut in the amount of the increase.

I think this is what krill was talking about when he said generalized post. Instead of addressing the actual facts that we know about the ACA you make broad comments about bureaucracy, the New Deal, and warped liberals. It's an effective argument in that there is nothing of substance to respond to. You don't criticize specific aspects of the ACA or the actual costs . . . instead you talk about it in broad partisan platitudes.

3. I'm talking about being fined or thrown in jail if Obamacare passes because it will then be illegal to not buy in.

Further evidence that you haven't really read much in depth about the ACA. You cannot be jailed for failing to buy in.

 

['SkersRule]

I didn't post numbers because I figured that our federal deficit is pretty evident that we can't afford our current federal budget.

:facepalm:

Now here's where my logic gets tricky so try and follow me: because if we could afford our current federal budget we wouldn't be running a deficit and borrowing from China would we?

Oh wait, the federal deficit must be some evil conservative ploy cooked up, fabricated to try and make Obama and the rest of the libs look bad. Yep a bonafide a figment of imagination that's what the deficit is.

You lefties always crack me up. You think that every social program is just free and that it doesn't cost anything.

And if you seriously believe that you can add more people to the federal government's entitlement teat and save money then you are mentally insane and no amount of facts, figures, or reason can save you.

 

[carlfense]

I didn't post numbers because I figured that our federal deficit is pretty evident that we can't afford our current federal budget.

:facepalm:

Now here's where my logic gets tricky so try and follow me: because if we could afford our current federal budget we wouldn't be running a deficit and borrowing from China would we?

Oh wait, the federal deficit must be some evil conservative ploy cooked up, fabricated to try and make Obama and the rest of the libs look bad. Yep a bonafide a figment of imagination that's what the deficit is.

You lefties always crack me up. You think that every social program is just free and that it doesn't cost anything.

And if you seriously believe that you can add more people to the federal government's entitlement teat and save money then you are mentally insane and no amount of facts, figures, or reason can save you.

You're doubling down? Well . . . ok.

I think you are tying to explain why the ACA is bad . . . but all you talk about is the federal deficit, China, lefties, and teats.

Your argument will be more convincing if you actually discuss the law in question instead of your regurgitated talking points. The information is out there. You don't have to resort to this type of post. Then again, if you research the law you might not be able to make fantastic claims about people being thrown in jail for not submitting to tyranny. The reality of the law is far more mundane than the breathless criticism that is bandied about.

 

[Yossarian]

I didn't post numbers because I figured that our federal deficit is pretty evident that we can't afford our current federal budget.

:facepalm:

Now here's where my logic gets tricky so try and follow me: because if we could afford our current federal budget we wouldn't be running a deficit and borrowing from China would we?

Oh wait, the federal deficit must be some evil conservative ploy cooked up, fabricated to try and make Obama and the rest of the libs look bad. Yep a bonafide a figment of imagination that's what the deficit is.

You lefties always crack me up. You think that every social program is just free and that it doesn't cost anything.

And if you seriously believe that you can add more people to the federal government's entitlement teat and save money then you are mentally insane and no amount of facts, figures, or reason can save you.

You're doubling down? Well . . . ok.

I think you are tying to explain why the ACA is bad . . . but all you talk about is the federal deficit, China, lefties, and teats.

Your argument will be more convincing if you actually discuss the law in question instead of your regurgitated talking points. The information is out there. You don't have to resort to this type of post. Then again, if you research the law you might not be able to make fantastic claims about people being thrown in jail for not submitting to tyranny. The reality of the law is far more mundane than the breathless criticism that is bandied about.

Your response would be more convincing if you discussed the law instead of attacking the poster.

So, please tell us, the unwashed masses, what the penalty is for not complying under the mundane ACA.

 

[carlfense]

Your response would be more convincing if you discussed the law instead of attacking the poster.

Where was I attacking the poster? Sensitive flowers, here.

So, please tell us, the unwashed masses, what the penalty is for not complying under the mundane ACA.

Certainly. Perhaps later we can turn the discussion back towards those left Chinese teats.

In 2016, the first year the penalty is fully in place, those who don’t carry insurance will be assessed a $695 fine, per year, or 2.5 percent of their income, whichever is higher. In terms of logistics, the Treasury Department handles the mandate. The penalty gets assessed as a federal tax liability, on the income tax returns that Americans already file yearly. Starting in 2014, federal tax returns will include a new form where Americans will detail their source of health insurance. If they don’t carry coverage—and fall within the mandate— then they’ll get hit with the penalty.

​

http://www.washingto...PzCeS_blog.html

 

[HuskerFanChuck]

No decision today. Four decisions handed down. Only five plus the health care cases to be issued from the '11-'12 term now.

 

[carlfense]

No decision today. Four decisions handed down. Only five plus the health care cases to be issued from the '11-'12 term now.

+1. Thanks for the update.

 

[krill]

So, please tell us, the unwashed masses, what the penalty is for not complying under the mundane ACA.

Require U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. Those without coverage pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085) per family or 2.5% of household income. The penalty will be phased-in according to the following schedule: $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014, 2.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions will be granted for financial hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months, undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option exceeds 8% of an individual’s income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009 the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).

There is also a provision for IRS purposes that states this is not a criminal penalty or a penalty that the IRS can collect with levies, liens, or garnishments...i.e. they cannot collect if you refuse to pay it. It's not that hard to find a summary with this thing called google, and it's outlined on page 791 of the bill which took me under a minute to find using ctrl+f "penalty".

Anyway most people seem to think the individual mandate is going to be thrown out, but it won't make that much of a difference if 1-2% still refuse obtain health insurance if becomes easier and more affordable to obtain. Or possibly other mechanisms will be put in place to assure health care providers that they don't have to treat individuals who willfully neglected financial responsibility.

 

[Yossarian]

Anyway most people seem to think the individual mandate is going to be thrown out, but it won't make that much of a difference if 1-2% still refuse obtain health insurance if becomes easier and more affordable to obtain. Or possibly other mechanisms will be put in place to assure health care providers that they don't have to treat individuals who willfully neglected financial responsibility.

Is something missing here or maybe a typo?

Word of advice - if you're going to be a wiseguy, read what you're saying before you hit "Post."

 

[krill]

No, nothing is missing. I don't get what's so hard to understand about the concept of being responsible for your health care cost. What I don't understand is the vigorous defense of the theoretical individuals who still wouldn't want to obtain health insurance if it was guaranteed to be issued and reasonably affordable.

As for finding bill text...yes I was being a wiseguy about it, but it's really not that hard to find full text and summaries of legislation. For a nation that spends massive quantities of time listening to partisan media and battling things out on the Internet, we sure do seem to have an incredible aversion to actually looking at legislation and formulating our own opinions.