SCOTUS strikes down mandate in health law

[cyberdude558]

This law is going to screw up our system.

Many doctors are either planning to retire early, leave the profession, or go into private practice. This is what happened in many European systems and it lead to a two-tier system. The rich will have access to the best doctors and the best procedures. The poor get stuck with the left overs and long waiting lists.

One survey showed as many as 40% of doctors plan to do this. Our healthcare system will become a catastrophe if that happens.

[Brahmal]

And for someone smarter than me - especially in Constitutional Law (that is a wide ranging group).  What type of tax is is when one is forced against their preference to buy healthcare insurance or pay a tax penalty for not buying.  I am recalling adjustment of the Constitution to create the Federal Income tax - prior to that excise taxes were either all or a major portion of the Federal taxes included in government power.  I simply wonder if this new Tax, is even legal.  Well up until yesterday.

If someone can afford to have health insurance but refuses to, they are an idiot as far as I'm concerned, which is why I've never been able to get that angry about the mandate.  I know the one of the beauties of America is that we have the freedom to be morons if we want to, but if said moron gets sick and I end up indirectly paying for his bills through rising premiums in my health insurance, then I have a problem with that. 

From what I understand the legality of the mandate as a tax can be interpreted in two ways.  First, is as a tax penalty (which is what's being discussed ad nauseam right now.) 

The second way is more interesting, that the mandate is actually a new universal tax.  If you have health insurance, you get a tax break equal to the tax itself.  Seems like a silly distinction but that's legal parsing for you, I'm sure John Roberts would see it right away. 

[dbucfan]

The idiots will be paying the lesser fee - be it mandate according to Barry or Tax according to the Chief Justice.  And Barrycare's tax/mandate penalty will save a pittance for those who opt to pay the tax rather than buy the insurance - there is little change for others paying indirectly (or directly in my mind) for those "morons" as you called them.  Isn't it nice to have others determine what you will pay for and what you would rather not pay for, like the choices others make for themselves? 

And should the government decide we all should buy Government Motors vehicles next year, or pay a tax for not buying one, we will see who feels they shouldn't be "that angry" about the mandate/tax.  In the meantime Romney is now a cure for a problem - along with with the replacement of a couple of Senators.

[cyberdude558]

The penalty or tax or whatever the hell you want to call it is FAR less than the cost of insurance premiums. A young, healthy guy who hasn't been to the doctor in years will simply pay the tax.

In other words, this solves absolutely nothing. People who have no insurance and continue to free-load off the system will continue to do so. Meanwhile the rest of us who do have insurance will see our premiums continue to rise since Obamacare does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to lower healthcare costs.

Plus one study I read showed that a total of 30 million Americans will LOSE their employer-provided health insurance within the next few years. It simply becomes too expensive for many businesses to carry, so they will make the financial decision to drop the coverage and pay the tax.

[dbucfan]

If I recall - that is a temporary situation cyber - and it increases in cost year after year.  And no, it doesn't improve anything insofar as Barrycare itself costs.  It is a the road to the ever popular single payers.  Wonder if there will be an alteration to make certain all past federal Congressional and Executive Branch - hell, the entire Federal Government - be a part of all the happiness. 

[Biggs3535]

[CBWx2]

What Mr. Moore I'm sure is fully aware of is that the tax/penalty is only for people who don't buy healthcare. The bill allows little excuses for people not to buy healthcare because the cost of premiums are going to be mitigated by a tax refund for people who can't afford them. So in other words, the plan will help you buy insurance if you can't afford it, so there is no reason for you to not get it. People who don't have insurance are a strain on the system, because when people don't pay their medical bills, hospitals raise the costs on those that do to make up for it. Therefor, not getting health insurance that is subsidized is not only irresponsible for you, but it affects everyone else negatively by raising their costs, so yeah, they should be penalized if they don't buy in. It's no different than forcing people to buy auto insurance if they drive a car, and fining them if they drive without it, and auto insurance isn't even subsidized.

Another misleading fact that Moore trotted out was how premium costs have risen. They have risen because the mandate factor of the bill hasn't gone into effect yet. When more people are paying premiums to HC companies through exchanges, that is the factor that is going to make the prices decrease. It hasn't happened yet, and Moore is being intentionally misleading in his analysis.

[Biggs3535]

The bill allows little excuses for people not to buy healthcare because the cost of premiums are going to be mitigated by a tax refund for people who can't afford them. So in other words, the plan will help you buy insurance if you can't afford it, so there is no reason for you to not get it.

Yippie!!!  Free Health Care!!!!

It's no different than forcing people to buy auto insurance if they drive a car, and fining them if they drive without it, and auto insurance isn't even subsidized.

This really is an ignorant argument.  I wish I were stunned that it's gained so much traction among the left, but I'm not.

[CBWx2]

It's no different than forcing people to buy auto insurance if they drive a car, and fining them if they drive without it, and auto insurance isn't even subsidized.

This really is an ignorant argument.  I wish I were stunned that it's gained so much traction among the left, but I'm not.

How so?

[Biggs3535]

It's no different than forcing people to buy auto insurance if they drive a car, and fining them if they drive without it, and auto insurance isn't even subsidized.

This really is an ignorant argument.  I wish I were stunned that it's gained so much traction among the left, but I'm not.

How so?

It's been discussed on this board many, many times before.  Auto Insurance is required for damage done to other driver's and their vehicles in an accident caused by me.  Unless I'm stuffing the face of some random stranger and causing them health problems, the auto insurance comparison doesn't hold water.

[dbucfan]

What Mr. Moore I'm sure is fully aware of is that the tax/penalty is only for people who don't buy healthcare. The bill allows little excuses for people not to buy healthcare because the cost of premiums are going to be mitigated by a tax refund for people who can't afford them. So in other words, the plan will help you buy insurance if you can't afford it, so there is no reason for you to not get it. People who don't have insurance are a strain on the system, because when people don't pay their medical bills, hospitals raise the costs on those that do to make up for it. Therefor, not getting health insurance that is subsidized is not only irresponsible for you, but it affects everyone else negatively by raising their costs, so yeah, they should be penalized if they don't buy in. It's no different than forcing people to buy auto insurance if they drive a car, and fining them if they drive without it, and auto insurance isn't even subsidized.

Another misleading fact that Moore trotted out was how premium costs have risen. They have risen because the mandate factor of the bill hasn't gone into effect yet. When more people are paying premiums to HC companies through exchanges, that is the factor that is going to make the prices decrease. It hasn't happened yet, and Moore is being intentionally misleading in his analysis.

It is not like a pool of magic money has suddenly been discovered - whether the money comes from premiums or tax dollars - the fact remains there is no more money except that which is coming from the citizens of the country.  The strain on the system is not relieved - unless of course the folks who haven't been paying for health care are suddenly going to show up with money - and it is enough to cover the costs of their health care services.

And I have explained the difference between automobile liability coverage vs healthcare coverages repeated.  The first is a requirement IF one is going to drive a care - it is financial responsibility that is being transferred to a mandated limit for damage or injuries you cause to OTHERS.   They are as similar as apples and gorillas. 

Premiums are increasing because coverage is being increased.  Extending the age of coverage, eliminating the rating basis for different classes of folks, eliminating limitations are some of the examples.  Insurance companies evaluate risks and  exposures based upon actuarial determinations that have been changed by the HC law.  With the change comes cost.  And for the record - creating a bureaucracy to oversee coverage, in addition to that of insurers is a HUGE administrative cost.  One which will drain even more money from the citizenry for the same damned product.  And the new product will bring things you and I won't care for, over a dozen new taxes including increased payroll taxes to fund those who will be telling doctors what to treat you and how much they can charge. 

It is not a smart way to handle the issue CBW, as well as they government handles its' current monopoly - or at least it was a monopoly until the private sector found better ways to provide mailing services - you can expect their HC operations will be far less effective, and far more costly. 

[VinBucFan]

And for someone smarter than me - especially in Constitutional Law (that is a wide ranging group).  What type of tax is is when one is forced against their preference to buy healthcare insurance or pay a tax penalty for not buying.  I am recalling adjustment of the Constitution to create the Federal Income tax - prior to that excise taxes were either all or a major portion of the Federal taxes included in government power.  I simply wonder if this new Tax, is even legal.  Well up until yesterday.

If someone can afford to have health insurance but refuses to, they are an idiot as far as I'm concerned, which is why I've never been able to get that angry about the mandate.  I know the one of the beauties of America is that we have the freedom to be morons if we want to, but if said moron gets sick and I end up indirectly paying for his bills through rising premiums in my health insurance, then I have a problem with that. 

From what I understand the legality of the mandate as a tax can be interpreted in two ways.  First, is as a tax penalty (which is what's being discussed ad nauseam right now.) 

The second way is more interesting, that the mandate is actually a new universal tax.  If you have health insurance, you get a tax break equal to the tax itself.  Seems like a silly distinction but that's legal parsing for you, I'm sure John Roberts would see it right away.

You're not paying for indignant care through higher premiums youre paying for profitability. For profit health care companies claim indignant care is one reason you pay $18 for a tablet of Tylenol but show me the health care provider ( dictor or for profit hospital) that us losing money? And I don't mean on paper I mean actual cash flow. The reason the Massachusetts plan is a failure is because even though it expanded coverage ( to ostensibly "cure" the ailment you complain of) premiums have NOT gone down. Why? Because health care costs have NOT gone down. How is Barrycare different than Mass.? I honestly do not know. What does Barrycare do about the actual cost of healthcare?

[dbucfan]

Barrycare has already struck the deal with Big Pharma that drugs will not be purchased from less expensive suppliers out of the US - so get used to the Tylenol prices.  Oh yea, Barry is going to get the fraud out of Medicare - something about 50-100 billion a year.  Surely that is in place now

[VinBucFan]

Lol at my iPhone.  Sorry about all the messed up words.

[CBWx2]

A) When you don't have health care and you go to the emergency room to treat an illness or ailment and can't pay the bill, it does effect other people by raising the cost of healthcare. Hospitals don't just eat the loss. They pass it on to the insurance companies by raising the price of services. The insurance companies, in turn, pass it on to the consumers by raising premiums, copays, and scaling back on coverage.

B) While it is true that you can avoid paying for car insurance by not driving a car, you cannot simply choose to not get sick. Therefor, healthcare should be required for everyone so that no one is adversly affected by someone else's irresponsibility.