Supreme Court Health Care Decision Thread

[Belz...]

Outside of conservative fantasies, did it ever mean anything? At one time or another, America has had a government that enslaved people based on race, put them in camps based on nationality, criminalized criticism of the government, forced women to carry children they didn't want, forcibly sterilized people, censored information, censored pornography, fined people for saying "bad" words, forced people to pray, forbade what chemicals or drugs people can ingest, forced people into military service. I can go on and on.

But noooo, it only is NOW. When government has reformed healthcare (for good or ill) that "limited and enumerated powers" means nothing.

This.

 

[RandFan]

If I don't buy health insurance, I am taxed. But, I purchased nothing and received no services.

That's a way to argue against this model but in the end it's just a perception. Bare with me here.

You are taxed to pay for the military. You can say that you "purchased" nothing and "received" nothing but in fact you got value for your money. A defense of your country. Likewise you are taxed to pay for healthcare in order to have a better society. Your lot in life is better because society is better. Take a moment to consider that the US was the only industrialized nation that didn't ensure every citizen had adequate health care. Why do you suppose that all of these other nations do that? Is it because health care goes a long ways to improve society?

I am taxed for NOT doing something.

Yes, you could argue that and that is one way to perceive it but, another way to look at it is that everyone is taxed to have a health care system. It's just that the meme that "govt wants to take away your health care" has been propagated so well by the GOP that this was necessary to overcome that objection. There are not many ways to overcome that objection and still provide everyone health care.

Should I also be taxed because I don't do something else?

Bear this in mind, there are many services the govt offers that you don't avail yourself of. You could make the argument that since you don't use foreign trade diplomats you ought not be taxed to pay into the general fund to pay for these services you don't directly use. It's the same net effect. The point is that having trade diplomats improves the society you live in and therefore there is value to what your taxes provide.

What if the government wants all old cars replaced with newer, greener, more fuel efficient vehicle. I mean, surely that will help everyone, right? Less fuel consumed, less Co2 emissions, etc. But, I love my old Explorer. Should I have to pay a fine for not upgrading? Seems silly to me.

I don't find it silly at all. You live in a society. What you do affects others. In societies we pass laws to benefit the society. Sometimes those laws over reach and cause more harm than good. That is a perfectly valid point of concern when it comes to taxation and govt policies. But the idea that govt can't pass laws for the good of all citizens isn't a good argument. Now, you might not think that you are making that argument but without realizing it, you are.

I just see punishing me for NOT purchasing something, seems.....unfair.

ACA is a model that simply causes you to look at the program in a way differently than other govt programs. The affect is the same. Had the govt simply levied a tax on everyone and you didn't use the services then it would be the very same net result but would just look different.

 

[rustypouch]

Think of it as a penalty being collected as a tax.

But then, using the same rationale, there's lots of taxes for things you don't do.

There's a tax credit for having children. Does that mean I'm taxed if I don't have them?

Here, there's a tax credit for first-time home buyers. I guess I'm taxed because I still rent.

Since there are all sorts of deductions for doing things, does not doing them mean you're taxed for not doing them?

 

[Bob001]

....If I don't buy health insurance, I am taxed. But, I purchased nothing and received no services..... I just see punishing me for NOT purchasing something, seems.....unfair.

Look at it this way. Everybody is subject to the tax. You are excused from paying the tax if you buy health insurance. It's not a punishment for not buying health insurance. It's a reward for buying health insurance.

 

[JeanFromBNA]

Look at it this way. Everybody is subject to the tax. You are excused from paying the tax if you buy health insurance. It's not a punishment for not buying health insurance. It's a reward for buying health insurance.

Isn't that like, "I'm not taking pie from you, I'm giving pie to me?"

 

[JeanFromBNA]

From channel surfing the news, it's a battle between talking points of 'government control of health care' and the benefits individuals can relate to the AHCA (mainly insuring kids 26 and under and people with preexisting conditions). (snip)

I've never understood the objection that insurance companies had to parents carrying kids on their policies to age 26. They still get to collect a premium for them. My company's per person health insurance costs were never cheaper than when we had a bunch of single males under 30 years old on the policy. That demographic is very healthy.

 

[pgwenthold]

I am taxed for NOT doing something.

Do you have kids? I'm guessing not, because if you did, this is obvious.

I get a tax exemption merely for the fact that I have kids. Tax money that I don't have to pay and those without kids do. So they are taxed for NOT having kids. Because I have kids, I am exempt X amount of tax.

People who have health insurance similarly get the tax exemption, and people without insurance do not.

Not only is it not unprecedented, it is part and parcel of our tax system.

 

[RandFan]

Isn't that like, "I'm not taking pie from you, I'm giving pie to me?"

I love Penn and Teller and that's an effective if not short sighted perspective. Other than anarchy I don't know how one improves the overall society and not provide social services. Certainly communism doesn't appear to work so there is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to taking resources from one citizen to provide the to others who don't pay. A poor person who isn't taxed benefits from a military. Which is in effect taking resources from the rich to give value to the poor.

 

[Bob001]

Isn't that like, "I'm not taking pie from you, I'm giving pie to me?"

But in our system everybody is guaranteed some access to health care, at least emergency care, and part of what boosts the costs for everybody is that we all share the cost of uncompensated care, and we all share the costs of emergency treatment for someone who can't afford to go to a doctor before his routine problem becomes an emergency. So maybe this is something along the lines of "Everybody gets pie, and we won't charge you for a fork if you bring your own." (Analogies are never perfect.)

 

[The Dark Lord]

I've never understood the objection that insurance companies had to parents carrying kids on their policies to age 26. They still get to collect a premium for them. My company's per person health insurance costs were never cheaper than when we had a bunch of single males under 30 years old on the policy. That demographic is very healthy.

Do they? I was enrolled in my dad's plan until I was about 21. I am pretty sure he didn't pay any extra premium; there is just a flat price for himself and his family. Maybe his employer (the federal government) payed extra? Or maybe it was just because he has a good plan (Congress uses the same ones) but most people have to pay extra?

 

[triforcharity]

Quick, off the cuff (and possibly wrong ) answer:

The government doesn't own the company you buy milk from, either, yet you're taxed there too. And the tax goes towards the government health programs (such as Medicare) and some sort of subsidy.

Anyone who knows better, please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's I understand it.

No, but the government does provide the FDA, which regulates food to maintain a safe food supply for all.

But, buying milk, I've received a product. Paying a tax on, essentially, nothing, absurd.

 

[triforcharity]

Think of it as a penalty being collected as a tax.

If it's a penalty, I have a right to due process to fight the penalty, which there is no provision for in the bill. So, it can't be a penalty.

A much better way, would be to just straight raise taxes. At least then it would be fair for everyone, and not target some people over others.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

As an aside, I did some more research last night, (until almost 5am my time) and I like the whole idea really, as a whole, because it is the first step towards a universal healthcare, which I so VERY much like!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
Justice Roberts, in his opinion said "makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”

My problem with this is simple. It's a tax on nothing. I received no product or service, and I would be taxed on...nothing.

If I buy gas, I pay the tax. But, I received something in return, 1 gallon of gas.
If I buy milk, I pay the tax. But, I received 1 gallon of milk.

If I don't buy health insurance, I am taxed. But, I purchased nothing and received no services. ....

Wrong framing. You are being taxed to pay the costs the rest of us incur by your not carrying insurance.

You have mandatory insurance laws to drive because you could cause someone else to incur costs if you hit them with your vehicle. But you don't get anything in exchange for that insurance you are forced to buy. The fact you drive a car "aka get something" is only different because you choose to focus on the 'owning the car' aspect of the equation.

But if you instead focus on the "you could cause someone else to incur costs without insurance" you have a legitimate analogy.

 

[grunion]

Funny, but I'm calling "Photoshop"

I can see why you would think that (too perfect,) but it's an AP photo that I pulled it from the LA Times website. I love it when Boehner cries.

 

[bignickel]

I keep getting taxed by something called the "fire department". Taking my money, and not doing anything for me (I don't have anything on fire, of course).

Why pay for something I haven't used, and have no idea if I will ever use?

And don't get me started on all the federal highways in states I don't go to, or schools, or that 'police department' I keep hearing about...

 

[triforcharity]

Look at it this way. Everybody is subject to the tax. You are excused from paying the tax if you buy health insurance. It's not a punishment for not buying health insurance. It's a reward for buying health insurance.

Ok, it's a reward for doing something, and a penalty for not. No due process though. Can't call it a penalty, THAT would ABSOLUTELY be ruled unconstitutional, as there is no provision for appeal.

As I said above, I am for it, and I like it, but I see it from others point of view also, but didn't yesterday. I did my own, complete research, and came to my own conclusions.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

LOL!! Stundie worthy almost!!

Person 1 - I don't want socialized medicine!! I'm moving!

person 2 - How 'bout Canada?

Person 1 - Sure!!! I've always like gravy and french fries!

Bystander - Uh.....morons.....bad news for you....Do you know one of the 90 different languages spoken in Ethiopia by chance? How about Somali?? Those are two good choice for you two dunces!!



Sorry, hilarious!!

While not quite as funny as that ignorance, here's Reagan saying Medicare was going to destroy the free market and lead to socialism.


Sorry, it's 10 minutes long. It includes a rant about social security as well. I'll look for something more concise and leave this for anyone who thinks Reagan's being taken out of context.

 

[RandFan]

As I said above, I am for it, and I like it, but I see it from others point of view also, but didn't yesterday. I did my own, complete research, and came to my own conclusions.

IMO, it's just ad hoc rationalization. These people would have been just as unhappy if not more so with a single payer system. It's just ad hoc rationalization to justify a preconceived view point. I've explained why the argument is simply a perception error but I'm guessing you didn't read my post.

 

[Sabretooth]

Look at it this way. Everybody is subject to the tax. You are excused from paying the tax if you buy health insurance. It's not a punishment for not buying health insurance. It's a reward for buying health insurance.

I disagree with this...

My premiums are about $1,200 per year, not including any co-pays I might have...which is exceptional low considering what I see others pay. Some pay as much as $5,000 a year.

If I didn't have an HCP, I'd be fined $600.

I hardly see paying 2-9 times more than the fine a "reward". Some people are just plain going to not buy a HCP because, heck, it's still cheaper not to.

I get it...it's suppose to help offset care costs. But the math doesn't add up. Now that HCP's can't deny coverage for illness/condition, they are going to pay more claims out. Premiums are going to go up, and I'd put money on it.

Do you really think the gov't is going to use those penalty taxes to help health care costs? At a time where they are raiding the pension fund to try and stops the skids on the national deficit?

Seriously, I've never seen one gov't run operation run smoothly or run the way it was intended. I don't have any faith in this new legislation (or the gov't in general).

 

[RandFan]

Ok, it's a reward for doing something, and a penalty for not. No due process though. Can't call it a penalty, THAT would ABSOLUTELY be ruled unconstitutional, as there is no provision for appeal.

Interesting but I don't think it necessarily follows. Further, I'm not sure there is no basis for appeal. What is your basis to make that claim?