Supreme Court Health Care Decision Thread

[grunion]

...his words not mine.

O'Reilly Says He'll "Apologize For Being An Idiot" If Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Reform Law

He is so damn smug and arrogant.

Great clip! The guest (insofar as he let her speak) pretty much nails the argument. It can't be easy to stand up to that kind of bullying but she does it without losing her cool. I look forward to O'Reilly fulfilling his promise (I think he will.)

 

[Belz...]

Bare with me here.

No, please.

 

[RandFan]

I get it...it's suppose to help offset care costs. But the math doesn't add up.

Clearly you are able to see something no one involved in the formulation of the plan could. And, following your logic, clearly the Massachusetts plan doesn't work. Except that it does.

 

[RandFan]

No, please.

I was hopping I could be Frank with you.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

No, it's a rebate that is applied to everyone, no matter the financial circumstances, or personal decisions.

And yes, I do have kids. 3 of them actually.

 

[Cain]

There is a string of thought that the four-justice dissent was at one time expected to be the MAJORITY opinion. When discussing Justice Ginsburg's remarks on the Commerce Clause, the joint dissenters refer to her opinion as "the dissent." Maybe it's not exactly wrong, but it is strange for dissenters to refer to an opinion with which they totally disagree as "the dissent."

Which is fueling speculation that Roberts switched over at the last minute. Kennedy's probably furious, as he did not get to decide the most hyped case of the decade.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

SG, IMO, it's not wrong framing. I am required to have insurance on my vehicle. If I choose not to, I am not allowed to drive on public roads. I make the choice to drive on public roads, and as such, abide by those rules. Now, if the government went and PENALIZED me, because I made the choice to not drive, that is what this would be akin to.

Insurance also gives ME a direct benefit. If I am in an accident, and my poor Explorer is totaled, I get money to purchase a new vehicle. Directly benefits me.

 

[triforcharity]

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?

It does. If I am penalized for say, not paying my income taxes, I can request a hearing to dispute the penalty.

If I receive a ticket, a penalty for not obeying the state speed limit, I can elect to have a court hearing to dispute the penalty.

Calling this a penalty, and not allowing any recourse and due process, violates mine, and your, constitutional right.

 

[triforcharity]

I was hopping I could be Frank with you.

I thought your name was Rand, but if you want to be Frank, that's cool. Will you call me Salty? Always wanted a cool nickname....

 

[Brainster]

Here's an interesting article from AP. This is where states stand on implementing health care law.

http://m.apnews.mobi/ap/db_6776/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=S4ha0QCe

I also have a question. Someone said to me under this new law, someone can choose to not have insurance, pay the tax, yet get a credit so that offsets the cost of the tax. Personally, I haven't seen that (he said he read it in the Wall Street Journal but won't sight the source).

Has anyone heard of this offset and what are the details of it?

I don't know about that, but I do know that the tax is much cheaper than buying health insurance. So if you are healthy and young, it's pretty easy to game the system. Don't buy health insurance and just pay the tax. If you do get sick, go out and buy health insurance, because after all, they can't discriminate against you for your now pre-existing condition.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Can you dumb this down for me? It's a little too....."political" (for lack of a better word) for me.

Thanks. (Cheers RandFan! Good to see you again sir!)

 

[The Dark Lord]

Insurance also gives ME a direct benefit. If I am in an accident, and my poor Explorer is totaled, I get money to purchase a new vehicle. Directly benefits me.

Well, you're not required to buy collision insurance (well, a bank will require it if you have a loan but the state doesn't). You're required to buy liability insurance to protect others in case you cause an accident. I suppose you could say a direct benefit to you is that you're not personally liable for damages.

 

[DavidJames]

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.

Which is why they didn't refer to it that way.

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.

I think others explained it better then I did between my post and yours. Consider having it like a tax credit available to those who have health ins.

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!

We agree 100%

 

[DavidJames]

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?

It will vary based on the insurance company and plan.

With my previous employer, my health insurance was free. I paid extra for my wife and still more for each child. So yes, I was very happy when each got their own insurance - saved us a bundle.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The problem that I personally see with that line of reasoning, is I am not taxed because I have minimal clothes, and haven't replaced my wardrobe in many years.

I also am not taxed because I do not have a vehicle. Nor am I taxed if I do not buy a house. I'm not taxed because I don't buy any vegetables, ( I grow much of my own, and haven't bought a vegetable from a supermarket in over 6 years)
I'm not taxed because I use a lot of solar power in my house, and average less than $100 a month for electricity.

I WOULD be taxed if I didn't buy health insurance. Doesn't that seem wrong to you?

You are taxed to pay for police and fire services you don't use. You are taxed to build roads and other infrastructure and you don't use all that you pay for.

If I pay medical costs I am taxed to pay the costs of people who don't pay for thiers.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I think the Court is basically right to say that accepting the Government's argument here would have worked a major expansion to existing Commerce Clause doctrine

This is pretty much what Roberts said in his rejection of the Commerce Clause argument. What makes me think Roberts is a complete retard on this issue is that he claims the Constitution can't be interpreted to give Congress such broad power, then goes ahead and gives it to them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I honestly don't believe anyone really knows for certain yet. It's DESIGNED to lower your premiums, and makes sense that it WOULD, but insurance companies are known for being shysters....

That's why the bill will force insurers to give rebates to 13 million subscribers who the insurers over billed already.

I am with you though. I don't know a whole lot about this whole thing yet, but I am afraid of what will come.

You have nothing to fear in the bill. You might have reason to fear the success of the right to falsely frame the bill and in doing so, convince people to vote against their interests yet again.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ok, makes a little sense. Only one problem: The government doesn't provide those facilities, for the most part.

Not true. The tax base supports a large part of the health care infrastructure. Much if it comes from property taxes in this state. I don't know if all states are the same.

All three of them are NPO's, and owned by privately run companies. So, the government doesn't run those companies.

Does a large portion of this tax go towards supporting those NPO's? If so, I am ok with that. All three are good facilities.

A lot of their revenues come from the government unless they turn Medicare patients down.

(Here's the irony- I work in the healthcare industry....)

I'm curious, what field, if I may ask?

 

[RandFan]

Can you dumb this down for me? It's a little too....."political" (for lack of a better word) for me.

Thanks. (Cheers RandFan! Good to see you again sir!)

You too tri.

• Govt provides for lots of services and not every person uses every one of those services. Govt could have done the same with health care through taxation. Healthy people who didn't need health care would in essence pay for care they didn't use.
• Such a plan is anathema to the GOP who for decades have been fighting such a "takeover". They have argued that what is most important for citizens is that they have the opportunity to keep what they already have.
• So, one solution to this was to let everyone keep what they have but also ensure that everyone can get affordable health care. But that doesn't work very well if healthy people choose to opt out.
• So, the President adopted a plan that was developed and pushed by the GOP. Further, Mitt Romney enacted the same plan in Massachusetts.

So, bottom line, whether it's a tax up front or a penalty if you don't purchase private insurance, at the end of the day the results are the same. You will pay for something that you won't necessarily use.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's an interesting article from AP. This is where states stand on implementing health care law.

http://m.apnews.mobi/ap/db_6776/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=S4ha0QCe

I also have a question. Someone said to me under this new law, someone can choose to not have insurance, pay the tax, yet get a credit so that offsets the cost of the tax. Personally, I haven't seen that (he said he read it in the Wall Street Journal but won't sight the source).

Has anyone heard of this offset and what are the details of it?

The offset is a tax deduction for your health insurance costs. You can't get the credit without receipts for the payments unless you lie and risk an audit.