Supreme Court Health Care Decision Thread

[Kestrel]

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.

The insurance company is not responsible for the bills accrued before you manage to buy insurance. By the time you wake from a coma following a motorcycle accident your medical bills probably exceed your net worth.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

I'm pretty sure it's all about the numbers. Somewhere in those premiums and expenditures older kids carried at the lower rate of dependents must not be so profitable.

 

[pgwenthold]

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

1) The children's tax credit is not applied to everyone, only those that have kids, and
2) Having kids is a personal decision.

If you chose to not have kids, you pay more in taxes. If you chose to not have insurance, you pay more in taxes.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

This recently over-marketed Libertarian narrative that the 'collective expenses' of a society are just a means of redistributing the wealth is a dangerous narrative.

What's worse is all the unnoticed real re-distribution that is going upward to corporations like the oil companies, the military industrial complex and like the farm subsidies that go with certain parcels of land and are not based on any real need to keep commodity prices stable.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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...

I was also thinking the person is getting an entire emergency care system from the EMS in the field to the ED and all the hospital and surgical support systems in place for that tax 'for nothing'.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

You don't have to insure your own vehicle to drive. You have to insure the other guy's. I don't carry collision on my son's old beater car.

I'm going to repeat what I said above to try to get through the barrier you are putting up here in your thinking. You are getting an entire emergency care system from the EMS in the field to the ED and all the hospital and surgical support systems in place for that tax 'for nothing'. As long as the EMS and the ED cannot refuse to treat you if you experience a catastrophic health event, you are getting something.

It's all how you frame the narrative.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

So you are upset they have no enforcement for the penalty?

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Correct. I will directly benefit. I will also benefit if I am injured, as it will cover my medical expenses.

 

[triforcharity]

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

They as in the SCOTUS? I was simply making a point to another poster here, that was all.

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.

But, it's really not. People don't get a rebate if they already have health insurance. People do now. But now it makes those that don't, who can't claim that rebate on their taxes, pay more in taxes. Above and beyond not getting the deduction.

 

[JeanFromBNA]

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?

Depends on the plan. The BCBS plan that we have charges extra per person up to a "family," but rates change every year. So, yes, an employee, spouse, and two kids would pay the same rate as a family with one kid. But I would expect our rates to rise the next year to cover the extra kid(s).

 

[Neally]

I know. It's like when people get taxed for speeding...

I know. It's great when it's a penalty when it has to be in alignment with campaign promises, like a speeding ticket, but then becomes a tax in order to make it constitutional. You really can have it both ways!

 

[triforcharity]

You are taxed to pay for police and fire services you don't use.

I directly benefit from their presence, and can utilize them at any cost. It's also a law that the government provide those services. However, everyone does not pay those taxes. Here in my county, and city, I pay those taxes because I own my home. People whom rent, or live in apartments, do not pay. Granted, the property owners do.... But I digress.

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

And those I can use at any time, without additional fees, for the most part. (toll roads of course. Plus, the trucking companies that supply my food, water, and commercial goods use them, and as such, greatly benefit me)

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

No, you pay medical costs because medical facilities pass their losses on to the insurance companies, and the insurance companies pass that fee on to you. It is NOT a tax levied by the government. The government doesn't run the hospitals (for the most part) private companies and NPO's do.



(Just whatever you do, don't take anything I say personally. I fully support AHCA because it DOES make it fair for everyone, and makes our country, as a whole, better. I'm simply basing this from "their" side.)

 

[triforcharity]

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

Really? Citation please? That wasn't something I saw....

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.

I fear nothing, and if you'd have read my more recent posts, you'd realize that I am 100% FOR AHCA. Why there's such a stink about it is because of idiots who've not done their own research, and adhere to party lines like rabid dogs.

It's stupid NOT to have this.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

Some do, some do not.

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

And that makes no difference. The hospital provided a service, and as such, should be paid for their service. They are also very much funded by private insurance also.

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

Firefighter paramedic. (Irony, I know.... )

 

[RandFan]

I directly benefit from their presence, and can utilize them at any cost.

I'm a bit dubious as to a "direct" benefit. I could be persuaded a bit more when it comes to the police as simply being there reduces the likelihood of crime. I'm not sure to what extent the presence of fire departments affect the likelihood of fires. So lets focus on them. You benefit from living in a society with healthy citizens. Almost all industrialized nations provide UHC. They don't do it simply because they care. They do it because, like fire departments, keeping citizens healthy is very, very good for society. Sickness and disease are corrosive to societies. Being empathetic evolved social creatures, failing to adequately see to the health of citizens affects many if not most of us in a negative way. I doubt you would want to live in a slum in India, right? The knowledge of suffering causes stress and discomfort. We care about our fellow citizens more than many of us even know.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

So, basically, what you're saying is that people were afraid (really, the big insurance companies were afraid) that they were not going to have the choice of insurance companies.

Then, when the democrats put a bill together that countered that, and went above and beyond, they (Republicans) still didn't like it. Why?

Insurance companies couldn't make the huge profits that they do, and the health industry couldn't be their scapegoat anymore.

Gotcha. What a tangled web we weave....

 

[RandFan]

So, basically, what you're saying is that people were afraid (really, the big insurance companies were afraid) that they were not going to have the choice of insurance companies.

Then, when the democrats put a bill together that countered that, and went above and beyond, they (Republicans) still didn't like it. Why?

Insurance companies couldn't make the huge profits that they do, and the health industry couldn't be their scapegoat anymore.

Gotcha. What a tangled web we weave....

Good post. One small correction though. It was the GOP that put the bill together. It was the GOP that first tried to implement the plan in the 80s. A Republican, Romney, was the first GOP leader to implement such a plan.

They saw the writing on the wall and figured that this bill was better for the insurance companies than a single payer system that doesn't need insurance companies at all.

Now they oppose all of their ideas that the Democrats co-opt for political purposes. Cap and trade? A GOP invention that the GOP opposes.

 

[triforcharity]

So you are upset they have no enforcement for the penalty?

SG, you're smarter than that. Someone postured that it was a reward for buying health insurance. Which, the opposite of a reward is a penalty.

Hence, it could not be considered a reward, it's a rebate for some, and a tax for some.

 

[triforcharity]

I'm a bit dubious as to a "direct" benefit. I could be persuaded a bit more when it comes to the police as simply being there reduces the likelihood of crime. I'm not sure to what extent the presence of fire departments affect the likelihood of fires. So lets focus on them.

Fire prevention is a big part of the fire service. Making out public buildings like supermarkets, stores, etc. safe from fire is a huge part of the fire service. They also have measures that they enforce that require certain life safety devices are in place in case of a fire. The fire department is vastly a polar opposite of the police, just by their nature. Fire departments are very proactive, where a police department is reactive. They can only do so much to prevent crime. Whereas the fire department can revoke a person's certificate of occupancy for a business that is unfit WRT: life safety, thereby preventing them from endangering people.

There are hundreds of laws that people ignore, and that is all that can be done. Nobody can physically force me to stop speeding. They can punish me if caught, they can even take my license. But they (short of jail time) only do so much to stop me from getting behind the wheel of a car.

(Sorry for the long winded post)

You benefit from living in a society with healthy citizens. Almost all industrialized nations provide UHC. They don't do it simply because they care. They do it because, like fire departments, keeping citizens healthy is very, very good for society. Sickness and disease are corrosive to societies. Being empathetic evolved social creatures, failing to adequately see to the health of citizens affects many if not most of us in a negative way. I doubt you would want to live in a slum in India, right? The knowledge of suffering causes stress and discomfort. We care about our fellow citizens more than many of us even know.

I agree 1000%!

 

[triforcharity]

Good post. One small correction though. It was the GOP that put the bill together. It was the GOP that first tried to implement the plan in the 80s. A Republican, Romney, was the first GOP leader to implement such a plan.

They saw the writing on the wall and figured that this bill was better for the insurance companies than a single payer system that doesn't need insurance companies at all.

Now they oppose all of their ideas that the Democrats co-opt for political purposes. Cap and trade? A GOP invention that the GOP opposes.

Didn't know that this originally was a GOP idea in the 80's.

So now, because the insurance companies are really scared, they've basically worked their way into the good graces of the Republicans, ($$$) and they now oppose it.

But, we know it WOULD work (IE: UK, Canada, hell, CUBA for crying out loud!) and now that the democrats want this, the republicans are bashing it and opposing it.


How.....retarded.