43 replies to this topic

[zigzag]

I ask... are health insurance companies the new IRS?

added taxes are part of this package to make it fly. additionally - mandated increased business expenses are "like" taxes. aren't you following this?

Noble idea. Horrible timing. Divisive execution.

Not "like" a tax, is a tax. Here's what I'm following, verbatim from the Supreme Court Chief Justice...

But “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”


This is Congressional power of taxation being stated, how can I not follow that? Btw, tax evaders frequently get very lengthy sentences.

i misunderstood you. sorry.

[sluzbenik1]

I ask... are health insurance companies the new IRS?

added taxes are part of this package to make it fly. additionally - mandated increased business expenses are "like" taxes. aren't you following this?

Noble idea. Horrible timing. Divisive execution.

Not "like" a tax, is a tax. Here's what I'm following, verbatim from the Supreme Court Chief Justice...

But “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”


This is Congressional power of taxation being stated, how can I not follow that? Btw, tax evaders frequently get very lengthy sentences.

Actually, it's even worse than a tax, but apparently there's nothing in our constitution that stops the government from forcing individuals to give money to large corporations for something they didn't want in the first place. I suppose the argument is akin to child protection laws, ie., legally a parent has to buy food for their child. However, if you can't afford it, the government will give you a subsidy. Uninsured individuals are a huge burden on the health care system, therefore we will give some of you - maybe - a subsidy. That's fine, except in this case, the subsidy is completely illogical, has too many holes, and will badly affect small business owners and self-employed low-income people and basically won't affect health care costs one iota.

Like I said, it's a flawed half-measure. There is no way to make a system as structurally inefficient as health care work on a free-market basis, thus it should be a governmental responsibility. It's quite like roads. There is no way to have competition work with infrastructure - airports, roads and ports are all owned by quasi-governmental entities because there's just no obvious way to make competition work. Similarly you can't have doctors competing with one another - health care works best when you have a primary care provider who knows your medical history. And there is no incentive for them not to order tons of tests, or overprescribe medication because they fear malpractice suits more than losing clients because they're competing on price. So cost just gets passed on to the insurance companies, who in turn gouge employers and individuals...so costs just keep inflating at this ridiculous rate.

Edited by sluzbenik1, 28 June 2012 - 01:33 PM.

[pdx5]

Kind of sounds like Obama using an executive privilege for something that he had no part of and "knew nothing about it"

Executive Privilege and Executive Order are two different animals.
EP is restricted by law to be used in limited situations as defined by existing law.
EO can be used in any area unless it specifically violates existing law.

[spielchekr]

Let me cut to the chase. This tax (or so it is presented) completely bypasses the US Treasury. And yet, collecting taxes, duties and monies paid to and due to the U.S. is a duty reserved for the U.S. Treasury. Until just now, that is. Illegal, illegal, illegal!!!

[TTrader47]

Kind of sounds like Obama using an executive privilege for something that he had no part of and "knew nothing about it"

Executive Privilege and Executive Order are two different animals.
EP is restricted by law to be used in limited situations as defined by existing law.
EO can be used in any area unless it specifically violates existing law.

I know the difference. I just didn't want you to incorrectly portray Romney as some guys that is trying to stretch his boundaries.

[Sentient Being]

We don't have free market health care, have not for a very long time. We are half way to being Europe and this bill will eventually take us all the way. By the way, anyone notice how badly the health care systems in many of these nations the left once praised are doing???

It's a terrible half-measure and will end up failing...

Eventually we'll be forced to go to socialized medicine with supplemental private insurance like most European countries. Obamacare will just kill small business and many unemployed who still can't afford healthcare and food at the same time...Small businesses are the ones who create employment, and frankly, I'd support single-payer for that reason alone. Hopefully doctors will balk and stop accepting Medicare and the like, forcing us to go to socialized medicine.

Of course there will be no way to do that until there is also reform of higher education - doctors' salaries are a huge part of health care costs, and those salaries are justified because of the terrible student loan burden, this has to be fixed at the same time. Ie., at least medical school needs to be Federalized.

Sorry, I know it's radical and lefty, but it will happen eventually...The free market works in many areas, but not in health care. It will collapse of its own accord eventually, Obamacare will do nothing to contain costs or help many uninsured. It will become clear that the long-term effects of such a terrible health care system are horrible for the US economy because of the unproductive allocation of capital to this sector to maintain it, the burden of the uninsured on the health care system and declining life-expectencies (which means fewer productive work years). Then things will really change.

Nothing to be sorry for. You are right. The free market does not work in health care. Costs will go up forever or until the entire system collapses because people will pay anything for heath (especially for their children). And yes the "terrible student loan burden" for medical students (for everyone for that matter) needs to be alleviated -- possibly something along the lines of "if you can't get into medical school, it will be paid for, but do it to help your fellow citizens because you're going to get 'only' make a comfortable living."

Yes, lots to be done going forward. But I'm an optimist on the future of this country. This really is a "new dawn in America." The big battle is over. Now it's time to fight the nasty little skirmishes against the rear guard to make it work and finally put an end to this foolish war.

[sluzbenik1]

Uh, last I checked it still was. Until this law. There is no law that requires employers to provide health care. There is a ton of regulation, but it's an insurance industry, what would you expect? And the regulation fails because - wait for it - the FREE MARKET doesn't work for health care. If your insurance company tries to bilk you on their policy for your home that was burnt down, it's pretty cut and dry, and still fairly cut & dry for more complex insurance issues - because the outcomes and risks are, to a large extent, predictable. We know how many hurricanes we'll get on average, how many houses will burn down a year. But medical conditions and treatment are a lot, lot less cut & dry, particularly because we tend to ascribe a different set of values to human life than we do to property.

As for how Europe's doing - it sucks. But the cause wasn't socialism. The cause was the real estate bubble in Spain, and the idiotic policy to create a common currency without a common fiscal policy. As far as I know, their health care systems are all doing just fine and well-funded. The Europeans, about 50 years ago, decided to trade growth for social stability and higher quality of life for the middle and lower classes. Growth gets killed by taxes and business regulations, but the vast majority of people are quite content because they have a higher standard of living than they did before, and arguably higher than most Americans. But don't even get me started on how hard it is to be an entrepreneur in France - I used to argue with my French friends about it all the time. Arguably, any person in the U.S. earning less than $75,000 a year would be better off living in Europe. They would get free health care, free education, and better unemployment benefits. Americans like you have a different value system that's all. Thus far, our political history shows that we prefer the "chance" of riches and severe boom/bust cycles rather than a moderately good lifestyle with systemic unemployment problems and slow growth.

Here's an article on much hated France's health care system.

And you can look up any statistics you like...life expectancy, access to health care, education (though how you define quality is tricky), purchasing power...Where they totally lose is in your chance of being a billionaire. Not bloody likely. But it never really was, was it?

Edited by sluzbenik1, 28 June 2012 - 04:34 PM.

[IYB]

Let me cut to the chase. This tax (or so it is presented) completely bypasses the US Treasury. And yet, collecting taxes, duties and monies paid to and due to the U.S. is a duty reserved for the U.S. Treasury. Until just now, that is. Illegal, illegal, illegal!!!

[i]But “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

If I understand correctly, those "(who) choose to go without health insurance" will be required to pay monies to the US Treasury via the IRS, and that is what CJ John Roberts is calling "taxes". I suspect that Roberts realizes that exposing this as yet another tax increase will make the whole concept even more onerous to the electorate....

[TTrader47]

Let me cut to the chase. This tax (or so it is presented) completely bypasses the US Treasury. And yet, collecting taxes, duties and monies paid to and due to the U.S. is a duty reserved for the U.S. Treasury. Until just now, that is. Illegal, illegal, illegal!!!

[i]But “it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but (who) choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.”

If I understand correctly, those "(who) choose to go without health insurance" will be required to pay monies to the US Treasury via the IRS, and that is what CJ John Roberts is calling "taxes". I suspect that Roberts realizes that exposing this as yet another tax increase will make the whole concept even more onerous to the electorate....

You are right on. Most young individuals do not need health care and it is great that they can save money like that. Not anymore though.

[gm_general]

Another point - what is likely the number one cause of death in the US? Iatrogenic causes. Meaning death by doctor. Deadly pharmaceutical products (taken as directed), unnecessary surgery, malpractice, etc. So more health care likely means more premature death. They would be better off spending some of this money on nutritional counseling.