Why the mandate was valid under taxing power

[phypon]

This is wrong -- which was the point of the eye roll. The point of the penalty is to prevent this from occurring.

 

As for your other questions, I have more personal knowledge of the health insurance industry and it's insidious nature, than anyone my age ever should. Personally I believe this country needs to be on a single payer system -- and once people get over the rage of this law being upheld and take the time to actually understand how it will affect you as a customer, they'll want single payer too.

 

Guess I misunderstood your eye roll. I thought it was intended for the point made by Doc when he said:

"Not to mention the absurdity of being taxed for not buying something."

 

You also misquoted me. What I said was:

"While the penalty (TAX) is low (at the start of its implementation) people will probably be better off only obtaining insurance when they are sick. It will be cheaper for them that way. "

 

The bold part is the driving factor behind that thinking. I understand that the penalty is designed to prevent that from happening but the full penalty is not fully implemented at the beginning of the insertion of this law.

 

Again, not trying to argue here. I just wanted to reply to this to clarify my quote.

 

I do think this country needs to clean up health care, but this new law does not seem to be the solution.

 

And the problem with the penalty (or is it "tax" now?) is that it's cheaper than insurance. Which kind-of defeats the purpose.

 

 

From what I've gathered it will initially be lower than insurance but will steadily increase to either being the same price or more than the price of insurance. Can anyone clarify or expand on this? It seems information surrounding this whole thing changes on a daily basis.

[CosmicBills]

And the problem with the penalty (or is it "tax" now?) is that it's cheaper than insurance. Which kind-of defeats the purpose.

Depends on what the purpose is.

 

Is the tax (let's call it what it is) designed to force people to buy insurance or to provide revenue to help with the costs of accommodating 30 million new patients?

 

Again, I'm in no way claiming the ACA is perfect -- it's far from it. If it were up to me we'd be on a single payer system yesterday and all health insurance companies would be extinct.

 

From what I've gathered it will initially be lower than insurance but will steadily increase to either being the same price or more than the price of insurance. Can anyone clarify or expand on this? It seems information surrounding this whole thing changes on a daily basis.

This is my understanding of it as well...

[3rdnlng]

The ACA in its present form will within a few years crush private health insurance and bring this country to a single payer universal healthcare status. Obama admitted that was his goal, while also saying at a different time that if you like your present coverage you'll be able to keep it.

 

The ACA is despised by the majority in this country. That along with the economy should be his two biggest issues. If Romney handles the campaign well he will have a plurality in both the Hosuse and Senate and this bill will go bye bye.

[Adam]

The ACA in its present form will within a few years crush private health insurance and bring this country to a single payer universal healthcare status. Obama admitted that was his goal, while also saying at a different time that if you like your present coverage you'll be able to keep it.

 

The ACA is despised by the majority in this country. That along with the economy should be his two biggest issues. If Romney handles the campaign well he will have a plurality in both the Hosuse and Senate and this bill will go bye bye.

I don't see either party controlling the White House, the House of Representatives and Senate again for quite some time. The country is way too divided.

[3rdnlng]

I don't see either party controlling the White House, the House of Representatives and Senate again for quite some time. The country is way too divided.

 

So, if Romney wins you don't think the Senate goes Republican? The House is already a foregone conclusion.

[Adam]

So, if Romney wins you don't think the Senate goes Republican? The House is already a foregone conclusion.

That is correct. Although I think your scenario would be better suited to a recovery as it would reduce the obvious conflict. Better for one party to be in control and make mistakes than for nothing to be done at all.

 

If they don't get a super majority, I expect to see the democrats use the all mighty filibuster to keep the ACA in place.

[3rdnlng]

That is correct. Although I think your scenario would be better suited to a recovery as it would reduce the obvious conflict. Better for one party to be in control and make mistakes than for nothing to be done at all.

 

If they don't get a super majority, I expect to see the democrats use the all mighty filibuster to keep the ACA in place.

 

The bill was passed under "reconciliation". All it take are 51 votes in the Senate to get it done. "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

[DC Tom]

Depends on what the purpose is.

 

Is the tax (let's call it what it is) designed to force people to buy insurance or to provide revenue to help with the costs of accommodating 30 million new patients?

 

It depends...if it's a "penalty," then yes. If a "tax," no.

 

Again, I'm in no way claiming the ACA is perfect -- it's far from it. If it were up to me we'd be on a single payer system yesterday and all health insurance companies would be extinct.

 

If it were up to me, health care would be market driven - but a single payer system that eliminated health insurance companies would STILL be preferable to this abortion of a law. The ACA will accomplish just that...but in twenty or thirty years, at three or four times it would have cost to just nationalize the insurance companies in the first place. THAT'S why it's such a bad goddamned law.

[Adam]

The bill was passed under "reconciliation". All it take are 51 votes in the Senate to get it done. "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

Interesting. I didn't realize that.

[Doc]

Depends on what the purpose is.

 

Is the tax (let's call it what it is) designed to force people to buy insurance or to provide revenue to help with the costs of accommodating 30 million new patients?

 

Again, I'm in no way claiming the ACA is perfect -- it's far from it. If it were up to me we'd be on a single payer system yesterday and all health insurance companies would be extinct.

If it were up to me, you'd live how I say you should live, under penalty of massive fines/taxes, or loss of health insurance. IOW, treating the disease, not the symptoms.

 

And anyone receiving public funds for health insurance would have their histories made public.

[dayman]

No, until it's reversed it is binding law that we have to follow regardless of whether or not it is right.

 

 

"General Welfare" isn't nearly as stretchy as the court has interpreted it to be. And as far as moon rocks, regardless of how I feel about that, there is a discernible difference between spending on a project that purports to add value to society as a whole (science, prestige, whatever) & one that attempts to benefit a small segment at the expense of the society as a whole.

 

Also, the solution (vote for people who don't want to mine moon rocks) ignores the reality that when you vote you vote on a person to represent you on thousands of issues. You're not well represented on that level by the democratic system, which is partially why we need constitutional limitations on the scope of government that can't be easily voted away.

 

Representation issues aside...you don't want a handful of unelected people sitting on life time appointments deciding what is and is no in the general welfare. If the issue is one of reform the basic system of representation we can talk but as we both know that would be entire different topic that could go 1000+ pages in an instant. It is important to have a constitution that sets some limits, but no words on paper can establish what is in the general welfare ... flawed as our system obviously is it's a dangerous assertion to imply that a group of appointed men w/ almost no accountability (in reality) after they take their lifetime seat should interpret what is and is not in our "general welfare" with anything more than the most deferential analysis.

 

 

 

 

 

From what I've gathered it will initially be lower than insurance but will steadily increase to either being the same price or more than the price of insurance. Can anyone clarify or expand on this? It seems information surrounding this whole thing changes on a daily basis.

 

By statute the tax will never be more than the average cost of minimum essential coverage in your area.

 

 

If it were up to me, health care would be market driven - but a single payer system that eliminated health insurance companies would STILL be preferable to this abortion of a law. The ACA will accomplish just that...but in twenty or thirty years, at three or four times it would have cost to just nationalize the insurance companies in the first place. THAT'S why it's such a bad goddamned law.

 

They have this in Taiwan. And it works great for them. Thing is, then the COST of CARE gets serious, and our doctors would NEVER EVER EVER do what their doctors do. But then again, the "entitlement" mentality is something that is a poor person problem the doctors are just fine they've earned their share. (I'm not anti-Doctor like that one poster btw just making a point). In any event we're moving towards the system they have in Sweeden, it's not a perfect law no law is...but it's a start and it's time to work on it.

 

The bill was passed under "reconciliation". All it take are 51 votes in the Senate to get it done. "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

 

Some portions could theoretically be repealed that way, others can not. And I promise you, repealing the mandate and leaving some of those other provisions would drive insurance companies to the brink.

Edited July 1, 2012 by TheNewBills

[Doc]

They have this in Taiwan. And it works great for them. Thing is, then the COST of CARE gets serious, and our doctors would NEVER EVER EVER do what their doctors do. But then again, the "entitlement" mentality is something that is a poor person problem the doctors are just fine they've earned their share. (I'm not anti-Doctor like that one poster btw just making a point). In any event we're moving towards the system they have in Sweeden, it's not a perfect law no law is...but it's a start and it's time to work on it.

Yep, working on throwing it out. As for what doctors here will or won't do, they'll do more than people will to change their behavior.

[dayman]

Yep, working on throwing it out. As for what doctors here will or won't do, they'll do more than people will to change their behavior.

 

You can look around the world. There are virtues to the Sweedish system and drawbacks in the cost fighting effort. There are virtues to the system in Taiwan and there are drawbacks (politically this system is impossible in our country given our political madness and the gov't regulating premiums). And yes, believe it or not there are aspects of the British healthcare system that are positive, and I need not even mention there are drawbacks there. I still would not hesitate to say that given all the problems these other countries have with their approaches, the American system is a case study in "what not to do." So...where to go from here? In my opinion, we can start with the ACA, and move forward. There are a number of things in the ACA that do help some systemic problems today, there are a number of things that do help individuals today, there are a number of things that provide the seeds of change in medicare pay structure that should help the changes we must see over time, and of course there are a laundry list of things that are FAR from perfect and indeed some things that are just plain nonsense. So the question is, do you have a law that is perfect? Or do you have a starting point that can put us on the path to (in all likelihood) endless quest for perfectibility? Stop complaining, and tell your congressman and senators to shut the **** up, get to work, and make sure the good is implemented well, and mitigate the bad as well as destroying the toxic. It's called common sense.

Edited July 1, 2012 by TheNewBills

[IDBillzFan]

Well that just isn't true. Maybe not in your circles...everyone knew it could be ruled on as a tax in legal circles. It was held a tax in lower courts long ago. Even here 3rdnlng and many others for instance, talked about the toothless nature of the mandate scathingly...basically making the argument unknowingly in previous healthcare threads. People can disagree but to say this is somehow unpredictable isn't true.

It comes down to one thing in my mind: if Obama tried to pass ACA based on the fact that it was a tax, would it make it?

 

We both know the answer isn't just no, but hell no.

 

If it makes you feel better to coddle the semantics of the legal argument, that's fine, but Americans don't live in that ridiculous world. Americans live in the world where millions upon millions are unemployed -- more than 8% across the board, including 17% of blacks and almost 25% of teenagers -- and seven (count them, SEVEN) new taxes are going to now hit the middle class after the president repeatedly said it would never happen.

 

THAT is the real world, no matter what you think, regardless of how smart you think you are.

 

You're welcome to split the semantics hair amongst your liberal friends, but the rest of America sees this for what it is...as is evidenced by virtually EVERY post-SCOTUS decision poll coming out. Sorry, America isn't near as stupid as you hoped they would be.

 

But hey...you keep telling yourself that "everyone knew it could be ruled on as a tax in legal circles." That's genius real-world stuff, there, Skippy.

[Doc]

You can look around the world. There are virtues to the Sweedish system and drawbacks in the cost fighting effort. There are virtues to the system in Taiwan and there are drawbacks (politically this system is impossible in our country given our political madness and the gov't regulating premiums). And yes, believe it or not there are aspects of the British healthcare system that are positive, and I need not even mention there are drawbacks there. I still would not hesitate to say that given all the problems these other countries have with their approaches, the American system is a case study in "what not to do." So...where to go from here? In my opinion, we can start with the ACA, and move forward. There are a number of things in the ACA that do help some systemic problems today, there are a number of things that do help individuals today, there are a number of things that provide the seeds of change in medicare pay structure that should help the changes we must see over time, and of course there are a laundry list of things that are FAR from perfect and indeed some things that are just plain nonsense. So the question is, do you have a law that is perfect? Or do you have a starting point that can put us on the path to (in all likelihood) endless quest for perfectibility? Stop complaining, and tell your congressman and senators to shut the **** up, get to work, and make sure the good is implemented well, and mitigate the bad as well as destroying the toxic. It's called common sense.

I told you what my solutions were a couple of days ago. You never responded.

 

But as for "common sense" and telling your congressmen what to do, the majority of Americans have said that they don't like Obamacare. Have our congressmen listened and repealed it? No. So what makes you think they'll listen at all? The best part is they're excluded from their own law! The complaining will continue until it's repealed.

 

But let me ask you: what do you think should be the main goal of Obamacare?

[Rob's House]

I told you what my solutions were a couple of days ago. You never responded.

 

But as for "common sense" and telling your congressmen what to do, the majority of Americans have said that they don't like Obamacare. Have our congressmen listened and repealed it? No. So what makes you think they'll listen at all? The best part is they're excluded from their own law! The complaining will continue until it's repealed.

 

But let me ask you: what do you think should be the main goal of Obamacare?

To solidify Obama's legacy

[Doc]

To solidify Obama's legacy

Well, that's the real reason. But when it gets repealed, that legacy dies (thankfully).

[WorldTraveller]

Let's not kid ourselves, this bill was crafted to make the size of government larger and increase the dependency from more segments of the US electorate on the ever growing reach of government in order to structurally enhance liberals prospects of elections moving forward.

[Adam]

Let's not kid ourselves, this bill was crafted to make the size of government larger and increase the dependency from more segments of the US electorate on the ever growing reach of government in order to structurally enhance liberals prospects of elections moving forward.

That may be an effect, but I highly doubt it was the intent.

 

It comes down to one thing in my mind: if Obama tried to pass ACA based on the fact that it was a tax, would it make it?

 

We both know the answer isn't just no, but hell no.

As was previously stated, it doesn't matter. What is in there is the legal description of a tax, which makes it a tax. Calling me the strongest man in the world doesn't increase my bench press.

 

By the way- I think the Romney campaign did a horrible job in not attacking this more, last week. By drawing it out, they will have to spend more time on it later, which takes them off their message, which HAS TO BE jobs. All he did was constantly parrot what he previously said about repealing it. This is going to be a very close election, no matter how you look at it. He lost a golden opportunity to take control.

Edited July 1, 2012 by Adam

[3rdnlng]

That may be an effect, but I highly doubt it was the intent.

 

As was previously stated, it doesn't matter. What is in there is the legal description of a tax, which makes it a tax. Calling me the strongest man in the world doesn't increase my bench press.

 

By the way- I think the Romney campaign did a horrible job in not attacking this more, last week. By drawing it out, they will have to spend more time on it later, which takes them off their message, which HAS TO BE jobs. All he did was constantly parrot what he previously said about repealing it. This is going to be a very close election, no matter how you look at it. He lost a golden opportunity to take control.

 

 

See some of Obama's guiding principles:

 

 

http://www.conservapedia.com/Saul_Alinsky

 

 

"Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals"

Alinsky wrote: "What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."

 

His rules derive from many successful campaigns where he sowed the seeds of class warfare with community organizing, getting people fighting power and privilege, whom he convinced people were the root of all their "problems".

 

For Alinsky, organizing is the process of highlighting whatever he believed to be wrong and convincing people they can actually do something about it. The two are linked. If people feel they dont have the power to change a situation, they stop thinking about it.

 

According to Alinsky, the organizer especially a paid organizer from outside must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate. An organizer has to attack apathy and disturb the prevailing patterns of complacent community life where people have simply come to accept a situation. Alinsky would say, The first step in community organization is community disorganization.

 

Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a mass army that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals.

 

Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.

 

Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

Rule 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. Its hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. If your people arent having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of OHare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the citys reputation.

Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, Okay, what would you do?

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Dont try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength. [8]

 

The astute reader can readily identify many of these rules on the "Talk" pages of Conservapedia. The enemies of conservatism and Christianity (or indeed any Religion) have practiced without end, Alainsky's "rules", especially numbers 11, 8, 5 and 4."

Edited July 1, 2012 by 3rdnlng