The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[Rover]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Fishy you just proved my point for me, so thanks for digging up the quotes. He said the mandate is unconstitutional under the commerce clause (a 5-4 decision) but constitutional under the taxing power. So, its constitutional. The law was written so that those who didn't comply (as in get insurance) would have to pay a penalty (a tax for Roberts purposes). The law didn't advocate jail or beatings for non-compliance, just what was upheld - a monetary payment for not carrying insurance.

What I laugh and laugh about is the continued "heads we win, tails you lose" mindset out of conservatives on this one. As the law was envisioned, you will either get insurance or pay for noncompliance. That's what Roberts agreed with. Whether he did so due to Commerce or Tax clause reasons is irrelavent for all practical purposes. Upon Obama's re-election the ACA will be enacted in full. Even the more sane cons like joecct are falling into this absurd trap, in that case with the notion that there's a penalty that won't be enforced, sorta like jaywalking fines. Uh, no. If this "loss" was really a victory for you guys, why is Scalia still going berserk over it?

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Two big employers are planning a radical change in the way they provide health benefits to their workers, giving employees a fixed sum of money and allowing them to choose their medical coverage and insurer from an online marketplace.

...


"It's a fundamental change…the employer is saying, 'Here's a pot of money, go shop,' " said Paul Fronstin, director of health research at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit. The worry for employees is that "the money may not be sufficient and it may not keep up with premium inflation."

Neither Sears nor Darden would say how much money employees would receive to buy health insurance. Darden says its sum would rise as health-care costs rise. Sears declined to disclose details of its contributions strategy.

Darden did say that employees will pay the same contribution out of their own pockets that they currently do for approximately the same level of coverage. Employees who pick more expensive coverage will pay more from their paychecks to make up the gap. Those who opt for cheaper insurance, which may involve bigger deductibles or more limited networks of doctors and hospitals, will pay less

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

....

When your only tool is a sledgehammer, everything looks like it should be smashed.....

[LynahFan]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The way I like to think about it is:

1. Everyone has to pay an additional health insurance tax.
2. You can get a tax credit equal to the full value of the new tax by purchasing a qualified private health insurance plan.

I don't think that's the reasoning Roberts used or what the tax forms will really look like, but it makes more sense to me than saying that the only people who have to pay the tax are the ones who don't buy health insurance.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The way I like to think about it is:

1. Everyone has to pay an additional health insurance tax.
2. You can get a tax credit equal to the full value of the new tax by purchasing a qualified private health insurance plan.

I don't think that's the reasoning Roberts used or what the tax forms will really look like, but it makes more sense to me than saying that the only people who have to pay the tax are the ones who don't buy health insurance.

Actually, I think that's the only way that they actually can do it on the 1040.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The way I like to think about it is:

1. Everyone has to pay an additional health insurance tax.
2. You can get a tax credit equal to the full value of the new tax by purchasing a qualified private health insurance plan.

I don't think that's the reasoning Roberts used or what the tax forms will really look like, but it makes more sense to me than saying that the only people who have to pay the tax are the ones who don't buy health insurance.

That's a sensible approach...I wonder how it affects people on Medicare, though....you don't "buy" Medicare, you "enroll".....at least for now, anyway. Does the tax only apply to people under age 65?

[Rover]

The way I like to think about it is:

1. Everyone has to pay an additional health insurance tax.
2. You can get a tax credit equal to the full value of the new tax by purchasing a qualified private health insurance plan.

I don't think that's the reasoning Roberts used or what the tax forms will really look like, but it makes more sense to me than saying that the only people who have to pay the tax are the ones who don't buy health insurance.

A reasonable take on it...

Fishy, if you want to spout nonsense I will sledgehammer it. If you don't like that give Mitt Romney a call and ask him how many untruths he's managed to get away with this campaign season. I'm thinking his answer will be "not much" as we will call conservatives on the carpet every time.

Mandate = constitutional, otherwise you wouldn't have to pay the penalty for noncompliance.

I'm not saying you have to like the ruling, just that's what it was.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

That's a sensible approach...I wonder how it affects people on Medicare, though....you don't "buy" Medicare, you "enroll".....at least for now, anyway. Does the tax only apply to people under age 65?

Considering the retirement age is now 67, that'd be a sweet deal.

[LynahFan]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

A reasonable take on it...

That could literally be the first time you've ever considered one of my posts to be reasonable!

[LynahFan]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

That's a sensible approach...I wonder how it affects people on Medicare, though....you don't "buy" Medicare, you "enroll".....at least for now, anyway. Does the tax only apply to people under age 65?

Good catch - I suppose my #2 bullet should be amended to say that you can get the tax credit in a number of ways: private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, VA benefits, etc.

[Rover]

That could literally be the first time you've ever considered one of my posts to be reasonable!

Trust me, I have my list of idiot conservatives and you're not on it.

[FreshFish]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

I'm not saying you have to like the ruling, just that's what it was.

OK, let's parse the ruling exactly as it was presented without using that problematic word:

1) Roberts explicity ruled with no equivocation that the Federal government does not have the power to compel people to purchase health insurance
2) Roberts ruled that the Federal government does not have the power to impose a "penalty" on people (except in one very narrow sense of the word): it can not threaten people with jail time if they do not buy health insurance, it can not make it illegal to go without health insurance. People have the right to choose whether they buy health insurance or not.
3) Roberts ruled that the Federal government does have the power to impose a tax on people who do not purchase health insurance. He said it quite explicitly: "people have the option either to purchase health insurance or to pay the tax."


You somehow keep defining # 3 as a "mandate" while I have been using the word "mandate" in the more conventional dictionary sense. Once we recognize we have been using two different definitions, any apparent discrepancy disappears.

[Rover]

OK, let's parse the ruling exactly as it was presented without using that problematic word:

1) Roberts explicity ruled with no equivocation that the Federal government does not have the power to compel people to purchase health insurance
2) Roberts ruled that the Federal government does not have the power to impose a "penalty" on people (except in one very narrow sense of the word): it can not threaten people with jail time if they do not buy health insurance, it can not make it illegal to go without health insurance. People have the right to choose whether they buy health insurance or not.
3) Roberts ruled that the Federal government does have the power to impose a tax on people who do not purchase health insurance. He said it quite explicitly: "people have the option either to purchase health insurance or to pay the tax."


You somehow keep defining # 3 as a "mandate" while I have been using the word "mandate" in the more conventional dictionary sense. Once we recognize we have been using two different definitions, any apparent discrepancy disappears.

All well and good, although I will say with #2 nowhere was there ever a push to punish people with jail for not getting health insurance. The stick in the carrot and stick approach was always a fine/tax/levy/whatever. Maybe a nitpicking distinction, but with some of the falsehoods flying around over this legislation (death panels for example) its one that needs clarification.

[joecct]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Fishy you just proved my point for me, so thanks for digging up the quotes. He said the mandate is unconstitutional under the commerce clause (a 5-4 decision) but constitutional under the taxing power. So, its constitutional. The law was written so that those who didn't comply (as in get insurance) would have to pay a penalty (a tax for Roberts purposes). The law didn't advocate jail or beatings for non-compliance, just what was upheld - a monetary payment for not carrying insurance.

What I laugh and laugh about is the continued "heads we win, tails you lose" mindset out of conservatives on this one. As the law was envisioned, you will either get insurance or pay for noncompliance. That's what Roberts agreed with. Whether he did so due to Commerce or Tax clause reasons is irrelavent for all practical purposes. Upon Obama's re-election the ACA will be enacted in full. Even the more sane cons like joecct are falling into this absurd trap, in that case with the notion that there's a penalty that won't be enforced, sorta like jaywalking fines. Uh, no. If this "loss" was really a victory for you guys, why is Scalia still going berserk over it?

Rover,

The IRS has said it is not going to use its agents to enforce the collection provisions of the ACA (you're not going to like the source, but with a quick google, it was all I could find).

I don't like the Federal Government getting more and more involved into "stuff" that have been the purview of the states. Massachusetts passed a health care law, goody for them. If I did not like it, I could have moved to New Hampshire. But unless I want to leave the country, I no longer have an option on health insurance.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

All well and good, although I will say with #2 nowhere was there ever a push to punish people with jail for not getting health insurance. The stick in the carrot and stick approach was always a fine/tax/levy/whatever. Maybe a nitpicking distinction, but with some of the falsehoods flying around over this legislation (death panels for example) its one that needs clarification.

Death panels is more of a long-term effect. This isn't so much of a tax as it is a price ceiling. Obviously, insurance companies will look to charge more because not only is the product now inelastic, but they will now need to cover what may be some very unhealthy people. However, now the government has effectively set a demand price, as the people will demand to pay for their insurance the amount of the tax, plus the price of avoiding rationed care (e.g. emergency room). Eventually, we will get to a point where the government is providing funding for all care because of the lack of affordability for insurance, and it will then be rationed in order to stay within budget.