The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[FreshFish]

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

I like the idea. You'd have to specify whether this arrangement is an annuity or standard health insurance policy (that would be surrendered to the insurance company upon death in the case of the former, or simply cease to exist in the case of the latter), or a life insurance policy that is of the whole/universal/variable life variety (which would be part of a decedent's estate).

If it functions like a life insurance policy, you can bet the Feds will try to get theirs via the estate tax. Though it might be beneficial to dictate that the funds be must transferred to the corresponding health/life insurance policies of the decedent's heirs......especially if the spotlight remains solely on insurance coverage and ability to pay rather than on the reining in of medical costs, the expansion of health care availability and the improvement of the health of Americans as a whole--all three of which are more pressing issues.

There already are life insurance policies available commercially whose insurance benefits can be converted to long-term care coverage. Lincoln National offers one of the most popular one, called MoneyGuard. It probably wouldn't be too difficult for creative actuaries, unencumbered by mandates and social-engineering considerations, to devise one that would work in a similar manner for healthcare.

Regarding estate tax, there is a $1 million exemption before the tax kicks in (under current law, starting in 2013. The 2012 limit is $5.12 million which is not likely to be extended given the current political environment).

[WeWantMore]

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

*snip* I am curious to hear what the people who do not think this law is OK would propose....

That's the thing. This was hardly the only solution to the problem. For instance, according to memos released yesterday, the Obama administration considered taxing "sugar-sweetened" drinks to pay for the costs. They also considered a 3% on individuals making above $500,000 or families making above $1,000,000. Instead, they chose what I imagine was the more politically palatable choice, which also turns out to be the most dubious constitutionally. Now they get to deal with the consequences.*

Or, like Justice Alito pointed out yesterday, Congress could have dealt with the problem in 1986 when they passed EMTALA in the first place. But they didn't, and here we are.

*Consequences, it still needs to be pointed out, which could be a 6-3 opinion in favor of the law or something like. No counting chickens here.

[leswp1]

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

I mean, other than the fact that he signed it, praised it, tried to start a twitter hashtag with #Ilikeobamacare, and is currently defending it in court, it's a mystery to me too.

The gov't, not Obama is defending it. I didn't mean he had no responsibility for it, only it doesn't resemble what it was supposed to look like. I view it more as something the Hill (both sides) totally messed up, whined about and then got passed as the only option other than nothing.

[WeWantMore]

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

The gov't, not Obama is defending it. I didn't mean he had no responsibility for it, only it doesn't resemble what it was supposed to look like. I view it more as something the Hill (both sides) totally messed up, whined about and then got passed as the only option other than nothing.

No, I totally agree with your last sentence.

But at the same time, he's the President for goodness sakes. If it didn't resemble what it was supposed to look like, he wasn't exactly powerless to do anything about it.

[leswp1]

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

That's the thing. This was hardly the only solution to the problem. For instance, according to memos released yesterday, the Obama administration considered taxing "sugar-sweetened" drinks to pay for the costs. They also considered a 3% on individuals making above $500,000 or families making above $1,000,000. Instead, they chose what I imagine was the more politically palatable choice, which also turns out to be the most dubious constitutionally. Now they get to deal with the consequences.*

Or, like Justice Alito pointed out yesterday, Congress could have dealt with the problem in 1986 when they passed EMTALA in the first place. But they didn't, and here we are.

*Consequences, it still needs to be pointed out, which could be a 6-3 opinion in favor of the law or something like. No counting chickens here.

As I said, I really don't know the legality of it. If I recall no matter how they were trying to fund it the opposition had the high pitched whine going. Don't think there is a way to win on the funding thing. People want the service (whether it is education, medical care, roads to drive on, etc) but don't think they need to pay for it any way that is suggested. Some of the more reasonable options had the people with the most money to throw into lobbying against it.

[leswp1]

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

No, I totally agree with your last sentence.

But at the same time, he's the President for goodness sakes. If it didn't resemble what it was supposed to look like, he wasn't exactly powerless to do anything about it.

I am not in love with his leadership style for sure but I honestly thing JC himself couldn't have passed anything reasonable. The era of statesmanship and reasonable gov't is in hiatus right now.

[LynahFan]

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

The gov't, not Obama is defending it. I didn't mean he had no responsibility for it, only it doesn't resemble what it was supposed to look like. I view it more as something the Hill (both sides) totally messed up, whined about and then got passed as the only option other than nothing.

Well, Obama certainly has defended it in the court of public opinion. Still, the actual framework of the law is certainly more of Pelosi's handiwork than it is Obama's.

[WeWantMore]

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

As I said, I really don't know the legality of it. If I recall no matter how they were trying to fund it the opposition had the high pitched whine going. Don't think there is a way to win on the funding thing. People want the service (whether it is education, medical care, roads to drive on, etc) but don't think they need to pay for it any way that is suggested. Some of the more reasonable options had the people with the most money to throw into lobbying against it.

I am not in love with his leadership style for sure but I honestly thing JC himself couldn't have passed anything reasonable. The era of statesmanship and reasonable gov't is in hiatus right now.

I just don't see, "But being President is hard!" as a compelling argument. Of course it's hard. Of course it's partisan. This is hardly a development that began January 2009 (more like 1789).

You asked if there were other alternatives available. There were. President Obama chose, probably partly for political reasons, partly because he thought it was the best policy, this one. Now he's dealing with the consequences. Tough.

[leswp1]

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

I just don't see, "But being President is hard!" as a compelling argument. Of course it's hard. Of course it's partisan. This is hardly a development that began January 2009 (more like 1789).

You asked if there were other alternatives available. There were. President Obama chose, probably partly for political reasons, partly because he thought it was the best policy, this one. Now he's dealing with the consequences. Tough.

Again, not defending him in particular. I just don't see anyone being able to develop a consensus at this point. Power is more important than solving a problem and working together. Anytime one group declares their intention to kill anything the other side proposes just because it is proposed by the other side you aren't going to have rational governance. It doesn't matter which side you believe is right. We have not elected people to the Hill who are rational or pragmatic when they vote or debate. It is more like you have 2 siblings yelling "is not!", "is to!"

[FreshFish]

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

Still, the actual framework of the law is certainly more of Pelosi's handiwork than it is Obama's.

Probably by design; then BHO can complain that Congress passed a bad law, it wasn't his doing! And if it is found unconstitutional, I can guarantee that BHO will put that forward as a reason to re-elect him: so that this time he can "get it right."

[duper]

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

Again, not defending him in particular. I just don't see anyone being able to develop a consensus at this point. Power is more important than solving a problem and working together. Anytime one group declares their intention to kill anything the other side proposes just because it is proposed by the other side you aren't going to have rational governance. It doesn't matter which side you believe is right. We have not elected people to the Hill who are rational or pragmatic when they vote or debate. It is more like you have 2 siblings yelling "is not!", "is to!"

You're missing the point. Everything Obama wants should be totally blocked by his opposition, then he should be blamed completely for the result! Remember, this is politics in 2012, if you're not with us you're against us. I can't believe that you would have the gall to try to see things from the point of view of a politician that you don't especially support! /sarcasm

[leswp1]

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

You're missing the point. Everything Obama wants should be totally blocked by his opposition, then he should be blamed completely for the result! Remember, this is politics in 2012, if you're not with us you're against us. I can't believe that you would have the gall to try to see things from the point of view of a politician that you don't especially support! /sarcasm

Sorry. Fatal brain flaw of actually looking at the issue and trying to see all sides (sometimes unsuccessfully) instead of baaing like a sheep

[WeWantMore]

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

You're missing the point. Everything Obama wants should be totally blocked by his opposition, then he should be blamed completely for the result! Remember, this is politics in 2012, if you're not with us you're against us. I can't believe that you would have the gall to try to see things from the point of view of a politician that you don't especially support! /sarcasm

Yes. Exactly my argument. Exactly.

Seriously, who in the world was that directed at?

Sorry. Fatal brain flaw of actually looking at the issue and trying to see all sides (sometimes unsuccessfully) instead of baaing like a sheep

Please. Who on this thread was baaing like a sheep? You asked what other options they had besides this specific mechanism. I listed some.

I agree that it was tough to develop a consensus. In fact, that's kind of my point. If Obama knew he wasn't going to get support, why not grow a set and go for the gutsy option for funding, like a "sweet drinks" tax or a "millionaire's" tax? Or hell, even single payer. Instead, he took the comparatively easy way out, and now he's in this constitutional pickle.

Likewise with the stimulus. He wasn't getting the votes anyways, why not go for the Krugman wet dream package (bigger, less tax cuts, etc.) rather than the bucket of spit he settled on?

[leswp1]

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

Yes. Exactly my argument. Exactly.

Seriously, who in the world was that directed at?



Please. Who on this thread was baaing like a sheep? You asked what other options they had besides this specific mechanism. I listed some.

I agree that it was tough to develop a consensus. In fact, that's kind of my point. If Obama knew he wasn't going to get support, why not grow a set and go for the gutsy option for funding, like a "sweet drinks" tax or a "millionaire's" tax? Or hell, even single payer. Instead, he took the comparatively easy way out, and now he's in this constitutional pickle.

Likewise with the stimulus. He wasn't getting the votes anyways, why not go for the Krugman wet dream package (bigger, less tax cuts, etc.) rather than the bucket of spit he settled on?

This was in response to duper as a humorous thing. This thread is great. More in commentary to some of the other threads where people post stuff that declares something right or wrong. I actually am curous what other people think. On occasion I have changed my mind when someone has presented an opinion. Other times I may not agree but at least I understand why they think the way they do.

[joecct]

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

Probably by design; then BHO can complain that Congress passed a bad law, it wasn't his doing! And if it is found unconstitutional, I can guarantee that BHO will put that forward as a reason to re-elect him: so that this time he can "get it right."

Not with the current idiots in Congre$$ he can't.