UPDATE: Drudge points to Obama's assertion, back in September 2009 that the mandate is not a tax.
STEPHANOPOULOS: [I]t's still a tax increase.I have said repeatedly that Obama would be worse off if Obamacare were upheld, but what I'm really seeing is how bad it is for him with the mandate declared a tax.
OBAMA: No. That's not true, George. The — for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.
Remember the Democrats got the statute passed by insisting it was not a tax. Now, we learn it is only constitutional because it is a tax. That's got to hurt politically.
ADDED: Romney has at least 3 big arguments:
1. Obama imposed a huge new tax on working people.
2. Obama deceived the American people by saying it was not a tax, when it was.
3. The law made it look like money would go to insurance companies — in the form of new premiums — that would keep premiums low as the companies were required to take on people with pre-existing conditions, but now we find out that the money is really going to go to the federal government. [ADDED: So get ready for your premiums to spiral up and/or for insurance companies to be ruined.]
Posts
368 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 368 of 368PS: I used the term "conflates" intentionally. Joining tax & penalty is the effect per SCOTUS, IMO. Anyone who has dealt with the IRS on "civil penalty" matters knows how the original tax inflates with additions of interest and penalty features.
On that topic I have 15 years of experience down to the minutest details, all with superb legal advice and service. I have the zero balance owed statement from the IRS framed on my office wall.
I'd advise anyone who gets in to this "penalty" / "tax" issue with the IRS to be v-e-r-y careful on the subject of "intent." "Civil" becomes "Criminal" very quickly if you are ambivalent or careless.
To those of you who criticize the GOP for not "working" with the Dims ... consensus in the absence of sound principle is the way of the lemming, and leads to the same end.
Why is it that Progressives believe that problems can't be solved except through invasive government intervention ... and that government therefore is REQUIRED to solve them?
How about raising taxes and cutting spending and making everyone put skin in the game.
Good. Start with the parasites on your side who pay nothing in income taxes, yet get the benefits of the state showered upon them, if you're serious.
But you're not.
gas @Beta Rube/
What's the Vegas line on tomorrow?
What the Dims are trying to do, is treat a socio-economic dysfunction with a combination of political painkillers and amputations of your liberty that do NOTHING to create a sustainable cure.
That is because curing it must involve the individual taking responsibility for their own lot ... instead of outsourcing that to their "physicians" to fix it FOR them from the high ivory towers of DC.
garage mahal said...
Yes, absolutely it is "Obama imposes huge tax on the American middle class."
And the conservative led Supreme Court went along with the caper. Broccoli for everyone!
Au Contrare.
Mediocrity for everyone!
That's better.
I am with those (and there are a lot more of us than people commenting on this blog seem to want to acknowledge) mainly hoping that this means that millions of uninsured people will get coverage,
That of course assumes the uninsured will purchase health insurance as opposed to paying what will probably be a lesser penalty (tax) to the Federal government.
I know my state mandates that drivers have auto insurance yet I still need to carry uninsured motorist coverage because there is no mechanism in place to ensure all drivers have insurance. I'm quite confident the Federal Government will be equally inept in enforcing this mandate.
In other words, costs will continue to climb and the number of uninsured will not decrease.
I also wonder if the millions of illegal aliens will be required to adhere to the mandate or will they be exempt so they can continue to flood the ERs and also be exempt from payment?
Wonder why the penalty for a company to not offer health insurance was low enough to provide an incentive to drop coverage as premiums rise?
Millions of new customers for the government option.
It is an end run to single payer.
What the government never considers (or always hides) is that their projections are always off by a wide margin. (Medicare was projected to cost $19 billion in 1990 when the plan was passed in '68. Actual costs were $190 billion in 1990).
Medicare Part A will exhaust it's Trust Fund by 2024, and Part B premiums only pay for 25% of Medicare expenses currently (the rest coming from general revenue).
This was result in two possible outcomes-- US debt trajectory approximates a rocket launch into high orbit-- or-- taxes rise at a similar trajectory.
Good, we need more taxes anyway. No spin needed. Obama won this round.
This line of reasoning accepted by Roberts:
By requiring that individuals purchase health insurance, the mandate prevents cost-shifting by those who would otherwise go without it
makes no sense as long as the Emergency Medical Treatment Act remains in force.
Suppose I buy no insurance, based on the exact same calculations as before, plus the added consideration that insurance is now a lot more expensive than it used to be when I also didn't buy any. Now suppose I get injured and show up at my local ER, where they have to treat me. The $1500 penalty--I mean, tax--I pay doesn't go to my local ER, it goes into the maw of the IRS.
So in what way has cost-shifting been prevented by this tax?
The "tax" only achieves the goal Roberts sets for it if it is set so high that everyone opts to buy insurance. But in that case it's a "tax" that generates no revenue at all. So either Roberts is saying that all regulations are really taxes, or he's out of his depth as a policy analyst.
My esteem for the the SCOTUS is proportional to the soundness of its reasoning more than the positions it arrives at. This decision moves the needle quite a bit toward zero.
"Good, we need more taxes anyway. No spin needed. Obama won this round."
-- You realize you get no tax money if everyone buys the insurance... right? You are aware how this works, right?
You realize you get no tax money if everybody buys the insurance. . .right? You are aware how this works, right?
I don't care, Obama is awesome!
Good, we need more taxes anyway. No spin needed. Obama won this round.
In other words the Federal Government receives more tax revenue from those who disregard the mandate. Those people in turn remain uninsured but will still receive health care which will be written off as it is now thus contributing to the ever increasing costs.
So in other words, you really don't care about the uninsured and skyrocketing costs but rather about fattening the already bloated coffers of the Federal treasury. Noted.
Having just sped through Scalia's dissent, I observe that it is somewhat unusual. The tone of 95 percent of it reads as if it were a majority opinion.
It reads like a majority opinion because that 95 percent is devoid of any criticism of the Roberts opinion. All criticism of the Roberts opinion is appended at the very end in a few short paragraphs. Typically, a dissent will critique the errors of the majority opinion point-by-point throughout. But that is not the case here.
So, the question arises -- was the Scalia opinion, at one point, the majority opinion? Did Roberts (or someone else) flip late in the game on the Tax issue?
Angus: It's always about money. That's why they tax cigarettes to disincentivize people from smoking and yet expect the money to keep rolling in. Another, convenient, tax on the poor and middle class they know they can pass.
@BrianE said...
It is an end run to single payer
It always has been from day one. "single payer" language/option was removed only to get the BS deluge passed. It was never dropped as a goal.
To all the carrion crows so happy that someone else has to pay to maintain their useless selves, here is what will happen next:
The House will vote to repeal in less than 2 weeks. That will pass because no rep can now avoid acknowledging that a vote not to repeal is a vote for the largest middle class tax increase in history. Unless your district is unequivocally democrat safe - and you'd better be clear eyed making the call - you'll have to justify a vote not to repeal to middle class taxpaying constituents in November. The margin for repeal may be a very wide margin.
Then it goes to the senate where all it takes is a simple majority to uphold the house repeal. Vote not to uphold, and facing reelection in the fall, you had better be a magnitude more sure than the reps are that your seat is safe.
Why a magnitude? The house elections are districts that you when considered safe are more predictably safe. The senate elections are statewide and far harder to predict (See Brown vs Coakley in Mass).
On of three scenarios will play out here.
From his perspective, the best Obama can hope for is having ACA repealed this summer. It takes a weapon away from Romney and he personally might survive the election and the Dems might keep the senate majority. That would require Romney drop the ball. I doubt it, but he might.
At middling, the ACA repeal fails for now, he spins that as desperate GOP lawmaker obstruction of 'the right thing to do' etc,. If Romney drops the ball, Obama loses the senate in the fall and is looking at a huge GOP house majority in the fall, but himself survives November. ACA is repealed immediately as the first order of business in the new legislative session.
At worst, the ACA repeal fails - either because not enough senators vote to uphold a repeal coming out of the house or Reid refuses to let it come to a vote. Romney handles things right. The GOP gain in the house in November is increased, but the senate is lost to the GOP as is the presidency.
So...if I were one of the liberal dunderheads crowing in this thread about the SCOTUS decision you're forgetting one thing.
This is now about a tax on a middle class that has been battered financially. So you'd better hope Boehner is lying about taking this to a house vote in two weeks. Because if he does, any way it plays out, Obama is toast.
OK -- I just heard Romney's response briefly.
Weak, lame, ineffective, a complete swing and miss.
Does he jump on the "Supreme Court upholds the greatest TAX INCREASE on the middle class in American history" argument?
No, at least from what I heard, he completely misses that and instead tamely and calmly uses it for his own electoral purposes.
The mandate, and the limit on pre-existing conditions etc., and the extension of Medicaid might well all translate into, say, 10 or 15 million uninsured Americans (many would call this a low estimate btw) getting at least minimal health insurance by 2014. And there is no evidence that Republicans were ever going to do anything to effect that kind of coverage extension.
So there's that aspect. I wonder if any of the news or election coverage will bother to mention this, even if you all don't care about it.
BTW:
I believe the third scenario will play out. The house will repeal, but pressure from Dem senators facing reelection this fall and desperate to avoid having to take a position on ACA, Reid will stall the vote coming to the floor until the senate recesses.
To those of you who criticize the GOP for not "working" with the Dims ... consensus in the absence of sound principle is the way of the lemming, and leads to the same end.
More on that.
DNC spokespeople tweet "It's Constitutional, b*tches" and "Take that, m***********s".
When they claim they do not support it, don't let ANY Dem get away with it. This is THEIR party spokespeople doing this.
This is why Republicans won't deal with Obama. This is the class of person he associates with and is himself. A petulant child.
Millions of new customers for the government option.
Except Congress doesn't have to fund anything.
Democrats killed health insurance. Let THEM fix it.
Good, we need more taxes anyway. No spin needed. Obama won this round.
So, the bullshit about needing to fix "out of control health spending" was JUST bullshit, eh?
Because this sure as hell doesn't do anything to help the costs of health care.
Bender...
Politically, this is in Boehner's and McConnell's courts at this point. I think Romney played it exactly right.
RE: Bender:
So, the question arises -- was the Scalia opinion, at one point, the majority opinion? Did Roberts (or someone else) flip late in the game on the Tax issue?
You're not the only one to make that point. The history of the opinion here is going to be fascinating.
If inaction (not buying health insurance) is taxable under Congress's taxation power, then what isn't?
A BMI tax (>30)
A long hair tax (> 1 ft)
A beard tax
A wearing orange tax
A sloth tax
Just think, the government can put one of those handy dandy airport scanners outside of everyone's home, scan you when you leave the house, and levy the appropriate tax. Of course, not leaving the house for 1 hour of every 24 would be taxed (sunshine/Vitamin D!!! tax).
harrogate said...(emphasis added)
The mandate, and the limit on pre-existing conditions etc., and the extension of Medicaid might well all translate into, say, 10 or 15 million uninsured Americans (many would call this a low estimate btw) getting at least minimal health insurance by 2014.
And many more would simply call it making stuff up.
Liberals are being remarkably candid today, but this deserves special praise for candor. You guys have pulled numbers out of your asses throughout the Obamacare debate, but this is the first time you've admitted it.
So, thanks for your contribution to a civil discussion, at long last.
With his weak and lame response, Romney guarantees that he has already lost the PR war on this.
ADDED: Romney has at least 3 big arguments
Except that he doesn't -- not if he isn't going to make them, not if he doesn't even get them.
At least Romney talked taxes when he pushed for Romneycare: http://www.partialposts.com/?p=1421
"...for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase."
There is a distinct difference between a "tax" and an "increase" to an existing tax.
Bender, Romney only has to watch for a few weeks.
The MSM has been emphasizing the tax angle all morning in the race to be first to analyze the Scotus decision. It's too late to pull back - de-emphasize the tax angle.
When times were arguably not as hard on the middle call taxpayer as they are now, ACA barely squeaked by with both house and senate democrat majorities and arguably might not have if the tax aspect were clearly apparent.
Now with a worsened economy, no legitimate poll shows ACA with majority support. And what is key here is that those who disapprove strongly disapprove. The strongly agree with ACA on the other side is simply not there. Now that it's unavoidable calling it a huge tax increase, which side do you think will migrate?
Romney only has to keep from making a gaff at this point.
"There is a distinct difference between a "tax" and an "increase" to an existing tax."
-- Yes, and this is a new tax which increases the overall tax burden.
Christopher - "Good. Start with the parasites on your side who pay nothing in income taxes, yet get the benefits of the state showered upon them, if you're serious."
Kind of like those red states that take much more in federal assistance than they pay in in taxes?
Is that what you mean...parasite?
A few points:
All the trolls telling us to, "eat it" (a "thought" from the DNC BTW) don't give a damn aboput the poor. This is just another "blow" against the 1% in their war of envy arising from their own impotence to make decent lives for themselves. It will be interesting to see the looks on their faces when they join the rest of us in Maidanek-on-the-Hudson while the hated 1% gets a pass.
The Canadians, also fighting budget deficits, have begun to dismantle CanuckCare and, as people like Scott Walker have proven, we can do the same. The days when all things Lefty were cast forever are over.
If anything helps push the country into yet another downturn (as if we ever got out of the first), this will be it.
As Buford notes, we are in the land of Unintended Consequences now. The rules that applied under FDR no longer work. 60% of the people approved of Social Security so chances of repeal (even if a few Demos in the Senate have to be arm-twisted) are better than the doomsters would like to admit.
Finally, the Demo's dream of a permanent majority based on racial minorities may be about to come back to bite them. The largest immigrant group right now is Asians (18 mil), who tend to be family- and work-oriented and will largely go Republican. Then you have Hispanics (11 - 15 mil) the second generation of whom are also much more likely to vote Republican. Saddest part are black, who have been about 14% of the population* for about a century. They are now about 13% and may be aborting themselves out of existence.
* During WWII, George Marshall finally settled on a 100 division army of which 1 in 7 (14%) would have been black. This fell through due to the many health and literacy problems of black and was one reason for what became known as the 90 division gamble.
Romney only has to watch for a few weeks
A few weeks is a few weeks too late.
If he does not pounce on this NOW, then the pro-Obama spin will be set in concrete in the minds of the American people.
And how about speaking out against the ObamaCare Tax on its own demerits, rather than, in typical fashion, Romney using it for his own selfish "vote for me" purposes?
Haven't had a chance to catch up on the comments yet, but is anyone else enjoying the spectacle of liberals being hoist on the petard of their own advance spin -- attacking not just the Supreme Court as an institution, but the Roberts' Court in particular -- as much as I am?
Which is not to say there won't be some cognitive dissonance on the right as conservatives try to reconcile their defense of the Court in Citizen United and their disappointment here.
Kind of like those red states that take much more in federal assistance than they pay in in taxes?
Weirdly, my 1040 form doesn't indicate that my taxes are contingent on my place of residence.
Did I miss something in the instructions? They are kind of long and confusing.
Once again: "There is a distinct difference between a "tax" and an "increase" to an existing tax."
New taxes are levied every day, on all kinds of products and services.
The ACA will save billions over the years in health costs for those who need services but can't afford to pay for them today.
It will also allow those with pre-existing conditions to get insurance, cheaper drugs for seniors and many other health care services that are not availablt to many today.
The cost of "mandated" insurace ("tax") for young people will be nominal at best, and those under 25 can still be umbrellaed under their parent's poicies.
Stop whining.
Bender, Romney said: "Let me tell you why I say that. Obamacare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion."
So, not as forceful, and CBO said $1.7 trillion, but at least he's saying it.
Chip S. - Couldn't the red states be described a nothing more than parasites...just as the low income Americans described in Christopher's previous posting?
Why are you so concerned with those who make so little they do not have to pay income taxes, but not with the billions thrown at the states who take, but give little in return?
Wingnut hypocrisy.
"The ACA will save billions over the years in health costs for those who need services but can't afford to pay for them today."
-- No, it won't. CBO has said the cost is $1.7 trillion.
"It will also allow those with pre-existing conditions to get insurance, cheaper drugs for seniors and many other health care services that are not availablt to many today."
-- All things Republicans were willing to pass as stand alone measures. Also, drug prices are going up as research and production costs increase.
"The cost of "mandated" insurace ("tax") for young people will be nominal at best, and those under 25 can still be umbrellaed under their parent's poicies."
-- You best hope they don't, otherwise, costs will rise even faster. Also, I think it is great you think the cost is nominal at best, but think they can't afford it, but suddenly can afford it when the government inflates the price and demands it of them.
New campaign slogans for the republicans "the democrats lied and the economy dies" and "its a tax,stupid!".
Some record the democrats are running on, the worst eceonomy since ww2 and the largest tax hike ever in US history hitting the middle and working class on the head. The there are the state and local tax increases to fund public sector health plans employer contributions.
I can't think of a single thing right now...that makes me happier than viewing the massive whinefest via the usual Althouse sycophants.
What a bunch of crybabies.
Booo-fucking-hooooo.
Love said...
Chip S. - Couldn't the red states be described a nothing more than parasites...just as the low income Americans described in Christopher's previous posting?
Why are you so concerned with those who make so little they do not have to pay income taxes, but not with the billions thrown at the states who take, but give little in return?
Wingnut hypocrisy.
6/28/12 12:48 PM
States don't pay taxes. Taxpayers pay taxes but that would require something you don't have, a brain, to understand.
Greg said...At least Romney talked taxes when he pushed for Romneycare.
Bingo. However it was the Mass legislature that pushed and forced Romney's hand. I live in Mass and well remember the process.
Obama and the Democrats in the legislatures just had the worst possible SCOTUS decision paint them into a corner. Boehner, McXConnell, and Romney know this and it's for Boehner and McConnell to frontline the republican response, not Romney.
Obama and the Democrats now own the largest tax increase on the middle class in history and have no choice but to double down on it in an election year.
Romney only has to wait this out and in the next few weeks give no traction to any attempt by Obama or the Democrats to spin any statement he makes to their advantage.
This is all a shock and not yet gamed out since no one expected this as the outcome that I knew of. If I'm right, by the end of the day the the MSM will no longer be even mentioning the tax angle but it's too late to spin that away.
People voting their their wallets determine elections.
@ Matthew Sablan - "One of the major reasons for the increased estimated cost of Obamacare is the anticipation of a far weaker economy than the Congressional Budget Office had forecast as recently as last year."
The economy left behind by you-know-who.
And as the economy grows, the overall costs will drop.
@Love--First, if you want a civil discussion don't attribute things to me that I have not said. Ever. Then you can STFU about "hypocrisy."
As to the substantive point, I guess I have to spell it out for you: States don't pay taxes, the people in them do.
So any net inflow or outflow of federal money is determined by such factors as: the progressivity of the income tax, the geographical distribution of military bases, the school-age population, the income distribution, and a host of others.
My status as a net payer or recipient of federal largesse has precious little to do with what other people in my state pay in taxes or how many soldiers have their paychecks sent to locations in my state.
Love: The ACA will save billions over the years in health costs for those who need services but can't afford to pay for them today....
Another economics illiterate Obot takes the field to do battle for the King.
Who pays those billions, moron? Our children and grandchildren, that's who (assuming the country is still standing by then).
Bender said...
Romney only has to watch for a few weeks
A few weeks is a few weeks too late.
If he does not pounce on this NOW, then the pro-Obama spin will be set in concrete in the minds of the American people.
Like how Dictator Zero has had 4 years to brainwash us into how swell the recovery is doing?
Up to now, the Romster has shown himself to be the smartest guy in the room. Most people just want rid of this monstrosity. To say anything more is probably superfluous.
And how about speaking out against the ObamaCare Tax on its own demerits, rather than, in typical fashion, Romney using it for his own selfish "vote for me" purposes?
There is an election going on. What you want is for Zero to lose.
Correct?
Or does Bender just enjoy whining?
PS This is when you find out who packs the gear. There will be those who will say, "It's all over".
There will be others who say, "Now we need to make sure we have a new President and a new Congress. Let's get to it".
The guys (and girls) who are willing to fight will, I think, carry the day.
cubanbob - The federal assistance paid to the states...is used to improve the general welfare of the taxpayers...but if the taxpayers are paying fewer taxes into the federal fund, than they are getting in return...they are indeed taking more than they give.
"Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010."
That makes them parasites.
Dumb ass.
"And as the economy grows, the overall costs will drop."
-- Yeah. It's getting right on that.
The mandate, and the limit on pre-existing conditions etc., and the extension of Medicaid might well all translate into, say, 10 or 15 million uninsured Americans (many would call this a low estimate btw) getting at least minimal health insurance by 2014.
Again this is predicated on those millions choosing to purchase insurance in lieu of the penalty. There is a blind faith assumption that all but a statistically insignificant few will purchase health insurance. Unless of course your assumption is they all go on Medicaid.
Chip S.,
While your response was snarky, in substance you are right that a lot of people are throwing numbers around. It is because I hope that this will extend coverage that I even mildly support it. Can you understand that and respond without being a dick about it?
I mean, maybe I am misreading you but you seem to be saying that this bill will not extend coverage but will instead bring to bear all sorts of other horrible things. But what if it DOES extend coverage as promised? Does that matter to you at all?
hombre - Who "pays" the billions that are "saved" over time?
Well, if billions are "saved"...nobody has to pay them.
That's the whole point of "savings."
Dumb ass.
"But what if it DOES extend coverage as promised? Does that matter to you at all?"
-- The only way that will happen is if the economy recovers so fantastically that the pressure and drag that it creates can be ignored.
@Love--You're not very quick on the uptake, apparently.
But you do have a way with invective.
What I heard from Romney last hour was a portion of this --
What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States,” he said. “And that is, I will act to repeal Obamacare.”
“Let’s make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do,” Romney continued. “What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constiution. What they did not do is say that Obamacare is good law, or good policy. Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today.”
Toward the end of his remarks — which lasted only a few minutes — Romney emphasized the economic fallout that would occur if Obamacare was left in place.
“If we want good jobs and a bright economic future for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace Obamacare,” he declared. “That is my mission. That is our work, and I’m asking the people of America to join me.”
“If you don’t want the course President Obama has put us on, if you want instead a course that the founders envisioned, then join me in this effort,” Romney added. “Help us. Help us defeat Obamacare, help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and is killing jobs across this great country.”
But I just heard moments ago that Romney HAS turned it up, speaking of the massive tax increase, etc.
So, maybe the Romney camp got the message.
"Romney said: "Let me tell you why I say that. Obamacare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion." So, not as forceful, and CBO said $1.7 trillion, but at least he's saying it."
And Obama will say Romney is misrepresenting what the right thing to do is costing and Romney can say, "Your own CBO says 1.7T, I'm lowballing".
The more I see and read today, the more inclined I am to add a 4th scenario to what I wrote at 12;04.
The ACA repeal fails for now because Obama and the Democrats have no choice but to double down and hope Romney gaffs in a historic way. Romney keeps playing it smart. ACA repeal gets through the house but Reid blocks it for this session.
America has a republican president, a republican house with a historically large majority, and a republican senate in January.
Love said...
The economy left behind by you-know-who.
You mean Willie and his subprime mortgages? The guy who swept EnRon and DotCom under the rug?
Or do you mean Slobbering Barney and the Friend of Angelo (and his errand boy, Barry Ozero) who stonewalled any attempt to discontinue the subprime mess?
And as the economy grows, the overall costs will drop.
And where, dare we ask, is all this growth in the economy?
It sure didn't come from Stimulus I and II.
Or QE.
Or the GM bailout.
Or the drilling moratorium.
Or the Green Initiative?
By all means, where, O, where is all this growth?
harrogate said - "But what if it DOES extend coverage as promised? Does that matter to you at all?"
Are you kidding???
99% of the peple here could give a flying fuck about extending coverage, saving people money, helping the seniors get cheaper drugs, allowing those with pre-existing condition to get reasonable coverage (or any at all for that matter), etc.
Their entire mission in life is to bitch and whine about literally ANYTHING relating to President Obama, ANYTHING he proposes, says or does.
There's no debate or discussion here.
It's just one gigantic whinefest.
edutcher - So now you're going to blame the recession and worldwide economic collapse on President Clinton...and President Obama?
The recession began in December of 2007, 13 months BEFORE President Obama took office and seven years after Bill walked out the door.
Thinking people know better.
That's why you don't.
The ACA will save billions over the years in health costs for those who need services but can't afford to pay for them today.
It will also allow those with pre-existing conditions to get insurance, cheaper drugs for seniors and many other health care services that are not availablt to many today.
Thanks for the laugh, I could use one today. Your devotion to the President is truly touching.
Don't forget the part about everyone getting free ponies and unicorns.
"Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010."
To apply some perspective to this unsubstaniated assertion, it would ve helpful to know what percentage of these 22 states land is controlled by the Federal government.
For example, the Federal government owns and manages about 65% of Alaska so it stands to reason the state probably receives more Federal money than it contributes.
Love: You know how you talk about billions of savings that might materialize years later? In the same way, costs and consequences can do the same. Much of the economic problems over the last few years were built upon DECADES of bad policy, shared across parties, that Bush, surprisingly, tried to stop in some ways, while giving in in others.
The economy left behind by you-know-who.
Latest lefty spin: Obamacare fails, blame Bush!!
Let me fix that.
Love said...
harrogate said - "But what if it DOES extend coverage as promised? Does that matter to you at all?"
99% of the peple here could give a flying fuck about paying to extend someone elses coverage because that other person demands they do, paying to save other people money because those other people demand they should, pay for seniors to get cheaper drugs because seniors demand they do, or pay for those with pre-existing condition to get the same coverage at the same cost as those without because they demand it. etc.
You aren't asking that we help. Not in your grasping, selfish world. You're telling us that if we don't do so, and do so on your terms for as long as you see fit, you'll take it by government fiat and put us in jail if we refuse.
Fuck you, 'love'.
Ann really does march in lockstep with the right wing these days. She's quick to take up the "tax!" cry.
A) If people have health insurance, it's not a "tax" (or penalty)
B) If they do not pay the penalty, there is no punishment.
Contrary to the hysteria, the individual mandate is no big deal. As the conservative Heritage Foundation said when they first proposed it:
"Many states now require passengers in automobiles to wear seat belts for their own protection. Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance. But neither the federal government nor any state requires all households to protect themselves from the potentially catastrophic costs of a serious accident or illness. Under the Heritage plan, there would be such a requirement."
Love, in a lot of cases I think you are dead on.
But I just wish people who do not care about extending coverage at all, or who are actively against it, wouild say it that plainly. I think it would be helpful to the national discussion of health care policy.
How often is it that a GOP congressman or Senator stood in front of cameras and said something like, "you know what, if you don't have insurance that's your problem. I don't care about it." Ron Paul sorta did that in debates. But maybe a lot of people who think this way won't say it, for some reason?
harrogate said...
But what if it DOES extend coverage as promised? Does that matter to you at all?
A reasonable question.
What I care about is providing a basic level of health care for anyone. That is what Medicaid is for. And SCHIP. I also care about helping out people with pre-existing conditions who've lost their prior coverage b/c of cancellation or unemployment. That's why I've always been in favor of the state-run high-risk insurance pools.
Who is left out of all this? Those people who are uninsured not because they're poor, and not because there are no options for people with pre-existing conditions. So why are they uninsured? I don't know, and nobody ever bothered to find out before even (1) getting an accurate count of them and (2) figuring out why they didn't have insurance.
What I see in Obamacare is a headlong rush into needless federal regulation of a critical sector of the economy to achieve a vague goal of dubious merit. I would have been more than willing to look into ways to improve the insurance options of the uninsurable, but I'm not all that interested in imposing a massive and ill-designed regulatory system on everyone solely because some people in the US choose to gamble rather than buy insurance.
President Obama: “It should be pretty clear by now that I didn’t do this because it was good politics,” Obama said. “I did it because I believed it was good for the country. I did it because I believed it was good for the American people.”
The law is already benefiting millions of Americans by preventing insurers from dropping them when they get sick, requiring insurers spend a certain amount of each customer’s premiums on actual health care, and mandating that preventative care be made available for free.
All of which also benefits the wingnuts here.
Love: 'Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010.'
That makes them parasites.
Dumb ass.
Ah, so you think the only factors in the relevant economic equation are federal largesse and federal taxes. Why am I not surprised?
Suppose Kansas receives more federal largesse than it pays in taxes, but is the largest producer, by far, of winter wheat in the country. Is Kansas parasitic?
How ignorant are you?
"But I just wish people who do not care about extending coverage at all, or who are actively against it, wouild say it that plainly. I think it would be helpful to the national discussion of health care policy."
You must be tired from fighting strawmen all day.
Chip S. - "Who is left out of all this? Those people who are uninsured not because they're poor, and not because there are no options for people with pre-existing conditions."
What "options" are you referring to (that were previously available before this ruling) for people with pre-existing conditions??
"So why are they uninsured? I don't know, and nobody ever bothered to find out before even (1) getting an accurate count of them and (2) figuring out why they didn't have insurance."
That's ridiculous. Most don't have insurance because they either can't afford it or they just can't get coverage because of existing conditions and other areas of concern to the insurance companies.
Insurance coverage costs have more than doubled over the past ten years.
Where the hell have you been...to not know any of this??
Many others require anybody driving a car to have liability insurance.
Can you explain why I need to carry uninsured motorists coverage? While the state mandates I carry coverage, there is no enforcement if I drop my coverage.
Personally I have no problem with the mandate. I have a problem with a mandate that has no enforcement to speak of. I could be wrong though and the uninsured may buy coverage by the millions.
hombre - "Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010."
You can spin it any way you want, but the facts are the facts.
Whining about taxes or that big ol' nasty government...while accepting more than they pay in...makes them whining parasites.
Love: hombre - 'Who "pays" the billions that are "saved" over time?'
Well, if billions are "saved"...nobody has to pay them. That's the whole point of "savings."
Dumb ass.
That is perhaps the stupidest post ever on this site. You think "billions are saved" because someone else pays the medical expenses of the pobrecitos.
I take back my assessment that you are "ignorant." You are just plain stupid.
Love said...
edutcher - So now you're going to blame the recession and worldwide economic collapse on President Clinton...and President Obama?
The recession began in December of 2007, 13 months BEFORE President Obama took office and seven years after Bill walked out the door.
Thinking people know better.
That's why you don't.
Thinking people - which clearly excludes Love - look for cause and effect, not time frame.
And obviously Love doesn't know better. All he/she/it is concerned with is getting out the DNC talking points.
(the way the trolls are trying to convince everybody this is sooo popular (60% opposition, remember) and is saving us all kinds of money, you'd think the Lefties were actually hoping to be let off the hook by having it struck down)
@Love--Do you have a braille keyboard? Because it's pretty clear that you can't read.
My comment specified the options. The fact that you never heard about any of that at HuffPo is unsurprising but not interesting.
You are an ill-informed, ill-tempered idiot. IOW, a typical lefty.
Dictator Scum
Love: hombre - "Of the 22 states that went to McCain in 2008, 86 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010." (1:21)
Don't pretend that stat came from me, asshat. I was quoting you. I doubt it is even accurate.
I see the economics point of my post went right over your head. You are obviously part of the Obama base.
B - "You aren't asking that we help. Not in your grasping, selfish world. You're telling us that if we don't do so, and do so on your terms for as long as you see fit, you'll take it by government fiat and put us in jail if we refuse."
Have you considered dropping all of your auto insurance and continuing to drive? See what happens the first time you're stopped and the officer asks for "proof of coverage."
How about not wearing that seat belt if it's a "law" in your state? See what happens the first time you're stopped and the officer sees you're not wearing one.
Or stop wearing that helmet while driving your motorcycle (if it's a "law" in your state.) Ditto.
We already have all kinds of "mandates" that required via a "government fiat."
You're just whining to hear yourself whine...and of course, to suck in with the rest of the local wingnut gang.
Obama: "Nobody considers that a tax increase."
Given the rationing inherent in ObamaCare, it is entirely apt to declare:
Obama lied, people died.
Hoosier President!
Most don't have insurance because they ... can't afford it...
You are truly an idiot.
Pre-Obamacare, it was possible in CA for a single, healthy male to buy catastrophic coverage for 50 bucks a month.
Let me repeat that slowly, so you can understand what I'm saying:
Fifty
dollars
per
month.
If that's "unaffordable" to you, then you're poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. The fact that you'd rather spend $50 a month on your latte-a-day habit doesn't mean you "can't afford" it.
Now, of course, thanks to the "Affordable" Health Care Act, no such policies are available.
You've revealed total ignorance on this topic. Why not stop before your reputation hits "bailey" status?
Urkel.
Regardless of the whining you can see on display here...you can bet your ass that many of the these same people have friends and family members who, up until today, could not get coverage because of pre-existing conditions, will contnue to pay less for their drugs that they would otherwise have had to, and have kids who are already covered and will continue to be covered under their policies.
One way or another you ALL will be taking advantage of the very thing you're screaming to high heaven about.
And you know it too.
Harrogate wrote: But I just wish people who do not care about extending coverage at all, or who are actively against it, wouild say it that plainly.
Does it occur to you that it is just not that simple? Nobody opposes extending coverage, per se. The issue is: "at what cost?" Cost is measured in terms of loss of freedom, long term economic consequences and other factors.
The problem with the minions of the left is that they have lost the ability to fill in the blanks. They just want what they want and it is somebody else's job to provide it. That's why our children and our prosperity will be crushed by debt.
Love: And all those problems could be addressed in ways that didn't cost $1.7 trillion.
Chip S. "Pre-Obamacare, it was possible in CA for a single, healthy male to buy catastrophic coverage for 50 bucks a month."
And that's exactly why the "mandate" is nothing more than a bullshit gripe via you and the rest of the wingnuts here.
And by the way: the law isn't designed to help "single, healthy males or females" get coverage at a reasonable cost...dumb ass.
It's for those who CAN'T get or afford coverage.
Why can't you understand that?
when the premiums go up your employer will drop coverage. if the penalty to the employer goes up enough to deter this, your employer will just drop you.
"It's for those who CAN'T get or afford coverage."
-- Then it won't help them, as costs will increase. Look, stop and think. You think insurance companies are evil incarnate, right? They are being forced to eat a lot of costs and add to their overhead. And, as a bonus, they now have an entire country of people who legally MUST buy their product (or pay a tax).
Prices are going to go up. And you can do nothing about it besides pay a tax and then, later, pay the piper.
You're tough to keep up with, Love, b/c stupidity takes a lot less time to post than do corrections of it.
Anyway, even supposing that your made-up facts were true (which they're not, btw), it's quite possible for someone to think Social Security was a hideous mistake and still cash his checks if he should live to see any.
It's informative to see that lefties aren't just sore losers, they're also sore winners.
Matthew Sablan - There are all kinds of problems that could be addressed and handled...if the GOP ever actually negotiated, discussed and debated in good faith.
But saying "NO" to literally everything ever proposed by the president is why they're in the fix they find themselves in.
And Americans know it, too.
The 1.7 trillion you mention is based on the economy as it stands. Anybody who's ever taken a business course knows that things can change dramatically in a very short period of time.
Just look at how the surplus left behind by President Clinton change during the eight years of G.W. and Company.
Duh.
Matthew,
I'd be fighting straw men if I didn't know people who have said to me, it's your problem if you don;t have insurance. If that position wasn't already taken by several commenters on blog boards such as this. If that position wasn't exactly taken by Ron Paul. There are people who take this position.
Now, you may think it is total strawman to suppose that there are people out there who hold that position and dont want to say it. But I've seen people in conversation led to that statement, after going through a few firewalls.
And I ask you. if the GOP had a lot of people who care about extending coverage, why didn't they do a damned thing about it when they had all branches of government? I think that if this had been struck down today; and then Romney and the GOP won; THEN, we'd see 2 years of no coverage being extended in any way by the gov't. Any reason to think otherwise?
Love, like Phx, Pragmatist and others here, you are woefully uninformed about how much the right was willing to compromise with Obama. But, alas, Reid literally locked the door and would not let them attend meetings.
I don't think many here have the slightest idea of how this works.
I really don't.
Mathew: "Then it won't help them, as costs will increase."
Who says the cost of insurance will increase? The insurance companies? (Duh)
Chip S. - "Anyway, even supposing that your made-up facts were true."
What "made up" facts??
"And I ask you. if the GOP had a lot of people who care about extending coverage, why didn't they do a damned thing about it when they had all branches of government? "
-- Because in the 2000s, they were doing other things. A little thing happened in 2001, that you might remember, that kind of shook up everyone's priorities.
What with the recent discussion here the last hour or so, I wonder how the Supreme Court is going to rule?
Oh, wait, they did! Today!
So much of the nonsense being spewed is now completely irrelevant.
It would be nice if those folks would bother to read the opinion and only then comment.
Chip, don't bother trying to argue with Love / Jeremy. It's a troll; a slightly dumber version of garbage. All you'll get back is obfuscation, ad hominems and whining because somebody says mean things about his Little Black Jesus (never mind that the crackhead in chief couldn't take an hour of the crap sleaze like Love dished out to Bush daily).
You'll notice nowhere in its bleats did Love answer my point - what about the people who pay no income tax, yet benefit from the state's largesse? Why shouldn't they be made to carry some of the load?
In any event, Chip, just like a Ritmo, Alpha or Frder sighting, Jeremy posting is an absolute indicator that a thread is past its sell-by date.
"Who says the cost of insurance will increase? The insurance companies? (Duh)"
-- And experts in the field, columnists and Forbes.
"And by the way: the law isn't designed to help "single, healthy males or females" get coverage at a reasonable cost...dumb ass.
It's for those who CAN'T get or afford coverage."
ObamaCare effectively forbids catastrophic plans, so it greatly grows the number of people who can't afford coverage. It's my single biggest objection to this act.
"Pre-Obamacare, it was possible in CA for a single, healthy male to buy catastrophic coverage for 50
bucks a month."
What did that $50.00 per month buy you?
Chip S.,
Right now my brother, a young man in his late 20s, cannot afford insurance, and he has some pre-existing conditions also. And right now, he is not eligible for Medicaid. I don't really wonder whether he is the only American in such a predicament?
Another thing I want to say about the health care debate is, the way it is right now, almost nobody has, or can at all afford, insurance (at least nobody I know) unless they have a job that provides coverage as a benefit. A lot of people take jobs they detest, specifically because they need coverage. And would perhaps take other jobs, pursue other dreams, were it not for that albatross.
Extending coverage might well stimulate innovation in the arts, in technology, in business, etc., in all sorts of ways, because it frees people up to minimize the amount of hours they give to "The Man."
It's for those who CAN'T get or afford coverage.
Why can't you understand that?
I give up, Love. Your stupid is too powerful.
Among the things you don't understand are:
1. "Affordability" is not a well-defined concept. But I don't expect you to ever be able to understand what I mean by that.
2. The most sensible option for people who think deluxe insurance plans are too expensive for their tastes (another way of saying "unaffordable") is catastrophic coverage. Which is no longer available.
3. As I've already said multiple times, there were already programs designed for the poor and those with pre-existing conditions.
I'm clicking on my virtual "ignore" button now.
Buh-bye.
It is demonstrably NOT true that virtually everybody has to get car insurance in the USSA.
For starters, the entire state of NH is exempt.
Secondly, CA and TX and, god knows, other states allow for posting a bond instead of submitting to the idiocy of insurance.
A bond in lieu of healthcare insurance could be required of Muslims and Amish who are exempt from Obamacare mandate. It would also serve the interests of expatriate and tourist Amerikans who would then be able to actually pay for health care overseas where they got sick, instead of carrying useless healthcare insurance that pays for treatment where they aren't present!
Harrogate: If you really believe that, you would have supported the many, many proposals put forward by Republicans to make insurance cheaper and break it from being married to an employer/employee relationship. Sadly, you seem to have completely ignored the solutions offered to your stated problem to accept a different answer that only further harms the poor by forcing them to buy insurance or pay a tax, while the poorest of the poor are relatively unimpacted.
"Because in the 2000s, they were doing other things. A little thing happened in 2001, that you might remember, that kind of shook up everyone's priorities."
Come on, Matthew. I know you are better than that. How much time did they spend: rolling through marginal tax cuts; grandstanding over Terri Shiavo; denouncing the concept of gay marriage; obsessing over abortion; passing the ridiculous No Child Left behind; etc.
I mean, seriously. They weren't too busy to do it. And there is no evidence that their priorities were rearranged on health care; that is, unless there is evidence that once in the 80s or 90s or 2000s (we could go back further but whatever), the GOP was putting executive and/or legislative effort into finding ways to extend coverage.
These are just some reasons why one might think it is fair to say they don't see it as a priority. Ot that it is fair to say that for many of them, if you don't have health insurance, then that's your problem, period.
What did that $50.00 per month buy you?
Someone I know well bought such a policy when he was healthy, and in a couple of years he was stricken with a serious illness that required a couple of weeks in ICU, extensive hospitalization, and several years of follow-up care.
His total out-of-pocket for all this was around the high four figures. Period. Half of what he paid for his car. And if he hadn't had any income at the time, the hospital and doctors would've worked out an extended-payment plan with him.
No fights with Blue Shield, no fuss, no muss. And no being kicked out, either.
In short, a striking rebuttal of every single claim people love to make about the health insurance market.
"What did that $50.00 per month buy you?"
Do you know what catastrophic insurance is, Robert? I do not mean to be patronizing. So many people don't.
and mandating that preventative care be made available for free.
Does this mean physicians wont charge for preventative care or just that those costs will be applied to some other service?
Angus: I guess it also means the drugs and equipment will also cost nobody nothing.
Matthew,
They only started putting proposals out there after they were in the minority and there was a Dem President in 2009. And even those proposals (the ones I saw anyway) were overwhelmingly dependent upon believing that the Insurance companies would expand coverage if they were first given X, Y, and Z. Because the market, the almighty market, would suddenly make Health Insurance rates go down like the cost of jelly beans, if only those guys weren't regulated.
I never saw a GOP proposal to expand Medicaid to cover young people who cannot afford insurance. For example.
So, you didn't listen to them at all from 2009 onward. Got it.
It's a troll; a slightly dumber version of garbage.
Then remember: as a Christian you are compelled to help us the most! Kind of dovetails into helping the least of among us with ObamaCare. Don't you remember the parable of the Good Samaritan?
"Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man that fell among thieves?" The lawyer answered, "The one who had mercy on him. " Then said Jesus, "Go, and do likewise." (Luke 10:29-37)
From early 2010. A host of proposals that, without tinkering with Medicaid, get the same results you claim to want, if not better. You don't want certain results; you want certain actions.
Matthew,
I did listen to them. But it was reactionary. it was to stop what the Dems were doing. Fine, why didn't they propose something of their own when they had the podium? You never really addressed that.
I also have never seen a proposal that directly extended coverage. It is always, "if we do these things, then coverage extension would surely happen"
Harrogate: I did. They had other priorities.
Harrogate: Then you missed all their proposals to lower the cost of coverage. It is possible people would still choose not to have coverage. But, if as the Ds contested, no one had coverage because they could not afford it, lowering the cost would mean they'd have coverage. Empowering small businesses to group together into pools would increase coverage and lower their costs to hire more people.
But no. Real ideas besides throwing raw money at it is unacceptable.
No, Matthew, that doesn't cut it. because they weren't trying to do anything to extend coverage in the 90s either. And again, they had time to caterwaul for months about Terri Shiavo and they had time for NCLB. They had a lot of priorities, indeed. That is the frigging point. Extending coverage is either a priority or it isn't.
Harrogate: There's only so much time; they chose different priorities because, really, health care, while a major issue, was rarely a major issue. The economy, terrorism, mortgage crisis and the economy have been more pressing. Improving the economy and getting millions of people back to work will do more to help them get healthcare than simply saying "Therefore, you now have coverage." But, that reasoning clearly isn't working. You just want the happy feeling of expanding coverage, even if it is not a sustainable, long term plan.
Have you considered dropping all of your auto insurance and continuing to drive? See what happens the first time you're stopped and the officer asks for "proof of coverage."
You get a ticket, pay the fine and continue to drive.
For example, Obama squandered a lot of time on the ACA. But, you would say that he still cares about a host of other issues. Even things that did not come up. He dithered on dealing with the BP oil spill, but we will acknowledge that he cared about that issue. It is, apparently, only Republicans who must hold a candle, every day, all the time, about everything, or be damned forever as uncaring brutes.
Standards: Doubling them isn't good.
"There's only so much time; they chose different priorities because, really, health care, while a major issue, was rarely a major issue."
Show me any evidence at all of GOP politicians, when in power, initiated moves to extend insurance coverage. I mean, it's never "the right time" when it's not a priority for you.
Just because it wasn't a major issue for W. or the GOP Congress doesn't mean it wasn't a major issue. Just because the media didn't talk about it as much as they talked about gay marriage or missing women or some other social issue, doesn't mean it wasn't a major issue.
Harrogate, the goal posts are set in a place for a reason. Republicans had policy ideas that would do what you want. Instead of listening, you have somehow, studiously managed to completely avoid them. Apparently for the -years the debate was going on-. Then, instead of accepting: Ok, I guess I just didn't listen enough, you instead decide to pretend that this is about when they decide to talk about it.
Sure, we could keep running around, or you could just accept that they had ideas, and either you were too lazy to figure them out. We now have the current system, which may or may not last, and may or may not be a good idea. But don't lie to people and pretend that Republicans don't have ideas or care. You present yourself as intelligent, don't make me have to reconsider that opinion because you're too proud and partisan to admit when you're wrong.
I am saying that their *counterproposals* (and there is a difference--they pulled some shit out of their asses when they saw that finally, there was no escaping addressing HC) were ALL aimed at enriching or deregulating business and insurance companies in some way. Followed by the promise that if we only did this, we can have faith that said businesses and insurance companies were going to cover the uninsured.
You seem to be implying that it is not possible to disagree with that proposition. Which is weird.
jimbino said...
It is demonstrably NOT true that virtually everybody has to get car insurance in the USSA.
For starters, the entire state of NH is exempt.
They are?
Funny, because I spent 10 years writing auto insurance apps for almost every state, including NH.
harrogate said...
There's only so much time; they chose different priorities because, really, health care, while a major issue, was rarely a major issue.
Show me any evidence at all of GOP politicians, when in power, initiated moves to extend insurance coverage. I mean, it's never "the right time" when it's not a priority for you.
Maybe because the Republican Party usually tries to get the government out of people's lives when it can?
However, if harro wants to press the issue, Richard Nixon wanted to implement national health care when he was President.
Know who blocked it?
Teddy Kennedy, mostly because he wanted the Demos to get the credit.
We lost this battle when the Commerce Clause was expanded and when FDR rolled the court. It was a given that there would be no recourse to the courts. I know Roberts put a fig leaf on the Commerce Clause evisceration but gave up all of the same things under the taxing power so all that proves in the end is that we are never safe and even when we win the argument we will still lose the war.
And Roberts also signaled that he can be rolled if enough pressure is applied so he will always be pressured now. To those who love liberty he will be "The Traitor John Roberts." While to those who love tyranny he will be a pinata who will yield anything they wish if he is just punched hard enough.
Harrogate: So, if insurance premiums went down, you think people wouldn't buy insurance who previously could not afford it? Or, does that only work when Democrats lower insurance premiums by increasing cost and overhead to insurance companies while mandating everyone buys it?
You know, 'love', Chip is right. You are simply stupid. I'll go further and say utterly fucking stupid.
Because only an utterly fucking stupid person could think that their post at 1:35 answered this, or even relates.
'99% of the people here could give a flying fuck about paying to extend someone elses coverage because that other person demands they do, paying to save other people money because those other people demand they should, pay for seniors to get cheaper drugs because seniors demand they do, or pay for those with pre-existing condition to get the same coverage at the same cost as those without because they demand it. etc.
You aren't asking that we help. Not in your grasping, selfish world. You're telling us that if we don't do so, and do so on your terms for as long as you see fit, you'll take it by government fiat and put us in jail if we refuse.'
By the logic at 1:35, and I use the term logic generically and not in reference to your lack of it, my buying my own auto insurance by government fiat for my own protection, (which you simply assume I agree to) is equivalent to forcing me by government fiat to purchase the same coverage for other drivers.
Because, you utterly fucking stupid asshat, that is what your response implies you believe.
Edutcher writes:
"Maybe because the Republican Party usually tries to get the government out of people's lives when it can?"
Bingo. The party has shown no inclination to extend coverage because that would be government "in our lives." It's not the government's business to do anything about the uninsured.
"However, if harro wants to press the issue, Richard Nixon wanted to implement national health care when he was President."
Yes, some version of it, Tircky Dick did indeed propose. Funny how far back we have to go though. Was this the last time the GOP had the WH or Congress? I can't remember.
"Know who blocked it?
Teddy Kennedy, mostly because he wanted the Demos to get the credit."
Even if that were a fair representation of the facts, would that version of events, in itself, argue for us continuing to block efforts to extend insurance coverage now?
Or did you only mean to throw that in there as an attack on Kennedy? Hmmmm.
"Bingo. The party has shown no inclination to extend coverage because that would be government "in our lives." It's not the government's business to do anything about the uninsured."
-- This is only a true statement if you ignore the many, many ways that Republicans try to empower citizens. Believe it or not, you can get people to buy insurance without using the force of the IRS to convince them to do so. But, alas, you seem married to the fact that force of arms is the only way to get a reluctant citizenry to do what is best for them.
Matthew,
If somehow insurance rates went down to the point that a poor or, hell, even working class person could afford to just buy it outright. Then that'd be great, sure. But you seem to be presupposing that by further deregulating the insurance industry, such a dramatic drop in pricing is the result we would get.
And what are the uninsured to do while awaiting this result, meanwhile? How is this different than the "trickle down theory," again?
Harrogate: I see. Not only do you feel the need to relocate goal posts, but you want to beat up on the strawmen some more. Well, OK.
Matthew, I am not a big fan of the mandate. I would have preferred the public option or single payer. But I do hope that this program leads to extended insurance coverage. And if it does, I will celebrate that.
Well, harro proves he wants the government running our lives.
QED.
harrogate - You're wasting your time.
Every one of these nitwits will themselves, along with friend (if they actually have friends) or relative take advantage of one of the elements of the just passed health care act.
If any of them are on Medicaid or Medicare or have kids...they're already taking advantage.
They know it, too.
They just love whining about anyting Obama.
"Show me any evidence at all of GOP politicians, when in power, initiated moves to extend insurance coverage"
I wonder why leftists focus so exclusively on health insurance rather than medical care. Judging by this commenter I conclude it's because that issue yields more opportunities to be an asshole to those not in lockstep with the left.
"The GOP leaders of the Congress
have been given a political gift of historic dimensions."
Says Prairie Editor (my friend Barry Casselman in MN).
re: harrogate:
And what are the uninsured to do while awaiting this result, meanwhile?
First, do you actually know what Obamacare does? It doesn't give poor people health insurance -- the closest it came was expanding Medicaid eligibility. And the thing about Medicaid is that only a fraction of people who are eligible for Medicaid actually bother to sign-up. Most of them go without, and I don't see any reason that would change.
Bottom line -- the thing that actually guarantees health care for poor people is the Reagan-era law that requires hospitals to treat them in medical emergencies. This isn't an insured/uninsured thing -- uninsured and insured people use the ER at roughly the same frequency. It's a poor/non-poor thing. As practical matter, it hardly matters whether poor people have insurance or not, because the key limiting factors are supply and scheduling, not payment (Medicaid doesn't help on the payment front either, since the reimbursement rates are so low it often doesn't make sense for normal doctors to take Medicaid patients in the first place). Obamacare doesn't do a think to help remedy these issues; if anything, it's likely to make them worse.
edutcher - "Well, harro proves he wants the government running our lives."
Blah, blah, blah.
Teabagger drivel.
Wait. Since this is a tax, can HHS give out waivers to groups/individuals/whole freakin' states? Or does that have to come from the IRS?
"Love said...
Every one of these nitwits will themselves, along with friend (if they actually have friends) or relative take advantage of one of the elements of the just passed health care act."
There's probably never been a less honest argument advanced in favor of any policy than this. Following the law is somehow taking advantage of it? Forcing someone to pay more for something is fine, but if they then actually get the product they've paid for it's "taking advantage"?
I know these guys are stupid, but seriously, this is just embarassing. Doesn't anyone on the left have enough pride to ask this fool to shut up? Not for intellectual honesty, we know you have none. Ask him to quit embarassing you.
Health Care? I Don't Need No Doctor!!
But then I think there is something problematic with thinking of health care as a commodity, as though it were in a sense part of the jelly beans, widescreen television family.
I don't see why there's a problem with allowing people to choose to remain uninsured as long as they are willing to live with the aftermath of their choices--i.e. not going on public assistance if something bad happens and they end up with a huge medical bill.
I also think it is reprehensible to regard the uninsured in the US with something akin to "meh, their problem."
I've said this before in other forums, but there is simply no reason for the government to be the avenue of first resort for someone in a crisis. If anything, it should be #4, behind family, friends and church or private charity. If those first three are not viable avenues, then and only then should someone request public assistance.
(And if those first three avenues have been rendered not viable because the person has alienated those entities out of his/her life, perhaps that person should take a good, long look at what created that situation in the first place.)
Balfegor - Maybe you should spend more time actually reviewing and studying what the act does...and less time whining and bitching:
The Affordable Care Act helps address coverage issues and provides new protections for patients and consumers.
1. Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children because of their HIV or AIDS or any other pre-existing condition.
2. Insurers cannot rescind coverage for adults or children except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of a material fact.
3. Insurers can no longer impose a lifetime dollar limit on essential health benefits.
4. AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) benefits are now considered as contributions toward a Medicare beneficiary’s true Out of Pocket Spending Limit for drug coverage, a huge relief for low-income beneficiaries living with HIV and AIDS because it helps them move through the “donut hole” more quickly.
5. In 2014, all Americans will have access to affordable coverage because of important changes in health insurance options.
6. The Affordable Care Act will ensure that Medicaid coverage is available to all low-income Americans – including adults with no children – with income below 133% of the federal poverty level (about $14,500 for an individual and $29,700 for a family of four) wherever they might live.
7. Insurers will not be able to deny coverage or charge more for anyone who has a pre-existing condition.
8. People without access to employer-sponsored insurance or Medicaid will be able to buy private coverage from Affordable Insurance Exchanges, which are designed to make buying health insurance easier and more affordable.
9. People with low and middle incomes will have access to Federal premium tax credits that will ensure that this coverage is affordable for them.
10. It will also gradually closes the gap in Medicare’s prescription drug benefit known as the “donut hole.”
11. Medicare beneficiaries who reached the donut hole in 2010 received a one-time rebate of $250.
12. In 2011, beneficiaries who reach the donut hole receive a 50% discount on covered brand-name drugs while they are in the donut hole, a considerable savings.
After the ACA was passed, but before the Supreme Court case, I remember someone arguing that if it was a tax, it was not constitutional, because it did not conform to the allowable types of taxes. ( It was not an income tax, it was not an excise tax, etc... )
I don't remember this being discussed during oral arguements.
Was it dropped because its proponents realized they were wrong? Did this decision settle that issue? Or is that stuff of a future lawsuit?
Kind of like those red states that take much more in federal assistance than they pay in in taxes? Is that what you mean...parasite?
Funny how Wall Street makes a lot of money by investing in operations in red states, then paying taxes on their profits and gains from NY.
The location of the cash register doesn't necessarily determine where the money actually is being made, that ends up paying those taxes.
So much for your "parasite" argument.
Ritchie The Riveter - My "parasite" comment is related to one of the wingnuts posting a comment above about all of the poor people being "parasites" because they don't make enough to pay income taxes.
The teabaggers who got their start in red states constantly whine about big government and big government spending, yet those same states receive much more in federal dollars than they pay in taxes.
It has nothing to do with cash registers or profits...it's all about "hypocrisy."
And it's certainly plentiful right here.
"Ritchie The Riveter said...
Funny how Wall Street makes a lot of money by investing in operations in red states, then paying taxes on their profits and gains from NY.
The location of the cash register doesn't necessarily determine where the money actually is being made, that ends up paying those taxes.
So much for your "parasite" argument."
The main drivers of this silly leftist talking point are guns and geezers, which coincidentally drives the entirety of the federal budget. People who work in high tax areas tend to retire elsewhere. So someone who works in NY but retires to NC drives this metric, as does the fact that high tax states tend not to have as many military bases.
None of this has any real meaning to the issue at hand, but since the left has no qualms about misleading the public they promote the statistic anyway. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of how the statistic was generated realizes how idiotic their conclusion is.
Love said...
edutcher - "Well, harro proves he wants the government running our lives."
Blah, blah, blah.
Teabagger drivel.
No, just the facts.
And Love has no rebuttal.
Love said...
Balfegor - Maybe you should spend more time actually reviewing and studying what the act does...and less time whining and bitching:
The Affordable Care Act helps address coverage issues and provides new protections for patients and consumers.
At taxpayer expense and massive additions to the debt.
Also, all of which will be found to have been better addressed by the free market.
When it takes 6 months to get in to see a doctor, I'm sure Love will tell us this is a protection against needless doctor visits.
--The Affordable Care Act helps address coverage issues and provides new protections for patients and consumers---
They don't want consumers, they want money and death. Coverage issues did not need to be addressed this way.
--and mandating that preventative care be made available for free.---
Wait until there's more drug shortages and vaccine shortages.
BUT IT'S FREE!
--The teabaggers who got their start in red states constantly whine about big government and big government spending, yet those same states receive much more in federal dollars than they pay in taxes---
Do some of those states have Indian Reservations?
The teabaggers who got their start in red states constantly whine about big government and big government spending, yet those same states receive much more in federal dollars than they pay in taxes.
You have it bass-ackards ... many of the owners and brokers that profit greatly from businesses in all 50 states, tend to congregate in a few "blue" states, like NY.
They profit from the productivity of the people of the red states, yet their taxes are paid from where they sit, in blue states ... skewing the distribution of tax payments vs. government aid you are trying - and failing - to claim as evidence of conservative "hypocrisy".
Strain strain strain ... strain those gnats!
Then fling 'em out, see if they'll stick
From wherever you're at ...
As you swallow camels of dysfunction
'Till your belly's fat ...
Strain strain strain ... strain those gnats!
@ Love ... perhaps you can explain this:
If you don't have health insurance, that's not unlawful, but failing to pay the "tax" for not having it IS unlawful, and subject to immediate treatment as a penalty?
Perhaps you and Chief Justice Roberts are unfamiliar with IRS Code. That would explain the semantic fallacy of his ruling.
In short, you owe this for not doing something, not for anything you did. You compared it to automobile insurance, where there is a penalty (fine) for failing to have it. As another commenter said, vis a vis driving, with a fine you pay it and go back to driving without insurance. It is most certainly cheaper to do so ... here auto insurance for a senior citizen, with zero points in the past 20 years, living in the city is about $1200 per year, for a vehicle 6 years or older no less. The "Penalty" for going without insurance is between $75 and $100 per incident, which for drivers without points is demonstrably rare.
Using the straw man example avbove and applying it to the ACA, why would anyone buy insurance, at any price, given the "tax" structure as it written in to the act today?
We all become parasites.
Icepick weighs in on the decision at Ambiance, and while no fan of Obama, blames Bush for appointing Roberts.
"ADDED: Romney has at least 3 big arguments:
1. Obama imposed a huge new tax on working people.
2. Obama deceived the American people by saying it was not a tax, when it was."
BS
Suppose I buy no insurance, based on the exact same calculations as before, plus the added consideration that insurance is now a lot more expensive than it used to be when I also didn't buy any. Now suppose I get injured and show up at my local ER, where they have to treat me. The $1500 penalty--I mean, tax--I pay doesn't go to my local ER, it goes into the maw of the IRS.
Ahhh Chip. There you go pretending that there are all sorts of obvious costs to "the market" as a result of this bill but that the substantial cost of an uninsured E.R. admission were previously hidden, mysterious, and reimbursed by something other than "federal largesse".
Interesting. Some facts regarding the workings of this supposedly, previously completely free-market industry might benefit you. It does comprise a fifth of the economy, after all.
EMTALA does not preclude the hospital from attempting to bill a patient for their care once the emergency care has been delivered[7]. In practice, hospitals may be unable to recover funds from indigent patients, who they are still required to treat. However for patients who can be identified and traced, billing is normal, contrary to common myth. Indeed, hospitals are mostly federally-funded and mostly not-for-profit, both of which stipulate the emphasis on making care accessible to all populations.
The excerpt above from Chip's Wikipedia link is a way of explaining that submitting a bill does not guarantee payment by that party.
There you go pretending that there are all sorts of obvious costs to "the market" as a result of this bill but that the substantial cost of an uninsured E.R. admission were previously hidden, mysterious, and reimbursed by something other than "federal largesse"
Of course. They were reimbursed by those who actually paid their medical expenses in the form of higher fees for medical services.
I'm still not convinced that there is any teeth behind the mandate in which those who currently can't obtain coverage will suddenly flock to the health insurance companies to pay more in premiums than they would in fines to the IRS. In fact, there is no incentive to do so since one could wait until they actually need insurance since they cannot be denied for a pre-existing condition.
Perhaps I am wrong but there are far too many who would rather game the system than do what is appropriate and necessary.
There you go pretending that there are all sorts of obvious costs to "the market" as a result of this bill but that the substantial cost of an uninsured E.R. admission were previously hidden, mysterious, and reimbursed by something other than "federal largesse".
That wasn't my point at all. I thought I was pretty clear in stating that Roberts' argument about "cost shifting" was incoherent. And it is.
The standard "cost-shifting" argument is that hospitals cover their unpaid bills by raising the rates they charge to insured customers. Having the IRS collect a tax on people who don't have insurance does nothing to change this cost shifting. Period.
It's pretty odd that you'd think you're making some devastating point from the link I provided. To the extent that uninsured people are able to pay their medical bills, then there's obviously no problem. There's no cost shifting, and the uninsured are able to "afford" their health care.
The only argument Obamacare supporters have ever advanced is about the uninsured patients who don't pay their bills, and thereby shift costs to the insured.
But I'm sure you really know all this, and are just being playful. Which is fine. Your side won, and you're entitled to a victory lap.
I don't expect graciousness in victory from people on the left. Or graciousness in defeat, for that matter.
Especially not that.
I don't expect graciousness in victory from people on the left. Or graciousness in defeat, for that matter.
I think this is the first 5-4 decision that the liberal left heralded as the equivalent of Moses coming down the mountain.
Post a Comment