Health Care Reform Act

[applepansy]

I was talking about a certain "Revolution" in the U.S. that took place back in 1981 to the late 80s that your parents may have or may not have supported. That "Revolution" changed things for the worse even though some people think the person behind it is some kind of demi-god.

I have no idea what revolution you're taking about.

[Guest]

In that case I would think that fascism would be the opposite not communism. In fact I would say communism was way closer to anarchism that fascism is.

Communism is not the opposite. Anarchism is. Communism - full state control (statist), Anarchism - complete lack of state control (not statist by any degree).

Actually, Totalitarianism is more appropriate than Communism as the example for full state control (extremely statist).

Communism is super opposite of Anarchism.

Fascism is a completely different ball of wax. Yes, a fascist is, by nature, statist. But what makes a statist a fascist is the elitist nature of its state identity.

[Traveler]

...

The downside to the Court's decision that ACA falls under Congress' taxing power, is that it reinforces the principle that Congress can pretty much tax you for anything it deems politically expedient- ...

...

This is not a down side - since tax law can be changed every year with the budget and because the mandate is defined as a tax - it gives opposition power to kill the financing of the bill by gaining a simply majority of the house and senate.

The Traveler

[Guest]

This is not a down side - since tax law can be changed every year with the budget and because the mandate is defined as a tax - it gives opposition power to kill the financing of the bill by gaining a simply majority of the house and senate.

The Traveler

That's not the principle, Traveler. That's just a work-around.

[Traveler]

That's not the principle, Traveler. That's just a work-around.

What is the principle? If the funding is a tax - not only can the congress change the demographics of how a tax is paid but congress also has complete control (except for presidential veto) over how the money is spent - they do not have to spend a dime of collected taxes on health care. Defunding has been a long method of killing previous unpopular legislation to the party that controls congress.

That is the reason that many want a balance budget amendment - that forces congress and what-ever party is in control to defund what-ever is necessary to end debt spending. If we make such a move we need to make sure that Social Security funds cannot be use as genera funds as it has in the past.

The Traveler

[Guest]

What is the principle? If the funding is a tax - not only can the congress change the demographics of how a tax is paid but congress also has complete control (except for presidential veto) over how the money is spent - they do not have to spend a dime of collected taxes on health care. Defunding has been a long method of killing previous unpopular legislation to the party that controls congress.

That is the reason that many want a balance budget amendment - that forces congress and what-ever party is in control to defund what-ever is necessary to end debt spending. If we make such a move we need to make sure that Social Security funds cannot be use as genera funds as it has in the past.

The Traveler

The principle is very obvious. It's one thing to tax something to raise its price so people will be discouraged to buy it (e.g. cigarettes). It's another thing to tax an individual for not buying something (health insurance).

Okay, so you're gonna say... but but but... you have to buy car insurance. What's the difference? The difference is - I don't have to buy a car.

[NightSG]

Okay, so you're gonna say... but but but... you have to buy car insurance. What's the difference? The difference is - I don't have to buy a car.

You don't even have to buy car insurance to have the car, just to drive it on public roads. You can cruise around a private field all you want without insurance.

Even when you do drive on public roads, you only have to have liability coverage; you're free to not do anything to protect your own interests, as long as you protect the interests of those you are likely to injure. (And yes, it is likely that sometime in your driving career you will cause property damage or personal injury to someone.)

[Just_A_Guy]

The principle is very obvious. It's one thing to tax something to raise its price so people will be discouraged to buy it (e.g. cigarettes). It's another thing to tax an individual for not buying something (health insurance).

Okay, so you're gonna say... but but but... you have to buy car insurance. What's the difference? The difference is - I don't have to buy a car.

You could say, though, that I'm "punished" by the tax code if I don't marry, don't have kids, don't own a hybrid, don't have a mortgage, or forego any other of the numerous activities that qualifies one for a "deduction". The terminology is different--ordinarily we get a "deduction" for desirable behavior rather than a "penalty" for undesirable behavior--but the practical effect is the same.

Limbaugh's still going nuts about this supposed "extension of Congress' taxing power", but IMHO Sebelius didn't really give Congress any power it hasn't already been exercising. People don't understand how broad Congress' power in this regard has historically been; and if SCOTUS' recent action opens up that discussion then that's a good thing in my book.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

You could say, though, that I'm "punished" by the tax code if I don't marry, don't have kids, don't own a hybrid, don't have a mortgage, or forego any other of the numerous activities that qualifies one for a "deduction". The terminology is different--ordinarily we get a "deduction" for desirable behavior rather than a "penalty" for undesirable behavior--but the practical effect is the same.

Limbaugh's still going nuts about this supposed "extension of Congress' taxing power", but IMHO Sebelius didn't really give Congress any power it hasn't already been exercising. People don't understand how broad Congress' power in this regard has historically been; and if SCOTUS' recent action opens up that discussion then that's a good thing in my book.

There's a difference here, JAG. The principle... say about a hybrid... is that you still don't HAVE to buy a hybrid. If you do, you get the hybrid cheaper. Yes, in reality, it ends up in the wash. But, like I told Traveler, we're not talking about what ends up in the wash. We're talking about the principle of government forcing people and private business to engage in commerce they may not want to engage in.

If they want to do health insurance, then they do it like Massachussets does... you get a government voucher that you can spend on health insurance of your choice. The government is not forcing you to buy health insurance, it gives you money so you can buy one.

There's a difference in principle even if the end result is the same.

[Just_A_Guy]

If I understand you correctly, Anatess, then we pretty much agree. My point is that this is pretty much what the Feds have been doing for years in order to push a lot of behaviors that they consider to be socially desirable. If it's a problem that they're doing this for health care, isn't it also a problem that they're doing this for the other kinds of products I mentioned?

[talisyn]

Am I the only one surprised this was upheld, after hearing the stellar argument made by the federal government??? TBH, I thought the guy had been bought lol. Almost as bad as the lawyer who did the Prop 8 defense appeal.

[Traveler]

There's a difference here, JAG. The principle... say about a hybrid... is that you still don't HAVE to buy a hybrid. If you do, you get the hybrid cheaper. Yes, in reality, it ends up in the wash. But, like I told Traveler, we're not talking about what ends up in the wash. We're talking about the principle of government forcing people and private business to engage in commerce they may not want to engage in.

If they want to do health insurance, then they do it like Massachussets does... you get a government voucher that you can spend on health insurance of your choice. The government is not forcing you to buy health insurance, it gives you money so you can buy one.

There's a difference in principle even if the end result is the same.

All taxes are a punishment for having money. I promise you - if you never have any money - regardless of any law - you will never pay - even a penny in taxes - ever!

And you missed the most important point of all. You are not forced to buy anything when you are taxed. Congress does not have to spend even a penny of what you pay in taxes on anything in particular. Congress can change their mind in any given year and put all your taxes into their retirement if they wish. Congress has the right to issue taxes and they have the right to fund anything they wish to appropriate.

The tax in the health care law is no different than any other tax - The feds can collect it but they do not have to spend a dime of it on any thing in particular. The reality - the law does not make you or anyone else buy anything. What taxes do is give congress the right to spend such funds any way they want.

The Traveler

Adding something - Not only have we given congress the right to spend all taxes on what-ever they want but we have given congress the right to create taxes without even knowing who or how such taxes will be paid. It is called the national debt. We have given congress the right to borrow money without asking and spend it anyway they wish.

I really believe that if the American people knew and understood what our "public servants" were doing that we would drag them out in the streets and lench them all.

The Traveler

Edited July 4, 2012 by Traveler

[annewandering]

"All taxes are a punishment for having money. I promise you - if you never have any money - regardless of any law - you will never pay - even a penny in taxes - ever!" ....Traveler

So the very poor are not punished because they dont pay tax? I am going to assume that you did not mean to imply that natural progression of your idea.

People with no money at all are not paying taxes because they are dead or soon will be.

[Traveler]

"All taxes are a punishment for having money. I promise you - if you never have any money - regardless of any law - you will never pay - even a penny in taxes - ever!" ....Traveler

So the very poor are not punished because they dont pay tax? I am going to assume that you did not mean to imply that natural progression of your idea.

People with no money at all are not paying taxes because they are dead or soon will be.

I have no idea what you are talking about - most children and babies do not have money, are not necessarly poor, do not pay taxes and are not dead nor should we assume they will be dead any sooner than anyone else.

The Traveler

[Still_Small_Voice]

The definition of Socialism is the following - An economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels

--------------------------

Historically socialist systems always fail. The reason they fail is they remove the incentive from an individual to be self reliant (take care of themselves). The burden is shifted to government to take care of wants and needs. The system will always implode if given enough time because demand exceeds supply. Why put a good effort in to be a productive worker if all your profits are just going to be stripped from you? There is no incentive to be productive under socialist societies and that is why they fail.

[talisyn]

Historically, socialism is a brand new thing. We really can't say that it's a failed system, any more than we can say capitalism (also a fairly brand new thing) is a failed system. Communism, as practiced by the former Soviet Union, was a form of socialism that failed. However, communism, as practiced by China, seems to be doing pretty well. As we can see by these examples, socialism is capable of taking aspects of other forms of economic models and incorporating them into itself. Give socialism a few more centuries, then we'll talk about what's the better form of government.

[Just_A_Guy]

Historically, socialism is a brand new thing. We really can't say that it's a failed system, any more than we can say capitalism (also a fairly brand new thing) is a failed system. Communism, as practiced by the former Soviet Union, was a form of socialism that failed. However, communism, as practiced by China, seems to be doing pretty well. As we can see by these examples, socialism is capable of taking aspects of other forms of economic models and incorporating them into itself. Give socialism a few more centuries, then we'll talk about what's the better form of government.

It seems to me that your post depends on very specific definitions to terms like "failure", "success", and "communism".

Fascism lasted only a couple of decades, and Stalin and Mao each killed millions more than Hitler and Mussolini ever dreamed. Can I therefore demand that fascism be given "a few more centuries" before passing judgment on that system? After all, say what you will about Mussolini--but he did make the trains run on time.

Moreover, communist China isn't really "communist" in the true sense of the world. It's the closing chapter of Animal Farm--obsessed with its own revolution and giving lip service to the ideals thereof; but in practice run by a network of leaders that is as much an oligarchy as the imperial court it replaced.

Edited July 8, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[kapikui]

So...I have a sister with multiple health issues but who refuses to go to a doctor because she doesn't have health insurance. She claims she can't afford insurance or health care. I don't know for sure but I think she and her husband make too much money to be eligible for govt. assistance, but in her opinion, not enough money to buy insurance. He is self employed. She is unemployed. They had their house flooded by a hurricane last August and have had to gut 3/4 of it right down to the framing and are probably 75% dependent on volunteers to rebuild. I believe they got about $35,000 from the govt to rebuild which is a drop in the bucket when you consider having to re-do a whole kitchen, walls, flooring, appliances, furnace and yard. And her husband's business flooded, too. They had no home owners insurance (which I thought was illegal but whatever...) They've been living in a FEMA trailer since last fall. So they really are poor (I think?? She doesn't give us many specifics).

Given this scenario, is the new "Affordable Health Care Act" a boon for her or not?

Edit: and thanks for the explanations!

Short term, it will almost certainly be a boon. Longer term is more sticky. The thing is that the money has to come from somewhere. The current attitude is to have the rich pay "their fair share". The problem is that words like fair aren't really all that well defined, so different people will have vastly different attitudes about what is "fair". If you invent a product and sell it for $10,000,000 is it fair for the government to take as much as 70% of that so you can pay your "fair" share? According to the Carter administration, I'm told it was.

Of course this doesn't touch the practical matters. People with money don't want it taken. They'll do what they can to hang on to it. Whether you like it or not, they'll simply start opting out of things that cost. Instead of investing in a new business and creating more jobs, they'll lay people off in order to stay in business, and pay the new tax they have to with the new law. Of course this means more people without the ability to purchase health insurance, and more of this "tax".

The other issue is that because there are price controls, there will almost certainly be shortages. It's happened pretty much every time in history there has been a price control. In countries where similar laws have gone into effect, there are waiting lists for a lot of medical procedures. I worked with a woman who had come to the U.S. from england. She had constant pain due to a gall bladder issue. Since it wasn't life threatening, there was a 2 year waiting list. When she came to the U.S. It was fixed within a few days of seeing the doctor. Another more public example happened a couple of years ago. Tony Blair had a slipped or bulged disk in his back. He had it treated within days. There was a huge controversy over this and favoritism, as for the general public there was a 9 month waiting list for the necessary treatment.

So yes in the short term, it will be a great boon for her. It would be a boon for me now, but only in the short term. In the long term, from the conservative point of view, it is likely to completely stifle medical innovation, as no one can make money on it anymore, and most likely will do significant damage to the economy. This means that it will not ultimately be a boon to anyone but those who are perpetually on welfare.

[Still_Small_Voice]

China's financial state is not bad because they do not spend money they do not have. The Chinese government does not recognize individual rights. If you criticize the government they can throw you in prison or kill you. Their government is not one I would want in the United States. I am also not very impressed with any form of socialist Health Care system. The lines are long and the demand exceeds the supply.

[annewandering]

I certainly grant that 'the lines are not that long' for people with no health care. No point in being in a line to no where.

[Guest]

All taxes are a punishment for having money. I promise you - if you never have any money - regardless of any law - you will never pay - even a penny in taxes - ever!

And you missed the most important point of all. You are not forced to buy anything when you are taxed. Congress does not have to spend even a penny of what you pay in taxes on anything in particular. Congress can change their mind in any given year and put all your taxes into their retirement if they wish. Congress has the right to issue taxes and they have the right to fund anything they wish to appropriate.

The tax in the health care law is no different than any other tax - The feds can collect it but they do not have to spend a dime of it on any thing in particular. The reality - the law does not make you or anyone else buy anything. What taxes do is give congress the right to spend such funds any way they want.

The Traveler

Okay, this post doesn't make sense.

Taxes is not punishment for having money. Unless you would also accept that Tithing is punishment for having money.

But yes, the progressive income tax system is punitive, not because you're paying taxes, but because it makes people less desirous of raising their income. Sales tax may be considered punitive if you consider that cigarettes generally have a higher tax than other goods, so it makes it less desirous for people to buy cigarettes. But, generally, a sales tax is not punitive as everyone, regardless of wealth status pays the same tax at the register.

The tax in the healthcare law IS very different from any other tax law. It is collected as a "fine" for non-procurement of healthcare insurance. There's no other law like it. Even the Hybrid Car tax law is not like it. The feds don't tell you, you must buy a hybrid or else we are going to increase your tax liability. Instead, it tells you - everybody pays X, then if you buy a hybrid, we'll give you a discount. A completely different principle.

In the Healthcare act, the fines that are collected via the IRS are going to be used to purchase health insurance for those that don't buy one for themselves. The moment you are fined for lack of health insurance, you get insurance coverage through the federal government.

Make sense?

[Dravin]

The moment you are fined for lack of health insurance, you get insurance coverage through the federal government.

Make sense?

Are you saying that if I (hypothetical I) don't get insurance and pay the penalty/tax that I will then be covered under a federal insurance program?

[Backroads]

Are you saying that if I (hypothetical I) don't get insurance and pay the penalty/tax that I will then be covered under a federal insurance program?

Seems rather pointless to me.

[Dravin]

Seems rather pointless to me.

It doesn't seem true to me, nothing I've read has suggested that the tax buys you federal insurance, just that it's purpose is to discourage people from deciding not to bother with insurance until they actually get sick.

[Backroads]

Yet I have an uncle who doesn't bother. Oh, he has major medical or something like that for true emergencies like cancer, but he has a nice big account he's been putting money into that pays for the smaller medical bills. According to him, it's cheaper. And it probably is. He's prepared. Why should the government care if he has regular health insurance or not? Why discourage him from doing what works for him.

My complaint is that it shouldn't be the government's job to babysit people who have/don't have insurance.

Edited July 9, 2012 by Backroads