View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently July 24th, 2014, 11:28 am



Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
 Romney: Insurance mandate is a tax, high court 'has spoken' 
Author Message
Veteran General Manager
User avatar

Joined: May 7th, 2005, 3:25 pm
Posts: 7236
Location: Earth/Sagittarius Dwarf Galaxy
Post Romney: Insurance mandate is a tax, high court 'has spoken'
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/04/romney-insurance-mandate-is-tax-high-court-has-spoken/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

I'm not posting the whole article. It just doesn't matter. The Title is what I am focusing on. What difference does it make if the mandate is a tax or a fee?
IT IS STILL MONEY THAT EVERY AMERICAN IS GOING TO BE FORCED TO SPEND THAT WE DIDN'T USED TO HAVE TO SPEND. THIS DEBATE IS COMPLETELY RETARDED. <---- I am not referring to handicapped people with the use of that word. The conversation itself is being retarded by the debate of whether it's a tax or a fee.


July 4th, 2012, 3:33 pm
Profile
ST Coordinator – Danny Crossman
User avatar

Joined: March 30th, 2006, 12:48 am
Posts: 3709
Location: Davison Mi
Post Re: Romney: Insurance mandate is a tax, high court 'has spok
Because the democrats swore there wouldn't be a need o raise taxes to make obamacare work. This proves they were wrong and worse....lied.

_________________
2013 Lionbacker Fantasy Football Champion


July 4th, 2012, 3:41 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2741
Post Re: Romney: Insurance mandate is a tax, high court 'has spok
The difference between it being a tax and a fee are simple. If it were a fee, it would have to use the commerce clause. The way the bill was written, it gave the ability to the government to be able to force us to buy anything, related or unrelated to healthcare. There was no limiting principle that said it only applied to the healthcare bill. That was the problem and would have been bad precedent. By naming it a tax, it falls under Congress's ability to tax. Having it upheld this way is the better alternative. You don't want democrats or republicans to have that kind of power. Upholding the law made it impossible in the future for that kind of power.

As for the lying, its a political tool. The dems can run on passing their huge program, and the repubs can run it being a tax and that the 27-61 year olds are the ones that have to bear the weight of it. The "no taxes for anyone making under $250k" was drummed into people's heads for so long, this won't go over well. Anyone making over $15.5k a year is now having to pay more. Instead of the race being about only the economy, now it's the economy + obamacare.


July 6th, 2012, 12:57 pm
Profile
Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pm
Posts: 408
Post Re: Romney: Insurance mandate is a tax, high court 'has spok
njroar wrote:
Anyone making over $15.5k a year is now having to pay more.


How do you figure?


July 6th, 2012, 1:08 pm
Profile
Player of the Year - Defense

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 am
Posts: 2741
Post Re: Romney: Insurance mandate is a tax, high court 'has spok
I.E. wrote:
njroar wrote:
Anyone making over $15.5k a year is now having to pay more.


How do you figure?


because that's the 130% poverty level that is written into the bill. Anyone under that amount gets put into the pool for medicare.


July 6th, 2012, 1:10 pm
Profile
Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pm
Posts: 408
Post Re: Romney: Insurance mandate is a tax, high court 'has spok
njroar wrote:
I.E. wrote:
njroar wrote:
Anyone making over $15.5k a year is now having to pay more.


How do you figure?


because that's the 130% poverty level that is written into the bill. Anyone under that amount gets put into the pool for medicare.


First - you mean Medicaid, not medicare. The new people in that group will be young males and other currently uninsured/uninsurable. Women and children under the poverty level already get it.

Second - I think you have the dollar amount wrong... I'll check.

Third - It is 133% of the poverty level that gets fully covered... but then from there people above that level get subsidized on a decreasing basis on a sliding scale (in advance, through an advanced tax credit paid up-front) up to 4 times the poverty level... approx $98K.

Fourth - for anyone who already has health insurance, there is no certainty that it will either raise or decrease their costs. If they get HI from an employer, maybe nothing will change ... unless the employer changes their plan & redirects people to the new exchanges. IF that happens, they still may have lower costs, since competition on the exchanges will result in lower prices than some current private insurance (because of economies of scale - not quality of service). And when they DO use the exchanges, people will have a fairly wide choice of options ... if they don't want to spend money on healthcare, they can choose a dirt-cheap option. The "penalty" is based on a function/percentage of the cost of the 2nd cheapest option, by the way.

The only certainty right now is that more people will be covered, and more consistently, an many people will pay differently - but people who already have insurance likely won't be paying more, or more taxes. And that is most people - especially people in the middle class.


July 6th, 2012, 1:29 pm
Profile
Post Re: Romney: Insurance mandate is a tax, high court 'has spok
Numbers have been ran and allegedly 75% of the new "taxes" that this thing now creates will be born by people that make $133k per year or less. H.C. costs have risen 20% last year alone (and people with private insurance will tell you its more like 300%... I have a lot of family members that are small business owners). This thing is a colossal cluster phuck.

On top of that 26 states are threatening not to expand medicade, placing the brunt of the expense right on those that can't afford it. This thing is a piece of crap bill that was hurried through Congress and now everyone is paying the consequences. Good job Democrats!!!


July 6th, 2012, 2:02 pm
Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pm
Posts: 408
Post Re: Romney: Insurance mandate is a tax, high court 'has spok
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Numbers have been ran and allegedly 75% of the new "taxes" that this thing now creates will be born by people that make $133k per year or less. H.C. costs have risen 20% last year alone (and people with private insurance will tell you its more like 300%... I have a lot of family members that are small business owners). This thing is a colossal cluster phuck.

On top of that 26 states are threatening not to expand medicade, placing the brunt of the expense right on those that can't afford it. This thing is a piece of crap bill that was hurried through Congress and now everyone is paying the consequences. Good job Democrats!!!


I'm sure those "75%" numbers are probably reasonable - because the top earners are fewer, and of course the cost is going to be spread amongst the larger proportion of the population more, like everything else that is headcount-based.

But what people don't know is, what is the amount of the tax? People can't rightfully claim that buying healthcare insurance is a new tax or a tax at all - 90% of the country already has it. So everyone who is insured will be paying no new tax at all - they'll simply be buying the insurance most of them have already been paying for. The only new "tax" will be the people who opt to no buy health insurance ... which will be illogical for them to do because the question of having health insurance or paying a penalty & getting nothing is a no-brainer. The law is intended to incent people to do the right thing (will anybody really argue that getting insurance isn't a good idea?), and minimize any tax/penalty.

The same applies to the states and Medicaid expansion. I don't pay attention to the blowhard election-year politicians on the subject, or (what I consider to be absurd) claims that half the states won't sign on ... I can see no way a state would opt out of the expansion, refuse
full federal underwriting of the cost for the first few years & 90% of it afterwards. I strongly believe the state politicians will be forced into it by the people, who really don't mind the government trying to preserve their lives nearly as much as they mind the government controling their lives. That's the distinction I make.

The HIX (exchanges) are intended to bring or keep costs down, and create more apples-to-apples competition amongst insurance companies. Insurance companies are going to be fined for administrative costs/overhead that exceeds 80-85% - so there's no question efficiencies will be driven into that area. That doesn't mean reduction in services - because they'll also be held accountable for network adequacy, and people will have opportunity to switch carriers (this is not single payer!). So there is no hard evididence they will cause costs to go up. There is legitimate concern, of course - because of the adverse selection of forcing currently uninsurable people into the pool. But that's the whole point of the mandate - to off-set the higher risk wtih the other currently uninsured who are the most attractive risk to the insurance companies - young males who often dont have insurance because they don't think they need it (until they do, and go to the emergency room anyway).

The HIX are also going to have a small business construct, and the intent is not to monkeyhammer small businesses with new taxes & costs. Since the exchanges aren't out there & the products are not developed yet ... I'd take things that people say on this front with a grain of salt. I can't speak to this right now - but would love to discuss in the near future.

That "good job" you said could actually go either way (good or bad), depending on what actually happens. Right now nobody knows exactly what the rules are and how it is going to play out - so if somebody says they do, they're full of it.


July 7th, 2012, 12:16 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 8 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.