The Moment of Truth

[Alan]

You do not have to sign up for Medicare... besides that your stmt looks to be true...

I took G4G to be saying that you have to pay the Medicare tax while working. I believe you have to pay the tax even though you don't have to sign up for Medicare when you are 65.

 

[pb4uski]

I took G4G to be saying that you have to pay the Medicare tax while working. I believe you have to pay the tax even though you don't have to sign up for Medicare when you are 65.

If that is the case then I understand and just didn't understand what G4G meant since it was so poorly worded.

I still don't get under what circumstances would one be imprisoned?

 

[MichaelB]

If that is the case then I understand and just didn't understand what G4G meant since it was so poorly worded.

I still don't get under what circumstances would one be imprisoned?

Tax evasion?

 

[Chuckanut]

You do not have to sign up for Medicare... besides that your stmt looks to be true...

True, but one must still pay the medicare tax if one works. If the government funds medical care through a tax system (payroll tax or something new), then one has to pay or else. Tax evasion is frowned on by the Feds.

 

[ERD50]

The irony is that the way we're being asked to read the Constitution the government can buy insurance for you and force you to pay for it under threat of imprisonment but can't tell you to choose a policy for yourself or face a fine.

That is one strange configuration of liberty.

I agree that there is no material difference between:

A) Taxing a person and providing a service (like garbage pick up in some places I've lived), and

B) Requiring someone to buy a service (like garbage pick up).

But our Constitution is written such that it is questionable if 'B' is OK. Congress was aware of this, and could have acted accordingly. They didn't, so here we are.

We run into all sorts of cases where an alternative might seem equal to, or even superior to the original . Yet, we are often bound by the wording in a contract, which called for the original. Sometimes it seems to make no sense to either party to the contract, but we have systems in place that say we agreed to follow the rules. In general, that's a good thing. If the rules need to be changed, there is a process for that (agree to a new contract, or amend the Constitution).

The very best indicator of Congress's intent is what they put in the actual bill. Severability clauses are a normal part of most large legislation, and it's for a reason. It tells the courts what Congress intends. Congress didn't include one in this law. ...

After reading up some more on the severability clause, I agree. Like my story of the car sale and car parts sale - it would be clear if I said ahead of time that I would take either/or/both independently. But w/o that, it's fuzzy - maybe I don't want the car w/o those parts, fearing I can't get them and that would make the car useless. Or the parts are useless to me w/o the car. Far better to define that up front, then to ask a judge to decide what I was thinking.

edit/add to close that loop: So if Congress had said this is severable from that, then we can accept that there was no tie between those clauses, and dropping one would not have affected votes on the other. They didn't, so we can't (except the Supremes can do whatever they want! But the written argument could get 'interesting')

-ERD50

 

[haha]

So, don't say much.

I agree. Best to keep thinking and speaking to a minumum around here. Can't we just concentrate on cats, how wasteful other people are, and on detailed fantasies about simple living? Soon it will be spring; then we can also share photos of flowers in our gardens. Anything else is just a want, not a need.

Ha

 

[REWahoo]

I agree. Best to keep thinking and speaking to a minumum around here. Can't we just concentrate on cats, how wasteful other people are, and on detailed fantasies about simple living?

I want to hear about how to avoid growing cynical and snarky as we age...

 

[Chuckanut]

I agree that there is no material difference between:

A) Taxing a person and providing a service (like garbage pick up in some places I've lived), and

B) Requiring someone to buy a service (like garbage pick up).

-ERD50

Quite well said! I agree. We have to follow the law as it is written.

What I find interesting is that the people who so energetically protest plan B, may end up with plan A, which gives them even less choice. I suspect this is the opposite of what they want. Just my 2 cents.

 

[ERD50]

I want to hear about how to avoid growing cynical and snarky as we age...

What's age got to do with it?

I'm pretty sure I was cynical and snarky in the womb!

I think cynical has served me well. Snarky, you gotta size up the situation. Mistakes can be painful!

-ERD50

 

[Gatordoc50]

Many insurance companies increase premiums for those who smoke under group plans. I wonder if they are required to accept those with pre-existing conditions will they be able to increase premiums for those individuals or is it one premium for all.
Or how about disease covered by the ADA?

 

[Gone4Good]

So it's this law or we'll never have anything?

Never is a very long time. But so too is the history of trying to get comprehensive health reform: Roosevelt tried in 1935 and failed. It took another 30 years before we got a partial solution in Medicare. A decade after Medicare Nixon tried to pass a universal health care bill and failed. It took another two decades before Clinton tried again and failed, and almost another two decades for ACA to finally pass only to possibly fail at the hands of the Supreme Court. Considering the average American life span, the eighty years we've been trying to pass comprehensive health reform legislation is pretty close to "never."

The difficulty in tackling this problem is legendary. And while this difficulty is not a Constitutional issue, it certainly is something the Court should consider before kicking the entire thing to the curb under the assumption that Congress can just whip up an alternative.

 

[easysurfer]

We'd have the same problem as always due to adverse selection. Every person with a chronic medical condition would get on Medicare. And Medicare is already going broke even with all those people paying into it who aren't expected to start getting Medicare benefits for 30-40 years.

That goes back again to a mandate to get the young, healthy folks in the system to avoid the adverse selection.

If SCOTUS does agree to uphold the mandate, it may be because of the uniqueness of the situation. That's seems to be what justice Kennedy was hinting at a bit. Of course, one can't draw a conclusion from a hint as he also said, the lawyer for the gov't has a tall hill to climb.

 

[Chuckanut]

Never is a very long time. But so too is the history of trying to get comprehensive health reform: Roosevelt tried in 1935 and failed.

Harry Truman also proposed a national health care plan but Congress would not have it.

 

[pb4uski]

Harry Trueman also proposed a national health care plan but Congress would not have it.

Who is Harry Trueman?

 

[haha]

I want to hear about how to avoid growing cynical and snarky as we age...

I am sorry, I am unable to be of service with that one.

 

[Chuckanut]

Who is Harry Trueman?

I think he was actually called Harry Truman.

 

[TromboneAl]

Certainly. They easily could have written the law to bump every tax bracket up 1%-2.5% (the size of the penalty), included a per-person tax deduction for everyone who buys health insurance equal to 1%-2.5% of AGI, dropped the word "mandate," and the word "penalty" and the whole thing would be constitutional. The ease with which we can achieve the same exact thing by slightly different means exposes the silliness of this whole debate.

This is profound. Does this argument really hold water? That is, if it had been written this way would there have been a challenge? We certainly have deductions and credits for things and this is no different.

Could Joe sixpack recognize that the two systems (penalty or increase with deduction) are equivalent.

 

[ERD50]

Never is a very long time. But so too is the history of trying to get comprehensive health reform: ...

If it is cut down, maybe there is still more hope than you think.

Regardless of any shortcomings/negatives, there certainly were things in there that people want. I don't think any current Congress is going to be able to get away with doing nothing. People have had a taste of something they want. Congress will be attacked for taking away x,y,and z, and be painted as very bad people. I honestly think they will have to do something.

... and almost another two decades for ACA to finally pass only to possibly fail at the hands of the Supreme Court.

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but I'd say the failure was with the Congress that passed a law that was likely to be challenged. Saying the bill failed at the hands of the SC is like saying the murderer was executed by the hands of the jury. The murderer was the cause of the action, the jury did its job.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

This is profound. Does this argument really hold water? That is, if it had been written this way would there have been a challenge? We certainly have deductions and credits for things and this is no different.

I believe so, I can't vouch for the numbers, but the concept is what I'm talking about.

For me, the question is - why not take the less challenge-able route? There must be a reason.

Could Joe sixpack recognize that the two systems (penalty or increase with deduction) are equivalent.

I'm not sure JSP is even asking those questions.

-ERD50

 

[M Paquette]

I believe so, I can't vouch for the numbers, but the concept is what I'm talking about.

For me, the question is - why not take the less challenge-able route? There must be a reason.

It's a tax hike. Grover would be upset. When Grover gets upset, the Usual Suspects all get upset, and before you know it, every radio commentator and talking head is carrying on with the usual spiels.

Nothing will happen. Nothing will be done. Other than raising insurance rates, of course.

 

[samclem]

This is profound. Does this argument really hold water? That is, if it had been written this way would there have been a challenge? We certainly have deductions and credits for things and this is no different.

Could Joe sixpack recognize that the two systems (penalty or increase with deduction) are equivalent.

I think the challenge would have been much less serious if it had been structured as G4G suggested. The states still would have challenged the Medicaid expansion.
As written the mandate is relatively toothless anyway--the penalty would have maxed out at 2.5% of income (family limit: $2085) by 2016. So, a family of 4 earning $100K would have been fined $2085 or else buy an approx $11K insurance policy (no subsidy).

 

[harley]

I believe so, I can't vouch for the numbers, but the concept is what I'm talking about.

For me, the question is - why not take the less challenge-able route? There must be a reason.



I'm not sure JSP is even asking those questions.

-ERD50

The reasons for phrasing the law the way they did was because they couldn't get it passed using G4Gs terminology. It was barely passed anyway, using various parlimentary manuevers. And nobody had their head wrapped around the whole thing. As I remember, Nancy Pelosi said something along the lines of "lets get this thing passed so we can start finding out what's in it." Congress doesn't have the same make up as it did when the PPACA passed, so I do think it would all have to start over from scratch.

 

[samclem]

It's a tax hike. Grover would be upset. When Grover gets upset, the Usual Suspects all get upset, and before you know it, every radio commentator and talking head is carrying on with the usual spiels.

Didn't anybody who cared about Grover vote against it anyway?

Anyway, folks shouldn't get out the black armbands yet, the whole thing might just pass Supreme Court muster.

It is interesting that proponents of the law insisted "this whole thing can only work if everyone is compelled to buy insurance." Then, on Wednesday, their lawyers are arguing that we should go ahead with this even if the individual mandate is struck down. Prominent supporters of the law are saying the same thing now. What was impossible before is suddenly preferable. I recognize that I do the same thing myself--the goalposts move and now half a loaf looks darn good.

FWIW, 72% of the public thinks the individual mandate is unconstitutional (Gallup). Me, too. But only those nine justices really count now.

 

[ERD50]

The reasons for phrasing the law the way they did was because they couldn't get it passed using G4Gs terminology. It was barely passed anyway, using various parlimentary manuevers. ....

Well, that's the obvious answer (and most likely correct) as to why it passed in that form. But I think that says a lot about the support the bill had, and IIRC, general polling didn't show support either.

It's a tax hike. Grover would be upset. When Grover gets upset, the Usual Suspects all get upset, and before you know it, every radio commentator and talking head is carrying on with the usual spiels.

Nothing will happen. Nothing will be done. Other than raising insurance rates, of course.

Well, I think we're drifting (running at full speed?) into porky-land here, so out of respect to those of us who want to see this thread stay open, I'll just say there are other pressures in play, and that I don't share your pessimism. And I'm in the camp that says Murphy was an optimist.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

I agree. Best to keep thinking and speaking to a minumum around here. Can't we just concentrate on cats, how wasteful other people are, and on detailed fantasies about simple living? Soon it will be spring; then we can also share photos of flowers in our gardens. Anything else is just a want, not a need.

Ha

Eh, I have tried to minimize my involvement in threads like this. It's not that I do not care, but as I have stated on this forum before, I have proposed the Political Efficiency Hypothesis, which parallels the EMH. I just let other people slug it out. And right now, the Supreme Court Justices are deciding, and they are certainly no dummies.

Oh, and a lot of this health care stuff to me is "wants", not really "needs" anyway.