Healthcare reform update

[M Paquette]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire What's to keep the insurance companies from selling the child policies but at say $10 or $20K per year and still complying with the law?

Nothing. I would normally say 'competition', but that may be an alien concept to the insurers.

I suspect that rather than simply have their actuaries compute new rate tables taking the new child insurable population into consideration, which would lead to bad press for yet another rate increase, they went for the 'outrage' option, with the largest insurers opting to drop the policies and point to the PPACA as the cause.

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by M Paquette Nothing. I would normally say 'competition', but that may be an alien concept to the insurers.

Competition works well for controlling prices, if the seller actually wants to sell. The insurance companies would be forced to provide a product they don't want to provide, so I don't think any amount of competition will help. It will be interesting to see how the government handles that issue.

[FinanceDude]

I for one am waiting to see what the Supreme Court rules in regards to the constitutionailty of the HealthCare bill........apparently there are several cases working their way up the appellate court side at this time.

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude I for one am waiting to see what the Supreme Court rules in regards to the constitutionailty of the HealthCare bill........apparently there are several cases working their way up the appellate court side at this time.

If they can rule that corporations and unions have Constitutional rights and that private property can seized by eminent domain for private redevelopment projects benefiting developers, it appears that anything goes. And I'll leave it at that lest it get political.

[Bestwifeever]

Health care anecdotes that prove nothing:

At a medical center last week, I overheard a superelderly woman in a wheelchair talking loudly about her angiogram and other tests. I turned to my daughter and said, "Promise me you won't let anyone do an angiogram on me if I live that long."

On the news discussion re the health care, an anchor asked if prices would go up and the reporter excitedly said yes, but you'll have so much more coverage!

Read a story in the local metro paper quoting people who said the new insurance programs will be great because pre-existing conditions will be covered, so they won't even need to get insurance until they need medical care.

Finally, my family members (see grifting thread) who don't have health insurance will never get health insurance, no matter how cheap or expensive. They just don't want to pay for it.

[huusom]

Let just have universal healthcare and end this controversy. I don't hear any countries that have universal healthcare talk about their healthcare problems and try to repeal their healthcare system and replace it with employer provided private insurance.

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by huusom Let just have universal healthcare and end this controversy. I don't hear any countries that have universal healthcare talk about their healthcare problems and try to repeal their healthcare system and replace it with employer provided private insurance.

Try google

Sentenced to death on the NHS - Telegraph

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by huusom Let just have universal healthcare and end this controversy. I don't hear any countries that have universal healthcare talk about their healthcare problems and try to repeal their healthcare system and replace it with employer provided private insurance.

Of course not - why would we want 'employer provided private insurance'? That's a big part of the mess we are in. We should get away from that, which can be done any number of ways.

-ERD50

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Of course not - why would we want 'employer provided private insurance'? That's a big part of the mess we are in. We should get away from that, which can be done any number of ways. -ERD50

Agree

[WanderALot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude I for one am waiting to see what the Supreme Court rules in regards to the constitutionailty of the HealthCare bill........apparently there are several cases working their way up the appellate court side at this time.

I keep hearing this, but how is the healthcare bill mandating the purchase of insurance different than Medicare being mandated? I can't opt out of paying for Medicare during my working-years.

The other question that I have is why is this healthcare bill keep compared with Canada/UK, instead of a more apples-to-apples comparison with the Swiss or the Dutch models?

[Martha]

Political positions aside, the arguments for it being unconstitutional are a major stretch and are inconsistent with precedent. The lawsuits are mostly posturing. It isn't even a good law school exam question.

Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to require people to buy health insurance. (The Supreme Court found it was legal for the feds to bar individuals from growing marijuana for their own personal medical use under the commerce clause--that is more of a stretch). Congress also has its power to tax and spend for the general welfare. (It's not like it is a crime if you don't buy insurance, you are only taxed if you don't. Since the 1930s the SC has given Congress pretty much free reign on the taxing power. The power to tax is why social security and medicare are constitutional). No individual liberties are violated--there is no right to go uninsured.

That is the short answer, if you want a long one pay me $350 an hour.

(Edited to clarify that the issue is the requirement to buy health insurance).

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Political positions aside, the arguments for it being unconstitutional are a major stretch and are inconsistent with precedent. The lawsuits are mostly posturing. It isn't even a good law school exam question. Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause. (The Supreme Court found it was legal for the feds to bar individuals from growing marijuana for their own personal medical use under the commerce clause--that is more of a stretch). Congress also has its power to tax and spend for the general welfare. (It's not like it is a crime if you don't buy insurance, you are only taxed if you don't. Since the 1930s the SC has given Congress pretty much free reign on the taxing power. The power to tax is why social security and medicare are constitutional). No individual liberties are violated--there is no right to go uninsured. That is the short answer, if you want a long one pay me $350 an hour.

I think it is the must purchase part of the bill.


The Collegian » Panelists differ on health care legislation
The most controversial provision in the bill is the mandate requiring individuals, including students not covered by their employer or family’s plan, to purchase health insurance, which also goes into effect in 2014. Individuals must provide the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proof of health insurance when filing their income tax, or be penalized up to $2,000 for a family of four, or 2.5 percent of your income.

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dex I think it is the must purchase part of the bill. The Collegian » Panelists differ on health care legislation The most controversial provision in the bill is the mandate requiring individuals, including students not covered by their employer or family’s plan, to purchase health insurance, which also goes into effect in 2014. Individuals must provide the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proof of health insurance when filing their income tax, or be penalized up to $2,000 for a family of four, or 2.5 percent of your income.

Yes, Dex, that is the part people are saying is unconstitutional. What I am saying is that 80+ years of precedent all the way up to recent decisions support its constitutionality. Under two separate clauses of the constitution. I'll edit my prior post to make it clearer.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Political positions aside, the arguments for it being unconstitutional are a major stretch and are inconsistent with precedent. ... That is the short answer, if you want a long one pay me $350 an hour.

Well, since dex isn't charging, I'll follow up with him

Quote:

Originally Posted by dex I think it is the must purchase part of the bill.

That's how I understood it also. I'll agree with Martha (if this is indeed what she means) that it's a rather odd distinction between saying someone must buy a product (which might be considered unconstitutional), and taxing someone and then buying that product for them. But it seems to me that much of law is about these fine and sometimes odd distinctions.

I've heard that one work-around would be to go ahead and collect it as a tax. Which would be interesting as Obama chided George Stephanopoulos for calling the mandated insurance premium a 'tax' and said George was stretching to use Webster as a reference for the definition of the word 'tax'.

Google "youtube Stephanopoulos Obama tax webster" to find the interview if you wish.

-ERD50

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Yes, Dex, that is the part people are saying is unconstitutional. What I am saying is that 80+ years of precedent all the way up to recent decisions support its constitutionality. Under two separate clauses of the constitution. I'll edit my prior post to make it clearer.

We cross-posted there, but assuming dex didn't send you money in a PM , I'll ask this:

What are those precedents? I think I agree with you in concept, but I am unaware of the Federal govt requiring everyone to purchase something (as opposed to taxing them for it). The (kinda stretched, IMO) response to the States requiring people to buy car insurance is that you don't have to drive a car. So they can't 'force' you. So I consider that a stretch, but it is a legal distinction it seems.

Your thoughts?

-ERD50

[dex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Well, since dex isn't charging, I'll follow up with him That's how I understood it also. I'll agree with Martha (if this is indeed what she means) that it's a rather odd distinction between saying someone must buy a product (which might be considered unconstitutional), and taxing someone and then buying that product for them. But it seems to me that much of law is about these fine and sometimes odd distinctions. I've heard that one work-around would be to go ahead and collect it as a tax. Which would be interesting as Obama chided George Stephanopoulos for calling the mandated insurance premium a 'tax' and said George was stretching to use Webster as a reference for the definition of the word 'tax'. Google "youtube Stephanopoulos Obama tax webster" to find the interview if you wish. -ERD50

I think that is the crux of the matter - does the government have the power to say a citizen must buy something.

Now, if you think that the mandate is a ultimately a tax because you buy or pay the IRS a penalty then it is just a penalty/tax.


I do think that the way the bill is written will be upheld in the courts. I do not like the idea that the gov't can tell me to buy something and if I don't I will have to pay a penalty.

I am a liberal in my thinking of the relationship between the government and the individual. The rights of the individual's right should be paramount. A powerful government and taxing authority is saying you must do this. If you do not you must pay the government money.

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

Will this be the next mandate?

Gun Ownership Mandatory in Kennesaw, Georgia

Gun Ownership Mandatory in Kennesaw, Georgia

Crime Rate Plummets

What other mandates will be coming?

No one is talking about a slippery slope. Why? Because they support the bill and the tax/penalty. They think it is reasonable. And justification can be found in the law. What they are not thinking about is the slippery slope and how, in the future, some mandate may be enacted that they do not support.

In some ways, it reminds me of the discussion about 'torture' after 9/11. Those in favor of the Bush position used their interpretation of the law and definitions to support their position. Why did they want it? Because they thought the torture and info provided served the greater good. We knew in our harts it was wrong no matter what the lawyers said.

[lets-retire]

Maybe some of you tax gurus can answer this question. Besides the health insurance law are there any other taxes levied for failure to follow a law? I can't think of any off the top of my head, but other than my personal taxes, I am not very versed in the entire tax system. As law enforcement if someone had to pay the government because they failed to comply with a law, I always called it a fine or penalty.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dex I do think that the way the bill is written will be upheld in the courts. I do not like the idea that the gov't can tell me to buy something and if I don't I will have to pay a penalty. .

Social security includes a mandatory disability insurance component

[harley]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha Yes, Dex, that is the part people are saying is unconstitutional. What I am saying is that 80+ years of precedent all the way up to recent decisions support its constitutionality. Under two separate clauses of the constitution. I'll edit my prior post to make it clearer.

While I have great respect for your opinions, Martha, this one sounds like an emotional response instead of a logical one. As far as I've ever seen, the Commerce clause, even in it's recent incredibly convoluted interpretations, has never been used to require a citizen to purchase an item or service from a private supplier. I'm not saying the SCOTUS won't rule the way you say, because they don't seem to be reading the same document I am with regard to the Constitution, but I don't think there's any precedent for the requirement to purchase insurance. I'll be interested in the list of precedents you refer to, while admitting I probably won't be able to understand them.

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harley While I have great respect for your opinions, Martha, this one sounds like an emotional response instead of a logical one. As far as I've ever seen, the Commerce clause, even in it's recent incredibly convoluted interpretations, has never been used to require a citizen to purchase an item or service from a private supplier. I'm not saying the SCOTUS won't rule the way you say, because they don't seem to be reading the same document I am with regard to the Constitution, but I don't think there's any precedent for the requirement to purchase insurance. I'll be interested in the list of precedents you refer to, while admitting I probably won't be able to understand them.

So if I don't brief the issue I am being emotional?