Obamacare and the Supreme Court

[calicoug]

Or because what they really want is to be able to command that everybody buy insurance. It's a mandate, not a tax incentive.

That one's tougher to buy. The "mandate" is only a requirement to make a choice: get health care or pay more in a fee/tax.

Of course, it's not even that. Few have bothered to note that the law expressly prohibits the IRS from imposing a lien for failure to pay the penalty and no criminal sanctions are permitted to attach for failure to pay. It's already a totally toothless mandate. I really struggle to understand what it is about this issue that has people totally up in arms.

[myboynoah]

That one's tougher to buy. The "mandate" is only a requirement to make a choice: get health care or pay more in a fee/tax.

Of course, it's not even that. Few have bothered to note that the law expressly prohibits the IRS from imposing a lien for failure to pay the penalty and no criminal sanctions are permitted to attach for failure to pay. It's already a totally toothless mandate. I really struggle to understand what it is about this issue that has people totally up in arms.

But could the IRS do other things, like make harassing phone calls requesting payment, charge penalties and interest, withold future years' income tax returns, or send the non-payment to a collection agency?

[falafel]

FYI, your $750 covers maternity. If you don't want maternity, you can get a plan for your family with the same provider and practically all the same benefits for about $400/mo.

I am doing THAT. :clap:

Does it cover the big snip?

[RobinFinderson]

I am doing THAT. :clap:

Does it cover the big snip?

Don't do it! A man without his macaroni is not a full man.

[Jacob]

It is very interesting to watch conservative CUFfers slowly reason out the fact that private insurance is NOT a good way to meet the nation's health care needs. I'm not saying that I'm smarter than anyone on this issue, but this fact has seemed obvious to me for a long time, and it is why I don't really care if Obamacare gets shot down by the SCOTUS.

What I think, and what I hope others will eventually agree with, is that the provision of medical care, at a basic level, needs to be handled like public education. Whatever its current flaws, and there are MANY, public education has been a HUGE success in terms of offering a realistic chance for poor people to improve their circumstances in life. Just as public education is really very modest in what it offers, compared to private education, we need a modest baseline healthcare service that is FREE to all citizens. It should cover routine stuff, catastrophic stuff, and offer modest end-of-life care (rationed based on the age of the person, and the likelihood of a successful outcome in treatment). Just as private education offers a superior product for those who can afford it, we will let the private healthcare market develop a separate set of services for people who can afford to pay for that.

I think you've misunderstood the conservative argument re: private insurance. What we have now is not a private, insurance market. What we have now is a government run insurance market. To conclude that what we have now doesn't work is not to conclude that a private insurance market wouldn't work.

My concern with your public education analogy is that public education does a fine job teaching to the lowest common denominator. It is not a system of excellence. My guess is that you are right, that govt HC would be much like govt education. It would be fine for when you had the flu or a simple broken bone, but much worse when your needs require a higher level of care.

[All-American]

That's different... how?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking. Could you clarify?

[Moliere]

Reports are saying the SCOTUS will vote on the health care law on Friday but opinions won't be issued until June. Does this mean we'll know the fate of the law by Friday or will we have to wait until June?

[All-American]

That one's tougher to buy. The "mandate" is only a requirement to make a choice: get health care or pay more in a fee/tax.

Of course, it's not even that. Few have bothered to note that the law expressly prohibits the IRS from imposing a lien for failure to pay the penalty and no criminal sanctions are permitted to attach for failure to pay. It's already a totally toothless mandate. I really struggle to understand what it is about this issue that has people totally up in arms.

That's exactly not what the government argued on Monday. They said that people are still under an obligation to buy, even if the only penalty for noncompliance is a penalty from which they are exempt.

[All-American]

Reports are saying the SCOTUS will vote on the health care law on Friday but opinions won't be issued until June. Does this mean we'll know the fate of the law by Friday or will we have to wait until June?

June.

[calicoug]

That's exactly not what the government argued on Monday. They said that people are still under an obligation to buy, even if the only penalty for noncompliance is a penalty from which they are exempt.

Don't get me started on how the government argued the case. Shoddy all around.

[calicoug]

But could the IRS do other things, like make harassing phone calls requesting payment, charge penalties and interest, withold future years' income tax returns, or send the non-payment to a collection agency?

They can't collect so no penalties or interest. Can't say if they could call but I don't see how they would.

[Tex]

Don't get me started on how the government argued the case. Shoddy all around.

Please. Start.

[ERCougar]

I think you've misunderstood the conservative argument re: private insurance. What we have now is not a private, insurance market. What we have now is a government run insurance market. To conclude that what we have now doesn't work is not to conclude that a private insurance market wouldn't work.

My concern with your public education analogy is that public education does a fine job teaching to the lowest common denominator. It is not a system of excellence. My guess is that you are right, that govt HC would be much like govt education. It would be fine for when you had the flu or a simple broken bone, but much worse when your needs require a higher level of care.

Really?
This is a strange fear to have, but I guess it depends on what you mean by "higher level of care". I don't doubt the government would do a fine job with critical, life-saving types of treatments. Where Americans would be in for a rude awakening is in the realm of elective care--gallbladder surgery, knee replacements, etc.

[Jacob]

Really?
This is a strange fear to have, but I guess it depends on what you mean by "higher level of care". I don't doubt the government would do a fine job with critical, life-saving types of treatments. Where Americans would be in for a rude awakening is in the realm of elective care--gallbladder surgery, knee replacements, etc.

In other words, you are saying the government would do a great job in providing the most inefficient and costly care, but do a crappy job of providing more useful medical services to consumers? Sounds about right. Like the public education system.

[Indy Coug]

http://www.c-span.org/Campaign2012/Mitt-Romney-Speaks-on-Affordable-Care-Act/10737429367/

This is Romney at his best, IMO.