Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 157

Thread: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

  1. #61
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by ludahai View Post
    The federal government doesn't require ANYONE to purchase car insurance. States require people WHO OWN AND OPERATE AUTOMOBILES to purchase it. if you don't, you don't need to purchase it. Try again.
    As I've mentioned before, this is functionally NO DIFFERENT than any other tax incentive. If you purchase a home then you can receive a tax deduction for your mortgage interest. Does that force everyone in the country to own a home? No. It just means that if you don't own a home then you are subsidizing those who do. Same with the health insurance "mandate". You aren't actually REQUIRED to buy health insurance. You are simply required to subsidize those who do if you don't.

    Obviously the purpose of this is to eliminate the free rider problem, i.e., to give people an incentive to take *personal responsibility* for their health care coverage. A very conservative concept, and no surprise as it was originally conceived by Republicans.

  2. #62
    Professor
    Keridan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Last Seen
    08-19-17 @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,451

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    As I've mentioned before, this is functionally NO DIFFERENT than any other tax incentive. If you purchase a home then you can receive a tax deduction for your mortgage interest. Does that force everyone in the country to own a home? No. It just means that if you don't own a home then you are subsidizing those who do. Same with the health insurance "mandate". You aren't actually REQUIRED to buy health insurance. You are simply required to subsidize those who do if you don't.

    Obviously the purpose of this is to eliminate the free rider problem, i.e., to give people an incentive to take *personal responsibility* for their health care coverage. A very conservative concept, and no surprise as it was originally conceived by Republicans.
    I do actually see your point, but the method is not acceptable. Forcing purchase of private insurance or paying a fine to simply be alive is a problem. Especially if insurance companies aren't allowed to take risk into the equation (pre-existing conditions). That means the healthy 18 year old college student pays the same as the obese, diabetic who quit smoking a year ago only because of his lung cancer.

    IMO, it's crazy for the government to require purchase of a private company item. If you aren't going single payer, you can't do a direct penalty. If you are going to subsidize, do it like you do farms and other crap. Find a way to pay with existing taxes. It would be less likely to pass this way because ppl would see the whole price tag.

    I'm all for removing employer based insurance. I know that sounds weird coming from a libertarian, but it would make insurance less of a crazy outlier to free market practices. Cost/demand could do some more balancing.

    I don't have time to go into great detail on these points, but maybe I can give more information when my idea is answered/rebutted.

  3. #63
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    01-09-12 @ 10:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    1,014

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    How do you know that they are going to "strike down his law"?
    Because the government has no authority to tell any citizen what they "have to buy". They can suggest, they can strongly suggest, but they have no authority from the Constitution to force us to buy anything. And don't come back with taxes...we aren't buying them, we're paying them...at least some of us do. I'm not sure about liberals because they want everyone else to do for them what they are capable of doing for themselves.

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by coolwalker View Post
    Because the government has no authority to tell any citizen what they "have to buy"...
    sure they do.

    they can require you to buy car-insurance if you own a car.

    and the Militia Act of 1792 required Americans to buy a gun.

  5. #65
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Keridan View Post
    I do actually see your point, but the method is not acceptable. Forcing purchase of private insurance or paying a fine to simply be alive is a problem. Especially if insurance companies aren't allowed to take risk into the equation (pre-existing conditions). That means the healthy 18 year old college student pays the same as the obese, diabetic who quit smoking a year ago only because of his lung cancer.

    IMO, it's crazy for the government to require purchase of a private company item. If you aren't going single payer, you can't do a direct penalty. If you are going to subsidize, do it like you do farms and other crap. Find a way to pay with existing taxes. It would be less likely to pass this way because ppl would see the whole price tag.

    I'm all for removing employer based insurance. I know that sounds weird coming from a libertarian, but it would make insurance less of a crazy outlier to free market practices. Cost/demand could do some more balancing.

    I don't have time to go into great detail on these points, but maybe I can give more information when my idea is answered/rebutted.
    Hmm, I don't think you really do see my point, which is that this is really about semantics. It's nothing new, radical, or different. What they should have done instead of calling it a mandate and going with the tax penalty was to implement a special health insurance tax in the amount of the current penalty, which would be 100% deductible if you purchased qualifying insurance. No one would argue that that is unconstitutional and it would accomplish exactly the same thing. I'm sure they opted not to go that way because it would have run afoul of the tax pledges that so many Republicans have signed.

    I don't have any great fondness for employer-provided coverage either. If we can't have single payer then there should be an insurance exchange that applies to everyone. There should also be a public option. I do not think that people who can afford basic insurance should be allowed to ride free because their failure to purchase insurance drives up insurance costs for you and me. See, that's a problem with a strict libertarian view.

    You're appalled at the idea of the government forcing someone to do something, but if the government doesn't act, you are still forced to do something. In this case you are forced to subsidize the health care of people who could afford to pay for it themselves. So at the end of the day we have a choice between two alternatives. Either the government pressures people who can afford insurance to buy insurance, or you and I pay for the health care of people who could afford to buy it themselves. I'll take the former.
    Last edited by AdamT; 11-17-11 at 01:53 PM.

  6. #66
    Sage
    whysoserious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Last Seen
    12-29-16 @ 03:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,170

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Read up, ladies. Now, I know you think this is just the "liberal media", but instead let's grow a bit of brain and try to actually read something. Rush Limbaugh and Fox News aren't going to get this one right, let's be honest.

    NY Times: The Broccoli Test
    The mandate is clearly authorized by the “necessary and proper clause,” which the Supreme Court has held gives Congress the power to pass any law that is “rationally related” to the execution of some constitutional power. For example, although the Constitution nowhere gives Congress the power to criminalize interfering with the mail, Congress can do so under the necessary and proper clause because it is rationally related to the constitutional power to establish post offices.
    Ted Cruz is the dumbest person alive.

  7. #67
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,971
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    sure they do.

    they can require you to buy car-insurance if you own a car.

    and the Militia Act of 1792 required Americans to buy a gun.
    You only have to buy car insurance if you register and drive said car on public motorways. I've owned a race car or two that have ONLY been driven on tracks, with 0 insurance...legally. Also, that is a STATE mandate, not a FEDERAL one. Big difference, there.

    And by the by, this isn't 1792. I mean, we also had a draft in the 60s, which is more or less the same thing.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  8. #68
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,971
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Hmm, I don't think you really do see my point, which is that this is really about semantics. It's nothing new, radical, or different. What they should have done instead of calling it a mandate and going with the tax penalty was to implement a special health insurance tax in the amount of the current penalty, which would be 100% deductible if you purchased qualifying insurance. No one would argue that that is unconstitutional and it would accomplish exactly the same thing. I'm sure they opted not to go that way because it would have run afoul of the tax pledges that so many Republicans have signed.

    I don't have any great fondness for employer-provided coverage either. If we can't have single payer then there should be an insurance exchange that applies to everyone. There should also be a public option. I do not think that people who can afford basic insurance should be allowed to ride free because their failure to purchase insurance drives up insurance costs for you and me. See, that's a problem with a strict libertarian view.

    You're appalled at the idea of the government forcing someone to do something, but if the government doesn't act, you are still forced to do something. In this case you are forced to subsidize the health care of people who could afford to pay for it themselves. So at the end of the day we have a choice between two alternatives. Either the government pressures people who can afford insurance to buy insurance, or you and I pay for the health care of people who could afford to buy it themselves. I'll take the former.
    But it's NOT the same. Because I would take the later.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

  9. #69
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Car insurance?

    It's not to protect you, it's to protect those you HARM driving your car irresponsibly.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  10. #70
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Car insurance?

    It's not to protect you, it's to protect those you HARM driving your car irresponsibly.
    Right, just like health insurance is in part to protect those you HARM when you fail to pay your medical bills.

Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •