Page 122 of 122 FirstFirst ... 2272112120121122
Results 1,211 to 1,220 of 1220

Thread: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

  1. #1211
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,806

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    ...or possibly they don't think that policies that favor the rich are necessarily good for the state as a whole, or they may actually WANT government services are don't mind paying for them.
    Isnt what the dems and libs said about Wisconsin and the recall election? How'd that work out for you guys?

  2. #1212
    Professor
    Billy the Kid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 02:29 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,449

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    ...or possibly they don't think that policies that favor the rich are necessarily good for the state as a whole, or they may actually WANT government services are don't mind paying for them.

    You're still trying to sell that horse, "The rich are the resolution to all our money problems", I see.

    Please give me a link showing how much this "tax the rich" will really pay down the debt that exists now.

    We all know, we those that don't live in Kool Aid World, it isn't a drop in the bucket.

  3. #1213
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,669

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    ...or possibly they don't think that policies that favor the rich are necessarily good for the state as a whole, or they may actually WANT government services are don't mind paying for them.
    Absolutely AdamT, there is just no good reason that a doctor, after going through 7 years of extra edcuation, working 60 hours per week, should not have to give some of that rediculously high income to the guy working 30 hours per week at their McJob money to pay the doctor for medical care. It just makes sense that all should get their fair share of gov't services like that doctors wages and talents. Why should the doctor make more money, live in a bigger house and drive a nicer car? Does the burger flipper not deserve that same "access" to all good and services?

    After all this is America, a rich country, and surely people will still want to be doctors, lawyers and Indian chiefs even if they get the same goods and services as a burger flipper. From each according to their ability (to pay taxes), to each according to their need (for free stuff). It is high time we stop letting those that produce more keep all of that "excess wealth", that is just plain greedy and unfiar.

    It is the job of our gov't to distribute income much more evenly, that will assure that the burger flippers in this land have a decent standard of living, making them, and their children, strive ever harder to get more education and skills to raise the standards of this nation, after all, the more they make the more they can give to others, helping us all.

    That, AdamT, is why socialist nations are so successful, why America is so poor and why we must strive to be more like them. Yes he can!
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 07-12-12 at 08:42 AM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  4. #1214
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Absolutely AdamT, there is just no good reason that a doctor, after going through 7 years of extra edcuation, working 60 hours per week, should not have to give some of that rediculously high income to the guy working 30 hours per week at their McJob money to pay the doctor for medical care.
    You make a good point, because of course the chances are very good that that wealthy doctor has made a lot of money caring for Medicare and Medicaid patients and thus has received a lot of checks from the government. And of course he's benefitted tremendously from laws that restrict the practice of medicine to licensed doctors. And of course he doesn't have to spend any of his money on personal protection to prevent people from taking his money, or kidnapping his children, because the government provides excellent police protection. And of course the government pays for all kinds of medical research that the doctor will ultimately sell to patients. So yeah, it probably is reasonable to expect him to pay a little more -- I agree!

    Now do you want to tell me again how the government should spend a lot more money protecting YOU from lower price competition ... protection that you obviously don't think you should have to pay for?
    Last edited by AdamT; 07-12-12 at 12:24 PM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  5. #1215
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,669

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    You make a good point, because of course the chances are very good that that wealthy doctor has made a lot of money caring for Medicare and Medicaid patients and thus has received a lot of checks from the government. And of course he's benefitted tremendously from laws that restrict the practice of medicine to licensed doctors. And of course he doesn't have to spend any of his money on personal protection to prevent people from taking his money, or kidnapping his children, because the government provides excellent police protection. And of course the government pays for all kinds of medical research that the doctor will ultimately sell to patients. So yeah, it probably is reasonable to expect him to pay a little more -- I agree!

    Now do you want to tell me again how the government should spend a lot more money protecting YOU from lower price competition ... protection that you obviously don't think you should have to pay for?
    The protection of the doctor from lower priced competition is NOT the purpose of a medical license, that would be to protect the patient from "Homey, the wanna be surgeon" from opening a medical practice in the state and prescribing cool drugs to his friends. Medcial research and drug testing licensing does not benefit ONLY those that make the money from them but all of society that benefit from better (and safer) treatments. You try to assign extra gov't benefits as the REASON for the doctor's higher pay, and thus he owes it back to the burger filpper. The doctor was just another school kid in 3rd grade, just like the burger filipper was; one worked their way up and is getting well compensated for his study, sacrifice and service, the other is flipping burgers.

    I am in no way against reasonable, universal taxation of income, just against tax rates that are over 3X as high. One of the BIG selling points of PPACA was the limitation of medical care insurance premium risk factors from altering the premium price to no more than 3X the "base" rate. This makes the prices more "level" and "fair" even for the old and the smoking, which are actuarially much higher risks. To get the same policy, under PPACA, the burger flipper pays 2% of his pay for that policy, the doctor up to 9.5% of his pay PLUS his extra tax "contribution" for the burger flipper's subsidy on the PPACA exchange. Yet even that is not enough to satisfy king Barack, he demands just a bit more taxation of those "rich guys".

    What in YOUR opinion is a good tax rate for the $250+ bracket? There comes a point at which doctors will say that they will no longer work more than 40 hours per week since they may keep much less for each additional hour worked. The burger flipper gets time and one half for his overtime, yet the doctor gets LESS per hour the more hours they work?
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  6. #1216
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    The protection of the doctor from lower priced competition is NOT the purpose of a medical license, that would be to protect the patient from "Homey, the wanna be surgeon" from opening a medical practice in the state and prescribing cool drugs to his friends. Medcial research and drug testing licensing does not benefit ONLY those that make the money from them but all of society that benefit from better (and safer) treatments. You try to assign extra gov't benefits as the REASON for the doctor's higher pay, and thus he owes it back to the burger filpper. The doctor was just another school kid in 3rd grade, just like the burger filipper was; one worked their way up and is getting well compensated for his study, sacrifice and service, the other is flipping burgers.

    I am in no way against reasonable, universal taxation of income, just against tax rates that are over 3X as high. One of the BIG selling points of PPACA was the limitation of medical care insurance premium risk factors from altering the premium price to no more than 3X the "base" rate. This makes the prices more "level" and "fair" even for the old and the smoking, which are actuarially much higher risks. To get the same policy, under PPACA, the burger flipper pays 2% of his pay for that policy, the doctor up to 9.5% of his pay PLUS his extra tax "contribution" for the burger flipper's subsidy on the PPACA exchange. Yet even that is not enough to satisfy king Barack, he demands just a bit more taxation of those "rich guys".

    What in YOUR opinion is a good tax rate for the $250+ bracket? There comes a point at which doctors will say that they will no longer work more than 40 hours per week since they may keep much less for each additional hour worked. The burger flipper gets time and one half for his overtime, yet the doctor gets LESS per hour the more hours they work?
    I hate to break this to you, but licensing is absolutely used to both protect the public AND to protect the income of licensees. Much of what primary care and other doctors do could be done much more cheaply by a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant, which is why the AMA is so adamant about restricting the scope of what non-MDs can do.

    I wonder if you would be so adamant about everyone paying the same tax rate if your own tax rate were to double over night, which is likely what would happen if we were to go to a flat tax scheme.

    In my opinion we should have many more tax brackets than we do -- more like what we had in the 50s - 70s, although I would have lower rates and eliminate loopholes. I would just be pulling numbers out of my ass, but I would imagine we should have a structure starting out at around 5% for income 133% of the poverty level going up to 50% for income over $5 million/yr. with 10 or 15 divisions in between.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  7. #1217
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,669

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I hate to break this to you, but licensing is absolutely used to both protect the public AND to protect the income of licensees. Much of what primary care and other doctors do could be done much more cheaply by a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant, which is why the AMA is so adamant about restricting the scope of what non-MDs can do.

    I wonder if you would be so adamant about everyone paying the same tax rate if your own tax rate were to double over night, which is likely what would happen if we were to go to a flat tax scheme.

    In my opinion we should have many more tax brackets than we do -- more like what we had in the 50s - 70s, although I would have lower rates and eliminate loopholes. I would just be pulling numbers out of my ass, but I would imagine we should have a structure starting out at around 5% for income 133% of the poverty level going up to 50% for income over $5 million/yr. with 10 or 15 divisions in between.
    One note about that MD licensing angle: it applies EQUALLY to public school teachers, as it does not take a master degreed, rocket scientist to teach most subjects, and a specialized AA would easily suffice for most teaching positions, certainly for most K-12 subjects.

    Now we are talking turkey. Good post. But, as in your example, the top bracket rate is 10x the bottom bracket rate, which you see as fair, and perhaps it is. I can ALMOST live with that, IFF you allow the same "logic" for medical care insurance companies. The risk of a person that is 150 lbs. overweight, has high blood pressure, smokes and is 55 years old is AT LEAST 10x the risk of a fit and trim, non-smoking 26 year old, so with that actuarial data in mind, it makes perfect sense to charge the 26 year old $1K per year and the fat, smoking 55 year old $10K per year for the same medical care insurance, yet we say NO under PPACA, it must be "fair", so the fit and trim 26 year old pays $3.5K and the 55 year old smoking slob pays $7.5K, this is the kind of nonsense that results from allowing politicians to play insurance actuaries.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 07-12-12 at 02:24 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  8. #1218
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    One note about that MD licensing angle: it applies EQUALLY to public school teachers, as it does not take a master degreed, rocket scientist to teach most subjects, and a specialized AA would easily suffice for most teaching positions, certainly for most K-12 subjects.

    Now we are talking turkey. Good post. But, as in your example, the top bracket rate is 10x the bottom bracket rate, which you see as fair, and perhaps it is. I can ALMOST live with that, IFF you allow the same "logic" for medical care insurance companies. The risk of a person that is 150 lbs. overweight, has high blood pressure, smokes and is 55 years old is AT LEAST 10x the risk of a fit and trim, non-smoking 26 year old, so with that actuarial data in mind, it makes perfect sense to charge the 26 year old $1K per year and the fat, smoking 55 year old $10K per year for the same medical care insurance, yet we say NO under PPACA, it must be "fair", so the fit and trim 26 year old pays $3.5K and the 55 year old smoking slob pays $7.5K, this is the kind of nonsense that results from allowing politicians to play insurance actuaries.
    I have no problem charging higher insurance rates for people who make unhealthy choices, but I'm afraid that that can get pretty big brother pretty fast. For example, what about charging higher rates for drinkers? How do you enforce it? You have to take a piss test every month? How about charging higher rates to people who drive off-road in roofless vehicles without a helmet?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  9. #1219
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,669

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    I have no problem charging higher insurance rates for people who make unhealthy choices, but I'm afraid that that can get pretty big brother pretty fast. For example, what about charging higher rates for drinkers? How do you enforce it? You have to take a piss test every month? How about charging higher rates to people who drive off-road in roofless vehicles without a helmet?
    I am not talking about any of thsoe mystical lifestyle factors. Prior to PPACA the major factors in medical care risk were age, smoking, obesity and gender. We never did lifestyle or DNA analysis, nor should we. I agree that pre-existing condition bans and rescission (EXCEPT for fraud) were mostly wrong ways of reducing (eliminating?) risk. But common sence dictates that political pull and political correctness are not good substitutes for actuarial risk. The entire idea of insurance not to make things free or cost less, it is simply to spread the risk for RARE, UNEXPECTED and EXPENSIVE events in life.

    The nonsense of adding "first dollar" coverage for "preventive" care is not helping anyone, just as making "free" flat tire, oil change and tune-up claims would run up the cost of auto insurance for no logical reason. The BULK of PPACA is simply about income redistribution and making more things free for the great loafing class and the working poor. If you wish to expand medicare then JUST DO IT, don't sneak it into massive bills that claim all sorts of wonders. There is no reason to define the minimum and maximum minutia of medical care coverage and make goofy "first dollar" proclaimations (mandates) on what medical care insurance must cover, as that is pure price inflation, and only of value to those that pay little or nothing, as 85% will never CARE yet must pay more for those to get these new "free" things.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 07-12-12 at 03:01 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  10. #1220
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    I am not talking about any of thsoe mystical lifestyle factors. Prior to PPACA the major factors in medical care risk were age, smoking, obesity and gender. We never did lifestyle or DNA analysis, nor should we. I agree that pre-existing condition bans and rescission (EXCEPT for fraud) were mostly wrong ways of reducing (eliminating?) risk. But common sence dictates that political pull and political correctness are not good substitutes for actuarial risk. The entire idea of insurance not to make things free or cost less, it is simply to spread the risk for RARE, UNEXPECTED and EXPENSIVE events in life.

    The nonsense of adding "first dollar" coverage for "preventive" care is not helping anyone, just as making "free" flat tire, oil change and tune-up claims would run up the cost of auto insurance for no logical reason. The BULK of PPACA is simply about income redistribution and making more things free for the great loafing class and the working poor. If you wish to expand medicare then JUST DO IT, don't sneak it into massive bills that claim all sorts of wonders. There is no reason to define the minimum and maximum minutia of medical care coverage and make goofy "first dollar" proclaimations (mandates) on what medical care insurance must cover, as that is pure price inflation, and only of value to those that pay little or nothing, as 85% will never CARE yet must pay more for those to get these new "free" things.
    So ... what makes you think that PPACA prohibits insurers from charging higher rates to smokers, the obese, etc.? Because it looks to me like it absolutely doesn't.

    Despite opposition from more than 50 health groups, the Finance Committee approved
    an amendment Wednesday allowing employers to increase premiums by up to 50 percent
    for people who engage in unhealthy behaviors. That means smokers, obese individuals
    and others may face higher premiums if they do not participate in wellness programs.

    Obamacare: Punishing Smokers and the Obese With Much Higher Premiums
    Maybe something about that changed before the bill was finalized, but I haven't seen it and I don't think so. In fact, I believe this gives insurers MORE latitude to raise rates based on higher risk than they had before.
    Last edited by AdamT; 07-12-12 at 03:11 PM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

Posting Permissions

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