Page 86 of 122 FirstFirst ... 3676848586878896 ... LastLast
Results 851 to 860 of 1220

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

  1. #851
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Because most people get their insurance through employment.
    Sorry, let me rephrase: Why wouldn't the obligated party, be it the individual or the employer, pay the cheaper fine?

    Many more will get insurance free from Medicaid.
    Alright. It seems that they aren't relevant though.

    Insurance has value.
    Agreed. Though then again, the required insurance offers little that other, cheaper alternatives don't offer as well. Even with the new "tax-fine" imposed, I still think catastrophic insurance will still be more financially viable for many people. And, of course, the cheapskates who want to leech off the system will go for the cheaper alternative. In its present form, the individual mandate is very ineffective in what it intends to do.
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

  2. #852
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,325
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    Sorry, let me rephrase: Why wouldn't the obligated party, be it the individual or the employer, pay the cheaper fine?
    So you can think of no reason why a company would offer insurance? Hint: why do they offer it now?

    Alright. It seems that they aren't relevant though.
    Of course they are relevant. You do not get to dismiss a group of people just because they are inconvenient to your argument.

    Agreed. Though then again, the required insurance offers little that other, cheaper alternatives don't offer as well. Even with the new "tax-fine" imposed, I still think catastrophic insurance will still be more financially viable for many people. And, of course, the cheapskates who want to leech off the system will go for the cheaper alternative. In its present form, the individual mandate is very ineffective in what it intends to do.
    The required minimum insurance is not the only option.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  3. #853
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    Why wouldn't people pay the "tax" that is way cheaper than the otherwise required insurance?
    Because then you won't have insurance.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  4. #854
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So you can think of no reason why a company would offer insurance? Hint: why do they offer it now?
    At one time, insurance coverage was a good incentive to get, and keep, top-notch employees. In our current economic situation, that's really not much of a problem, as jobs are relatively scarce, thus employees are more likely to stay regardless of the perks.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  5. #855
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,325
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    At one time, insurance coverage was a good incentive to get, and keep, top-notch employees. In our current economic situation, that's really not much of a problem, as jobs are relatively scarce, thus employees are more likely to stay regardless of the perks.
    Jobs will not stay relatively scarce.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  6. #856
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Jobs will not stay relatively scarce.
    We'll see. Personally, I'm skeptical.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  7. #857
    Sage

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    8,354

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Jobs will not stay relatively scarce.
    What I can see happening is that corporations will offer insurance but raise the amount an employee has to pay. Let's say to 50% of the cost. This will chase the lowest paid workers off the corporate insurance saving the company money and passing these folks onto the federal subsidy. The increase cost will be meaningless to senior executives and will probably be made up in their next annual increase or option awards.

    Welcome to the real world.

  8. #858
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:20 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,325
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by washunut View Post
    What I can see happening is that corporations will offer insurance but raise the amount an employee has to pay. Let's say to 50% of the cost. This will chase the lowest paid workers off the corporate insurance saving the company money and passing these folks onto the federal subsidy. The increase cost will be meaningless to senior executives and will probably be made up in their next annual increase or option awards.

    Welcome to the real world.
    So your imagined scenario based entirely on your predisposition to think the worst is the real world now. Interesting.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #859
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So you can think of no reason why a company would offer insurance? Hint: why do they offer it now?
    When did I say that? I asked why they would go out and buy expensive insurance instead of paying the cheaper "tax?"

    If the employer pays their employees insurance, then they're not relevant to the individual mandate since the employees already have insurance. If the employer doesn't, why would an employer now rush to go buy their employees mandated insurance instead of just paying the cheaper "tax?"

    Of course they are relevant. You do not get to dismiss a group of people just because they are inconvenient to your argument.
    They're not relevant because they already have mandated insurance.

    I am curious how they hurt my argument, though.

    The required minimum insurance is not the only option.
    Right, you can buy catastrophic insurance (real insurance) and pay the "tax-fine." You can have no insurance at all and pay the "tax-fine." You can not only do these things but may feel motivated to do these things because both options can very easily be cheaper than paying for mandated insurance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Because then you won't have insurance.
    You can have insurance and still pay the fine. At least, as far as I understand. Are they outlawing insurance that isn't minimum insurance?
    Last edited by Republic Now!; 07-02-12 at 11:12 AM. Reason: grammar
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

  10. #860
    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 Republic Now! View Post
    When did I say that? I asked why they would go out and buy expensive insurance instead of paying the cheaper "tax?"

    If the employer pays their employees insurance, then they're not relevant to the individual mandate since the employees already have insurance. If the employer doesn't, why would an employer now rush to go buy their employees mandated insurance instead of just paying the cheaper "tax?"


    They're not relevant because they already have mandated insurance.

    I am curious how they hurt my argument, though.



    Right, you can buy catastrophic insurance (real insurance) and pay the "tax-fine." You can have no insurance at all and pay the "tax-fine." You can not only do these things but may feel motivated to do these things because both options can very easily be cheaper than paying for mandated insurance.



    You can have insurance and still pay the fine. At least, as far as I understand. Are they outlawing insurance that isn't minimum insurance?
    Do you have some evidence to back up your claim that it would be cheaper to by unsubsidized private insurance and pay a fine than it would be to buy the least expensive subsidized insurance and not pay a fine?
    "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

Page 86 of 122 FirstFirst ... 3676848586878896 ... 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
  •