• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Redress said:
Because most people get their insurance through employment.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
Alright. It seems that they aren't relevant though.

Insurance has value.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Republic Now! said:
Sorry, let me rephrase: Why wouldn't the obligated party, be it the individual or the employer, pay the cheaper fine?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

The required minimum insurance is not the only option.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Republic Now! said:
Why wouldn't people pay the "tax" that is way cheaper than the otherwise required insurance?
Click to expand...

Because then you won't have insurance.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Redress said:
So you can think of no reason why a company would offer insurance? Hint: why do they offer it now?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

lizzie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Jobs will not stay relatively scarce.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Redress said:
Jobs will not stay relatively scarce.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

washunut said:
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.
Click to expand...

So your imagined scenario based entirely on your predisposition to think the worst is the real world now. Interesting.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Redress said:
So you can think of no reason why a company would offer insurance? Hint: why do they offer it now?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Kandahar said:
Because then you won't have insurance.
Click to expand...

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:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Republic Now! said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

AdamT said:
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?
Click to expand...

I imagine it would depend on your income level, wouldn't it? No, I'm not going to gather up information on every income level's potential savings by using alternative methods of insurance, primarily because I didn't say they would always be cheaper in the first place. I'm fairly confident, however, that there are plenty of people, based on income or otherwise, that would save money by doing so.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Republic Now! said:
I imagine it would depend on your income level, wouldn't it? No, I'm not going to gather up information on every income level's potential savings by using alternative methods of insurance, primarily because I didn't say they would always be cheaper in the first place. I'm fairly confident, however, that there are plenty of people, based on income or otherwise, that would save money by doing so.
Click to expand...

Your confidence seems to be based on no information at all.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

AdamT said:
Your confidence seems to be based on no information at all.
Click to expand...

You don't think catastrophic care with an additional 60 or so bucks a month added onto it won't be cheaper than other kinds of insurance for individuals above a certain income level?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Redress said:
So your imagined scenario based entirely on your predisposition to think the worst is the real world now. Interesting.
Click to expand...

If you dont plan for the worst, you are a damned fool.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Redress said:
Jobs will not stay relatively scarce.
Click to expand...

Obama has a net loss of jobs under his presidency

Can you cite the jobs data that supports your assertion please. Thank you.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Im not completely negative on the bill there is one gigantic good thing in the bill.

Pushing the tax credits for insurance to consumers rather than only allowing it to be used by large groups. That incentivizes the individual market which badly needs some cost changes. I would bet this could have passed by itself as a bill. This also helps incentivize small businesses to provide coverage as they will enjoy the same tax rebates. BADLY needed change to tax code. I see this as the biggest plus in the bill.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

I realize those on the board who don't agree with have attempted/will attempt to sway my thinking that this is not a TAX. You won't.

Here's why? We were told/sold the HC Bill as not a TAX by the President, et al. The Justice Dept argued before the SCOTUS that this was a tax. The Supremes bought the whole taco ONLY because this law could be justified and upheld because it was a TAX.

Now you're trying to sell me another "but wait this isn't what you think. . . . yada, yada". Well I personally am not going to fall for - "it's not a TAX" - bologna again. The President/Pelosi/Congress lied. And time will prove me right, this will eventually fall on the backs of taxpayers, just like every other TAX falls on the taxpayer.

Believe whatever you want but I refuse to board this Titanic with you. It's a TAX.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

OpportunityCost said:
If you dont plan for the worst, you are a damned fool.
Click to expand...

If you plan for the worst you don't have to be worry about any insurance mandate. ;)
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Billy the Kid said:
I realize those on the board who don't agree with have attempted/will attempt to sway my thinking that this is not a TAX. You won't.

Here's why? We were told/sold the HC Bill as not a TAX by the President, et al. The Justice Dept argued before the SCOTUS that this was a tax. The Supremes bought the whole taco ONLY because this law could be justified and upheld because it was a TAX.

Now you're trying to sell me another "but wait this isn't what you think. . . . yada, yada". Well I personally am not going to fall for - "it's not a TAX" - bologna again. The President/Pelosi/Congress lied. And time will prove me right, this will eventually fall on the backs of taxpayers, just like every other TAX falls on the taxpayer.

Believe whatever you want but I refuse to board this Titanic with you. It's a TAX.
Click to expand...

Romney disagrees with you.

TODD: The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax — that’s what you’re saying?

FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the Court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax. [...]

TODD: But he agrees with the president that it is not — and he believes that you should not call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?

FEHRNSTROM: That’s correct. But the president also needs to be held accountable for his contradictory statements. He has described it variously as a penalty and as a tax. He needs to reconcile those two very different statements.
Click to expand...

Of course Mittens is a flip flopper and has referred to his own mandate as a tax penalty many times....
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

AdamT said:
Romney disagrees with you.



Of course Mittens is a flip flopper and has referred to his own mandate as a tax penalty many times....
Click to expand...



It's a TAX and at the end of all the "he said, she said", the taxpaper is going to pay for this bill. You cannot, no way, no how, pay for 30-40 Million people without raising TAXES on the taxpaper. You the know TAXPAYER, those 52% that foot the bills now.

Smoke and mirrors is being blown by the govt on this HC bill, and with their other hand they lift your wallet.

Question for you. Who's gonna pay for the education for all those NEW doctors that will be needed? Here's my guess - the TAXPAPER.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Billy the Kid said:
It's a TAX and at the end of all the "he said, she said", the taxpaper is going to pay for this bill. You cannot, no way, no how, pay for 30-40 Million people without raising TAXES on the taxpaper. You the know TAXPAYER, those 52% that foot the bills now.

Smoke and mirrors is being blown by the govt on this HC bill, and with their other hand they lift your wallet.

Question for you. Who's gonna pay for the education for all those NEW doctors that will be needed? Here's my guess - the TAXPAPER.
Click to expand...

I have insurance so I won't be paying for it. Not that I would object if I was....
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

AdamT said:
I have insurance so I won't be paying for it. Not that I would object if I was....
Click to expand...

If you pay taxes and/or have insurance then you WILL be paying for PPACA, if not, then you will still be paying for PPACA, just not as directly. ;-)
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

ttwtt78640 said:
If you pay taxes and/or have insurance then you WILL be paying for PPACA, if not, then you will still be paying for PPACA, just not as directly. ;-)
Click to expand...

No, my tax rate won't go up because of it, and I don't think my insurance rate will either.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Billy the Kid said:
You are so right. "Repeating failed arguments" won't make this other than what the JD argued and the Supreme Court ruled. It's a TAX.
Click to expand...

The Romney campaign disagrees very strongly with you. :mrgreen:

 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

AdamT said:
No, my tax rate won't go up because of it, and I don't think my insurance rate will either.
Click to expand...

What? Adding 45 MILLION people, almost all of them getting PUBLICLY subsidized insurance policies (with LEGAL 20% overhead) is not going to cost YOU anything? What planet are you on? Please explain this "new math". Even if YOU pay no taxes YOU are part owner of the $16 TRILLION national debt, whether Obama tells you so or not; since every dollar of that debt must be paid by taxes that could otherwise either remain in private hands or be spent on some other gov't purpose. Quit simply mindlessly cheerleading for Obama and the socialists. There is no such thing as a free lunch, even if Obama says that there is. Get real!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom