[Ratmagiclady]

According to this it would seem that this amounts to a net effect not unlike 'universal care': everyone pays (the 'tax' for failing to get an insurance at least), is covered (while not obligated to make use of the coverage). Medicaid counts as the obligatory insurance and its eligibility is expanded to everyone below 133% of the 'poverty level'.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Except that the insurance companies can still to a large extent cherry-pick the profitable customers and dump the rest off on the public tab.

(Though not as much as before the much-mislabeled 'Obamacare,' Since this isn't what the Obama administration proposed, really. Not even a public option to introduce some competition for the oligopoly of Big Finance.' While of course, everyone resents being forced to buy something from the same corporations without *getting* the things like that competition and a better way to pay for it. Even as it stands, though, all the things remaining in Obamacare after the closed Republican committees got through with it, that Obama actually put *in,* are still popular.


The label's just a right-wing transference of what *they* did to a plan people liked. While, basically, manufacturing discontent. Negative branding of things the people, for the most part *do* want. The 'Mandatory corporate insurance' part isn't of Obama's making: it's *theirs.*

[GeneV]

So then, run the numbers, if the tax increase is equal to or less than what you would be forced to pay for insurance, just take the tax hike.
What if you are unemployed or primarily self employed?

As I posted before, I don't know how effective the tax will be. If you are below a certain minimum in income, the health insurance is paid. I don't understand the isssue about being self employed.

[Wheatfield]

So it's basically okay with you for the government to be able to control any and every aspect of your life, as long as it's beneficial to the majority. Interesting.

" From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs "

As mentioned, if you are going to frame everything in absolutes, there is no point in having a dialogue.
Consider for a moment that your health care is already a form of socialism. You've decided how much you can afford to pay for insurance (from each according to his ability) to garner the amount of protection you feel you need.
The difference between the socialism you have now and a real socialized health care is that your provider can decide at some point that the contract needs to be renegotiated regarding both the from each and to each part, which means you have very little control anyway.
I find it interesting that Americans pick and choose their socialism, accepting as necessary some parts, and going ballistic over other parts. Your society already has strong socialist components. If it didn't, it wouldn't work, or would work worse than it already does.
Everything that is paid for out of government coffers is socialism, from the roads and sidewalks in your cities, your highways and interstates to your army. The government pays for it through taxation for the common good, so by definition, it's socialism.
Some would argue that a standing army isn't part of the definition, but in a truly non socialist country, each person would choose how many body guards they want, and would have to arm them according to their own individual resources.
I've mentioned before that there is no place for a profit motive in health care, that there is no place for profit off of human misery. When you buy health care through private insurance, it's just like buying any other product off the shelf, be it a camera, a car or a bag of groceries.
A portion of what you spend is going towards what you and the company are gambling will be enough to pay for the health care needs of it's customers, with the company taking in enough money to pay for the few who need health care by spreading the cost around to the many who won't (socialism), and then adding on another amount for corporate profits.
In a completely socialized system, that extra amount isn't charged. Private companies cannot operate this way. They have to make a profit. Governments, OTOH, don't have to make a profit, so can operate a health care system at closer to actual cost. This is why you pay more for health care than I do.
I can understand your objection that you don't want your government running a health care system because your government can't seem to run anything properly, but this is a problem with your government, not a problem with the concept of socialized health care.
It works in most every other country in the world that is industrialized, but Americans have allowed their government to ignore it's mandate and operate exactly the opposite of how it is supposed to run..
"By the people, for the people"

[Parallax]

You conveniently forgot to quote the part of my post that said I don't object to government provided universal health care. (Just an oversight, I'm sure) What I am vehemently opposed to is opening the door for the government being able to tell me what commercial product or service I have to buy. I don't want them to be able to require me to buy a dozen twinkies every month because Hostess was able to make enough bribes er, campaign contributions to buy the legislation. The door's open way to wide already for a corporate takeover of the government.

[Jasvox]

What I see as a problem or tragedy, depending on your point of view, is how the American public can be so quick to associate anything and everything potentially positive for the nation as a political thing. Socialism this, Liberal that, etc. When it comes to healthcare and education for the citizens that make up the nation itself, what is more important for the overall sustainability of a nation if the people who make up that very country are sick (or sick of being put into financial debt to pay for healthcare) and under-educated (or again, put into massive debt right out of college due to student loans, or worse yet, unable to attend college or university due to not being financially able to begin with)?? Some may say that the most important thing in our nation is a strong defense. The thing is, we all pay for the military, yet no one is interested in a solid healthcare system and educating our nation's young in order to compete with those nations which have surpassed us over the last 50 years.
Take a look at Australia as an example: State funded world-class healthcare (as well as private) and state funded universities (as well as private), including some of the highest ranked universities in the world. Not to mention, the city of Melbourne ranks at the TOP of the world's most liveable cities, with three other cities in the top ten. What constitutes "liveable"? Availability of goods and services, personal safety, an effective infrastructure, and other factors make this up, according to sources which can easily be found when googled. How do you think the Australian, Canadian and Scandinavian cities win these awards and are ranked in the top 10 every single year? I certainly don’t think a dumbed-down, health challenged population could contribute to the success of those places based on the criteria and attributes of a place where people are happy and enjoy life in a way we as Americans can only look at with naiveté. Look, there is no such place as Utopia, but there is no reason in the world why the US should only be preached by the profits of doom the negatives of socialism and other fear words that people love to color the debate with. Fundamental care and education for the society is what keeps a nation strong and keeps a nation worthy of what it advertises of itself to the world. This should be seen as an elected government creating ideas and programs to benefit the nation, every man, woman and child. Those citizens who see that as restrictive and infringing on their freedoms should first think about the very society in which they too belong, and the obligations therein.

If you believe that a society should be based on how it treats its own people, how can any American opposed to society-provided healthcare and education ever say anything good about where it is you live and its role in the world community?

Jason

[GeneV]

You conveniently forgot to quote the part of my post that said I don't object to government provided universal health care. (Just an oversight, I'm sure) What I am vehemently opposed to is opening the door for the government being able to tell me what commercial product or service I have to buy. I don't want them to be able to require me to buy a dozen twinkies every month because Hostess was able to make enough bribes er, campaign contributions to buy the legislation. The door's open way to wide already for a corporate takeover of the government.

Jim, I think it is the Marx quote that was confusing. It doesn't seem to fit with accepting universal health care, and anyone who has tried to discuss this subject usually has memories of that quote as a conversation-ender.

The individual mandate is really just a tax for the services the person who chooses not to insure will receive from the government. On the private side, if you don't have some kind of mandate, and an insurer can't deny based upon pre-existing conditions, then why would anyone ever buy insurance until the doctor tells them they have some horrible disease? We would have insurance agents (instead of lawyers) chasing ambulances. It really does point out the difficulties with a private-sector approach.

[Wheatfield]

You conveniently forgot to quote the part of my post that said I don't object to government provided universal health care.

I wanted to speak specifically to the part I quoted. Apparently I didn't do very well.

[les3547]

What I am vehemently opposed to is opening the door for the government being able to tell me what commercial product or service I have to buy.

Jim, can you explain this worry to me? I must be a little dense because I cannot see how the government is being set up to tell you what commercial product or service you must buy. We are just being required to have health insurance, specifically what one we choose is up to us. From my perspective, and I suspect yours, as someone who has decent health care, I see the law as only benefitting me since I don't have to change anything, I won't pay more (hopefully less when everyone is participating), and the insurance companies won't be able to kick me out if I get so sick I cost them too much (or lose insurance, get sick, and then am denied because of a preexisting condition).

[newarts]

I think the individual mandate was a not-very-effective way to avoid looking like single payer system in which tax is collected from everybody to defray healthcare costs.

The court will recognize that equivalence and allow the charade to continue or bring the play to a halt - after which a more blatant tax solution will be found.

As I understand it, if an individual cannot afford to pay the individual mandate, it will be covered by tax moneys.... so as usual the taxpayer is the insurer of last resort.

[les3547]

As I understand it, if an individual cannot afford to pay the individual mandate, it will be covered by tax moneys.... so as usual the taxpayer is the insurer of last resort.

If you have health care, you are already paying for the uninsured. Below is the typical interference/anti-tax complaint lodged with a list of the new taxes. He says the new health law is an "expansion of government spending and interference between doctors and patients." How exactly is it interference between doctor and patient if one doesn't have a doctor in the first place? Or, how it is interference if one already has health care?

Regarding new taxes, which of them is going to affect most Americans negatively, and in terms of what health care will cost all Americans, how is it not going to lower the cost of living? If more taxes are paid but healthcare costs are reduced for the majority far more (i.e., than taxes are increased), then Americans will gain overall, have more money to spend on necessities and marginal items, business will make more money, can then hire more people, welfare and unemployment compensation is reduced . . . i.e., everyone benefits when the general population has both money and health.

Next week, the U.S. House of Representatives will be voting on a historic repeal of the Obamacare law.

While there are many reasons to oppose this flawed government health insurance law, it is important to remember that Obamacare is also one of the largest tax increases in American history. Below is a comprehensive list of the two dozen new or higher taxes that pay for Obamcare’s expansion of government spending and interference between doctors and patients.

Individual Mandate Excise Tax (January 2014): anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following.

1 Adult 2 Adults 3+ Adults
2014 1% AGI/$95 1% AGI/$190 1% AGI/$285
2015 2% AGI/$325 2% AGI/$650 2% AGI/$975
2016+ 2.5% AGI/$695 2.5% AGI/$1,390 2.5% AGI/$2,085

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS).

Employer Mandate Tax (January 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2,000 for all full-time employees. This provision applies to all employers with 50 or more employees.

If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3,000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Surtax on Investment Income (January 2013): This increase involves the creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income.

Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans: New 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). For early retirees and high-risk professions exists a higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family). CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax ($86.8 Billion/January 2013): Current law and changes:

First $200,000 ($250,000 Married) All Remaining Wages
Employer/Employee Employer/Employee

Current Law: 1.45%/1.45% 1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed 2.9% self-employed

Obama Tax Hike: 1.45%/1.45% 1.45%/2.35%
2.9% self-employed 3.8% self-employed

Medicine Cabinet Tax (January 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (January 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Flexible Spending Account Cap — “Special Needs Kids Tax” (January 2013): Imposes cap of $2,500 (indexed to inflation after 2013) on FSAs (now unlimited).

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (January 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax. Exemptions include items retailing for less than $100.

Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction From 7.5 percent to 10 Percent of AGI (January 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services (July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons.

Elimination of Tax Deduction for Employer-Provided Retirement Rx Drug Coverage in Coordination With Medicare Part D (January 2013)

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (January 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services.

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals Immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS.

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (January 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Health Insurers (January 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. The stipulation phases in gradually until 2018, and is fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits.

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (January 2013)

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (January 2011)

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (January 2012): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals)..

“Black Liquor”: This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel.

Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” : This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed.

[Parallax]

Jim, I think it is the Marx quote that was confusing. It doesn't seem to fit with accepting universal health care,

It wasn't meant to apply that aspect of my rant post. Poor placement on my part.

The individual mandate is really just a tax for the services the person who chooses not to insure will receive from the government

The difference here is that a government provided service funded by taxation is progressive. A mandated private purchase is not. The private insurance costs someone earning $60,000.00 per year the same as someone earning $20,000.00 per year; all else being equal. That means the person earning 20k is paying 3 times as much (expressed as a percentage of income) that the 60k earner is.

[GeneV]

The difference here is that a government provided service funded by taxation is progressive. A mandated private purchase is not. The private insurance costs someone earning $60,000.00 per year the same as someone earning $20,000.00 per year; all else being equal. That means the person earning 20k is paying 3 times as much (expressed as a percentage of income) that the 60k earner is.

The penalty is you pay more tax. That is why I said it was a tax.

Cost of the insurance is also progressive. Part of the ACA included expanded eligibility for Medicaid and subsidies on a sliding scale which extend to persons earning up to 400% of the poverty line. There are limits on how much the premium can cost as a percentage of income.

[jogiba]

The bottom line is most Americans are lazy fat couch potatoes that eat mostly processed crap from the supermarket that will cost them much more for healthcare than any other country on the planet. And the brain dead couch potatoes like Rush Limpdick and the Tea Party aholes make fun of anyone that talks to the American people about eating a healthy diet like Michelle Obama.

[Parallax]

The bottom line is most Americans are lazy fat couch potatoes that eat mostly processed crap from the supermarket that will cost them much more for healthcare than any other country on the planet. And the brain dead couch potatoes like Rush Limpdick and the Tea Party aholes make fun of anyone that talks to the American people about eating a healthy diet like Michelle Obama.

Well, that settles it then.

[kswier]

I don't dislike the idea of some sort of national healthcare plan, but how Obama went about it doesn't sit well with me. Commanding everyone to get insurance like that doesn't take into account the fact that many people can't get insurance no matter what they do. Low income people will be covered if they meet certain criteria, regardless of pre-existing conditions, but what about people who can't meet that standard, but who also can't qualify for regular insurance? They're stuck. In trouble on the one hand because they can't get it, but still unable to qualify for anything else? That will really bite. It's one thing to not be able to qualify another to get in trouble because you can't no matter what you do.

I agree that it does not sit well with me either, but priorities must be chosen. The individual mandate is needed to get rid of discrimination based on pre-existing conditions while keeping privatized insurance. Otherwise, I would not pay for insurance until I had a medical problem. The insurance company could not deny me, and I would collect insurance money even though I had not put anything into the pot. This would either raise rates or bankrupt insurance companies (which I personally would not mind, but it is not good policy). Thus, I do not think it is possible to force insurance companies to accept everybody without a personal mandate (at least without some kind of government plan for high risk individuals).

Personally, I would not be opposed to a socialized system. I spent many years of my childhood watching my parents fight with insurance companies to get them to actually cover needed procedures. The primary argument against government insurance is that the government cannot do anything correctly. I personally think it would be easy for them to do better than many of the current insurance companies (but as I said, I have a large bias).