• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Before everyone slams the "partisan court"

DeacMan said:
I'm not sure they can manipulate the insurance companies into losing money. Their actuarial tables will only let that game go so far. The game for Congress is to make sure Pete buys insurance.

So the larger risk, and the one likely to come true, is that the tax will get set as a true penalty. i.e. Pete can buy insurance for $150 today. The tax not to buy gets set at $190. And suddenly Pete can buy insurance for $165 instead of $150. And because Pete's premium went up $15, your premium Mr. 55 year old smoker goes up $50.

In short, there's a big risk the consumer get's squeezed on this.
Click to expand...

Except for the part that the law prescribes the amount of the tax based on your income and caps it at the average cost of a policy. They can't set the tax amount at more than it would cost to buy a policy and for most people it will be significantly less
 
MysteryMen said:
Except for the part that the law prescribes the amount of the tax based on your income and caps it at the average cost of a policy. They can't set the tax amount at more than it would cost to buy a policy and for most people it will be significantly less
Click to expand...

So we could still end up with a shitload of healthy people who don't buy the insurance? Doesn't that fuck up costs elsewhere? I trust someone looked into all the math before the damn thing was passed.
 
ChristianDeac said:
This sets a very dangerous precedent IMO. Basically, any mandate which government wants to establish with a penalty attached can be considered "constitutional" because it would be adjudged merely to be a tax. Government now can establish a mandate on about anything (as long as it is applied uniformly) which you can only opt out of by agreeing to pay a tax. Now government will be the decider in what you must buy or you pay a tax if you choose not to.
Click to expand...

A. That's nothing new.
B. Roberts does a very nice job of addressing that concern in pages 47-50 of the opinion.
 
How so? He mostly is talking about the Medcaid/Medicare portion of the bill as it applies to the States and I see no hedge against government not applying this to other areas of life as long as the tax is not considered onerous.
 
What is the limitation on the government's ability to tax inaction like this? For example, can the government mandate that every citizen exercise at least 5 hours a week and impose a tax for failure to do so? Can the government require that each citizen donate a certain percentage of his or her income to charity or pay a tax? I'm not trying to be obtuse. I haven't read the opinion in full yet. Does it place some sort of limitation on this taxation power?
 
Take the time to read the opinion and both concurrences and dissents. This case will be studied for years and really is a clash of legal titans. Well written and reasoned opinions.
 
ChristianDeac said:
How so? He mostly is talking about the Medcaid/Medicare portion of the bill as it applies to the States and I see no hedge against government not applying this to other areas of life as long as the tax is not considered onerous.
Click to expand...

My mistake. Pages 47-50 in the reader I was using, 41-44 of the actual opinion.


While I recognize the concern about misfeasance taxes, I doubt they're suddenly going to become all the rage due to this opinion. Voting for higher taxes, particularly when those taxes are for simply failing to comply with some government policy, doesn't strike me as a good path to reelection.
 
Last edited:
OldGoldBeard said:
My mistake. Pages 47-50 in the reader I was using, 41-44 of the actual opinion.
Click to expand...

With all the different programs and readers, I bet this will happen a ton of times as eReaders continue their explosive growth.
 
"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."***


***As long as you purchase health insurance
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Solid opinion. Good for Roberts, though I don't agree with his take on the CC. Law beats politics for once.
Click to expand...

Had it been 5-4 the other way with one of the liberal justices siding with the majority, would you have the same "law beats politics" position?
 
DeacMan said:
So how on earth does this work?

Pete the young healthy landscape worker has no insurance.

How much is he "taxed" for this and how does said tax compare to the price of insurance on the open market?

I presume the tax will be set somewhere a bit north of the open market cost. Does the amount of the tax fluctuate from year to year? If the tax is lower than the cost of insurance by a significant amount then won't people still elect not to be insured? And if it is a lot higher than the cost of insurance, won't the insurance companies move the cost of insurance upwards towards the cost of the tax?
Click to expand...

This statement right here is illustrative of the major problem with many people's opinions on the healthcare bill. You (and most of the country) have not taken time to find out what the bill and today's Supreme Court opinion actually mean.

Your presumption is completely wrong, and both the bill itself and today's Supreme Court opinion clearly articulate that
 
Last edited:
MysteryMen said:
This statement right here is illustrative of the major problem with many people's opinions on the healthcare bill. You (and most of the country) have not taken time to find out what the bill and today's Supreme Court opinion actually mean.

Your presumption is completely wrong, and both the bill itself and today's Supreme Court opinion clearly articulate that
Click to expand...

So enlighten me. No matter where you "set" the tax we are going to face manipulation. There is no free lunch.
 
Liquid Karma said:
Had it been 5-4 the other way with one of the liberal justices siding with the majority, would you have the same "law beats politics" position?
Click to expand...

In that scenario, did one of the "liberal judges" cross over to help 4 of the "conservative judges?"
 
MysteryMen said:
This statement right here is illustrative of the major problem with many people's opinions on the healthcare bill. You (and most of the country) have not taken time to find out what the bill and today's Supreme Court opinion actually mean.

Your presumption is completely wrong, and both the bill itself and today's Supreme Court opinion clearly articulate that
Click to expand...

You are actually correct, but it only demonstrates how ineffective the mandate will likely be. The cost prohibitive factor for opting out of the mandate will be highest for the wealthiest under the Affordable Care Act, meaning the wealthy will be the least likely to opt out of the mandate. At the point where 2.5% of a household's income equals the average cost of the premium or below, people will be more and more likely to opt out of the mandate in favor of the tax, especially if they do not deem it necessary to purchase health insurance. These people are more likely than the wealthy to not have health insurance in the first place, so at the end of the day, the bill will likely not result in a significant increase in coverage overall.
 
DeacMan said:
So how on earth does this work?

Pete the young healthy landscape worker has no insurance.

How much is he "taxed" for this and how does said tax compare to the price of insurance on the open market?

I presume the tax will be set somewhere a bit north of the open market cost. Does the amount of the tax fluctuate from year to year? If the tax is lower than the cost of insurance by a significant amount then won't people still elect not to be insured? And if it is a lot higher than the cost of insurance, won't the insurance companies move the cost of insurance upwards towards the cost of the tax?
Click to expand...

The tax is already set. Do any of you legal eagles actually know anything about this law?

Require U.S. citizens and legal residents to have qualifying health coverage. Those without coverage
pay a tax penalty of the greater of $695 per year up to a maximum of three times that amount ($2,085)
per family or 2.5% of household income. The penalty will be phased-in according to the following
schedule: $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, and $695 in 2016 for the flat fee or 1.0% of taxable income in 2014,
2.0% of taxable income in 2015, and 2.5% of taxable income in 2016. Beginning after 2016, the penalty
will be increased annually by the cost-of-living adjustment. Exemptions will be granted for financial
hardship, religious objections, American Indians, those without coverage for less than three months,
undocumented immigrants, incarcerated individuals, those for whom the lowest cost plan option
exceeds 8% of an individual’s income, and those with incomes below the tax filing threshold (in 2009
the threshold for taxpayers under age 65 was $9,350 for singles and $18,700 for couples).
Click to expand...


And Pete the low wage lawn worker wouold likely qualify for subsidies.

Provide refundable and advanceable premium credits to eligible individuals and families with incomes
between 133-400% FPL to purchase insurance through the Exchanges. The premium credits will be tied
to the second lowest cost silver plan in the area and will be set on a sliding scale such that the premium
contributions are limited to the following percentages of income for specified income levels:
Up to 133% FPL: 2% of income
133-150% FPL: 3 – 4% of income
150-200% FPL: 4 – 6.3% of income
200-250% FPL: 6.3 – 8.05% of income
250-300% FPL: 8.05 – 9.5% of income
300-400% FPL: 9.5% of income
• Increase the premium contributions for those receiving subsidies annually to reflect the excess of the
premium growth over the rate of income growth for 2014-2018. Beginning in 2019, further adjust the
premium contributions to reflect the excess of premium growth over CPI if aggregate premiums and
cost sharing subsidies exceed .54% of GDP.
• Provisions related to the premium and cost-sharing subsidies are effective January 1, 2014.
Click to expand...

Source
 
TR1982 said:
You are actually correct, but it only demonstrates how ineffective the mandate will likely be. The cost prohibitive factor for opting out of the mandate will be highest for the wealthiest under the Affordable Care Act, meaning the wealthy will be the least likely to opt out of the mandate. At the point where 2.5% of a household's income equals the average cost of the premium or below, people will be more and more likely to opt out of the mandate in favor of the tax, especially if they do not deem it necessary to purchase health insurance. These people are more likely than the wealthy to not have health insurance in the first place, so at the end of the day, the bill will likely not result in a significant increase in coverage overall.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but that assumes that people will be motivated solely by cost. You can pay some money to the government and get essentially nothing for it (only emergency care that hospitals could not refuse) or you can pay more money to an insurance company and get health insurance for it.

I'm not convinced that if people now have to pay somebody that they won't want to at least get something for their money. I believe that there are currently about 50 million people uninsured in the US. The CBO has projected that only 4 million will elect to pay the tax instead of buying insurance
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top