ACA (a.k.a. Obamacare) Upheld

Page 30 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

cybrsage

Lifer
Nov 17, 2011
13,021
0
0
Any way you slice it, people without mortgages pay more tax than people with mortgages. Liberals are penalizing you for not carrying a mortgage.


True, you are being penalized for not having health insurance. He is right about it being a tax increase, though. The only way to avoid the increase is to obtain health insurance.

My concern is how are the poor going to obtain health insurance when they already cannot afford to buy it. This plan says that if you are too poor to afford health insurance you have to pay extra taxes...

Seems it does more harm than good. Those who can afford health insurance already have it and will not be affected by this new tax.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Exactly. If you make sure you adjust your withholdings so that you owe money at the end of the year, they won't be able to take that money from you. If you are expecting a refund though, they will subtract the penalty from that.
Link?
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
Exactly. If you make sure you adjust your withholdings so that you owe money at the end of the year, they won't be able to take that money from you. If you are expecting a refund though, they will subtract the penalty from that.

I'm glad the Gubermint is doing it this way so I don't have to pay for Free Riders rolling the dice on their health and balking on paying the bills.
 

jackstar7

Lifer
Jun 26, 2009
11,679
1,944
126
My concern is how are the poor going to obtain health insurance when they already cannot afford to buy it. This plan says that if you are too poor to afford health insurance you have to pay extra taxes...

You should read it again.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
dank69 asserted the following:

"If you don't pay the penalty, the IRS has no authority to come after you for it."

"If you make sure you adjust your withholdings so that you owe money at the end of the year, they won't be able to take that money from you. If you are expecting a refund though, they will subtract the penalty from that."

Ausm, I could find nothing in either of the 2 links you provided that confirms dank69's statements.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
I'm glad the Gubermint is doing it this way so I don't have to pay for Free Riders rolling the dice on their health and balking on paying the bills.

your still paying for the freeloaders.

Before you had uninsured freeloaders.

Now you have insured freeloaders.

The people not paying into the system, will still not be paying, but will be consuming, as much, if not more.
 

manimal

Lifer
Mar 30, 2007
13,559
8
0
I was actually moved by Eskimospy's comment about getting healthcare. My wife is in a similar situation. Health insurance shouldn't run our lives or ruin our estates if we get sick.



I personally wonder how long it will take for people to at least see the positives.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I was actually moved by Eskimospy's comment about getting healthcare. My wife is in a similar situation. Health insurance shouldn't run our lives or ruin our estates if we get sick.



I personally wonder how long it will take for people to at least see the positives.
Look at the table posted previously...people definitely see positives.

Edit - This table.
2012-03-27-Blumenthal-kaisercomponentstable.png
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
I was actually moved by Eskimospy's comment about getting healthcare. My wife is in a similar situation. Health insurance shouldn't run our lives or ruin our estates if we get sick.

I personally wonder how long it will take for people to at least see the positives.

Most people would prefer it everyone had health insurance. Most people want health care to be affordable. Wanting those things doesn't necessarily mean that this plan is a good idea though. This is about implementation. Is this plan going to achieve its goals? It seems as if there are potentially serious issues with fairness and funding. Is this the best way to approach the problems? Even many liberals recognize that a government solution would be better.

So the debate doesn't just end because we want people to have health care. That's where it starts.
 

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,314
690
126
I added Obama's response to the OP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5zU1y_0Geo&feature=player_embedded (Transcript)

Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act -- the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago. In doing so, they've reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America -- in the wealthiest nation on Earth – no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin.
 

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
your still paying for the freeloaders.

Before you had uninsured freeloaders.

Now you have insured freeloaders.

The people not paying into the system, will still not be paying, but will be consuming, as much, if not more.

umm not really...a free loader who obtains healthcare without insurance is charged 2-3X the amount of a person who has healthcare. Soooo if that free loader without insurance bales on the bill guess what....we get stuck with higher costs in the long run.
 
Last edited:

Ausm

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
25,213
14
81
dank69 asserted the following:

"If you don't pay the penalty, the IRS has no authority to come after you for it."

"If you make sure you adjust your withholdings so that you owe money at the end of the year, they won't be able to take that money from you. If you are expecting a refund though, they will subtract the penalty from that."

Ausm, I could find nothing in either of the 2 links you provided that confirms dank69's statements.

I think they have the authority to come after you but I think in reality it would be a waste of their time and money sort like when people skip over the out of state sales tax line.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
I was actually moved by Eskimospy's comment about getting healthcare. My wife is in a similar situation. Health insurance shouldn't run our lives or ruin our estates if we get sick.



I personally wonder how long it will take for people to at least see the positives.

That's your fucking problem. You're viewing it as health insurance or the health care industry as ruining your lives. That isn't the case, it's the fucking illness or disease or whatever that ruined or is ruining your lives. Fact is to many fuckers want way more than reasonable coverage for next to nothing.

We can't just give everyone everything they want in life and suffering is part of the human condition.
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,306
4
81
Most people would prefer it everyone had health insurance. Most people want health care to be affordable. Wanting those things doesn't necessarily mean that this plan is a good idea though. This is about implementation. Is this plan going to achieve its goals? It seems as if there are potentially serious issues with fairness and funding. Is this the best way to approach the problems? Even many liberals recognize that a government solution would be better.

So the debate doesn't just end because we want people to have health care. That's where it starts.

Moving in the right direction and adjusting accordingly is called being smart. What's sitting on your thumbs doing nothing for 20 years watching the aftermath called? This might not be a great solution, but it's a start that can be worked on at least.
 

Ninjahedge

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2005
4,149
1
91
Look at the table posted previously...people definitely see positives.

Edit - This table.
2012-03-27-Blumenthal-kaisercomponentstable.png

Amazing that everyone likes something for free, but more and more people hate what you have to pay for.

"Expand Medicaid"...OK
"Pay for it"............ WTF?!?!?!?!?!
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Moving in the right direction and adjusting accordingly is called being smart. What's sitting on your thumbs doing nothing for 20 years watching the aftermath called? This might not be a great solution, but it's a start that can be worked on at least.

Yes moving in the right direction is a good thing. What a deep comment. Of course, the issue is whether this is a move in the right direction.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Moving in the right direction and adjusting accordingly is called being smart. What's sitting on your thumbs doing nothing for 20 years watching the aftermath called? This might not be a great solution, but it's a start that can be worked on at least.

You're right about the "moving" thing. This legislation moves and shuffles costs around in an attempt to make it look like there's price controls and savings to be had in place. It really does neither of those things.
 

AyashiKaibutsu

Diamond Member
Jan 24, 2004
9,306
4
81
You're right about the "moving" thing. This legislation moves and shuffles costs around in an attempt to make it look like there's price controls and savings to be had in place. It really does neither of those things.

If only there was someone proposing something better. Unfortunately, there isn't. The only thing we have is movement and opposition at the moment.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I think they have the authority to come after you but I think in reality it would be a waste of their time and money sort like when people skip over the out of state sales tax line.
In other words...dank69 was just making up shit. Got it.
 

tcG

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,202
18
81
I predict healthcare costs will continue to rise rapidly, far outpacing inflation, as they have done for the past 40 years. Additionally, the industry will be increasingly controlled by insurance companies, huge conglomerate healthcare providers, the AMA, pharma, and the government. Quality and diversity in treatment options will continue to decline, while price increases. But hey, now at least we've forced EVERYONE to be onboard the shit choo-choo train.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
37,388
33,042
136
True, you are being penalized for not having health insurance. He is right about it being a tax increase, though. The only way to avoid the increase is to obtain health insurance.

My concern is how are the poor going to obtain health insurance when they already cannot afford to buy it. This plan says that if you are too poor to afford health insurance you have to pay extra taxes...

Seems it does more harm than good. Those who can afford health insurance already have it and will not be affected by this new tax.
Subsidies for the poor. Also if you are too poor to buy health insurance you are exempt from the penalties.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Also if you are too poor to buy health insurance you are exempt from the penalties.

Of course it all comes down to how they define poor. My understanding is it's only up to
130% of the poverty line. The problem is that health insurance is ridiculously expensive for middle-class people too. A lot of people want it but don't want to pay ridiculous rates. These people are now forced to buy into it. I'm not buying the freeloader talking point. Nobody wants to have to go into bankruptcy because of an emergency room visit.
 

tcG

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,202
18
81
Reasons healthcare is so expensive:

http://mises.org/daily/4434

...price sensitivity is a crucial factor in driving prices down over time. Government policy has undermined price sensitivity, and this has been a very important cause in the rising costs of the American healthcare system.



...the AMA has sought not only to limit supply, but also to regulate who can practice various aspects of medicine. For instance, many medical procedures and decisions about prescriptions could be handled by nurses or medical technicians rather than doctors, whose labor is more expensive. Licensure limits the extent to which market forces — that is, forces that lead to the cheapest and most effective results for consumers — may determine the most efficient use of doctors, nurses, and technicians.

A recent example of the AMA's use of licensure was their attempt — ostensibly for "patient safety," — to regulate Walmart's creation of low-cost retail clinics by preventing the clinics from operating using only nurse practioners.[10] The practioners would have only been providing very basic medical services, such as administering needles and prescribing drugs, which Van Ruth et al. conclude carries no extra risk to patients.[11]

It is precisely the sort of clinics operated by Walmart that allow consumers — and especially the poorest in society — access to basic, affordable healthcare. By regulating these clinics and reducing the supply of doctors and providers, the AMA has caused higher prices for American consumers of healthcare.



Only by removing the subsidies available to corn producers, and allowing local and organic farmers to compete on an even playing field, will healthier calories become more economically attractive to consumers.



Patents are not a natural outcome of the free market but are government-granted monopolies on production. Contrary to conventional economic wisdom, patents are not an unequivocal benefit in fostering the development of ideas. The existence of patents is, on the contrary, a clear contributor to the high cost of medical treatments available to American consumers.

http://mises.org/daily/6099/Government-Medical-Insurance

But the roots of the current medical crisis go back much further than the 1950s and medical insurance. Government intervention into medicine began much earlier, with a watershed in 1910 when the much-celebrated Flexner Report changed the face of American medicine...

The result: every medical school and hospital was subjected to licensing by the state, which would turn the power to appoint licensing boards over to the state AMA. The state was supposed to, and did, put out of business all medical schools that were proprietary and profit-making, that admitted blacks and women, and that did not specialize in orthodox, "allopathic" medicine: particularly homeopaths, who were then a substantial part of the medical profession, and a respectable alternative to orthodox allopathy.

Thus through the Flexner Report, the AMA was able to use government to cartelize the medical profession: to push the supply curve drastically to the left (literally half the medical schools in the country were put out of business by post-Flexner state governments), and thereby to raise medical and hospital prices and doctors' incomes.

In all cases of cartels, the producers are able to replace consumers in their seats of power, and accordingly the medical establishment was now able to put competing therapies (e.g., homeopathy) out of business; to remove disliked competing groups from the supply of physicians (blacks, women, Jews); and to replace proprietary medical schools financed by student fees with university-based schools run by the faculty, and subsidized by foundations and wealthy donors.

When managers such as trustees take over from owners financed by customers (students of patients), the managers become governed by the perks they can achieve rather than by service of consumers. Hence: a skewing of the entire medical profession away from patient care to toward high-tech, high-capital investment in rare and glamorous diseases, which rebound far more to the prestige of the hospital and its medical staff than it is actually useful for the patient-consumers.

And so, our very real medical crisis has been the product of massive government intervention, state and federal, throughout the century; in particular, an artificial boosting of demand coupled with an artificial restriction of supply. The result has been accelerating high prices and deterioration of patient care. And next, socialized medicine could easily bring us to the vaunted medical status of the Soviet Union: everyone has the right to free medical care, but there is, in effect, no medicine and no care.