• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Democrats Claim Obamacare Isn't Mandatory

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
ElFenix said:
here's the thing... i don't think there's any argument that tax credit for purchasing a product are legal, correct? what if the structure is actually (normal income tax) + greater of ($695 or 2.5% of AGI) with a credit for ($695 or 2.5% AGI) if insurance coverage = true?
Click to expand...
I fully agree. It is legal, and it is not strictly mandatory. It is just another example of how the pliability of the tax code serves the interests of statists and subverts a narrower reading of the Constitution. As much as I don't like it, it is perfectly fine by the rules as they are currently interpreted.

What I think is funny is how HIGHLY regressive this new tax is. Shockingly so, especially for a plan advanced by the Democrats. If the GOP had passed something like this, the Dems would be spinning it as a gift to the wealthy! 😀
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Legally that isn't true, and that's what will be argued before a judge. A person is free to refuse. All they need do is pay the "no insurance tax".

I agree that this leaves little effective choice, but politicians use any trick they can.
Click to expand...

By that standard there are no mandatory behaviors, only some voluntary behaviors with punishments assigned. Drug laws? Nah, all drugs are legal. You just pay a fine or go to jail if you get caught taking them.

Gotta love the progression here though. (1) Mandatory insurance requirement will fix health care! (2) Mandatory insurance requirement is a Republican idea we only included in the interests of bipartisanship! (3) Mandatory insurance requirement doesn't exist! Yikes! Health care reform vote pursuing me! Must . . . run . . . faster . . .
 
nonlnear said:
I fully agree. It is legal, and it is not strictly mandatory. It is just another example of how the pliability of the tax code serves the interests of statists and subverts a narrower reading of the Constitution. As much as I don't like it, it is perfectly fine by the rules as they are currently interpreted.

What I think is funny is how HIGHLY regressive this new tax is. Shockingly so, especially for a plan advanced by the Democrats. If the GOP had passed something like this, the Dems would be spinning it as a gift to the wealthy! 😀
Click to expand...

Cynical I may be, but my interpretation is that the Dems said they would have more people covered, and in effect at any cost. The agenda leads policy. If the only way they can say "we did it" is to punish people, then so be it.

Combined with the hit people are going to take for premium plans and the reduction in FSA (which no one has unless they are going to need it) it is regressive in the extreme. The wealthy won't feel it, just those who are less well off and have chronic conditions (shocking I know, but people do have diseases that can't be cured)

Still they got their plan, and that's all that mattered.

Yet another reason to distrust a politician offering you something.
 
I think they mean that it isn't mandatory for them to allow you to get the care you've paid for, for yourself and your neighbors. Because I know I'll never get any benefit from this. But I know I'll pay for it for the rest of my life.
 
... how is it not mandatory? It's HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE OR ELSE! It doesn't matter how "little" the else is, it's still a punishment for not having it.
 
nakedfrog said:
I don't follow.
I'm just saying he hasn't got a crystal ball to guarantee him he won't end up down on his luck and ill.
Click to expand...


Here's the deal. People who are like me (and you'll find there are those millions out there) get screwed. Not the rich, because nobody screws them.

If someone is really screwed and broke there are programs which can help like Medicaid (which is a huge cluster that we're not going to reform, just expand)

It's as if the politicians said "OK, we need to expand the number of people covered, and we have to do it in such a way that really fucks with everyone else."

Cut FSAs for people who need them. Tax people who have quality plans not because they go visit the doc between champagne and caviar, but because they have a family member with cancer or MS or a dozen other financially crippling illnesses. There is no "out" for these people. There is no guarantee of equivalent coverage.

They can work their asses off to take care of their loved ones and financially ruined (hey wasn't that a problem with the "old" system?)

Now the apologists will downplay this, because hey, they won. Screw everyone else. They're just as bad as people who would rather see someone croak than help them.

So we see that quality health care was never an issue. It's just getting the numbers up and fucking anyone they have to in order to do it.

It's all about Dems and Reps fighting each other, their emotional slaves supporting them all the way and we get caught in the crossfire.

The guy you addressed? He could possibly be screwed AND have coverage. That was the goal?

Oh, and find me a movie dammit! 😛 (inside joke)
 
nonlnear said:
I fully agree. It is legal, and it is not strictly mandatory. It is just another example of how the pliability of the tax code serves the interests of statists and subverts a narrower reading of the Constitution. As much as I don't like it, it is perfectly fine by the rules as they are currently interpreted.

What I think is funny is how HIGHLY regressive this new tax is. Shockingly so, especially for a plan advanced by the Democrats. If the GOP had passed something like this, the Dems would be spinning it as a gift to the wealthy! 😀
Click to expand...

I guess you can say it starts getting regressive at the point where $695 is more than 2.5% of income, which income level is $27,800. The problem is that at that level of income or lower you either get free insurance through Medicaid, or if you are just above the Medicaid threshold but below $27,800, the subsidy you'll get to buy private insurance will cover about 85% of the cost of it, making the cost of the insurance less than $695. While the tax is technically regressive for a narrow band at the low end, the subsidy is structured progressively, so in net effect, no, it isn't really regressive. Also, you are exempt from the mandate if the premiums cost more than 8% of your income, meaning that probably everyone in that narrow income band will be exempt anyway, so it's moot point.

Just injecting some fact into the discussion. Back to our regularly scheduled pontificating. 🙂

- wolf
 
Last edited:
The pitfalls of the mandate are exactly why single payer makes sense. Not only is it a mandate, but there is no possibility of opting out because it comes with citizenship, so no one can game the system, and of course everybody is insured. This private insurance thing we created in this country just makes no sense no matter how you slice it.
 
woolfe9999 said:
I guess you can say it starts getting regressive at the point where $695 is more than 2.5% of income, which income level is $27,800. The problem is that at that level of income or lower you either get free insurance through Medicaid, or if you are just above the Medicaid threshold but below $27,800, the subsidy you'll get to buy private insurance will cover about 85% of the cost of it, making the cost of the insurance less than $695. While the tax is technically regressive for a narrow band at the low end, the subsidy is structured progressively, so in net effect, no, it isn't really regressive. Also, you are exempt from the mandate if the premiums cost more than 8% of your income, meaning that probably everyone in that narrow income band will be exempt anyway, so it's moot point.

Just injecting some fact into the discussion. Back to our regularly scheduled pontificating. 🙂
Click to expand...
I was talking about the tax on people who don't buy insurance. The subsidy isn't really all that relevant when comparing the before/after picture in that case. Agreed it is probably not regressive in many more (most?) cases when considering people who do opt to get coverage. But it was really only meant as a little light-hearted joke anyways... 🙂
 
nonlnear said:
I was talking about the tax on people who don't buy insurance. The subsidy isn't really all that relevant when comparing the before/after picture in that case. Agreed it is probably not regressive in many more (most?) cases when considering people who do opt to get coverage. But it was really only meant as a little light-hearted joke anyways... 🙂
Click to expand...

I get that it's kind of a joke. I will, however, gently point out that anyone with a regressive tax (i.e, below the income threshold where it becomes regressive), will actually be exempt from the mandate entirely.

Hyabusa seemed to pick up on your point and run with it to related talking points, which is probably why I bothered to reply to it.

- wolf
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Yep, that's when they start.

Two years later is is $695 or 2.5% of your income, whichever is higher.

Big whoop indeed.
Click to expand...

You mean in 2019 it goes up to $695 or 2.5% of your income, I believe it coincides with the full phase in of the bill which finishes in 2018.

Not two years later.

Also there are a bunch of exceptions that can get you out of paying the fine, if you cared to read into it.

I wish this thread was a week ago, two law professors (health care and public policy specialties) had a great Q&A session on the bill on the radio locally. Lot of good benefits in this bill.

Health care subsidies, high risk pool, the exchange. Someday we will have UHC and won't have to listen to people bitch over all these silly things.

Not perfect, but a good bill overall.
 
TruePaige said:
You mean in 2019 it goes up to $695 or 2.5% of your income, I believe it coincides with the full phase in of the bill which finishes in 2018.

Not two years later.

Also there are a bunch of exceptions that can get you out of paying the fine, if you cared to read into it.

I wish this thread was a week ago, two law professors (health care and public policy specialties) had a great Q&A session on the bill on the radio locally. Lot of good benefits in this bill.

Health care subsidies, high risk pool, the exchange. Someday we will have UHC and won't have to listen to people bitch over all these silly things.

Not perfect, but a good bill overall.
Click to expand...

Lots of benefits. You mean like taking money from able bodied individuals and giving it to people who won't pay for their own insurance?
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Legally that isn't true, and that's what will be argued before a judge. A person is free to refuse. All they need do is pay the "no insurance tax".

I agree that this leaves little effective choice, but politicians use any trick they can.
Click to expand...

You may be correct.

As student of taxation theory, I'm unsure.

I'm am having trouble thinking of a similar example of where we tax the "not having" of something. All examples I can think of are fines/penalties (e.g., driving without a license or insurance).

Congress cannot change the essence of something by merely deciding to call it something else.

All taxes I can think of are levied against a value ($) or weight etc. Income taxes are measured on income. Sales taxes on the FMV. Real estate taxes on the FMV. We have excise taxes measured by FMV or weight. I cannot think of any example of a tax on 'nothing'. Penalties, yes.

Bear in mind that taxes are broadly categorized into direct and indirect, and this has an important Constitutional effect. Income taxes are a direct tax, and except for the 16th Amendment would have to apportioned (and federal income taxes are not, including this HC 'tax'). Let's assume this HC 'tax' is a direct tax (it must be to qualify as an income tax).

If so, to be Constitutional, it would seem to me, the courts would have to find that this 'tax' on 'not having' insurance also qualifies as an 'income tax'. Because only 'direct taxes' that are 'income taxes' qualify for the apportionment exemption under the 16th.

So, is it an income tax, or is it a tax on 'not having something' but measured in some way by income? If those of like incomes do not all pay the same amount of tax can it still be defined as an income tax? And if it is an income tax, is it discriminatory because people of like incomes do not all pay the same amount?

On Direct and Indirect taxes:

In a legal sense, the meaning of direct and indirect taxes changes so that a direct tax, according to the U.S. Constitution, applies only to property and poll taxes. These direct taxes are based on simple ownership or existence. Indirect taxes are imposed upon a broad range of abstract ideas, including rights, privileges, and activities. In this sense, a tax on the sale of property would be considered an indirect tax while the tax actually owed on the property would be direct.
Click to expand...

Is it a direct tax? Is the 'not having' of something a "property"? I find that hard to accept.

Is it an indirect tax? I realize the intial reaction of many non-professionals will be that the 'not having' of something of may be a right, or a privilege or maybe even an activity. But I caution against that, I don't have time to get into the legal definitions of those words but they may not be what we think. Also, if it is an indirect tax, it cannot therefore by definition be an income tax.

I'll leave it at that and say I know enough to know what I don't know and also just enough to confuse myself.

Personally I'm rather curious to see how the courts will rule. Also rather fearful on what they may come up with. Will we open wide another door for the gov to tax us on stuff we 'don't have', or the 'activity of not doing some activity'? This is a first, and I suspect if it passes it won't be the last.

Fern
 
Last edited:
Hacp said:
Lots of benefits. You mean like taking money from able bodied individuals and giving it to people who won't pay for their own insurance?
Click to expand...

I'll be glad to give your ass a subsidy so you can get the mental health care you so desperately need. 🙂
 
umbrella39 said:
Mandate having insurance or you get turned away at the ER instead...
Click to expand...

This is something I can support. You get turned away if you don't have insurance. Like anything else in the world, if you don't pay for it, you shouldn't get service. Walk into Mcdonalds without any money and expect to walk out with an empty belly.
 
I cannot afford health insurance. I am going to be forced to pay heavier taxes and will therefore be poorer. I will be forced to pay for health insurance that I cannot afford. How is this helping me?

In before somebody calls poor people "greedy rich Republicans" even though Democrat states have double the income.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Yep, that's when they start.

Two years later is is $695 or 2.5% of your income, whichever is higher.

Big whoop indeed.
Click to expand...

Big whoop? That amount of money covers my vision, physical, and dental for a year. So now I have to pay a fine on top of what I already paid out of pocket? Stupid.

Hacp said:
This is something I can support. You get turned away if you don't have insurance. Like anything else in the world, if you don't pay for it, you shouldn't get service. Walk into Mcdonalds without any money and expect to walk out with an empty belly.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work that way though. How many welfare people get free medical, free cell phones, free lawyers, free, free, free without lifting a hand?

And as stated above WTF can't I pay for my health coverage out of pocket? I don't want your hand outs or forced to buy your insurance.
 
Last edited:
TwinsenTacquito said:
I cannot afford health insurance. I am going to be forced to pay heavier taxes and will therefore be poorer. I will be forced to pay for health insurance that I cannot afford. How is this helping me?

In before somebody calls poor people "greedy rich Republicans" even though Democrat states have double the income.
Click to expand...

You, like the rest of the fucking retards in this thread, have not read any of the bill or even summaries on fee structure.

If you are that damn poor than you qualify for a subsidy to help get a plan. If a reasonable plan isn't within affordability you can get a waiver that waives the fine. Almost everyone in that category though will qualify for the expanded medicare at 133% of poverty level though.

There are multiple redundant levels of protection for the consumer in this bill.

Damn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top