Why would they be exempt? Health care can cost more than what a person making 30K pays in income taxes. I think any way you slice it, less people will be in the 'raising everyone's taxes by $500 and giving those who buy health insurance a $500 tax credit' group.
My point is that you *could* do it. And it would be perfectly legal and legitimate. You're not going to have two different semantic descriptions of the tax/penalty/credit and have one be legal and one be not legal. No. But your parents giving you a $50 allowance, and then making you pay $50 for not making an A is the same thing as just giving you $50 for making an A. In one case, it's a penalty. In the other, it's an incentive. But both have the exact same real-world effect. The mistake you're making is assuming the baseline has to be the baseline. You can easily change the baseline amount, which is perfectly legal. And then you can change a penalty into in incentive, which is also perfectly legal. So given that those two things are legal, just labeling it a penalty doesn't make it Unconstutional - it just makes it semantically different.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. By law, people who don't make enough income are exempt from the penalty. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think this is the case. You just say, for example: * Everyone gets a $500 tax increase * People who have health insurance get a $500 credit * People who don't make enough income get a $500 credit * No one is eligible for both credits
Because I don't think it works as perfectly as you are thinking. Medicaid gets expanded to 133% of poverty line right? So lets say at 200% of poverty line income tax for a married couple is $1.5K, that is under the level of any tax or credit. I think it is pretty obvious there will be a gap between those on medicaid and those paying more in income taxes than medical coverage costs.
I guess I'm still not seeing what you're saying here. I don't know the exact figures for the health care law, so I can't really get into specifics. But let's say people making less than $30k are exempt from the health care requirement. Then all you do raise taxes on people making more than $30k by $500 (this can be done fairly easily and be made exempt of all other deductions/etc). So now, you have all people who are required to have insurance paying $500 more. And then you give a credit of $500 to anyone with health insurance, subject to making an income of at least $30k. The net effect is simply that everyone who's required to have health care but doesn't have it gets taxed an extra $500 than they would without those rules.
No one knows how it will work. I will just say, your 500 give 500 take scenario works under the condition that the groups are exactly the same. I don't think they will be, and you can't possibly know. Do you really think they will do anything like this? That would leave an entire (large group of people) gap between Medicare and the healthcare law. A guy making 28K would have zero incentive to buy the cheap 100 per month HMO plan his company offers. Even if they do I could still find people who are out of the groups. People with only capital gains income etc.
What I am saying is however you define the groups in the current system, you can draft legislation the other way that works out identically - that part isn't really difficult because you can create all sorts of goofy rules for taxes. The rules are already written - I don't know specifically what they are. But whatever they are, you could write the legislation the other way. They didn't, in part because they didn't want to be accused of raising taxes, and in part because the penalty concept is much simpler and easier to understand - you don't have to create all the crazy rules I mentioned. My only point is regarding Constitutionality. If you COULD do it the more convoluted way and it's legal, then there's no reason the simpler way would be ruled Unconstitutional. Oh certainly - but you'd just have to make the tax laws more complicated to account for them.
My point from the beginning has been in the real world your comparison doesn't work because the groups are different. Hypothetically if the groups are the exact same subset, your semantics works. Here are the initial rules http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/28/average-health-care-tax-_n_1635119.html
Is Romney really this stupid? He wants to repeal the mandate and keep no discrimination for those with prior medical issues? What is the point of keeping car insurance if I can be in a wreck and then buy insurance and still get that wreck covered?
He's actually quite clever along with the wealthy 'conservatives' who support the direction this country has been going since the late 70s. The same cannot be said for the middle class Republicans that will vote for him. He will say whatever it takes to win. I told a friend of a friend at lunch today what Romney did as governor of MA for health care, and she said that was a lie told by the liberal media .
Conservative Strategy Numero Uno: If they don't like the truth, claim its a slanderous and ugly lie from the lefties!
Maybe I shouldn't be but I am astounded at the ignorance of some posters here. The ACA being found constitutional means that people will no longer free health care and be able to leach off the system. I take it y'all haven't heard of something called the Hippocratic Oath. For those of you who apparently don't know what that means that means that doctors can do no harm. To put it more plainly that means that doctors are bound by professional ethics to provide health care in an emergency whether a person can pay or not. Furthermore this is codified in every state law that hospitals have to provide emergency care whether someone can pay or not. That is the CURRENT SYSTEM PRIOR TO THE ACA. Taking Hightop's example his lazy friend he can leech off of the health care system right now. The ACA though does the opposite of free health care. It MANDATES a way to pay for health care. Hightop's lazy friend now actually has to contribute to the system or pay a tax penalty. Under the current system he doesn't need to do either. He could be 40 year old drug user living at home and eating nothing but bacon but if he has a heart attack he can go to a hospital and expect them to save his life under the current system. Under the ACA though he actually has to do something to address the possibility of him needing medical care. Now is this a restriction on absolute liberty? Of course it is I will not deny that, but what is the point of that liberty? The liberty to not buy health insurance because you don't want to and either end up dying in the street or leeching off of the professional and legal obligations of hospitals to treat you when an emergency strikes. Neither though are truly a choice because one you die, two you end up impinging on someone else. Remember even Ayn Rand when faced with cancer went on Medicare because she couldn't afford to pay for it I will totally agree the ACA is a bad bill but compared to the status quo where people actually can just leech off the system it is miles of improvement.
That's like something out of Jaywalking. Ask her next time when the Civil War was fought and see what answer you get.
Actually, it is. But hey, if you have evidence that the average eligible Texan has to pay $750/month for health insurance, please share it. There are plenty of resources you can use - from Google to EHealthInsurance and on. I'd love to see your evidence and am happy to reconsider my opinion. Until then, unfortunately for you, I will not STFU.
Yes, that is what I said. I don't know what you want. I am telling you my personal experience. You say I should get a $1200 deductible $250/mo plan. Show me this plan and I'd do it in a heart beat. I have looked and it is not there. Keep in mind that I live in NYC. Doctors here are very selective about the insurance they accept, and the ones that do accept HMO's or other plans usually have wait lists for months. I am sure you are an expert, and I am not. But I can only tell you my personal experiences. A high deductible plan is great for catastrophic issues. But I have specific needs with joint issues that is very hard to cover with typical insurance plans. I either can treat it and be pain free, or deal with the arthritic effects which isn't pleasant let me tell you. I just think the idea that I want a mercedes of health care is kinda B.S. and a bit insulting. I really don't want to talk about this anymore.
Not caught up on the thread. Just poking my head in to find out what I won for my winning vote. I'll accept Rockets tix, cash or rep. I'm easy.
There is a battle of philosophies. My philosophy is that a health care system that simulates what Germany has implemented successfully maintains the integrity of the level of care, enhances the productivity and ability of citizens to truly explore the American dream and removes this concept of the care of a country's citizens as an industry; the speculating financially on the health of the people. Simply ending our misguided attempts to tell the rest of the world how they should live according to American corporate interest would pay for the inconvenience of having to pull your fare share. I also consider myself a constitutional advocate. As an honest hypocrite I am fully aware that this law is unconstitutional. I believe that the proper way to implement health care reform is through a constitutional amendment that recognizes the needs of the people have changed since the 1700's. I also support the upholding the law by the Supreme Court because it is a necessary step in modifying this mindset that the health of a people is an industry. There can be a balance that benefits everyone but the corporate interests would rather pit left against right and prevent efficient allocation of resources towards reforming an industry that rakes in record profits for untold industries that are related to health care. The key components being the ending of the ability of parents to provide health insurance for their children after a certain age due to preexisting conditions; and by extrapolation the prevention of people to purchase affordable health care because they are not profitable. The industry that currently surrounds the health of our people is not very different than the industries in Las Vegas. Gimmie twenty and I'll let you pick a number. We are more intelligent and innovative than this. We used to be leaders and now we are turning into blind old men who stare at the fireplace and are afraid to move the coffee table a little to the left even if it helps us keep from catching our dirty old boots on fire.
I've kinda been hitting the sauce on draft night. Anyone want a power forward? *wanders off to look for the tank camp and see if they will take him in*
