Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Health Care Bill Passes Senate

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Here are a couple more links on the subject of constitutionality. Now that the Senate bill will be signed into law, we'll be hearing a lot more about this in the days to come.

"Individual Mandate" at Core of ObamaCare is Unconstitutional, New Report Concludes (March 1, 2010)

FreedomWorks to House of Representatives: Individual Mandate Unconstitutional (Feb 4, 2010)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In addition, the tax penalty in the Senate bill appears to be sloppily written so that it isn't even a tax on a percentage of income but rather imposes a fixed dollar amount.

Apologies for the double post, but I think I was wrong about this. I was reading from Section 1501 of the bill, but I missed Section 10106 which amends Section 1501 (in a perversion of all reason, the bill amends itself). It does appear to add a percentage of income to the penalty calculus, but only if it is greater than the flat dollar amount but less than "an amount equal to the national average premium for qualified health plans which have a bronze level of coverage, provide coverage for the applicable family size involved, and are offered through Exchanges for plan years beginning in the calendar year with or within which the taxable year ends." I still doubt that the tax will pass constitutional muster.

Edited by Seeker
Link to post
Share on other sites
By 2014 everyone will be required by law to purchase insurance or face a $695 fine. This effectively means that insurance will cost no more than $695/year since it would become the logical choice to pay the fine instead of getting the insurance. When enough people choose the fine then the price of the fine(a legal punishment for not buying a product) will go up without the reality based restrictions a market would apply.

Am I the only one who just realized that this conveniently makes it so it is in our selfish interest to pay the government for the fine instead of paying the (evil capitalistic) insurance companies for the mandated coverage?

More specifically, I noticed that the government stands to gain a lot of money in fines from this arrangement.

Edited by Amaroq
Link to post
Share on other sites
I was reading from Section 1501 of the bill, but I missed Section 10106 which amends Section 1501 (in a perversion of all reason, the bill amends itself). It does appear to add a percentage of income to the penalty calculus, but only if it is greater than the flat dollar amount but less than "an amount equal to the national average premium for qualified health plans which have a bronze level of coverage, provide coverage for the applicable family size involved, and are offered through Exchanges for plan years beginning in the calendar year with or within which the taxable year ends."
The 2,000+ page legislation and the "fix" for the Senate bill are loaded with this sort of convoluted and arcane language. It goes far afield from its original purpose by including a provision that kicks private financial institutions out of the business of making student loans and it imposes asbsurd new regulations like requiring restaurants to publish calorie counts on their menus. During the next 4 or 5 years we are all going to go through a discovery process as we find out about the thousands of new regulations and mandates this bill puts on all of us. The unintended and the intended consequences are going to take years to unravel.

Thank you Chairman Maobama and Madame Pelosi for dumping this steaming pile of shit on America.

I still doubt that the tax will pass constitutional muster.

I don't know whether that specific tax provision will pass muster or not, but it would be easy enough to change. If there's anything that Washington is good at, it's writing new tax laws. As far as the entire bill being declared unconstitutional, I doubt that will happen. The Commerce Clause has been twisted to justify the regulation of a ridiculous number of things. In fact, the commerce doesn't even have to be inter-state for the Feds to regulate it. Let's face it, the politicians have made the Constitution a meaningless document in many ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
More specifically, I noticed that the government stands to gain a lot of money in fines from this arrangement.

All this is, is a scam and a fraud to part us with our hard earned money. The Marxists in charge believe the money is theirs to redistribute as they see fit (conveniently, some will find its way into their pockets, of course)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Great Obamassiah is about to sign the bill using twenty pens. *rolls eyes*

Update: The bloviating idiot just touted this as "the greatest tax-cut for middle class Americans in history." I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Edited by Maximus
Link to post
Share on other sites
The Great Obamassiah is about to sign the bill using twenty pens. *rolls eyes*

Update: The bloviating idiot just touted this as "the greatest tax-cut for middle class Americans in history." I just threw up in my mouth a little.

This plan is not unlike how they took over the auto industry, mortgages and the financial sector.

What is being imposed on the insurance agencies is not sustainable. Some will go belly up, some will be unable to perform as needed.

We will then see an "emergency" where the givernment needs to "bail out" and takeover the insurance industry.

For awhile I was thinking that the only private sector jobs left would be restaurants... but with new restrictions and bizarre regulations imposed on the food industry every day we truly are looking at being the USSA in under ten tyear's time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
All this is, is a scam and a fraud to part us with our hard earned money. The Marxists in charge believe the money is theirs to redistribute as they see fit (conveniently, some will find its way into their pockets, of course)

He wasn't joking when he slipped during the election and told "Joe the Plumber" that he just wanted to "spread the wealth around".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume revenue from fining the uninsured will be going to the same black hole where all government revenue goes - general spending, social security, etc. In other words, it won't be sent into a risk pool like it should. Does anyone know if this is correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I assume revenue from fining the uninsured will be going to the same black hole where all government revenue goes - general spending, social security, etc. In other words, it won't be sent into a risk pool like it should. Does anyone know if this is correct?

I would say that it is safe to assume so, going on prior precedent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where the govt stands to really cash in is by doing what they accuse prt insurance of doing- incentivising the withholding treatment.

Under the plan primary care physicians will be penalised financially for authorising further care by specialists.

PCPs who send a higher number of patients to surgeons and specialists will be penalised by having their payments reduced by the govt.

There will be a federal review board that decides who gets what. A goverment agent can refuse to give you needed care based on waits, specialist availability and cost.

Unlike our current private system however there will be no appeal if you are denied treatment- built in is a clause exempting this body from judicial oversight- you cannot sue to get the treatment you've been denied (and are forced to pay for).

Further, there will be penalties imposed on private practioners.. all will be encourged to join larger medical groups with financial and administrative punishments for those who remain solo.

Strangely, written into the bill is an exemption from its rules for the senior staffers who helped author it.

Can determining who gets what treatment based on political affiliation be far behind?

I've found this columist (a doctor with govt ties) to be helpful in navigating just what is being done here... and its frightening:

http://giv.to/3k7S#

http://giv.to/3k7S#

(edit)

for some reason the article (by the same author) I cut and pasted here isn't coming up, a different one is. Someone more computer savvy than I may want to look up his article "what Doctors and Patients have to lose"

Most pro-NHC people thought they were getting a system like Canada's.

In truth it more closely resembles that in We The Living.

Edited by QuoVadis
Link to post
Share on other sites

The question that begs asking-

all along we were told that all the dubious legislative antics that took place had to happen because this was such an "emergency"

that 47,000 people every year die ONLY because they lacked insurance.

We start paying now but the alleged "benefits" don't kick in until 2014.

Does that not mean that by their own calculations Obama, Reid, Biden and Pelosi are personally repsonsible for the deaths of 188000 people?

and heck that's before people even get a chance to start dying from all the health care rationing that's going to happen :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's still a chance to do battle with this bill in the supreme court--some states, like Idaho, have ALREADY taken legislative action that prevents their citizens from being forced to buy health insurance. This action guarantees that this matter is far from settled.

The focus of the battle has shifted and we should all move to keep up with it so our efforts are not lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking over the blog for the time line for how this thing is going to get enacted. One question I thought the penalty for not having insurance was supposed to be $695 or something like that. But on the timeline in 2014: "Individual mandate penalties begin (phased in from $95 in 2014 to 2.5% of taxable income in 2016)". So does this mean that if you don't have insurance by 2016 2.5% of your income will be the penalty? That seems like a hell of a lot of penalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So does this mean that if you don't have insurance by 2016 2.5% of your income will be the penalty? That seems like a hell of a lot of penalty.

Only a lot if you make a lot...like say $50k...you know...you know...rich people. If you make $15k/year, insurance will only be $31 a month....If you get your income down to $7000 a year insurance could be had for $15/month....not a bad deal really.

It's funny.... highly productive people capable of making a lot of money have always seemed like they would not be likely to go on strike, but when you incentivize a lack of productivity to the extent we are, it becomes the a very sensible choice. If I can get as many goods and services by barely working at wal-mart 20 hours a week, then why ought I continue to work 110 hours? Making a non-taxable hobby of productive work and utilizing government services might be the way to go. I'm all for gaining pride through productive achievement, but I'm not sure that it's worth martyrdom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. No wonder why the bill is so damn long

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/23/c...e_n_509964.html

Barack Obama tried to cram as much fascism as possible. Pretty soon, we'll have no idea how to function without government forcing Burger King to let everyone know how fat it is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/education/22pell.html

And something about studen loans, which has absolutely nothing to do with health care.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Only a lot if you make a lot...like say $50k...you know...you know...rich people. If you make $15k/year, insurance will only be $31 a month....If you get your income down to $7000 a year insurance could be had for $15/month....not a bad deal really.

It's funny.... highly productive people capable of making a lot of money have always seemed like they would not be likely to go on strike, but when you incentivize a lack of productivity to the extent we are, it becomes the a very sensible choice. If I can get as many goods and services by barely working at wal-mart 20 hours a week, then why ought I continue to work 110 hours? Making a non-taxable hobby of productive work and utilizing government services might be the way to go. I'm all for gaining pride through productive achievement, but I'm not sure that it's worth martyrdom.

And isn't it amazing that the cost required works out so perfectly as a percentage of one's income? And exactly 2.5% to boot! Think about the savings now that insurance companies can do away with adjusters, actuarial tables, calculators, etc. 2.5% and everyone is covered. Perfect.

:dough:

Perhaps we should be worried about what is to come, but my gut reaction is to laugh hysterically at how miserably (and quickly) this will cause the exact OPPOSITE results as were claimed (like the collectivist/socialist ideas always do). As we watch the rich and/or smart people in America continue to find ways to get the best health CARE, and the quality of care for everyone else declines, more and more people will become aware of what is happening. A lot more then I would have thought already know. Polls are AGAINST this legislation... How often do you see a big new program pass when almost 60% say they DON'T want it?! That is something there.

And how are those public school working out? Are the people in the poorest areas benefiting from this? What do people who can AFFORD to make their own choice do? They avoid public schools.

Either way... I'm looking for a gulch to appropriate somewhere. Anyone know how to make a holographic mirage generator?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Perhaps we should be worried about what is to come, but my gut reaction is to laugh hysterically at how miserably (and quickly) this will cause the exact OPPOSITE results as were claimed (like the collectivist/socialist ideas always do). As we watch the rich and/or smart people in America continue to find ways to get the best health CARE, .

Jesse Jackson, Congressman in Illinois is proposing a constitutional amendement forbidding just that.

A Const Amendement forbidding anyone from getting any kind of care or treatment that cannot be had or afforded by anyone else.

Of course, on pg158 of the bill is a clause stating that the senior staffers who worked on the HCR bill are exempt from its provisions. :dough:

Not. Kidding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/HealthCare/...ory?id=10178015

As of yesterday (3/23) 14 states have already filed papers in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the newly signed health care bill.

Too bad skirting the constitution when its convenient comes back to bite politicians in the ass when they try to use the constitution to do whats its there for.

I don't see the lawsuits doing much but getting laughed at.

Power does what it wants.

Edited by Alone
Link to post
Share on other sites
Historically, has any bill dealing with social programs been ever successfully repelled through the courts?

There is a degree of uniqueness in the way this bill was passed, with misinterpretations pertaining to reconciliation and misinterpretations of the commerce clause, that might expose this bill to a beating in the courts. There might not be any historical comparisons. I'm not a law student so I couldn't tell you. They will look at past case law first though, so it would be good if anyone had any input on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure. Much of Roosevelt's "100 Days" legislation was deemed unconstitutional by the SCOTUS in the 30s.

..and the SCOTUS backed down from their rulings when FDR threatened to appoint several more judges of his own chosing if they didn't.

I'm gonna get a bag of popcorn and see if history repeats itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...