Experts predict ObamaCare wil lbe overturned

[Keith Wilson]

Keith drew that distinction, not me.

Not me.

[George Jung]

More and more, I find it difficulty to recognize George Jung.

It's almost as if he's been paying attention for the last eight years.

George always pays attention and misses very little, IMO!

To be fair, he did notably misplace the 'attack SamF thread'. Not quite sure what that says about George, but I'm sure it says something. . .

Agreed

I don't know if you noticed, but his post #82 just agreed with and reinforced everything I've been saying.

So I would have to agree... he does seem to be paying attention!

I think George appreciates Sam's input here more than some do, without being a sycophant.
George seems to have a mind of his own and is not as much influenced by the sheer power of Sam as some of us are.
Sam's hubris, intellect, focus, detail, cutthroat style, aloof Godly detachment, and judgemental finality is off-putting to some of us, like me, but not to George.
Over the years I've come to see George as a buffer of sorts between Sam and me.
I used to engage Sam in meaningless conversations, expecting some nuance of communication, but none ever came.
I don't do that any longer, thanks largely to George.

You make it sound like George is SamF's Chuck Norris.

So here I am, reading all the accolades (those were accolades, right? No? I figgered!), then that touching bit from ol' Glen....

and then this!

From the general tenor, I was thinking more along the lines of 'Saint' George

or maybe 'the Pope'. *sigh*

[Norman Bernstein]

Sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to this last night.... the iPad is a wonderful thing, but it is NOT convenient for responding to a post in the WBF, due to the clumsy editing tools.

Not at all Norman, its just as likely that Katherine might have chosen to go on my plan as a spouse and given up her employer's coverage, accepting cash in lieu of benefits. The fact of the matter is that large employers can offer insurance for less than they would have to offer traditional cash compensation. Its a win win for both the employer and for the employee.

I would disagree with that. For many employers, the cost of health insurance, even when purchased as a group policy in a competitive market, is still very high.... and most employers pay an appreciable amount, as a percentage of cost, for each employee. Our coverage, under my wife's job, actually costs $24K per year.... the 'company' pays 70% of that. When compared to salary, it's a LOT of money, and for less-than-responsible young employees, who view themselves as immortal, it would be a huge disincentive to buying health insurance.

A twenty four year old, under our current system, is not an 'inevitable' consumer of health care.

Of course they are! Yes, they are less likely to be big consumers of health care, at that age.... but unless you only employ young and health people, it's not a reason or justification.

I'm not sure its even legal for me to require someone to accept health insurance.

I suspect you're right.... but no law is forcing you to pay cash compensation as an alternative to health care, either.

What would you have had me do, require the employee to bring me proof of some other insurance coverage before paying them an alternate salary?

That's probably illegal, as well. But you DO have to ask yourself if whether your employees are covered is of actual benefit to your company, or not. If your employees happen to consist of all very young, low paid, non-career types, then not providing a health insurance plan with a company contribution accrues to YOUR benefit: more cash in your pocket. Or, you could do what McDonalds does: provide a riduculously poor program, at very low cost, which pays for nearly nothing, while still claiming to be provisding health insurance. McDonalds doesn't care, because the vast majority of their employees (or their franchisee's employees) are low paid, low skill, mostly young, and highly 'disposable'.... but you can bet that the MickeyD corporate executives have a gold plated plan.

This all has to do with how we value work.

There's some kind of real disconnect going on here. We've traditionally been a nation (since WWII) where the largest employers provided health insurance but due to market structures smaller employers very generally did not. And here I am trying to be proactive and do the right thing and I'm being castigated for it.

I'm not castigating you.... you are also a victim of the system. Your policies exist because the laws and the marketplace essentially force you to adopt the policies.

What we're talking about here is how to change that system.

[RonW]

So what about the (hidden in the health bill) sales tax on your home of 3.8% of the gross sales price to the feds that is suppose to go into effect in 2013 ??????

[Norman Bernstein]

So what about the (hidden in the health bill) sales tax on your home of 3.8% of the gross sales price to the feds that is suppose to go into effect in 2013 ??????

Why do you repeat falsehoods? This has ALREADY been debunked, extensively.... there is no 3.8% tax on the GROSS sales price.

We’ve been flooded with queries about this one ever since the health care bill became law. At the last minute, Democratic lawmakers decided on a new 3.8 percent tax on the net investment income of high-income persons. But the claim that this would amount to a $15,200 tax on the sale of a typical $400,000 home is utterly false.

The truth is that only a tiny percentage of home sellers will pay the tax. First of all, only those with incomes over $200,000 a year ($250,000 for married couples filing jointly) will be subject to it. And even for those who have such high incomes, the tax still won’t apply to the first $250,000 on profits from the sale of a personal residence — or to the first $500,000 in the case of a married couple selling their home.

We can understand how this misconception got started. The law itself is couched in highly technical language that only a qualified tax expert can fully grasp. (This provision begins on page 33 of the reconciliation bill that was passed and signed into law.) And it does say the tax falls on "net gain … attributable to the disposition of property." That would include the sale of a home. But the bill also says the tax falls only on that portion of any gain that is "taken into account in computing taxable income" under the existing tax code. And the fact is, the first $250,000 in profit on the sale of a primary residence (or $500,000 in the case of a married couple) is excluded from taxable income already. (That exclusion doesn’t apply to vacation homes or rental properties.)

The Joint Committee on Taxation, the group of nonpartisan tax experts that Congress relies on to analyze tax proposals, underscores this in a footnote on page 135 of its report on the bill. The note states: "Gross income does not include … excluded gain from the sale of a principal residence."

And just to be sure, we checked with William Ahern, director of policy and communications for the nonprofit, pro-business Tax Foundation. "Some home sales would see a tax increase under this bill," Ahern told us, "but it would have to be a second home or a principal residence generating [a gain of] more than $250,000 ($500,000 for a couple)."

So there you have it. The sort of people who would have to pay the tax might include, for example:

• A single executive making $210,000 a year who sells his $300,000 ski condo for a $50,000 profit. His tax on the sale of that vacation home would amount to $1,900, in addition to the capital gains tax he would have paid anyway.
• An "empty nester" couple with combined income of over $250,000 a year who sell their $1 million primary residence to move to smaller quarters. If they cleared $600,000 on the sale, they would be taxed on $100,000 of the profit (the amount over the half-million-dollar exclusion). Their health care tax on the sale would amount to $3,800 over and above the usual capital gains levy.

However, a typical home sale would not incur any tax. In March, for example, half of all existing homes sold for $170,700 or less, according to the National Association of Realtors. Obviously, none of those sales could possibly generate a $250,000 profit, and so none would be subject to the tax.

Thus, for the vast majority, the 3.8 percent tax won’t apply. The Tax Foundation, in a report released April 15, said the new tax on investment income (including real estate) "will hit approximately the top-earning two percent of families" when it takes effect in 2013.

[Paul Pless]

I'm not castigating you.... you are also a victim of the system.

It would be arrogant for either myself or another to name me a victim in almost any economic sense. By most accounts 'the system' and the 'the markets' have treated me quite well. . .

[Norman Bernstein]

It would be arrogant for either myself or another to name me a victim in almost any economic sense. By most accounts I've been quite fortunate. . .

Well, don't read too much into the comment. We are all 'victims', in a sense, to the circumstances and conditions that surround us, and our ability to act as free agents is constrained by society. We do what circumstances permit, and not much else.

[RonW]

Thanks norm, you cleared that up, but doesn't this part bother you at all ???

Their health care tax on the sale would amount to $3,800 over and above the usual capital gains levy.

[ljb5]

It may have been more appropriate to use the example of of taxation as we've always recognized the legitimacy (on some level) of being a conscientious objector to refrain from military service. But there is no relief from taxation. Did you ignore being compelled to pay taxes so as to not raise the issue of whether failure to abide by the mandate to purchase health insurance would result in a penalty? or is it a tax? I'm confused, the Obama Administration has argued it both ways. . .

Another artificial distinction.

No one disputes that Congress has the power to tax, nor does anyone dispute that it has the power to impose penalties.

In some cases, like the IRS, it has the power to do both; the IRS can tax you according to your income and it can also fine you if you don't comply. Both powers, used together.

As Scalia pointed out, Congress has broad power under the Constitution to do pretty much whatever is necessary to make its laws effective. If you start putting artificial limitations on every law, you're creating loopholes everywhere and no law could be enforced.

The key test (usually) is whether the law serves a legitimate purpose, not whether it complies precisely with exactly one clause of the long run-on sentence that is Article I, Section 8.

================================================== ================================================== ==============================

I'm not sure why you brought up the issue of conscience objectors. Technically, conscience objectors are excused from service... but they are not immune from complying with the law. The draft applies to them... it just does so in an accommodating way.

Likewise with taxation. If you have no income, no investments and no transactions, you can avoid paying taxes. This does not, however that the tax laws do not apply to you... it simply means that they make accommodations for your situation.

As I'm sure you know, (or perhaps you don't) the individual mandate provides exceptions both for 'Conscience Objectors' (mostly for Christian Scientists and other groups that refuse medical care on religious grounds) and for the poverty-stricken.

[Norman Bernstein]

Thanks norm, you cleared that up, but doesn't this part bother you at all ???

Not in the least. I know what it means to be grateful. The people who will pay this tax are among the most fortunate people in this country, and the tax will not affect their ability to survive, keep clothed, housed, and cared for, in the least bit.

'From he who much has been given, much is expected'. People who are THAT lucky in life ought to be rejoicing, and delighted, to give a little back, at absolutely NO risk to themselves whatsoever.

Of course, if you view the country as 300 million competing interests, instead of a community of 300 million, you might disagree.

[ljb5]

Thanks norm, you cleared that up, but doesn't this part bother you at all ???

A $3,800 tax on a person making over $250,000 would knock them all the way down the economic ladder to the level of a person making only $246,200!

And all they would have to sustain themselves is the $600,000 profit they just made on the sale of a million dollar home.

Oh! The humanity!

How can this country ever survive if we punish millionaires by turning them into nine-hundred-and-ninety-nine-thousandaires?!

[Kaa]

I feel like you have conceded all my points.

LOL. Yo, dude, WAKE UP! You're sleepposting in your dreams! :-)

Kaa

[bobbys]

Not in the least. I know what it means to be grateful. The people who will pay this tax are among the most fortunate people in this country, and the tax will not affect their ability to survive, keep clothed, housed, and cared for, in the least bit.

'From he who much has been given, much is expected'. People who are THAT lucky in life ought to be rejoicing, and delighted, to give a little back, at absolutely NO risk to themselves whatsoever.

Of course, if you view the country as 300 million competing interests, instead of a community of 300 million, you might disagree.

.

If your gonna break out the Bible lets just give a percentage of out Taxes right off the the Catholic Hospitals, After all there already in place....

[RonW]

Obviously LBJ didn't read and understand the tax before he commented and laughed, but got it wrong...try again.........

A $3,800 tax on a person making over $250,000 would knock them all the way down the economic ladder to the level of a person making only $246,200!

And all they would have to sustain themselves is the $600,000 profit they just made on the sale of a million dollar home.

Oh! The humanity!

How can this country ever survive if we punish millionaires by turning them into nine-hundred-and-ninety-nine-thousandaires?!

[Kaa]

Andrew, in a rational world and normal times no one would have the slightest doubt about the ACA being upheld; the constitutional arguments were regarded as utterly bogus by almost everybody two years ago.

By "almost everybody" you mean the mainstream press, right? That's not exactly the arbiter of constitutionality that you want, and in any case constitutionality of a law is (thankfully) not decided by public opinion polls.

As a sidenote, I find it interesting how I see a stronger tendency on the part of some people to not just oppose the argument that they disagree with, but deny that it could possibly exist -- with the implication that if someone makes it, he is a madmen or a mercenary and morally unclean in any case...

Kaa

[Kaa]

People think they can pick and choose which parts of the law they want to apply to them by simply avoiding any activity.

Which sounds like an entirely reasonable approach to me. If I don't go boating I don't have to wear a life preserver. If I don't own a car I don't have to buy liability insurance. If I don't have any income, I don't have to file taxes.

Kaa

[bobbys]

Which sounds like an entirely reasonable approach to me. If I don't go boating I don't have to wear a life preserver. If I don't own a car I don't have to buy liability insurance. If I don't have any income, I don't have to file taxes.

Kaa

.

Well actually If Obama can not enforce the Immigration laws and by pass Congress Why could Not Romney not Enforce Capital gains or any other Tax code.

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

These threads are starting to have a really familiar ring

06-21-2012, 10:38 AM
Kaa View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Send Email
Wanderer

This message is hidden because Kaa is on your ignore list.
View PostRemove user from ignore listView Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-21-2012, 10:40 AM
bobbys View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Send Email
Senior Member

This message is hidden because bobbys is on your ignore list.
View PostRemove user from ignore listView Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-21-2012, 10:44 AM
RonW View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Visit Homepage Send Email
Senior Member

This message is hidden because RonW is on your ignore list.
View PostRemove user from ignore listView Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-21-2012, 10:45 AM
Kaa View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Send Email
Wanderer

This message is hidden because Kaa is on your ignore list.
View PostRemove user from ignore listView Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-21-2012, 10:50 AM
Kaa View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Send Email
Wanderer

This message is hidden because Kaa is on your ignore list.
View PostRemove user from ignore listView Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-21-2012, 10:54 AM
bobbys View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Send Email
Senior Member

This message is hidden because bobbys is on your ignore list.
View PostRemove user from ignore list

[Norman Bernstein]

Which sounds like an entirely reasonable approach to me.

It's excellent advice, for people whose libertarianism is relatively close to anarchy. They should definately live like that, and I wish them luck.

[Norman Bernstein]

.

Well actually If Obama can not enforce the Immigration laws and by pass Congress Why could Not Romney not Enforce Capital gains or any other Tax code.

He is more than welcome to try. If Congress objects to Obama's immigration law statement, they can overrule him ANY TIME THEY PLEASE......

....but don't hold your breath

[RonW]

Poor PMJ just doesn't have any clue as to what is or isn't going on.........

[bobbys]

These threads are starting to have a really familiar ring

06-21-2012, 10:38 AM
Kaa View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Send Email
Wanderer

This message is hidden because Kaa is on your ignore list.
View PostRemove user from ignore listView Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-21-2012, 10:40 AM
bobbys View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Send Email
Senior Member

This message is hidden because bobbys is on your ignore list.
View PostRemove user from ignore listView Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-21-2012, 10:44 AM
RonW View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Visit Homepage Send Email
Senior Member

This message is hidden because RonW is on your ignore list.
View PostRemove user from ignore listView Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-21-2012, 10:45 AM
Kaa View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Send Email
Wanderer

This message is hidden because Kaa is on your ignore list.
View PostRemove user from ignore listView Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-21-2012, 10:50 AM
Kaa View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Send Email
Wanderer

This message is hidden because Kaa is on your ignore list.
View PostRemove user from ignore listView Post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
06-21-2012, 10:54 AM
bobbys View Profile View Forum Posts Private Message Send Email
Senior Member

This message is hidden because bobbys is on your ignore list.
View PostRemove user from ignore list

.

We have not seen the ole... Post ignore list.... while in hiding for awhile.

Well Played Peter!.

I hereby award you the Medal of debating courage for actions above and beyond!.

I shall insert 2 battle stars ...

[MiddleAgesMan]

Doctors use to be required to donate 1/3 of their practice to help the poor, in return the other 2/3 rd's of their patients pay slightly higher fees, and the doctors were rewarded by a nice income ..Not so after the government got in and started subsidizing, ....

That is the most asinine statement you've ever made on here, RonW.

My father was a doctor in those "old days" and I can assure you he was not required (by law nor by the Hippocratic oath) to "donate 1/3 of (his) practice to help the poor."

Do you just make stuff up as you go along?

[bobbys]

Poor PMJ just doesn't have any clue as to what is or isn't going on.........

.

He should just ride LJs coattails and post ...plus one... every time LJ posts.

[Norman Bernstein]

Do you just make stuff up as you go along?

I'm not sure her makes it up... I suspect he gets it from the fringe websites, just like that lie about an ObamaCare tax of 3.8% on the gross sale price of a house.....

[Kaa]

If I don't go boating I don't have to wear a life preserver. If I don't own a car I don't have to buy liability insurance. If I don't have any income, I don't have to file taxes.

It's excellent advice, for people whose libertarianism is relatively close to anarchy. They should definately live like that, and I wish them luck.

ROFL... So, people who are not libertarians (and even those whose libertarianism is not close to anarchy) should comply with the requirements of laws for activities that they do not do? X-D

Kaa

[Norman Bernstein]

ROFL... So, people who are not libertarians (and even those whose libertarianism is not close to anarchy) should comply with the requirements of laws for activities that they do not do? X-D

Do you always leap to utterly irrational conclusions? There might be drugs for that......

[Kaa]

Do you always leap to utterly irrational conclusions? There might be drugs for that......

There are, there are... :-D

But here I'm replying to ljb5 who said

Finally, I have to say I'm kinda disgusted by this new libertarian philosophy which takes an "opt-in" approach to citizenship. Their idea is that people are only subject to rules if they actively engage in specific activities. If they don't "opt-in", they think they are impervious to laws. People think they can pick and choose which parts of the law they want to apply to them by simply avoiding any activity.

Would you like to try to parse this paragraph in some way which could possibly make sense?

Kaa

[John Smith]

Oddly, Republicans are now openly talking about which parts of it they want to preserve.

Coverage for children to age 26, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions and no lifetime caps have proven to be very popular among consumers.

Everyone knew they would be, of course, but conservatives (some even on this forum) have argued from the begininng that those cannot work without the individual mandate.

Now, Republicans are saying they want to keep those, without the individual mandate.

I don't know if that's feasible. If it is, it just proves that Republicans were wrong all along and that Obamacare was effective at bringing about positive change. Even if struck down, if we keep some of the benefits, that's a step in the right direction that would not have come without the law.

If it's not feasible, it just means Republicans are writing promises they can't keep -- they know they can't keep and they have no intention of keeping. Must be an election year.

Despite what you think about Obamacare, it combines both responsibility and benefits. Any real solution will need both.

The Republicans keep oscillating between promising benefits without responsibility, or no benefit at all.

I don't like Obamacare ONLY because it retains the employer based system that is among the biggest obstacles to creating American jobs.

That said, I have asked the opponents of this bill to point out who it hurts. I can point to many who are helped by it. I'm not sure why so much money and time has been spent by the Republicans lying about it.

I also doubt the decision by the court will be based on the constitution, unless if a 9-0 decision.

I think the "experts" are simply hyping for ratings. The fact is the Court could construe the mandate as a tax and not rule on it at all.

[Kaa]

That said, I have asked the opponents of this bill to point out who it hurts.

People who are paying for health insurance.

Kaa

[bobbys]

[John Smith]

People who are paying for health insurance.

Kaa

That's another misinformation sample. Prior to Obamacare health care for the uninsured was hurting the people who buy health insurance, as the cost was spread to the insured.

If we look back at the death panels, that weren't, and we look back at what the Republicans predicted as they stood on the floor of the senate, so far not a single one of their predictions has come to be. Medicare coverage has improved, and premiums have gone down. More people have insurance today than then. I read a lot about doctors threatening to leave Medicare, but I've seen little about doctors actually doing so. A few, I suppose, tried to prove a point, but the point was false.

[ccmanuals]

The seniors are gonna love the fact that their medicare will go back up and the donut hole in perscription drugs reappears if ACA is struck down.

[RonW]

Middle ages man -- So you say, but I seriously have my doubts about your validity.........Many doctors (of the past) donated a portion of their time to the poor for free.......
Obviously your family doesn't believe in such a thing as good liberals and would I assume prefer everyone to chip in on a socialist scale.........

That is the most asinine statement you've ever made on here, RonW.

My father was a doctor in those "old days" and I can assure you he was not required (by law nor by the Hippocratic oath) to "donate 1/3 of (his) practice to help the poor."

Do you just make stuff up as you go along?

[Rum_Pirate]

[John Smith]

Why do experts bother to predict anything? Why do we hear daily snipits of trials? I tire of speculation being treated as news. The build up in this particular issue is way out of proportion.

No one in Congress is going to want to take insurance from anyone who has it, and likely won't want to deny others from getting it.

Obamacare is NOT before the court: only two things.

The mandate is one thing in two sections. One day of arguments was about whether or not it is a tax. If it is determined to be a tax, it cannot be appealed until after it is in place. If it determined not to be a tax, then the court can/will rule on its legality.

The second item is Medicaid rule changes.


NEITHER OF THESE ITEMS IS IN PLACE YET, so it is entirely possible that if the court rules against either of them, we will alternative ways of addressing the problem come to congress, and then we'll see who really wants to change Obamacare and how much.

I don't have a lot of faith in this Court for basing decisions on the constitution. If the Republicans like parts of this bill, they may want the 5 conservatives to uphold the mandate as "cover".

[John Smith]

Middle ages man -- So you say, but I seriously have my doubts about your validity.........Many doctors (of the past) donated a portion of their time to the poor for free.......
Obviously your family doesn't believe in such a thing as good liberals and would I assume prefer everyone to chip in on a socialist scale.........

They used to make house calls.

[Kaa]

Obamacare is NOT before the court: only two things.

Four things.

Kaa

[ljb5]

Which sounds like an entirely reasonable approach to me. If I don't go boating I don't have to wear a life preserver. If I don't own a car I don't have to buy liability insurance. If I don't have any income, I don't have to file taxes.

Kaa

Regardless: you're still a citizen.

You get to carry a US passport, enjoy the security of our borders, the stability of our economy, the protection of our legal system, etc. These are privileges.

Along with privileges come responsibilites. Among those responsibilites are the obligation to comply with the draft (even if you are excused from service), the obligation to comply with police and government investigators, the obligation to comply with the tax code (even if you don't have to pay any taxes), the obligation to serve in the Militia (back when we had one).

You can avoid a lot of specific actions (boating, driving, visiting natonal parks, etc...).... but you cannot avoid being a citizen (unless you actually want to renounce your citizenship and leave the country. I'd be okay if you did that.)

But I'm not okay with people who take a smorgasbord approach to citizenship.

[Norman Bernstein]

But here I'm replying to ljb5 who said

ljb5 is responsible for his own comments, and it would be a mistake to presume that he and I are in ANY sort of lockstep agreement. We are not.

[RonW]

Norman -

ljb5 is responsible for his own comments

Sorry norman, but I got to disagree with you on this one.....

[Kaa]

ljb5 is responsible for his own comments, and it would be a mistake to presume that he and I are in ANY sort of lockstep agreement. We are not.

Yes, of course, but you called my answer to ljb5 "utterly irrational". So what did you mean by that?

Kaa

[Kaa]

Regardless: you're still a citizen.

You get to carry a US passport, enjoy the security of our borders, the stability of our economy, the protection of our legal system, etc. These are privileges.

I'm not sure about the "stability of our economy" part :-) Also, some are privileges but some are RIGHTS -- e.g. "the protection of our legal system".

Along with privileges come responsibilites.

Yes, of course.

You can avoid a lot of specific actions (boating, driving, visiting natonal parks, etc...).... but you cannot avoid being a citizen (unless you actually want to renounce your citizenship and leave the country. I'd be okay if you did that.)

But I'm not okay with people who take a smorgasbord approach to citizenship.

I don't understand what do you mean by the "smorgasbord approach". It is a trivial observation that rights and responsibilities of citizenship come as a package and you (mostly) can't pick and choose parts that you like or don't like.

Are you by any chance making the argument that buying health insurance from a private provider is an act of citizenship, similar to being drafted to serve in the army? 8-/

Kaa

[Norman Bernstein]

Yes, of course, but you called my answer to ljb5 "utterly irrational". So what did you mean by that?

Sorry, you need to re-read. My comment was directed at YOUR statement, not anyone elses.

[ljb5]

Are you by any chance making the argument that buying health insurance from a private provider is an act of citizenship, similar to being drafted to serve in the army? 8-/

Kaa

I would start more generally.

I'd say that your obligation of citizenship it to participate in our national health care program (as enacted by law), whatever that may be. You benefit from things like the NIH, the FDA, the EMTALA and numerous other federal regulations and support of health care. Those are benefits. Along with those benefits come responsibilities.

Buying private health insurance is not necessarily the only way in which you can fulfill your obligation to participate. There could be other options.

In this case, however, buying private health insurance happens to be the mechanism that has been enacted into law.

If Congress had enacted a different law, I would say that you'd be obligated to comply with that law, by whatever mechanism it enacted.

But, in this reality, this is what Congress has chosen, so that's what the law says.

There is a parallel to the draft. We don't always have a draft.... but Congress always has the authority to impose it. If they choose not to for some period of time, or choose to use a different mechanism to raise an army, that's just a different option to the same end. If Congress opts not to impose the draft, it does not diminish their authority to so at some other time under different conditions.

The authority to specify the method lies with Congress.

[Curtism]

However this ruling turns out, it's ok because here in Fladida we have emperor Scott to protect us from the evil reforms. Last year he refused start-up funds for the insurance exchanges and the clip below outlines his current stance.

Gov. Rick Scott expressed confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court, expected to rule anyday, will side with Florida and 25 other states in their challenge to federal health care reform. Calling the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act a “disaster for patients,” Scott also made it clear that Florida wouldn’t hustle to implement the law's provisions even if the High Court upholds the law.

“I’m very optimistic that either the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional or it will get repealed prior to the time that we have to implement the law,” Scott said today.

The governor talked about health care reform and the ramifications of a Supreme Court ruling during a conference call sponsored by State Policy Network (a free market think tank), Franklin Center for Government Policy and Public Integrity (a right-of-center media training organization), and Americans for Tax Reform (advocacy organization founded by Grover Norquist).

Scott said that even if the Supreme Court sides with the federal government, he would remain hopeful that Mitt Romney is elected president and overturns provisions of the Affordable Care Act or Congress acts to repeal it. In the meantime, Florida will continue to resist implementation until it is clear “Obamacare” is “the law of the land,” he said.

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/naked...pholds-it.html

Read more here: http://miamiherald.typepad.com/naked...#storylink=cpy

You can't really blame a fellow for not wanting anything to change when his annual premiums for his (taxpayer subsidised) health care plan costs roughly what I would pay for 1/3 of a month for similar coverage. Who wouldn't want a deal like that?

TALLAHASSEE -- Gov. Rick Scott, a critic of the federal health care overhaul, is paying less than $400 a year for health insurance for himself and his wife.


While Scott is accepting no salary for his job as governor, the multimillionaire and former hospital chain executive chose to enroll in the taxpayer-subsidized health insurance plan offered by the state of Florida.


Scott is among nearly 32,000 people in state government who pay relatively low health insurance premiums. It's a perk that is available to high-ranking state officials, including those in top management at all state agencies.
Nearly all 160 state legislators are also enrolled in the program that costs just $8.34 a month for individual coverage and $30 a month for family coverage.


Brian Burgess, a spokesman for Scott, confirmed the governor and his wife are enrolled in the state health insurance plan, but refused to discuss why Scott signed up. He called the governor's health care coverage "private matters."


The health insurance coverage provided to Scott used to be free for top state officials until 2010. Rank-and-file state workers pay $50 a month for individual coverage and $180 a month for family coverage. Married couples working in state government also pay the same amount as Scott and legislators.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2011/a...e-h-ar-249622/

So, I guess my options are to run for elected office (and win) or remain a "freeloader" with his dignity in tact. Seems like an easy decision for me. Scroooom.

[Kaa]

I would start more generally.

I'd say that your obligation of citizenship it to participate in our national health care program (as enacted by law), whatever that may be.

It is obviously the duty of a citizen to obey the laws of his country, generally speaking. Are you making any argument that goes further than that?

Kaa

[Y Bar Ranch]

I would start more generally.

I'd say that your obligation of citizenship it to participate in our national health care program (as enacted by law), whatever that may be.

So if you are sick you are obligated to see a doctor?

[ljb5]

Describing Rick Scott as a "former hospital chain exec" kinda skips over some details:

On March 19, 1997, investigators from the FBI, the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services served search warrants at Columbia/HCA facilities in El Paso and on dozens of doctors with suspected ties to the company.[21] The Columbia/HCA board of directors pressured Scott to resign as Chairman and CEO following the inquiry.[22] He was paid $9.88 million in a settlement. He also left owning 10 million shares of stock worth over $350 million.[23][24][25] In 1999, Columbia/HCA changed its name back to HCA, Inc.

In settlements reached in 2000 and 2002, Columbia/HCA pled guilty to 14 felonies and agreed to a $600+ million fine in the largest fraud settlement in US history. Columbia/HCA admitted systematically overcharging the government by claiming marketing costs as reimbursable, by striking illegal deals with home care agencies, and by filing false data about use of hospital space. They also admitted fraudulently billing Medicare and other health programs by inflating the seriousness of diagnoses and to giving doctors partnerships in company hospitals as a kickback for the doctors referring patients to HCA. They filed false cost reports, fraudulently billing Medicare for home health care workers, and paid kickbacks in the sale of home health agencies and to doctors to refer patients. In addition, they gave doctors "loans" never intending to be repaid, free rent, free office furniture, and free drugs from hospital pharmacies.[4][5][6][7][8]

In late 2002, HCA agreed to pay the U.S. government $631 million, plus interest, and pay $17.5 million to state Medicaid agencies, in addition to $250 million paid up to that point to resolve outstanding Medicare expense claims.[26] In all, civil law suits cost HCA more than $2 billion to settle, by far the largest fraud settlement in US history.[27]

Basically, he was somewhere between the Mitt Romney and the Ken Lay of health care.

[Curtism]

Describing Rick Scott as a "former hospital chain exec" kinda skips over some details:



Basically, he was somewhere between the Mitt Romney and the Ken Lay of health care.

Well, inspite of what he was, he's now the fearless leader of a state that ranks among the top four in numbers of uninsured people below the age of 65. He intends to make sure we maintain that status.