Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Healthcare Individual Mandate not Enforceable

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    90
    Feedback Score
    0

    Healthcare Individual Mandate not Enforceable

    Whatever the Supreme Court decides today, the health care bill itself concludes that the mandate really isn't a mandate at all. There are no consequences for not getting health insurance. From the bill itself:
    "Section G 2 (A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
    any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
    by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
    criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.

    ‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
    shall not—
    ‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
    of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the
    penalty imposed by this section, or
    ‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
    such failure.
    ’’

    Early in the debate Justice Breyer got so carried away with the antisemanticism that at one point he wondered whether the mandate itself should even in fact be considered a mandate. With an explicitly unenforceable and uncollectable penalty as its only backstop, Breyer seemed to get a bit hung up on the mandate's lack of... mandatoriality

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    303
    Feedback Score
    0
    Well, since there's no actionable penalty then I'd be interested in knowing from those who want to repeal "Obamacare", (officially known as The Affordable Health Care Act) which specific part of the law would you remove? If you agree with Romney then just reply "all" in your response. For others you can choose from the list below but please be specific with explanation as to why, for example "these new rules would cut into the insurance companies profits causing them to lower the CEO's and top executives salaries and multimillion dollar bonuses..."

    Provides Coverage to Americans with Pre-existing Conditions.You may be eligible for health coverage under the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan.

    You select the doctor: The new rules permit you to choose any available participating primary care provider as your doctor and to choose any available participating pediatrician as your child’s primary care doctor. No health plan barriers to OB-GYN services: The new rules also prohibit health plans from requiring a referral from a primary care provider before you can seek coverage for obstetrical or gynecological (OB-GYN) care from a participating OB-GYN specialist.

    Access to out-of-network emergency room services: In the past, some health plans would limit payment for emergency room services provided outside of a plan’s preselected network of emergency health care providers. Or they would require you to get your plan’s prior approval for emergency care at hospitals outside its networks. This could mean financial hardship if you get sick or injured while away from home.
    The new rules prevent health plans from requiring higher copayments or co-insurance for out-of-network emergency room services.

    Keeps Young Adults Covered: If you are under 26, you may be eligible to be covered under your parent’s health plan.


    Ends Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions for Children: Health plans can no longer limit or deny benefits to children under 19 due to a pre-existing condition.


    Ends Arbitrary Withdrawals of Insurance Coverage: Insurers can no longer cancel your coverage just because you made an honest mistake.


    Helps You Get the Most from Your Premium Dollars: Your premium dollars must be spent primarily on health care – not administrative costs.


    Covers Preventive Care at No Cost to You: You may be eligible for recommended preventive health services. No copayment.

    Guarantees Your Right to Appeal: You now have the right to ask that your plan reconsider its denial of payment.

    Lifetime limits on most benefits are banned for all new health insurance plans.

    Annual limits on your health benefits are now restricted and will be phased out by 2014


    Rate Review helps protect families and small businesses from unreasonable rate increases. Insurance companies must now justify any rate increase of 10% or more.
    Last edited by XRISTO; 06-23-2012 at 11:32 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    89
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by XRISTO View Post
    please be specific with explanation as to why
    Ya, good luck with that.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA, / Irvine, CA / St. Albans, VT
    Posts
    18,889
    Phones
    RIM BlackBerry Z10
    Samsung Galaxy S III
    Apple iPhone 5
    Carrier
    Pacific Bell Wireless / Verizon Wireless / T-Mobile USA
    Feedback Score
    0
    Well, as I understand it...
    If one doesn't participate in this scheme the individual must pay an additional 1% in income taxes starting in 2014. The question is how will the government know that you have some form of health insurance coverage? I really don't want to disclose who my health insurance provider and/or types of coverage and how much it costs etc..

    Chief Justice Roberts did side the rest of the group but argued that it was a tax, under which the federal government has authority over.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    West Phoenix
    Posts
    738
    Feedback Score
    0
    From the Truth Team: President Obama has cut taxes by $3,600 for the average middle-class family over the last three years, and the Republicans fought him nearly every step of the way. From cutting taxes for every working American through the Making Work Pay and payroll tax cuts to the American Opportunity Tax Credit—a tax credit worth up to $10,000 to help families pay for four years of college—the President has put more money in the pockets of middle-class Americans.

    Here’s another fact: Obamacare includes the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. According to the independent Congressional Budget Office, 19 million people will receive tax credits worth an average of about $4,800 each to help them afford health care. These tax credits will finally put health insurance within reach for millions of American families.

    Around 1 percent of people—those who can afford to buy coverage but instead choose to opt out, shifting their costs to the rest of us—will pay a penalty. The Supreme Court acknowledged yesterday that this penalty will be charged through the tax code—but that doesn’t change its purpose of ensuring everyone who can afford insurance buys it, or its effect of lowering costs for everyone.

    It’s also the same policy Romney implemented when he signed health reform in Massachusetts. In fact, for many folks in Massachusetts, the penalties under Romney’s reform were even bigger. Here’s a video of him extolling the virtues of his penalty.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvqfs...layer_embedded

    When asked why his Health Care Bill in Massachusetts is exactly like Obama's Affordable Health Care Act , Romney's original response was that "it's not constitutional on a Federal level." Well that's been blown out of the water.


    Feeling uncomfortable with the Feds having too much information about you is understandable but corporations and governments already have the goods on us whether we like it or not. I ordered an extra line on my account a few weeks ago online. They asked three security questions. They knew where I lived back in 1993. They also knew the name of one of my co-workers and they knew the address of one of my immediate family members.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,928
    Phones
    Samsung U430 (fully functioinal bluetooth)
    Moto Droid as an accessory
    LG VX8350 (retired)
    Carrier
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarlon View Post
    From the Truth Team:
    Phrases like this make me shiver. They probably used the same on Solsenitzyn and Mandela.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    West Phoenix
    Posts
    738
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Steveanderson13 View Post
    Phrases like this make me shiver. They probably used the same on Solsenitzyn and Mandela.
    The title does sound a little gimmicky but I wouldn't compare it to apartheid or the like. That's just crazy. It' good to know someone is out there fighting back against all the crazy far-right conspiracy theorist, bad title and all.

    Thanks for pointing out the bad title though and leaving all substance of the debate in the ether. Your contributions are greatly appreciated somewhere.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    89
    Feedback Score
    0
    Phrases like this make me shiver...
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarlon View Post
    The title does sound a little gimmicky but I wouldn't compare it to apartheid or the like. .
    I think he was just joking around.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,928
    Phones
    Samsung U430 (fully functioinal bluetooth)
    Moto Droid as an accessory
    LG VX8350 (retired)
    Carrier
    Verizon
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarlon View Post
    The title does sound a little gimmicky but I wouldn't compare it to apartheid or the like. That's just crazy. It' good to know someone is out there fighting back against all the crazy far-right conspiracy theorist, bad title and all.

    Thanks for pointing out the bad title though and leaving all substance of the debate in the ether. Your contributions are greatly appreciated somewhere.
    And I appreciate your genuine sincerity. Sincerely, I really do.

    I'm sure you know fascism starts with distorting language. "Owning the truth" is the first principle.

    If I had any other problems with the post, I would have so stated. I really couldn't contribute to the debate. I'm glad it passed.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    89
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarlon View Post
    It’s the same policy Romney implemented when he signed health reform in Massachusetts. Here’s a video of him extolling its virtueshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvqfs...layer_embedded
    I don't think the truth needs a team of specialists with megaphones to be heard. By the same token, that 11 seconds of video speaks loud an clear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steveanderson13 View Post
    "Owning the truth" is the first principle. I really couldn't contribute to the debate.
    One can't argue against an absolute truth but you can try to distract and divert our attention away from it by using foggy semantics. "Owning of truth" is such a tool of diversion. Throw in a few adjectives like fascist, communist,socialist, Marxist Kenyan,appeaser to plant a seed of doubt. To say that something "makes me shiver" is a dog whistle to let people know that they should be afraid, very afraid so the truth starts to become distorted through the paranoid-induced lens that you've given them. It's a good strategy and seems to work on the feeble-minded.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    303
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by XRISTO View Post
    Well, since there's no actionable penalty then I'd be interested in knowing which specific part of the law would you remove?
    If you guys are finished arguing over semantics then I'd still like to hear from someone who wants to repeal the law. I see that over 500 people have viewed the thread and not one you can come up with an option that you'd like to see removed? I myself am not thrilled about the mandate but since it doesn't have teeth to penalize then it really doesn't matter. I think the law doesn't go far enough to help everyone though. I think a single-payer system is in order.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    right behind u! (made u look!)
    Posts
    847
    Phones
    bb tour
    ve20(old) lg rythm(old)
    glimmer/ax8600/wave/e815/nokia 6255i(bit the dust)
    Carrier
    alltel/ATN
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by XRISTO View Post
    If you guys are finished arguing over semantics then I'd still like to hear from someone who wants to repeal the law. I see that over 500 people have viewed the thread and not one you can come up with an option that you'd like to see removed? I myself am not thrilled about the mandate but since it doesn't have teeth to penalize then it really doesn't matter. I think the law doesn't go far enough to help everyone though. I think a single-payer system is in order.
    I enjoy a good debate but debates are two sided arguments among open minded individuals who are willing to consider new information and change their position based on any new information. Most often I find that this topic in particular has close minded individuals on both sides.

    Sent from my SCH-I500 using HowardForums
    what is this new feature, and how can I manipulate it in order to make myself seem superior to those around me?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-11-2008, 06:09 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-28-2008, 01:39 AM
  3. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-26-2006, 11:49 PM
  4. SMT5600 does not vibrate and ring when individual ringtone is set
    By Slowpoke SS in forum Windows Mobile Standard (Smartphone)
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-01-2006, 05:34 PM
  5. "Do-Not-Call" list to be enforced Oct. 1
    By ConceptVBS in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-29-2003, 10:30 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks