Success of Obamacare, and Debunking Myths

[Yorkvale]

I'm a conservative and I support it. Smart free market econ.

I don't know how you get from a government mandate commanding businesses and individuals to purchase a product (and offering exemptions to favored parties) and call it "free market econ." Please elaborate.

For all intensive purposes obama is a conservative and he's my main man.

I wouldn't go THAT far, but he's certainly not as far-Left as Right-Wing , Inc. paints him to be. Are you yanking my leg?

Mandate is there to prevent freeloading, and in general Obamacare makes healthcare more affordable when states opt to go along with it. It's good for all business because the Government foots a lot of the bill. We want businesses to be focusing more on their business and paying employees higher wages, and they can do that if we take the strain of having to provide healthcare off of them a little.

Obama is a moderate conservative due to his pragmatic foreign policy, pro free trade, pro cyber security, and his pro low taxes stance. He, unlike many progressive liberals, cares more about the Government helping business than destroying or hampering it.

That's conservative.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

A step in the right direction would be to allow health insurance to be sold across state lines (for example, if I or anyone wanted to sell a plan in any and every state, I'd need 51+ insurance licenses (and represent 51+ insurance companies) - for my state, every other state, and the District of Columbia, not counting US territories like Guam and Puerto Rico), this would expand both the options and, letting the free market be free competition, create a race to see who could provide the most affordable insurance policy vs. who doesn't want to be in the interstate insurance business. This inability to sell (or buy) a policy across state lines is adding a built in cost to premiums that is unnecessary high (like 20 to 50% higher) on top of the federal ACA mandates that are adding another 10 to 15% to the cost of health insurance. This is hurting low income / no income families the most.

Call it an attack on the insurance companies or an attack on state's rights to regulate, but someone has got to say "screw your pile of paperwork, insurance is insurance no matter who and where it is bought and sold."

As a property insurance agent, I agree with this. My industry can survive this state by state business without too much loss, but healthcare needs national standards, not state by state standards.

[BK117B2]

You aren't thinking it through. I'm not trying to convince you of any opinion of mine. I would prefer you actually go look at things rather than rely on someone else's opinion. The problem you obviously ran into was making an assumption about me rather than simply asking when you were unsure.

Sure I should look into it myself. I'm just glad you're admitting that your previous claims of the ACA's unconstitutionality were not to be taken seriously.

So you admit you're living in a fantasy rather than reality.

[The Pink Guy]

Still rotting both the economy and the wallets of lower class Americans.

[The Empire of the Pacific]

The problem with the old system and with Obamacare now is that it stifles competition. A lot of people forget that the regulations for healthcare agencies were set up during LBJ's Great Society when he advocated and passed medicaid and medicare. When you don't allow these industries to operate across state lines, then you drive prices up in that particular state and create monopolies within the system. That would be like Chevy only being able to sell cars in CA, and outlawing Ford and Dodge from selling their cars there. That's the problem Republican's have with the Old-system. With the new system, it's a government entitlement program, the middle class has to pay for those on the low end of the spectrum for their healthcare. Socialism is not the route that needs to be taken. If you want prices low, allow competition between state agencies. If you want the poor to be able to pay for it, then drop the prices down. If you want something given to you on a silver platter, paid for by a hard-working farmer 3 states over, well, then Obamacare is right for you.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

That's the problem Republican's have with the Old-system.

Source for significant Republican support of eliminating state by state insurance restrictions? As I recall, 'states rights' is still a big part of their platform.

[New Werpland]

The problem with the old system and with Obamacare now is that it stifles competition. A lot of people forget that the regulations for healthcare agencies were set up during LBJ's Great Society when he advocated and passed medicaid and medicare. When you don't allow these industries to operate across state lines, then you drive prices up in that particular state and create monopolies within the system. That would be like Chevy only being able to sell cars in CA, and outlawing Ford and Dodge from selling their cars there. That's the problem Republican's have with the Old-system. With the new system, it's a government entitlement program, the middle class has to pay for those on the low end of the spectrum for their healthcare. Socialism is not the route that needs to be taken. If you want prices low, allow competition between state agencies. If you want the poor to be able to pay for it, then drop the prices down. If you want something given to you on a silver platter, paid for by a hard-working farmer 3 states over, well, then Obamacare is right for you.

If I'm not wrong farmers survive on government subsidies. Doesn't sound like they'll be paying for my health insurance.

[Cote d Argent]

aye

just trying to steer him gently toward reality.

reparations in the ppaca? silly

Well, at least he admits Obama is African American.

Only by pedigree. Nothing American about his agenda.

[Galloism]

Not necessarily. You could work with an employer who, while you are employed, decided to open a 401(k) plan for its employees. You have no control over this. Per the law, they decided to do employer contributions of 2% of pay to all employees - whether they contribute or not.

In two years, the company goes under, or you get fired, which you did not control. They send you the balance of your retirement account by check.

You have 60 days to put that in another retirement account or incur a 10% additional tax on the money (in addition to income tax). You must engage in that rollover transaction or you get taxed - and taxed 10% higher than the normal rate.

A tax only incurred if you elect to accept the money. You're still confusing choice with mandate.

Uh, no. Income is recognized when it becomes available to you.

If you can have the money, but refuse to take it, it's still taxable income - along with the 10% extra tax. The only way, under the law, for you to refuse the money is to dictate that it goes someplace else, in which case you made a gift to someone else (still paying tax on the income), or you made charitable contribution (still paying tax on the income, with an equal sized charitable deduction). You can't just refuse retirement income and expect it to go away. If you refuse to cash the check, it eventually goes to the state's unclaimed property division in an account with your name - and you must still recognize the income.

[BK117B2]

A tax only incurred if you elect to accept the money. You're still confusing choice with mandate.

Uh, no. Income is recognized when it becomes available to you.

If you can have the money, but refuse to take it, it's still taxable income - along with the 10% extra tax. The only way, under the law, for you to refuse the money is to dictate that it goes someplace else, in which case you made a gift to someone else (still paying tax on the income), or you made charitable contribution (still paying tax on the income, with an equal sized charitable deduction). You can't just refuse retirement income and expect it to go away. If you refuse to cash the check, it eventually goes to the state's unclaimed property division in an account with your name - and you must still recognize the income.

Incorrect. Another person cannot force you to accept money. Know what happens when a company sends you a check and you tear it up? It stays on their account.

Now, back to the federal government and the Constitution: have you been able to find anything in the Constitution yet which grants to the federal government authority to mandate such private business transactions? Been waiting on that for a while now

[Steamtopia]

I don't know how you get from a government mandate commanding businesses and individuals to purchase a product (and offering exemptions to favored parties) and call it "free market econ." Please elaborate.



I wouldn't go THAT far, but he's certainly not as far-Left as Right-Wing , Inc. paints him to be. Are you yanking my leg?

Mandate is there to prevent freeloading, and in general Obamacare makes healthcare more affordable when states opt to go along with it. It's good for all business because the Government foots a lot of the bill. We want businesses to be focusing more on their business and paying employees higher wages, and they can do that if we take the strain of having to provide healthcare off of them a little.

Obama is a moderate conservative due to his pragmatic foreign policy, pro free trade, pro cyber security, and his pro low taxes stance. He, unlike many progressive liberals, cares more about the Government helping business than destroying or hampering it.

That's conservative.

Free trade isn't conservative.

[Geilinor]

Well, at least he admits Obama is African American.

Only by pedigree. Nothing American about his agenda.

What would an American agenda be?

[Steamtopia]

Only by pedigree. Nothing American about his agenda.

What would an American agenda be?

Hint: Look at his join date.

[Geilinor]

What would an American agenda be?

Hint: Look at his join date.

See my sig.

[Llamalandia]

Given they just fought a war against a country with a (admittedly unfairly applied) common law system for independence I'm not sure that logic entirely holds.

The founding fathers had no issue with how the legal system worked, so yes it does.

Umm actually they did have an issue with how it worked very much so. How it was unfavorably skewed toward native britains and excluded British troops from local colonial prosecutions (at least in some instances).

[The Pink Guy]

Hint: Look at his join date.

See my sig.

NSG Summer doesn't seem to be the apocalypse, apart from the edgy leftwing 13 year olds flying by.

[Steamtopia]

See my sig.

NSG Summer doesn't seem to be the apocalypse, apart from the edgy leftwing 13 year olds flying by.

That's an awful definition of left-wing you've got there.

[Llamalandia]

Mandate is there to prevent freeloading, and in general Obamacare makes healthcare more affordable when states opt to go along with it. It's good for all business because the Government foots a lot of the bill. We want businesses to be focusing more on their business and paying employees higher wages, and they can do that if we take the strain of having to provide healthcare off of them a little.

Obama is a moderate conservative due to his pragmatic foreign policy, pro free trade, pro cyber security, and his pro low taxes stance. He, unlike many progressive liberals, cares more about the Government helping business than destroying or hampering it.

That's conservative.

Free trade isn't conservative.

Really it largely seems to be. Aside from a few libertarian leaning type most gop and conservatives are probably just opposing obama on tpa for the tpp because well... At this point they all really do hate obama and will oppose just about anything he wants.

[Steamtopia]

Free trade isn't conservative.

Really it largely seems to be. Aside from a few libertarian leaning type most gop and conservatives are probably just opposing obama on tpa for the tpp because well... At this point they all really do hate obama and will oppose just about anything he wants.

Free trade is an inherently liberal concept. Liberals invented it, liberals promoted it, liberals continue to maintain it. If that's news to you, I suggest reading up on Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, two of the most notable free trade promoters. Also uncoincidentally the fathers of liberalism.

[The Black Forrest]

Really it largely seems to be. Aside from a few libertarian leaning type most gop and conservatives are probably just opposing obama on tpa for the tpp because well... At this point they all really do hate obama and will oppose just about anything he wants.

Free trade is an inherently liberal concept. Liberals invented it, liberals promoted it, liberals continue to maintain it. If that's news to you, I suggest reading up on Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, two of the most notable free trade promoters. Also uncoincidentally the fathers of liberalism.

You sure about that? What's with all the fair trade talk then?

[Steamtopia]

Free trade is an inherently liberal concept. Liberals invented it, liberals promoted it, liberals continue to maintain it. If that's news to you, I suggest reading up on Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, two of the most notable free trade promoters. Also uncoincidentally the fathers of liberalism.

You sure about that? What's with all the fair trade talk then?

That's more of a Labourite thing.

[Galloism]

Uh, no. Income is recognized when it becomes available to you.

If you can have the money, but refuse to take it, it's still taxable income - along with the 10% extra tax. The only way, under the law, for you to refuse the money is to dictate that it goes someplace else, in which case you made a gift to someone else (still paying tax on the income), or you made charitable contribution (still paying tax on the income, with an equal sized charitable deduction). You can't just refuse retirement income and expect it to go away. If you refuse to cash the check, it eventually goes to the state's unclaimed property division in an account with your name - and you must still recognize the income.

Incorrect. Another person cannot force you to accept money. Know what happens when a company sends you a check and you tear it up? It stays on their account.

Wrong.

Constructively-received income. You are generally taxed on income that is available to you, regardless of whether it is actually in your possession.
A valid check that you received or that was made available to you before the end of the tax year is considered income constructively received in that year, even if you do not cash the check or deposit it to your account until the next year. For example, if the postal service tries to deliver a check to you on the last day of the tax year but you are not at home to receive it, you must include the amount in your income for that tax year. If the check was mailed so that it could not possibly reach you until after the end of the tax year, and you could not otherwise get the funds before the end of the year, you include the amount in your income for the next year.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Bus ... ble-Income

Now, back to the federal government and the Constitution: have you been able to find anything in the Constitution yet which grants to the federal government authority to mandate such private business transactions? Been waiting on that for a while now

The fact that you refuse to read that the shared responsibility payment meets all the statutory provisions of an income tax, and congress is empowered to levy income tax by the 16th amendment, does not invalidate the truth of what gives them that power: the 16th amendment.

[Llamalandia]

Really it largely seems to be. Aside from a few libertarian leaning type most gop and conservatives are probably just opposing obama on tpa for the tpp because well... At this point they all really do hate obama and will oppose just about anything he wants.

Free trade is an inherently liberal concept. Liberals invented it, liberals promoted it, liberals continue to maintain it. If that's news to you, I suggest reading up on Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, two of the most notable free trade promoters. Also uncoincidentally the fathers of liberalism.

You are conflating classical liberalism with modern progressive liberals. Big difference, unless you are t American in which case this conversation gets more complicated. Basically modern libertarians in the USA are the closest analogue to old school classical liberals.
I don't really want to go into definitions of neoliberalism especially as it is applied to global economic theory.

[Steamtopia]

Free trade is an inherently liberal concept. Liberals invented it, liberals promoted it, liberals continue to maintain it. If that's news to you, I suggest reading up on Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, two of the most notable free trade promoters. Also uncoincidentally the fathers of liberalism.

You are conflating classical liberalism with modern progressive liberals. Big difference, unless you are t American in which case this conversation gets more complicated. Basically modern libertarians in the USA are the closest analogue to old school classical liberals.
I don't really want to go into definitions of neoliberalism especially as it is applied to global economic theory.

I don't consider America's definition of "liberalism" (which is some kind of odd authoritarian centre-rightism) valid. I'm talking about liberalism as defined by those who founded it. Economic, political, personal, and social liberalism as a combined ideology. Free trade is part of that. It has been since Adam Smith. Keynes solidified its position in the modern era.

[Llamalandia]

Incorrect. Another person cannot force you to accept money. Know what happens when a company sends you a check and you tear it up? It stays on their account.

Wrong.

Constructively-received income. You are generally taxed on income that is available to you, regardless of whether it is actually in your possession.
A valid check that you received or that was made available to you before the end of the tax year is considered income constructively received in that year, even if you do not cash the check or deposit it to your account until the next year. For example, if the postal service tries to deliver a check to you on the last day of the tax year but you are not at home to receive it, you must include the amount in your income for that tax year. If the check was mailed so that it could not possibly reach you until after the end of the tax year, and you could not otherwise get the funds before the end of the year, you include the amount in your income for the next year.

http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Bus ... ble-Income

Now, back to the federal government and the Constitution: have you been able to find anything in the Constitution yet which grants to the federal government authority to mandate such private business transactions? Been waiting on that for a while now

The fact that you refuse to read that the shared responsibility payment meets all the statutory provisions of an income tax, and congress is empowered to levy income tax by the 16th amendment, does not invalidate the truth of what gives them that power: the 16th amendment.

Meh screw it 16 th amendment wasnt properly ratified therefor it too is unconstitutional .
Lol JK not going down the insane tax resistor rabbit hole. But ok let's say obamacare is a legit tax despite basically everyone who authored it and supporting it saying it wasn't/isn't ok ignore congressional intent. But then you can't legitimately claim that anyone who voted for it isn't a truly abysmal hypocritical lying piece of shit of the highest order. Even for politician level of ethics what they did was pretty damn brazen.