General Discussion

sendero

(28,552 posts)

108. The bigger question, for me, is..

Tue Jun 26, 2012, 06:02 AM

Jun 2012

.. how much longer can we support a "name your price" health care system? A system in which many/most providers, especially surgeons, specialists, drug and device makers, simply NAME THEIR PRICE with no checks or balances whatsoever. No free markets, no competition, just NAME THEIR PRICE and the cost-plus (the more they pay the more they make) insurance industry is happy to go along.

Our health care system is doing more than just deny care to many who need it. It's out of control cost makes American business completely uncompetitive. If the business leaders of this country REALLY wanted to do what is best for BUSINESS, they would be clamoring for single payer and thereby removing the single biggest overhead cost from their bottom line.

Our system as it is now, with ACA or without is completely unsustainable because it does very little to actually CONTROL COSTS.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

113 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No, the ACA doesn't "force" you to buy an insurance product from a private corporation. [View all] dawg Jun 2012 OP

Good Luck SoutherDem Jun 2012 #1

I know. dawg Jun 2012 #3

People will continue dying even if the bill is upheld TBMASE Jun 2012 #17

Yes. But fewer. dawg Jun 2012 #21

No, not fewer TBMASE Jun 2012 #40

Well, you've got me there. dawg Jun 2012 #47

Ah yes, another Dem embracing a Republican policy, MadHound Jun 2012 #2

I know my son won't be able to get insurance without that "Heritage" plan. dawg Jun 2012 #5

So because of your son, you are willing to consign the rest of us MadHound Jun 2012 #8

No, I'm willing to consign you to pay a fucking tax. dawg Jun 2012 #10

No, you are consigning me to pay an insurance premium, MadHound Jun 2012 #11

No. It's just a damn tax. 2.5% of your income at the maximum. dawg Jun 2012 #12

No, what I'm saying is that we need to work for real change, MadHound Jun 2012 #13

Look for the lack of a severability clause to come into play. dawg Jun 2012 #14

Also, the easiest path to single-payer is to build on the ACA framework. dawg Jun 2012 #15

Working off the framework of a Republican, corporate friendly law is the quickest way to UHC? MadHound Jun 2012 #16

It's so Republican that they universally oppose it. dawg Jun 2012 #18

Fast and Furious was a Republican program also eridani Jun 2012 #106

Republicans love ACA, as do the insurance cartels. That's why they want to kill it so bad! emulatorloo Jun 2012 #36

No. It is a penalty, not a tax. See #19 below. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #20

Ooooh. A 2.5% of your income "penalty". dawg Jun 2012 #24

Congress, not "We," decided that the penalty is a penalty. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #27

By "we" I mean the Democrats who wrote the legislation. dawg Jun 2012 #34

2.5% of income is a big hit for those barely getting by. Especially those out of school struggling Erose999 Jun 2012 #49

If you're not high income, you don't have to pay it. dawg Jun 2012 #50

No, it is not a "fucking tax," it is a fucking penalty. See #19 below. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #22

See #24 above. dawg Jun 2012 #25

No. This is not a matter of semantics. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #28

What is it then? dawg Jun 2012 #32

The difference between taxes and penalties was explained in detail by Judge Vinson in AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #38

Again, semantics - this time supplied by a conservative judge. dawg Jun 2012 #43

So if a person chooses to pay a penalty instead of complying with the law, it is not a penalty? AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #46

It's a maximum 2.5% of income. dawg Jun 2012 #48

There is no tax TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #65

I"m talking about the .... sigh .... "penalty". dawg Jun 2012 #66

As opposed to what realistic alternative in the here and now...? LanternWaste Jun 2012 #55

The alternative? dawg Jun 2012 #62

I personally don't give a shit if Republicans had the same idea a decade or 2 ago. phleshdef Jun 2012 #45

+1000 n/t Control-Z Jun 2012 #59

+2000 treestar Jun 2012 #92

The Heritage plan was a credit, not a fine. joshcryer Jun 2012 #71

i see you got the talking points down... dionysus Jun 2012 #101

No. See the archives and quit beating a dead horse. JVS Jun 2012 #4

Dead horse, huh? dawg Jun 2012 #6

Not really. It's not even in the hands of elected officials. JVS Jun 2012 #7

Was it ever? n/t dawg Jun 2012 #9

The law makes a distinction between taxes and penalties. The language in 26 USC 5000A AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #19

Word play. Look up "de facto". Zalatix Jun 2012 #107

Congress expressly called it a penalty in "26 USC 5000A." No word play is required or involved. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #109

Agreed. Word play is what people do when they DENY it's a penalty. Zalatix Jun 2012 #111

If you are looking for someone you can reason with here you can save your breath NNN0LHI Jun 2012 #23

I know. dawg Jun 2012 #29

DU is not representative of the real world NNN0LHI Jun 2012 #33

Obama himself said it is not a tax. DesMoinesDem Jun 2012 #26

And, of course, Obama is right. It is a penalty as reflected by 26 USC 5000A. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #30

And this make a difference to you how? dawg Jun 2012 #31

Penalties are imposed to punish people for their actions or their willful failure to act. AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #35

So it makes you feel more naughtly then. dawg Jun 2012 #37

Judge Vinson explained in detail the difference between taxes and penalties in his 2010 opinion AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #41

It's 2.5% of income that *you* are not willing to pay. dawg Jun 2012 #44

If a Constitutional scholar such as President Obama says that it is not a tax, why should you AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #53

2.5%. I don't give a damn what you call it. dawg Jun 2012 #58

Excuse me, but you seem to be very intolerant of people calling it what Congress called it when they AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #75

How can I be intolerant when you just replied to my post titled ... dawg Jun 2012 #80

Maybe bigcat00 Jun 2012 #82

The government has always had the power to charge you money. dawg Jun 2012 #85

except bigcat00 Jun 2012 #93

So, you're income is nothing in this scenario? dawg Jun 2012 #100

Like it can force your uterus to carry fetuses? TBF Jun 2012 #90

hm.. bigcat00 Jun 2012 #94

hmm are you confused? TBF Jun 2012 #112

The act was passed by a publicly elected Congress, signed by a publicly elected President pinto Jun 2012 #91

Yes bigcat00 Jun 2012 #95

Do you feel government is part of the solution or part of the problem? That seems a standard divide, pinto Jun 2012 #97

I feel that bigcat00 Jun 2012 #98

I think the means effect the ends and the ends reflect the means. pinto Jun 2012 #102

So you're calling Obama a liar. DesMoinesDem Jun 2012 #51

Haha. ForgoTheConsequence Jun 2012 #57

I do not give a flying fuck whether this 2.5% is called a tax, a penalty, or a turd payment. dawg Jun 2012 #60

I've, too, tried to explain this railsback Jun 2012 #39

People screamed louder here than at FreeRepublic Gman Jun 2012 #42

Give me a break. ForgoTheConsequence Jun 2012 #52

No one is forcing you to buy a product. dawg Jun 2012 #61

TeaPubliKlans are the ones who demand we all buy insurance from the cartel. TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #67

I really doubt that. Folks like Max Baucus did more damage going against the Public Option. Selatius Jun 2012 #68

I'm not stealing your car. ForgoTheConsequence Jun 2012 #54

Yes and the tax/penalty is virtually unenforceable, elleng Jun 2012 #56

Call your Congresscritter, they wrote it as a penalty not a tax TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #63

Oopsy! dawg Jun 2012 #64

Your entire argument is semantics and you're shouting people down for semantics TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #69

Only the penalty for murder is a helluva lot more than 2.5% of income. dawg Jun 2012 #70

I guess bigcat00 Jun 2012 #72

Either way, I'm not being forced to buy health insurance from a corporation. dawg Jun 2012 #73

But bigcat00 Jun 2012 #74

When you say it's "this" because they called it this ... dawg Jun 2012 #78

it matters bigcat00 Jun 2012 #81

So, lets just call it a tax and be done with it. dawg Jun 2012 #86

yes probably bigcat00 Jun 2012 #96

The enforcement mechanism of the mandate ... dawg Jun 2012 #99

based on your argument, bigcat00 Jun 2012 #76

I do, indeed, think of speed limits as being optional. dawg Jun 2012 #77

I didn't say it was the same other than in regard that both are penalties for non-compliance with TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #113

I just don't think there should be this subsidy to the insurance industry. David__77 Jun 2012 #79

I wish there was a public option. dawg Jun 2012 #83

A public auto insurance company would be awesome. BlueCaliDem Jun 2012 #84

The ACA also does nothing to guarantee you access to care dflprincess Jun 2012 #87

Yup, you're totally on point. nt Raine Jun 2012 #88

exactly ibegurpard Jun 2012 #104

x2 AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #110

K&R! FarLeftFist Jun 2012 #89

why should our tax dollars go to for-profit middlemen? ibegurpard Jun 2012 #103

The bigger question, for me, is.. sendero Jun 2012 #108

There is a moral difference between a tax and a penalty, or between a fee and a fine. BlueCheese Jun 2012 #105