They confuse me. RE: mandate

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

trumad (30,476 posts) Profile Journal Send DU Mail Ignore

So just 2 percent would be subjected to the Health Care mandate. 2 percent.

WASHINGTON -- Just 2 percent of the U.S. population would be subject to the aspect of health care reform at the center of a constitutional challenge before the Supreme Court this week -- the individual mandate, a study released Monday by the Urban Institute found. The analysis said 98 percent of Americans would either be exempt from the mandate -- because of employer coverage, public health insurance or low income -- or given subsidies to comply.

Including those who are subject to the mandate, but would get subsidies, increases the total number of people affected to 5 percent of the population, according to the Urban Institute, a non-partisan policy research organization based in Washington, D.C.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/health-care-mandate-urban-institute_n_1381211.html

waiminutwaiminutwaiminut

We were told we needed ObamaCoup because millions Americans die every year due to lack of coverage. Some 9% to 15% we were told.

The mandate is supposed to make sure those who do not have coverage purchase it so the regular payers aren't stuck paying for everything.

But if only 2% of the population would be subject ot the mandate then only 2% of the population is currently going without insurance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002477243#post2

[Duke Nukum]

The DUmmie Fact For Today and Today Only.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Total crap.  Once the mandate kicks in, employer-provided insurance will dry up because it will become too costly to support as a benefit.

[Elspeth]

For 2% of the population, they're willing to revolutionize the American way of health care.  The money would have been better spent on setting up low cost (or free) clinics in a small number of state facilities strategically placed.  Maybe a roving force of doctors, nurses, and dentists for rural and poor areas.

No one sets up a new system for 2% of the population.  The uninsured were a red herring. The real plan is to change the system entirely, and the uninsured were used as a bludgeon so the rest of us would give away our health freedoms.

[USA4ME]

This jberryhill primitive is a supurb idiot.

CAPHAVOC

3. Interesting

I heard this morning about the argument that ACA will destroy the Contract Law. A policy is a contract. A contract is invalid if one party is coerced or forced to sign it under duress. Signing up or paying a fine? That is for sure duress and coercion in my book. I do not think having group insurance would exempt one from the law. If the company cancels the group policy the person would be mandated to enter in to a contract with an insurance company or pay the fine to the IRS. They can avoid the fine only while they have the group policy.

jberryhill

7. That argument is asinine

There are a number of situations in life where the choice is "do X or pay a fine".

jberryhill

9. Do I know what a contract is?

Yes. I write contracts all day. That's what I do for a living.

A mortgage is a contract.

Get a mortgage, get a tax deduction.

Don't get a mortgage, don't get a tax deduction.

OMG, it's the end of the world, the guy without the mortgage pays higher taxes.

That's how silly this duress argument is.

Try driving a car without insurance.

Too easy.  No one is forced to purchase a home, therefore those who don't are not entitled to the benefits of home ownership, including tax deductions.

If one chooses to drive a car, they must have insurance.  Don't want to be forced to buy car insurance?  Then don't drive.

This health law forces people to enter into a contract just because they're alive.  If the gov't can do that, they can force you to contract against your will in any number of different ways just because you're alive.

jberryhill

13. What's the difference in relation to the relevant point

The point being made is that a contract which one had to purchase is void.

That's just ridiculous, and is a serious misunderstanding of the very narrow defense of duress in contract law.

In some areas plumbing work can only be done by licensed plumbers. So, if your pipes spring a leak, you have to hire a licensed plumber to fix it. Do you then turn around and say, "Oh, I don't have to pay the plumber because I was under duress?"

It's just a silly argument.

False.  If your pipes leak, you are NOT forced to hire a plumber and fix it.  You have the option of cutting off your water or just continue to let it leak.  The gov't doesn't force you to hire anyone.

jberryhill

14. ROFL

First off, you do not need to purchase insurance to get a driver's license.

You are totally misunderstanding the defense of duress.

IF *I* force you to enter into a contract with me which you would not have entered into but for the fact that *I* forced you into it, then you have a defense to your contract with me.

And that's what is happening with healthcare, idiot.

However, if your pipes spring a leak and your basement is going to flood unless you hire a plumber, you do not have a right to void the contract with the plumber you hire to fix it. You could have hired any plumber. No plumber forced you to hire them.

You are completely missing where the "duress" comes from.

In my area, you have to contract for trash pickup with any of several private trash services. Nobody is getting out from under those contracts by claiming duress because NONE of the private trash services is forcing anyone to contract with them.

False.  You do not have to contract for trash pickup where you live at all.  You can choose to carry your trash to a local landfill yourself.

But, just so I understand you....

You are walking through a field near town and a rattlesnake bites you in the leg. You are going to die unless you get an anti-venom injection. There is one doctor in town who has it, so you go to his office. He gives you the injection, and hands you a bill for his regular fee. You then turn around and say, "There was no contract, I was under duress!"

False.  You can choose not to have the doctor do anything and just take your chances.

This jberryhill primitive idiot doesn't need to be doing anything but pushing up daisies.

.

[thundley4]

Plumbers may have to be licensed but homeowners do not and can do their own repairs.

[Elspeth]

Total crap.  Once the mandate kicks in, employer-provided insurance will dry up because it will become too costly to support as a benefit.

That may have been the plan.  Make it too costly to keep it private.  Government-controlled insurance will be the only game in town.

The 2% uninsured were always a red herring.

[jukin]

It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.

[Duke Nukum]

jberryhill

9. Do I know what a contract is?

Yes. I write contracts all day. That's what I do for a living.

A mortgage is a contract.

Get a mortgage, get a tax deduction.

Don't get a mortgage, don't get a tax deduction.

OMG, it's the end of the world, the guy without the mortgage pays higher taxes.

That's how silly this duress argument is.

Try driving a car without insurance.

You only get a tax deduction when you get a mortgage if you meet certain criteria. You don't automatically get a tax deduction just because you take out a mortgage.

And plus, a lack of a tax deduction is not the same as a fine.

And finally you are a stupid idiot. I chose not to live under your rule.

[Rebel]

Total crap.  Once the mandate kicks in, employer-provided insurance will dry up because it will become too costly to support as a benefit.

This. Private companies can't run in the red forever nor can they print their own money.

[Rebel]

But DUmmies are either too stupid to realize that or being dishonest. Take your pick.

[MrsSmith]

But, just so I understand you....

You are walking through a field near town and a rattlesnake bites you in the leg. You are going to die unless you get an anti-venom injection. There is one doctor in town who has it, so you go to his office. He gives you the injection, and hands you a bill for his regular fee. You then turn around and say, "There was no contract, I was under duress!"

Actually, this is exactly the scenario we are arguing should be allowed.  I need a doctor, I see a doctor, I pay the doctor.  No insurance, no middle man, just me and the doctor.  Instead,  my government has decided to force every citizen to purchase a product from a private company.  Just imagine what they'll decide to force everyone to purchase next... 

[Splashdown]

It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.

It's a floorwax.
It's a dessert topping.
It's a floorwax.
It's a dessert topping.

[Chris_]

The more insurance is used for standard procedures that should be paid for separately, the higher insurance rates go.  If insurance refused to cover petty and routine thing like vaccinations, blood tests, and check-ups, going to see a doctor might be more affordable.

Insurance is nothing more than a guarantee of payment.  If you don't have insurance, there's no guarantee the doctor will receive payment for his (or her) services.  If you have insurance, the doctor has already agreed with the the insurer what he (or she) will be reimbursed for their work.  If you walk in with empty pockets and say "FIX ME!" like every other irresponsible, illegal, uninsured, broke-ass mother****er, the doctor is going to charge you commensurably to recoup his (or her) services regardless of if your broke ass intends to pay him (or her) at all.

An example... I called my ophthalmologist to schedule a checkup.  I asked what the "cash" price was to have him take a look at my eyes.  The quote?  $500.  $500 just to walk in the damn door.  I told them I was a return patient... they lowered their price to $150.  Now, I have insurance and my copay is about $25, but someone still has to pay that $500.  You have to ask where does all this start?  It starts from people not paying for routine medical care and checkups and leaving doctors to haggle with insurance companies to earn a living.  Who the hell wants that?

By the way, Ted Kennedy authored the first HMO legislation in Congress in  1968.  Take it up with him.

[Rebel]

Star Member jberryhill
14. But, just so I understand you....

You are walking through a field near town and a rattlesnake bites you in the leg. You are going to die unless you get an anti-venom injection. There is one doctor in town who has it, so you go to his office. He gives you the injection, and hands you a bill for his regular fee. You then turn around and say, "There was no contract, I was under duress!"

Hmm, just so I understand you, I'm driving back home to Mississippi. My engine blows. I have it towed to an auto shop. They repair it, which includes a complete overhaul, gaskets, bearings, and all. He gives me a bill. What the ****! I didn't sign a contract!


They could have just let your DUmmie ass die, idiot. I can see people having to sign promissory notes before service if you idiots get your way. DUmbasses. 

[NHSparky]

Get a mortgage, get a tax deduction.

Don't get a mortgage, don't get a tax deduction.

OMG, it's the end of the world, the guy without the mortgage pays higher taxes.

Hmmmm...seems to me someone forgot that the deduction for mortgage interest doesn't even come close to the amount of property taxes I pay.  IOW, if I DEDUCT the $10,000/year from my taxable income, at the 28 percent bracket, I'm getting a tax break of $2800.  But when I live in a state where I pay over $5000/year in property taxes....not so great a "deal", eh DUmmies?

Oh, ****--DUmmie logic fails yet again.

And for the record, I don't base my taxes on deductions I may or may not get.  I base my taxes on my ****ing INCOME, you dolts.

[Chris_]

DUmmies expect free houses to fall from the sky because someone else within spitting distance is paying property taxes for them.

Give them free stuff or they'll be mad at you.  Really mad, you guys.  They mean it.

[Elspeth]

Hmmmm...seems to me someone forgot that the deduction for mortgage interest doesn't even come close to the amount of property taxes I pay.  IOW, if I DEDUCT the $10,000/year from my taxable income, at the 28 percent bracket, I'm getting a tax break of $2800.  But when I live in a state where I pay over $5000/year in property taxes....not so great a "deal", eh DUmmies?

Oh, ****--DUmmie logic fails yet again.

And for the record, I don't base my taxes on deductions I may or may not get.  I base my taxes on my ****ing INCOME, you dolts.

You can tell that person has never owned a house.

[diesel driver]

It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.
It's a tax.
It's a penalty.

 

It's a contract.
It's a mandate.
It's a contract.
It's a mandate.

 

It's a floorwax.
It's a dessert topping.
It's a floorwax.
It's a dessert topping.

    

IT'S BOTH!!!!!

 

http://www.electstevedawes.com/

[DumbAss Tanker]

If one chooses to drive a car, they must have insurance.  Don't want to be forced to buy car insurance?  Then don't drive.

This example is being used a lot by both sides (For slightly different reasons, the Dems to say it's like car insurance the sane to say it is different) but in most states, you are not technically required to have insurance, you are required to prove 'Financial responsibility' - an insurance card is the EASIEST was to do that, but there are generally other means such as posting a bond or (Usually in the case of businesses) that you have the assets to be a self-insurer.  The DUmmies are therefore making an inaccurate analogy (With their typical flair for defective thinking, hardly a surprise). 

[Maxiest]

So **** the constitution for the 2%?  That's what I read.

[jukin]

This example is being used a lot by both sides (For slightly different reasons, the Dems to say it's like car insurance the sane to say it is different) but in most states, you are not technically required to have insurance, you are required to prove 'Financial responsibility' - an insurance card is the EASIEST was to do that, but there are generally other means such as posting a bond or (Usually in the case of businesses) that you have the assets to be a self-insurer.  The DUmmies are therefore making an inaccurate analogy (With their typical flair for defective thinking, hardly a surprise). 

Nice catch but this is the party of the smartest president in history that does not understands the difference between comprehensive and collision auto insurance...or for that matter who is at fault when someone rear ends you.

[AllosaursRus]

waiminutwaiminutwaiminut

We were told we needed ObamaCoup because millions Americans die every year due to lack of coverage. Some 9% to 15% we were told.

The mandate is supposed to make sure those who do not have coverage purchase it so the regular payers aren't stuck paying for everything.

But if only 2% of the population would be subject ot the mandate then only 2% of the population is currently going without insurance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002477243#post2

Last I heard it was 11 to 15 million outa 311 million. I make that to be right around 10%, right? O'Bummer and his minions are full of shit!

It has been pointed out the majority of this 10% don't want it, 'cause they are young, and just don't think they need it, (I never had health insurance until I was in my late 30's), or they are rich enough to pay cash, anyway! In actuality, you're right, it's about 2% who are too lazy to work and be responsible for their own bad habits!

If I could afford it, I sure as hell wouldn't bother with insurance, it's a major pain in the ass! Now that I'm nearin' 60, it's a damn good idea!

Costs me and "Toots" about 350 bucks a month to pay for Blue Cross, which ain't all that great, but hey, they do pay for my drugs, heh! It was nice to have when my pancreas shut down, too!!!

(edited, 'cause I seem to be all thumbs today!)

[BlueStateSaint]

Last I heard it was 11 to 15 million outa 311 million. I make that to be right around 10%, right? O'Bummer and his minions are full of shit!

It has been pointed out the majority of this 10% don't want it, 'cause they are young, and just don't think they need it, (I never had health insurance until I was in my late 30's), or they are rich enough to pay cash, anyway! In actuality, you're right, it's about 2% who are too lazy to work and be responsible for their own bad habits!

If I could afford it, I sure as hell wouldn't bother with insurance, it's a major pain in the ass! Now that I'm nearin' 60, it's a damn good idea!

Costs me and "Toots" about 350 bucks a month to pay for Blue Cross, which ain't all that great, but hey, they do pay for my drugs, heh! It was nice to have when my pancreas shut down, too!!!

(edited, 'cause I seem to be all thumbs today!)

11 to 15 million out of 311 million is 3% or so to about 5%.

[BEG]

This example is being used a lot by both sides (For slightly different reasons, the Dems to say it's like car insurance the sane to say it is different) but in most states, you are not technically required to have insurance, you are required to prove 'Financial responsibility' - an insurance card is the EASIEST was to do that, but there are generally other means such as posting a bond or (Usually in the case of businesses) that you have the assets to be a self-insurer.  The DUmmies are therefore making an inaccurate analogy (With their typical flair for defective thinking, hardly a surprise). 

Also, you don't have to buy a car. Therefore you aren't forced to buy auto insurance if you decide you don't want a car.