mnealtx 0 #76 December 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteYou showed where they collect taxes - you did NOT show where they can mandate that I enter into a financial contract with ANYONE. Id did do that. If you choose to ignore the explanation, there's not much point in discussing it. By all means, quote out the language that demands that I buy a single damn thing, because the 'general welfare' clause ISN'T it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #77 December 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteYou showed where they collect taxes - you did NOT show where they can mandate that I enter into a financial contract with ANYONE. Id did do that. If you choose to ignore the explanation, there's not much point in discussing it. By all means, quote out the language that demands that I buy a single damn thing, because the 'general welfare' clause ISN'T it. All they need to do is pass a tax and a tax credit, which they can do via the general welfare clause. You are not forced to enter into any contract; you just don't get to take advantage of the tax credit if you don't.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #78 December 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYou showed where they collect taxes - you did NOT show where they can mandate that I enter into a financial contract with ANYONE. Id did do that. If you choose to ignore the explanation, there's not much point in discussing it. By all means, quote out the language that demands that I buy a single damn thing, because the 'general welfare' clause ISN'T it. All they need to do is pass a tax and a tax credit, which they can do via the general welfare clause. You are not forced to enter into any contract; you just don't get to take advantage of the tax credit if you don't. I must have missed the parts about the penalty taxes, criminal penalties, etc if I *don't* enter into the contract... oh, wait...I *didn't*. If this is such a great plan, why the handcuffs?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #79 December 25, 2009 QuoteI must have missed the parts about the penalty taxes … That would be the taxes I referred to, the taxes Congress can collect under the power granted to them in Article 2, §8. Quote… criminal penalties … I haven't heard about Congress wanting to send people to jail for not having insurance. Can you link to the section of the bill that explains that? Quote… why the handcuffs? Like I asked above, what handcuffs?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #80 December 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteI must have missed the parts about the penalty taxes … That would be the taxes I referred to, the taxes Congress can collect under the power granted to them in Article 2, §8. Quote… criminal penalties … I haven't heard about Congress wanting to send people to jail for not having insurance. Can you link to the section of the bill that explains that? Quote… why the handcuffs? Like I asked above, what handcuffs? Mandate? What mandate? QuoteSEC. 5000A. REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE. `(a) Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage- An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month. Handcuffs: QuoteCIVIL PENALTY- (I) any person fails to provides correct information under subsection (b); and (II) such failure is attributable to negligence or disregard of any rules or regulations of the Secretary, such person shall be subject, in addition to any other penalties that may be prescribed by law, to a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 with respect to any failures involving an application for a plan year. Nothing like the threat of force to get people on-board with your healthcare program. Being a lawyer, your mileage obviously varies, but for us plebs, not paying civil judgements can end up in jail time.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #81 December 25, 2009 QuoteNothing like the threat of force to get people on-board with your healthcare program. You do realize that civil penalties are not criminal penalties, right? In other words, you don't have to worry about anyone slapping handcuffs on you just for not buying insurance. The excerpt of the bill you provided offers no threat of force. QuoteBeing a lawyer … Just because I can read the Constitution does not make me a lawyer.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #82 December 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteNothing like the threat of force to get people on-board with your healthcare program. You do realize that civil penalties are not criminal penalties, right? In other words, you don't have to worry about anyone slapping handcuffs on you just for not buying insurance. The excerpt of the bill you provided offers no threat of force. In the part you snipped, no... of course, there's that OTHER bit about "in addition to any other penalties"... QuoteQuoteBeing a lawyer … Just because I can read the Constitution does not make me a lawyer. Always thought you were - my apologies for the mistake.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #83 December 25, 2009 QuoteIn the part you snipped, no... of course, there's that OTHER bit about "in addition to any other penalties"... Did you see the heading of the part you quoated? "CIVIL PENALTY" Did you find a heading titled "CRIMINAL PENALTY" in the bill?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #84 December 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteIn the part you snipped, no... of course, there's that OTHER bit about "in addition to any other penalties"... Did you see the heading of the part you quoated? "CIVIL PENALTY" Did you find a heading titled "CRIMINAL PENALTY" in the bill? Nope, sure didn't. If they had meant civil penalties only, they would have put language stating that. As it is, it mentions civil penalties IN ADDITION TO any OTHER penalties - I take that to mean that criminal penalties are possible.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #85 December 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteDid you see the heading of the part you quoated? "CIVIL PENALTY" Did you find a heading titled "CRIMINAL PENALTY" in the bill? Nope, sure didn't. If they had meant civil penalties only, they would have put language stating that. If the bill provided criminal penalties, there would be a section addressing them, just as there is for civil penalties.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #86 December 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteDid you see the heading of the part you quoated? "CIVIL PENALTY" Did you find a heading titled "CRIMINAL PENALTY" in the bill? Nope, sure didn't. If they had meant civil penalties only, they would have put language stating that. If the bill provided criminal penalties, there would be a section addressing them, just as there is for civil penalties. There are no direct criminal penalties listed in the bill, but that does NOT mean that criminal penalties cannot be assessed, given the language of the civil penalties section. And again...if this is such a great thing, why the hell are they having to use ANY penalties to get people to use it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #87 December 25, 2009 QuoteThere are no direct criminal penalties listed in the bill, but that does NOT mean that criminal penalties cannot be assessed, given the language of the civil penalties section. Right, but those possible penalties (e.g., penalty for income tax evasion) have nothing to do with this bill. They won't change without being explicitly changed with legislation. Bringing it up amounts to a red herring.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #88 December 25, 2009 I don't consider the possibility of going to jail a 'red herring' - obviously, your opinion differs.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #89 December 25, 2009 QuoteI don't consider the possibility of going to jail a 'red herring' - obviously, your opinion differs. It is when it has nothing to do with the legislation being discussed.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #90 December 25, 2009 Quote My solution is to So, just to repeat, what you offer solution to: Unfortunately too many individuals have abused this right by obtaining medical service and not paying for it, therefore forcing other individuals to pay for their services through increased premiums and decreased services. Sorry, but others have rights too, and they do not want to pay for someone else getting free healthcare. And unless you can guarantee that when you need a major medical service you will be able to pay for it timely and in full, you'd be expecting others to pay for your healthcare. They have rights not to do it. You either completely forgot what we discussed, as Quote 1. Put a $$ cap on lawsuit damages. (This would slash liability insurance sosts) No, this will only slash insurer expenses, but they are not required to pass those savings to you. They may as well prefer to keep the premiums, and pack a larger profit themselves. As GeorgiaDon described, that's exactly what happened in Georgia following the "tort reform" there. To have it lowering costs, the insurer profit has to be restricted as well, so they would have to pass those savings to doctors and hospitals, and doctor and hospitals profit should be restricted, so they would have to pass those savings to consumers. And, of course, it does not help with the problem above. Quote 2. Allow anyone/anywhere to purchase insurance from anyone/anywhere (more supply=lower costs) This is good idea, and the current bill addresses it already. Quote 3. Let me choose my coverage 4. I keep the right to not purchase or be taxed for health insurance at all. I do not see how would this be a solution for the described problem. In fact, the (4) is one of the roots of the problem - people, who think they're invincible so they do not need insurance. Then they got into ER, do not pay, and live without insurance for the rest of their life as they now have a pre-existing condition which nobody wants to cover. None of your 1-4 addresses that, and in fact (4) promotes it.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #91 December 26, 2009 QuoteNo, this will only slash insurer expenses, but they are not required to pass those savings to you. They may as well prefer to keep the premiums, and pack a larger profit themselves. As GeorgiaDon described, that's exactly what happened in Georgia following the "tort reform" there. To have it lowering costs, the insurer profit has to be restricted as well, so they would have to pass those savings to doctors and hospitals, and doctor and hospitals profit should be restricted, so they would have to pass those savings to consumers. Then why doesn't somebody start an insurance company or a hospital that does exactly what you said above? You are implying that an insurance company should be required to "pass the savings on to me". I'm curious GeorgeRussia, what other industries or businesses should be required by law to "pass-the-saving-on-to-me" One more thing. Give me an example of how "restricting profit" in the private sector results in the consumer saving money. Will someone please chime in and help me? WTF Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #92 December 26, 2009 >There are no direct criminal penalties listed in the bill, but that does NOT >mean that criminal penalties cannot be assessed, given the language of >the civil penalties section. Correct. You can go to jail for not paying the penalties for not buying a house, just as you can go to jail for not paying the penalties for not buying insurance. >.if this is such a great thing, why the hell are they having to use ANY >penalties to get people to use it? Same reason you have to force republicans to pay taxes for the war they supported. They think it's a great idea, until they have to pay for it. (True of both parties.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #93 December 26, 2009 Quote>.if this is such a great thing, why the hell are they having to use ANY >penalties to get people to use it? That's a great point. No, that's an excellent point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,116 #94 December 26, 2009 >One more thing. Give me an example of how "restricting profit" in the >private sector results in the consumer saving money. Anti-monopoly laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #95 December 26, 2009 C'mon, That doesn't "restrict profit" . I'll give you that in the current system busting up a monopoly is good (how about OPEC) but that has nothing to do with profit. :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #96 December 26, 2009 Actually you know what? I won't one of you geniuses to tell me exactly how you would "Restrict Profit" if you had it your way. It's late and I'm up and MeatnTX is obviously not helping me out so let's spar Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #97 December 26, 2009 QuoteOne more thing. Give me an example of how "restricting profit" in the private sector results in the consumer saving money. State usury laws and US Code: Title 18 § 1961.(6)(B)Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #98 December 26, 2009 That's great. I read the entire page. I can't find where it specifies how to "restrict profits" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #99 December 26, 2009 QuoteThat's great. I read the entire page. I can't find where it specifies how to "restrict profits" My fault. I should have quoted the relevant passage instead of relying on people reading the specific paragraph that I referenced in my post. “unlawful debt” means a debt(A) incurred or contracted in gambling activity which was in violation of the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or which is unenforceable under State or Federal law in whole or in part as to principal or interest because of the laws relating to usury, and (B) which was incurred in connection with the business of gambling in violation of the law of the United States, a State or political subdivision thereof, or the business of lending money or a thing of value at a rate usurious under State or Federal law, where the usurious rate is at least twice the enforceable rate; I trust you know what usury is and understand that interest is the profit associated with lending money.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #100 December 26, 2009 Quote You are implying that an insurance company should be required to "pass the savings on to me". I'm curious GeorgeRussia, what other industries or businesses should be required by law to "pass-the-saving-on-to-me" Remember that was you who said tort reform would lead to lower healthcare costs. I just pointed out that to ensure lower healthcare costs, you would have to limit the insurer profit. Otherwise a tort reform which restricts malpractice cases would just lead to less expense to insurer, who may as well decide to use it to increase their profit (and charge the same premium as before) instead of passing those savings to you. As a result, such a "tort reform" would only mean insurers getting larger profits, consumers losing important rights, and healthcare costs staying the same. As GeorgiaDon said, it has happened in Georgia already. Quote One more thing. Give me an example of how "restricting profit" in the private sector results in the consumer saving money. Easy. Let's assume I'm a monopoly, and charge doctors $1000/day for malpractice insurance, and my expenses are $900/day. Then if a tort reform passes, my expenses are now $400/day, a saving of $500/day. What can I do is to either pass those $500 to consumers (leading to lower healthcare costs), or just increase my profit from $100/day to $600/day per doctor, pay larger salary to management and larger dividends to shareholders. I'm a monopoly so I can do that. What do you think a company would choose, and how would you ensure those savings from tort reform benefit the customers, and not the company? Because if they only benefit the insurance company, there is no need for tort reform. I bet nobody wants to lose a right to sue for malpractice just to let the insurance companies to pack larger profits with no reduction to healthcare costs.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
