The middle option is asinine. The assumption is what happens in the U.S.
But let me help you. Millions of people do not buy auto insurance and pay no tax or penalty. That is now NOT the case with health insurance.
If you think your point is correct, can you supply an apt analogy with anything else that people have the option of buying. I’m going to go out on a limb and say No, you can’t. Welcome to Obama’s America. Unless, of course, you can come with an analogy that is actually apt.
Ah, I see where the disconnect is. You think a “tax credit” is the same as a “lump sum” How adorable. And wrong.
If I may, I think you two are talking past each other. It seems that the tax credit will be issued and IF YOU HAVE NO OTHER TAX LIABILITIES to offset it, you would receive a check for that amount. If you do, you won’t. That’s how I read it anyway.
Well the people who do not age or get sick or have accidents SHOULD be able to not buy health insurance, dammit! Would you perchance have a count?
That’s right. And other unknown is the the degree to which the previously uninsured will access healthcare beyond what they did prior to not having insurance. There really are some big, fat unknowns. So, we can’t just say, this is a cheaper route, writ large. That was my only point.
That’s not the point, as I think you now realize. So do you agree that the auto insurance analogy is inapt or not?
One can function perfectly well without owning a car or buying car insurance. But it is nearly impossible for someone to live without requiring medical care at some point. They can either take responsibility and buy the insurance, be rich enough to be self insuring, or be freeloaders and let the rest of us pick up the tab when they inevitably visit the ER. Since we don’t let anyone die for lack of means to pay for their ER visit, we are perfectly within our rights to insist that freeloaders stop expecting a free lunch. The individual mandate violates nobody’s rights.
No where does it say you will get a check. It says the subsidy will be paid as a tax credit. Any other inference is unsupported.
Yes, it is. It is the whole amount of all the handout for the year, paid in one payment. As in “lump sum”.
Whether you receive a check for it or it offsets your other tax liabilities, it is still a payment to you. A lump sum one. From the federal government. AKA the handout.
How do you receive your tax credits? I get mine in the form of a check. Sometimes direct deposit.
Way to completely miss the point. :rolleyes:
Yeah. Except that that had nothing to do with Obamacare and everything to do with people realizing that Obama was a politician rather than a visionary. But it doesn’t matter, because to repeal a law, you need to pass a law, and democrats are not on board for that.
I don’t think you get it. I don’t give two shits what they asked for. I literally do not give two shits. If someone offered to change their demands to something less stupid, I would literally not give that person two lumps of shit for that. They could have held the government hostage with the demand that each congressional meeting start with a public viewing of the day’s “My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic” episode and I would be opposed to it (even though it would almost certainly make congress a more interesting place). It’s not about the demands. It’s about the methods.
And for all intents and purposes, they might as well ask for a fucking space elevator, because that is never going to happen, and suspending the individual mandate without suspending the other parts of Obamacare destroys health insurance in America. If you’re interested in understanding why, check out the links above about the three-legged stool. But most republicans can’t grasp this really simple idea: if we increase the risk pool significantly without offsetting it by making everyone buy in, we end up with insurance that is expensive to the point of useless.
Because it is. Demanding the delay the individual mandate is at least close to as unreasonable as insisting on impeachment proceedings. It completely cripples the landmark achievement of the administration and turns the bill into poison for the health care industry, and there is no excuse for republicans in congress not to understand that at this point. Which makes me wonder why they demand it in the first place. Probably because they do understand it, and they probably understand that if they can force this, they can make the bill look incredibly bad.
But you know what? You’re still missing the point. Because it doesn’t matter what they demand; the objectionable thing is first and foremost how they are demanding it - by holding the full faith and credit of the USA hostage, and by shutting down the government. As said above, it does not matter what their demands are. That their demands are utterly unreasonable, and it’s officially too dumb to chalk up to anything other than malice, is just the icing on the cake.
Yes. But that loophole is destroying American democracy. The fact that both houses of congress and the president need to agree for the state to continue functioning is okay right up until someone says “no”, at which point the whole house of cards falls apart. American government is defunct. It is broken. There is no way to fix it beyond plugging these loopholes. If you are defending the republicans using these loopholes, you are advocating the end of democracy or the end of government in the United States of America. There is no way around this conclusion.
And there is no way to give them bipartisan support when they’ve taken hostages. You don’t negotiate with terrorists. It only encourages them. We saw this in 2011, where the republicans got exactly what they wanted from exactly this kind of hostage situation over the debt ceiling, and the democrats got nothing but the continued full faith and credit of the USA… Which is something the republicans wanted too. It’s like if your roommate threatens to burn your shared living accommodation to the ground in some bizarre land where such things are legal. It’s not a compromise if you get to keep your room and he gets to keep your CD player.
The sheer unmitigated stupidity of this statement really left me gobsmacked for a while. I’m sorry, setting up a precedent where one party can tell the other “do what I say or I blow up the economy” is good for the governing bodies of future legislation? What fucking color is the sky in the universe you live in?
Do you even understand how democracy fucking works?
But you’re never going to get support from republicans for any such social health care reform, regardless of how sensible it is. And that’s part of the problem, isn’t it?
No, and if you say this again, I will call you a liar and be justified, because I have explained to you why this is not the case, and the only reason you would repeat it is because you are lying.
Thank you.
Let’s say you are correct in this. (All except the last line anyway.) The point, which you seem to agree with is that the auto insurance analogy does not work. Do you agree with the one point or not?
As I said, that’s my take, too. I’m agreeing with you.
As you know, that is not an option for many, even most, people.
And decrease the surplus population?
We’ve already tried living that way. We’ve outgrown it.
Sort of but perhaps not to your liking. I will agree that one does not have to buy car insurance if one can positively prevent needing it (by not owning a car or driving), but one cannot avoid the need for health insurance (well, maybe the Bionic Man could) because our parts eventually wear out and require servicing.
I was saying it was NOT apt, because EVERYONE might need health insurance at some time or another. EVERYONE ages, you don’t have a single fucking choice about it. ANYONE can get in an accident at any time.
Well, there is that one option.
“Live fast, die young, and leave a good-looking corpse.” - James Dean
I’m out, on all three counts. How about you?
The ultimate opt out!:eek: