There must be a pony in here somewhere.

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24562
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Mo » 16 Dec 2018, 05:06

Yes, the judge is saying a $0 tax is not a tax (which gets in the philosophical a positive and negative tax are taxes, so why is $0 not). Therefore, since it’s no longer a tax, the mandate isn’t a tax and is unconstitutional.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Andrew
Posts: 6651
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 21:52
Location: Vale of Eternal Fire

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Andrew » 16 Dec 2018, 08:05

Hugh Akston wrote:
15 Dec 2018, 20:02
Uh didn't SCOTUS already decide the penaltax is constitutional? Is there any reason they would actually review this case?
There was a moment where I wondered whether the last 7 years had been a weird dream and we were back to 2011 and arguing about the individual mandate.
We live in the fucked age. Get used to it. - dhex

The sun only shines when a woman is being sexually abused. - Warren

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24091
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by JasonL » 16 Dec 2018, 08:34

I will never understand the obsession with that feature as a lynchpin of reform. We already have a mandatory insurance purchase program or three. Nobody who voted on it was confused about this feature then woke up and were like “it’s a tax oh noes!”

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24091
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by JasonL » 16 Dec 2018, 08:36

Aresen wrote:
JasonL wrote:
15 Dec 2018, 07:56
I thought more than 2/3. You guys don’t have co pays right?
No co-pays on basic care. The Fraser Institute (a libertarian-ish econ think-tank) has estimated that even a $5 co-pay would eliminate most of the wait lines in emergency rooms and save billions of dollars, but it's a political non-starter.
What’s the remaining 1/3 not paid by the government then?

User avatar
Aresen
Posts: 15890
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:18
Location: Great White Pacific Northwest

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Aresen » 16 Dec 2018, 11:10

JasonL wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 08:36
Aresen wrote:
JasonL wrote:
15 Dec 2018, 07:56
I thought more than 2/3. You guys don’t have co pays right?
No co-pays on basic care. The Fraser Institute (a libertarian-ish econ think-tank) has estimated that even a $5 co-pay would eliminate most of the wait lines in emergency rooms and save billions of dollars, but it's a political non-starter.
What’s the remaining 1/3 not paid by the government then?
Mostly medications, home care, physiotherapy and medical devices like crutches.
If Trump supporters wanted a tough guy, why did they elect such a whiny bitch? - Mo

Those who know history are doomed to deja vu. - the innominate one

Never bring a knife to a joke fight" - dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Jennifer » 16 Dec 2018, 17:59

JasonL wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 08:34
I will never understand the obsession with that feature as a lynchpin of reform. We already have a mandatory insurance purchase program or three. Nobody who voted on it was confused about this feature then woke up and were like “it’s a tax oh noes!”
What other mandatory insurance programs are there, that don't have an "only if" clause? Some states have mandatory car insurance -- only if you drive a car. But what insurance policies are mandatory for every adult who fits the description "You live in the United States"?
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 7840
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Pham Nuwen » 16 Dec 2018, 18:22

Jennifer wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 17:59
JasonL wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 08:34
I will never understand the obsession with that feature as a lynchpin of reform. We already have a mandatory insurance purchase program or three. Nobody who voted on it was confused about this feature then woke up and were like “it’s a tax oh noes!”
What other mandatory insurance programs are there, that don't have an "only if" clause? Some states have mandatory car insurance -- only if you drive a car. But what insurance policies are mandatory for every adult who fits the description "You live in the United States"?
It was called a tax for a reason.
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Jennifer » 16 Dec 2018, 18:34

Pham Nuwen wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 18:22
Jennifer wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 17:59
JasonL wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 08:34
I will never understand the obsession with that feature as a lynchpin of reform. We already have a mandatory insurance purchase program or three. Nobody who voted on it was confused about this feature then woke up and were like “it’s a tax oh noes!”
What other mandatory insurance programs are there, that don't have an "only if" clause? Some states have mandatory car insurance -- only if you drive a car. But what insurance policies are mandatory for every adult who fits the description "You live in the United States"?
It was called a tax for a reason.
Even taxes have "only if" clauses -- you owe property tax only if you own taxable property, income tax only if you have income above a certain point, etc. Pre-ACA, there was no tax owed by every adult in America simply because you exist.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Jennifer » 16 Dec 2018, 18:49

Another thing (regarding the difference between mandatory car insurance only if you drive a car, versus mandatory health insurance simply because you exist): for states with mandatory car insurance, the minimum legal coverage requirement is to cover damages you might cause another person; I don't think any of the mandatory-car-insurance states require you to also insure for your own benefit (meaning, I need enough insurance to compensate you if I hit your car with mine, but I am NOT required to have enough insurance to also recoup my own costs in that scenario, nor am I required to have coverage for things like "Someone steals my car, or merely breaks a window to steal the stereo). But this mandatory health insurance IS ostensibly for your own good, not some other innocent victim's.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
Highway
Posts: 13275
Joined: 12 May 2011, 00:22
Location: the Electric Ocean

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Highway » 16 Dec 2018, 19:55

Well, it can be argued that it's for other people's good: The people who get stuck with the bill when you get medical care you can't pay for. Because there's a system in place that says that at least some of them can't turn you away, along with the social cost of denying care, there's a liability that is placed on providers when you show up sick, when the only thing you've done has been 'existed'.

If there was a tradition of "you get no medical care if you can't pay for it", then it would be different, and more analogous to "You cannot drive if you don't have insurance". But that's not the tradition that we have.
"Sharks do not go around challenging people to games of chance like dojo breakers."

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17964
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Hugh Akston » 16 Dec 2018, 20:14

It's weird that medicine is the only industry that has to deal with free rider/shrinkage problems. I guess if retail, food service, hospitality etc ever had problems like that they would come crying to government for mandataxes too.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
Pham Nuwen
Posts: 7840
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 02:17

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Pham Nuwen » 16 Dec 2018, 20:34

Hugh Akston wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 20:14
It's weird that medicine is the only industry that has to deal with free rider/shrinkage problems. I guess if retail, food service, hospitality etc ever had problems like that they would come crying to government for mandataxes too.
You think they dont?
Goddamn libertarian message board. Hugh Akston

leave me to my mescaline smoothie in peace, please. dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24091
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by JasonL » 16 Dec 2018, 21:57

If you earn any money in the world you have to buy Medicare, social security, SSDI.

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17964
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Hugh Akston » 16 Dec 2018, 22:41

JasonL wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 21:57
If you earn any money in the world you have to buy Medicare, social security, SSDI.
Those are taxes, not purchases.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 24562
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Mo » 17 Dec 2018, 04:28

Jennifer wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 18:34
Pham Nuwen wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 18:22
Jennifer wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 17:59
JasonL wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 08:34
I will never understand the obsession with that feature as a lynchpin of reform. We already have a mandatory insurance purchase program or three. Nobody who voted on it was confused about this feature then woke up and were like “it’s a tax oh noes!”
What other mandatory insurance programs are there, that don't have an "only if" clause? Some states have mandatory car insurance -- only if you drive a car. But what insurance policies are mandatory for every adult who fits the description "You live in the United States"?
It was called a tax for a reason.
Even taxes have "only if" clauses -- you owe property tax only if you own taxable property, income tax only if you have income above a certain point, etc. Pre-ACA, there was no tax owed by every adult in America simply because you exist.
Even ACA is only if you're above a certain level of income.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Kolohe
Posts: 13973
Joined: 06 May 2010, 10:51

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Kolohe » 17 Dec 2018, 07:00

Mo wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 05:06
Yes, the judge is saying a $0 tax is not a tax (which gets in the philosophical a positive and negative tax are taxes, so why is $0 not). Therefore, since it’s no longer a tax, the mandate isn’t a tax and is unconstitutional.
Which is a dumb argument. Unless he thinks something like 'the number zero is creeping sharia'. (Which would make it worse than a dumb argument)
when you wake up as the queen of the n=1 kingdom and mount your steed non sequiturius, do you look out upon all you survey and think “damn, it feels good to be a green idea sleeping furiously?" - dhex

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24091
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by JasonL » 17 Dec 2018, 07:10

Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 21:57
If you earn any money in the world you have to buy Medicare, social security, SSDI.
Those are taxes, not purchases.
There’s no difference I can see. People talk about those as purchases all the time.

User avatar
JD
Posts: 10909
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:26

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by JD » 17 Dec 2018, 12:45

Jennifer wrote:
14 Dec 2018, 18:13
JD wrote:
14 Dec 2018, 13:53
no incentive to actually have employer-provided healthcare
IMO that would be a good thing -- the idea that health insurance is something you get through your job rather than something you get on your own is a huuuuuge problem with the current (and pre-Obamacare) status quo.
Yeah, IMO going down the route of officially tying health insurance to employment was one of the worst decisions the US ever made, both because it screwed everyone who wasn't traditionally employed and because it meant that you were no longer the insurance customer, your employer was.
Beep boop, you silly humans.

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24091
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by JasonL » 17 Dec 2018, 12:58

Agree. Bad mistake. Very difficult to unwind.

User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 24243
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Jennifer » 17 Dec 2018, 16:36

Highway wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 19:55
Well, it can be argued that it's for other people's good: The people who get stuck with the bill when you get medical care you can't pay for. Because there's a system in place that says that at least some of them can't turn you away, along with the social cost of denying care, there's a liability that is placed on providers when you show up sick, when the only thing you've done has been 'existed'.
By that logic, any woman under 50 or so and below A Certain Income ought to be required to take contraception of some sort: avoiding having kids you can't afford is for your own good, but also for other people's good -- the people who get stuck with the bill when you have kids you can't pay for. (And Prohibition of various sorts can be justified on the grounds that addiction doesn't only hurt the addict, but society as a whole, etc.)
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24091
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by JasonL » 17 Dec 2018, 16:51

The bridge for mandatory insurance was crossed with Medicare. The idea that if the supplier of mandatory insurance is the government well that's just a tax and perfectly fine but if it's anyone other than the government you have crossed some new taboo - I don't get that. If it's okay for medicare and even okay for single payer to charge you for services you may not want in the name of the public good, why in the world from an even modestly libertarian perspective is it worse to assess, lets be clear here, a microscopic penalty for failure to purchase a similar product from a range of choices other than the government. It is clear to me that this pings some people's gag reflex but how in the world those people are okay with it being the same thing but government is the supplier EVEN SUGGESTING that full government takeover of the entire industry is preferable - that makes me scratch my head.

I do understand a consistent point that medicare may be immoral and so is this, to be clear.

User avatar
Warren
Posts: 26722
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Warren » 17 Dec 2018, 17:03

JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2018, 16:51
The bridge for mandatory insurance was crossed with Medicare.
Horseshit. Medicare isn't "purchased". It's paid for by working people and is use primarily by non working people. It's an entitlement. Wealth redistribution. And is absolutely at a fundamental level NOT NOT NOT a mandatory purchase.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT

User avatar
Hugh Akston
Posts: 17964
Joined: 05 May 2010, 15:51
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora Reina de los Angeles

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by Hugh Akston » 17 Dec 2018, 17:09

JasonL wrote:
17 Dec 2018, 07:10
Hugh Akston wrote:
JasonL wrote:
16 Dec 2018, 21:57
If you earn any money in the world you have to buy Medicare, social security, SSDI.
Those are taxes, not purchases.
There’s no difference I can see. People talk about those as purchases all the time.
So popular misconceptions are part of your equation but human agency isn't.
"Is a Lulztopia the best we can hope for?!?" ~Taktix®
"Somali pirates are beholden to their hostages in a way that the USG is not." ~Dangerman

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24091
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by JasonL » 17 Dec 2018, 20:45

I mean I’m sorry that’s a a goofy hill to die on. You are saying so long as the government is the provider of a service there’s no shocking violation here because the money gets washed clean through general revenues?

The government can write A Rule. That rule says hand over money to be used for insurance or else pay fines and or go to prison. Nobody thinks that’s unconstitutional illegal or anything else, but it’s super especially made ok if you call the penalty a tax?

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 24091
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: There must be a pony in here somewhere.

Post by JasonL » 17 Dec 2018, 20:48

If the government passed federal housing tax and bought shitty houses for everyone you are saying that’s not a mandatory home purchase?

Public schooling isn’t a mandatory educational purchase? Vouchers are bullshit because the unicorn farts of general revenue mean you haven’t really already paid for education?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests