Maybe you all should go back to citing blog quotes after all?

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

This works for me.

I would actually impose some of the same restrictions on anyone joining the Tea Party, but realize there could be constitutional issue with that.

Can I do the same thing with Social Security? Please?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'd consider it, but as I said the other day, I don't know what it will do to the numbers.

Also, I'd shudder more at the prospect of stepping past those who are short sighted and stupid, but not necessarily conservative.

And as I think about it, more, I guess I'm not okay with that. I think LOTS of people would take that deal without understanding what it really means.

It would put charity back onto those with charitable missions, rather than on the federal government.

I assume that it also allows the private insurers to exclude their pre-existing conditions.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

It would put charity back onto those with charitable missions, rather than on the federal government.

You're really going with the full Gingrich? Huh. I'm surprised.

And is it really charity if you paid for the same benefits for others your whole life?

I assume that it also allows the private insurers to exclude their pre-existing conditions.

It would have to.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

You're really going with the full Gingrich? Huh. I'm surprised.

I didn't say that I necessarily like the proposal, but that's what would happen, at least for most of those who took the deal w/o understanding the implication.

And is it really charity if you paid for the same benefits for others your whole life?

Uh, yeah? If I contribute to a charity, and later become a beneficiary of a charity, does that change the nature of the charity?

It would have to.

The wild card would be kids, right? Both delivery and thereafter.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Uh, yeah? If I contribute to a charity, and later become a beneficiary of a charity, does that change the nature of the charity?

Hm. So if the road in front of your house an act of charity too? A gift from the people to you?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

"But if I disclose that no one will buy the stock!"

Exactly. Can't tell you how many times I've heard that. SMH

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Except that raising taxes was an element of HCR. See, e.g., the excise tax on "cadillac" plans.

Nice try.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Nice try.

Okay, not sure why it was only a "try." You said, "if it raised taxes, voters might have liked it less." I said, it did raise taxes, and voters knew that.

Apparently you think voters would have liked it even less if they thought it imposed an avoidable tax for not being insured, instead of an avoidable penalty for not being insured. I think that's silly, although I concede that in other circumstances there might be ways to try to hide from the political consequences of tax increases (see, e.g., the use of "fees" in California, although its more than just political consequences).

Presumably you would respond with, "well, why'd Obama not wanna say it's a tax then." But that's a strawman. He didn't want to say it's a tax increase. It's the increase part he disputed. Because it's avoidable, and thus a penalty, rather than an increase that everyone would have to pay. That's certainly an attempt to massage the message, given that those who go uninsured are indeed facing a tax increase, but it's nothing unusual.

But I also think that all of this is rather beside the point to deciding whether it a valid exercise of that taxing power. Unfortunately as a group we've offered zero intelligent analysis of that question.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Can I do the same thing with Social Security? Please?

No one's saying that you get to avoid paying the Medicare tax -- just that you opt out of the benefits.

So, sure. Be my guest.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

Exactly. Can't tell you how many times I've heard that. SMH

And you aren't referring the defense of those cases to me, why????

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

Hm. So if the road in front of your house an act of charity too? A gift from the people to you?

No, but if the roads were all made toll roads, and I could elect to either buy a private membership, rely on a more limited public membership, or opt out entirely and rely on the generosity of others to permit me to cross their land, maybe.

Besides, I was referring more to the costs imposed on the system which are *not* paid for by private insurance, medicare, medicaid, or the individual receiving care. Freebies and write-offs that we pay for indirectly through increased costs, not through taxes.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

No, but if the roads were all made toll roads, and I could elect to either buy a private membership, rely on a more limited public membership, or opt out entirely and rely on the generosity of others to permit me to cross their land, maybe.

I'm not sure I get the distinction, but maybe it has to do with your clarification below.

Besides, I was referring more to the costs imposed on the system which are *not* paid for by private insurance, medicare, medicaid, or the individual receiving care. Freebies and write-offs that we pay for indirectly through increased costs, not through taxes.

Okay, I thought you were talking about medicare and medicaid.

I might have gotten that impression because you said it doesn't matter if you paid for that benefit for others for all of your working life.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

I'm not sure I get the distinction, but maybe it has to do with your clarification below.



Okay, I thought you were talking about medicare and medicaid.

I might have gotten that impression because you said it doesn't matter if you paid for that benefit for others for all of your working life.

Perhaps fairly attenuated, but I've *always* been paying for it, through increased costs for everything. Just like we all pay the costs of shoplifting.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

Okay, not sure why it was only a "try." You said, "if it raised taxes, voters might have liked it less." I said, it did raise taxes, and voters knew that.

Apparently you think voters would have liked it even less if they thought it imposed an avoidable tax for not being insured, instead of an avoidable penalty for not being insured. I think that's silly, although I concede that in other circumstances there might be ways to try to hide from the political consequences of tax increases (see, e.g., the use of "fees" in California, although its more than just political consequences).

Presumably you would respond with, "well, why'd Obama not wanna say it's a tax then." But that's a strawman. He didn't want to say it's a tax increase. It's the increase part he disputed. Because it's avoidable, and thus a penalty, rather than an increase that everyone would have to pay. That's certainly an attempt to massage the message, given that those who go uninsured are indeed facing a tax increase, but it's nothing unusual.

But I also think that all of this is rather beside the point to deciding whether it a valid exercise of that taxing power. Unfortunately as a group we've offered zero intelligent analysis of that question.

Are you one of my clients?

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

And you aren't referring the defense of those cases to me, why????

I tend to win the arguments on these issues. Threats of noisy withdrawal and what not.