In the final grapple to get a health care reform bill across the finish line, House Democrats insisted that the bill was “paid for.” Much of the money to pay for the bill would be found by reducing “fraud and waste,” which savings always sound good on the stump but often prove elusive in the event.
Politicians often say things on the stump that they don’t really mean. Getting in is the main thing, everything after is damage control.
Nothing much has changed:
Taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year will pay roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes — in 2019 alone — due to healthcare reform, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’s official scorekeeper.
The new law raises $15.2 billion over 10 years by limiting the medical expense deduction, a provision widely used by taxpayers who either have a serious illness or are older…
Once the law is fully implemented in 2019, the JCT estimates the deduction limitation will affect 14.8 million taxpayers — 14.7 million of them will earn less than $200,000 a year. These taxpayers are single and joint filers, as well as heads of households. (Emphasis added)
Having recently completed my taxes for 2009 – and receiving rather a nasty shock at the bottom line – I can only hope to be less productive in 2019 than I am now.
Very soon now – if I am not there already - I simply won’t be able to afford to succeed.
I don’t really think that was the point. But I can’t really be sure, either.
Repeat after me: “Who is John Galt?”
Is it a redistribution of wealth scheme?
A plain reading of the individual mandate portion of the ‘health care’ bill (PPACA) shows that Congress first sets forth a penalty for failure to buy insurance, then says that regardless of anything written anywhere else in any other law, there can be no criminal penalty:
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
Then, to make it even very difficult (perhaps impossible) to civilly enforce the penalty/tax, Congress has denied the government any power to file liens or levy any wrongdoer’s property:
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
shall not—
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the
penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
such failure.’’.
If the feds cannot prosecute, levy or lien you, then what can they do to you to force you to buy their insurance? Write scary letters to you? Just what happens to the authority of the federal government when people laugh at these scary letters? What indeed.
The alternative, of course, is for the feds to admit that there is no enforcement mechanism. Consider what that means for a minute: the pièce de résistance of the PPACA is the individual mandate. Without an enforcement mechanism, the individual mandate fails; without the mandate, the entire legislative act fails utterly, but we all still get to pay the taxes in the bill, and those monies do NOT go into any ‘lock box’, they go into the General Fund to be doled out as the administration sees fit to whomever the administration deems worthy.
Is it possible the PPACA is more about redistribution of income than healthcare? Mo Debinitly
Of course it was, and still IS the point….
Do a bit of research to see how many socialists and “progressives” are in Congress. It’ll scare you.
Those who didn’t see it during the primaries weren’t paying attention. Those who didn’t see it during the election chose to ignore it.
Those who don’t see it now have a rectal cranial inversion.
Enroute to New Bern today, FL 260 compliments of Delta Airlines, observed the odd geography below, not previous noticed. Had to look it up. Seems they’re lakes (dry or wet) called Carolina Bays. No one’s sure how they were formed. Saw some towns surrounding the big ones. Searched it, found a nice little community, median income of about 30K.
Retirement pay, a little something to do, but mebbe a whole lot less productive. And hopefully long before 2019! Hell, maybe I’ll do what they want and get on the teat. Nope, wait: belay that. I plan on still having a modicum of self-respect left, even then.
JW ~ you need to get out of my head.
Paid for? Yes we can!
And yes we will!
That little oversight about no prosecution for failure to comply will surely be corrected shortly. It was a nice throwaway provision to help get the bill passed.
Hope the 47% not making a “contribution” appreciate the hard work and sacrifices of those who do. Also hope that those who do are asking themselves “why bother?”
It’s no oversite, John. It’s deliberate. They want your money, and they don’t care about you or your health care; it doesn’t apply to them.
Lex, obviously I enjoy a regular diet of your posts.
Also, I never harbor animosity toward any lawyers other than those over-represented in the D.C. political arena. If you are alawyer, I bet you have read at least one book by one of my lawyer relatives.
And, if you are a lawyer, I wonder how it is that you attained practical appreciation of economics that stellar graduates of Harvard Law (e.g. Obama) seem to have not?
What is worse though, is the legendary networking among Harvard elites. Obviously, Harvard’s elite networking may not apply in every critical case:
http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/diploma-mill/2009/01/27/losing-harvards-billions
Another excellent Neptunus Lex post!
Very soon now – if I am not there already – I simply won’t be able to afford to succeed.
I don’t really think that was the point. But I can’t really be sure, either.
What would it take to convince you?
I went Galt 5 years ago, and sure hope that you all come to the same conclusion, follow JW’s logic, and find peace and contentment. The easy fix to this whole mess is just to say “No” to high income. More time, less stress, less discomfort in enabling dependency, and best of all, the knowledge that people don’t hate your guts if you don’t make significantly more than they do.
And if everyone were to have an income <100K, who would the termites terrorize? Come to the dark side!
The termites would then go after the > 50k ..there must always be victims..as long as the termites exist..
Bill K
They will find or manufacture someone. My high school was, unfortunately for the Leftists students there, sans racsists for them to fight to feel like they were gloriously and bravely making a better world. My high school was actually very fortunate to be practically a little slice of heaven with mostly intelligent hard working students of middle to “very” upper middle income in a beautiful neighborhood and completely devoid of gangs, violence, or even petty theft. You’d think the do-gooders would be content, but means are the end for them because they’re filling an emotional need, not anything based in reality. Anyway, long story short, me and the few other open conservatives became ostrascized (at least by a few) and called “Nazi” and “Racist!” on a near daily basis because we spoke up in favor of things like the flat tax and school vouchers in our class discussions. This was so people who wanted to fight racism sooo bad could feel like they were actually doing it, by hating people who weren’t racists.
Once they get those with the money, they’ll go after those with opposing views. They won’t run out of boogey-men or reasons to demonize you in either of our lifetimes.
As for me, I still want to contribute as much as possible to society doing what I love, and getting paid as much as possible for it so I can provide my family as much opportunity as possible. Screw the ‘bums who want to stand in front of that.
Just to be clear, as opposed to going John Galt, my preference is to rail these guys out of office for a LONG time.
Waiting for the primary season to be over to start contributing to any congressional race where it’s a close call between the Democrat and the Republican. You can take a wild a$$ guess as to which of the two I’ll be giving to.
I admire your spirit, Prowler. But I am just too worn down by decades of observation to want to continue to hope that a better choice of politicians will fix things. So please pardon my cynicism, but I prefer to actively stop feeding the colony than pin this country’s future on the collective action of voters.
When I worked as a surgeon, and made over 300K a year, not only was I effectively in a 70%+ marginal tax bracket, but my own kids learned to lean on Dad. My oldest son hid his college malperformance for 3 semesters until we were notified that the engineering department was dropping him. After telling my own son that he had deceived me with his use of my college support money, I told him he was on his own. And I told all my other kids to follow that they were also on their own, college-wise.
As a result, both my oldest son and 5 subsequently have put themselves through college with 3.5 GPA or better averages, while working and watching pennies, so that none has >10k total debt. It was GOOD for my kids to have this responsibility forced upon them.
Why not for the ~47% that receive more than they give in taxes as well?
I’d argue that your plan is more appealing, but mine is more effective.
Bill K
I’m definitely at a different stage in life than you but I hear and agree with you a LOT. I guess I just still have the naivete that allows me to get angry and try to do something. In a few posts though I’ve wondered like you if it’s possible that we can make the necessary changes democratically. Like Sir Alexander Tytler observed about ancient democracies, not a one of them survived the tipping point when the public realized it could vote itself more benefits from the public treasury than they could actually produce. It’s pretty obvious we are at that tipping point today, with the new voters mostly coming from my generation. My generation though, unfortunatley, has been raised on such a sense of entitlement, on indoctrination vice education (and are thus incapable of being much of anything but dependent subjects on the dole who clamor for more while contributing bupkiss), and reared with an unfathomable hatred of country that I think no society has ever foisted upon itself, that I truly fear them and what will happen as they become more “prominent” in society. Frankly and honestly wonder if violence will result.
I’m trying to pump myself up because I think this November is quite literally the moment of truth for our nation, as momentous as Concord or Fort Sumter. If it isn’t an epic rejection of the Left done peacefully in the vooting booth (and like the example of your children I think the same principles apply to society and people at large, and thus the bigger and more Leftist the government the smaller the people and the more immiserated and petty the civilization), then culturally I fear the country is lost. In that case I probably would go John Galt myself and couldn’t blame anyone who did, but without the comforting illusion that that would spare me any demonization or pestering or plundering of my effort by those I went to school with and decided to drink, drug, and f^*k their way through it instead of learning any sort of job skill with which to contribute to society. So far I’ve forsaken any such “fun” to get an MS in engineering and serve my country, but if the country goes tits up on guys like me behind our backs, I concur: at what point do you say FML it wasn’t worth it. I should’ve just slept around in college and gotten by like everyone else doing the bare minimum and partying every chance I got.
Anyway, I just have things I want to be able to do in life and still see a whisp of opportunity to get our country back, so I’ll be d%*ned if I don’t take it.
On a semi-related note I think our society has gotten it backwards by elevating democracy to the cardinal virtue of our country vice liberty. Liberty is the truly unique concept behind the American revolution and I think the greatest explainer of our success up until now. Democracy has breathed life into liberty in two ways, by preventing power concentration in the hands of a single or few political leaders with a regular rotation of such leaders directed by popular will vice elitist will and by doing as much as can be practically done to ensure the transfer of power is peaceful and thus maintains long term order and stability. But like a fire that gives life democracy harbors a more dreadful tryanny of the majority in its bosom and can just as easily snuff out liberty when it is placed above it in society’s “zeitgeist.” Democracy is only a guarantor of liberty when tempered with a constitution that strictly limits government, it is not an end the way liberty is but a necessary means to that end which is not in itself an unalloyed good. I wonder then if our current predicament is a result of a constitution with a chink in its armor somewhere, or of a people who have lost their way and severed the ephemeral bond of allegiance to it consciously or not.
Can’t reply to Prowler’s post directly, so this may not appear properly in the sub-thread.
Prowler, you are absolutely correct but for the word Democracy. We aren’t a Democracy and never were, for that’s two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner. As you recognize, the Constitution and its framework are what prevents a majority of wolves from voting themselves a sheep for dinner, except now that it’s a “living document” it would seem we’re finding rights under the couch cushions and in the pocket of our other suit that would have never passed muster a few decades ago.
I’d argue the Constitution has no chink in its armor, it is too short and concise to have any get-out-of-jail wording in it, not to mention it’s only the framework. It took a hundred years and thousands of pages of Federal Code and a few judges to undermine the intent of that document. With precedent set, the next hundred years will be worse.
In answer to your question, the Constitution provides for Congress the power to tax. The head of the Department of Treasury is a tax cheat. If Congress cares so little as to give their consent to his appointment, if laws are written that explicitly exempt Congress from what laws we must live by, is it any wonder the rule of law this nation was founded upon is held in contempt?
Some might say the Law is an Ass. I agree, and it’s made of the asses we voted for.
– Max
Funny thing, my kids are so seeing this. My eldest is going back and forth about things he might want to study. Medicine has come up. The other day he said, “Why would I want to go through all the trouble to be a surgeon, to work to save lives, to work crazy insane hours, only to have to give my money away to people who really don’t want to work?”
I had no answer. A passion for it isn’t going to cut it…
In fact, Bou, a passion for it is the ONLY thing that will cut it. If your son EVER goes into medicine for any other reason, even if the reason is secondary, my prediction is that he will ultimately be unhappy. But IF he loves medicine so much that he loves the idea of studying and working his tail off for decades so that he can cure people and determines that he will be perfectly content making Walmart greeter wages, then he will be a happy man.
But from your son’s comment, I suspect he’s not ready to lay down his life, liberty and pursuit of happiness in this way.
No, he’s not. Passion is what drove his forefathers into it in some form or another and they are all jaded now. Passion won’t hold it… so although we would never tell him what he needs to do, we discreetly offer other suggestions. It is exceedingly unfortunate, really. He has an amazing mind with great eye hand skills… and an attention to infinite detail. It will be a loss to our society.
Small business ownership and becoming knowledgeable and proficient in business tax laws are about the only antidote for what’s coming. The tax code was originally written for business owners, whereas employees have always been of secondary consideration.
The bald-faced bull durham spewing out of WunWhoWon’s frontal orifice, when contrasted to information coming out of detailed economic studies, is astonishing. Some have referred to the guy as a serial liar, but there are times when I wonder if he isn’t more a pathological one. Does he really believe this sh!!te, or does he really believe that we’ll believe him?
I never could stand listening to WunWhoWon, but now just seeing his face is enough engender a kind of rage that I find unsettling.
What’s got me curious is Ron Paul’s assertion that Obama is not a socialist, but rather a corporatist.
From my non-economist’s understanding, it seems that if one were to draw a circle, and mark the perimeter of the circle at the bottom as the position of a libertarian or even classical liberal, as one goes left around the “socialist” bend, and as one goes right around the “fascist” bend, one ultimately ends up in the same place, on the opposite side, diametrically opposed, as a “statist”.
But if Ron Paul is correct, and our Washington minders with Pres O. as head, pretend to be socialist, but are really panderers to the money of big corporations and willing accomplices to “regulatory capture”, then future tax laws will lead to National Socialism – the feds as covertly as possible aiding but directing big business (AIG, GM, etc) under the “wise guidance” of their “progressive” policies. So I’m not quite as sanguine as you, Mongo, as to how small businesses will fare, tax wise. Obama could end up on the side of the big battalions, company-wise.
From the article:
Of course there is no mention of how seniors and others that will see savings from Health Reform, and that a much broadened base will decrease currently outrageous insurance premiums.
Which could mean the numbers might be somewhat biased? Nah!
That straw man $3.9 billion is to get one’s attention.
But when spread over all those who earn less than $200k a year – well more than 100 million, conservatively – that is a max of $39 bucks. You will spend much more than that at a ballgame to support $4 million salaries. Should39 bucks be not too much for healthcare for the sick or worse? And if medical expenses decline as is probable, no one will be taxed in that group any more than now. But many will have greater peace of mind, and health, and we will be a better country for it.
Fliterman, do you believe that the average Joe, given the option to pay less for insurance coverage, would consume less health care, or more?
If the price of gasoline were to drop to 50 cents per gallon, would you consume more gas or less?
If 100 million Joe-patients consume more health care on account of “non-outrageous insurance premiums”, how might “medical expenses decline as is probable“?
Flit? Savings? From a more efficient government-run program?
“Efficient government program” is very nearly the ultimate oxymoron.
I cite Anderson’s Law: an elephant is a mouse built to government specifications. I’ve also seen this listed as a quote from Lazarus Long.
There is also Pournelle’s Law:
“If the price of gasoline were to drop to 50 cents per gallon, would you consume more gas or less?”
Insurance is not a commodity, nor is it necessary for day-to-day living. Insurance – unlike gasoline – is something you really need but hope you never have to use. People need to buy gas. And they all use it. They burn it. But many do not or cannot buy insurance. You pay right now for their situation, whether you like it or not.
You may need gas for your car weekly and expect to get it. But even when covered with very expensive auto insurance, you hope you do not crash. I have never had an accident in many decades. And while I receive many discounts, my premiums mostly pay for those that do crash. I get nothing, other than peace of mind. That is OK. That is the nature of the beast. It is there, if I ever need it.
You need your house to live, but you hope it doesn’t burn. Yet your premiums go for others whose houses burn down.
Nobody seems to complain about those premiums. So why do people complain about health insurance premiums? There may be some good and not so good reasons, but not because insurance is a frequently consumable commodity, like needed gasoline.
I dunno, Fliterman, you tell me — I saw a doctor a couple of years ago for a check-up at the insistence of my wife, prior to that I saw a doctor in 1982 when I needed a note to play high school football.
My Good Wife, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to go a month without seeing a doctor, and of course the kids (both premature) seem to see one every three or four weeks.
We all have the same insurance.
So which is preferable? You can’t save a million dollars by adding me to a pool, and if you add my wife you only end up adding a million to the costs. Your only hope is to find a hundred thousand like me who never take advantage of their benefits and see a doctor. Which is pretty much only those under age 24 or those who like me absolutely hate doctor visits.
Here’s a hint: half the people who have reached the age of 65 in our written history are alive now.
Good luck chasing that retired, no-tax-paying demographic to cover the costs. They vote.
– Max
Fliterman, though you quoted me, you did not answer the question in that quote.
If gas drops to 50 cents per gallon, my bet is that you will consume more.
If the ‘cost’ of insurance is hidden to you (by tax funding, low deductables & copayments) my bet is that you and millions like you will consume more health care.
It is interesting to me that you and I can be so opposite in our outlook on this. One reason may be that I also am on the opposite side of the health care counter – I have provided it, and I assume that you have not. (I could be wrong)
But it is fairly universal in human nature that people very much dislike being TOLD what to do. So for decades, I provided FREE health care to those who had no insurance and were in tough circumstances, not just emergencies, but even elective surgery like fixing hernias.
And this summer, I will go down to Mexico to do FREE surgery for destitute rural Mexicans. But I will NOT do slave surgery under the gov’t thumb, following all their rules, submitting all their forms.
And I am not alone amongst docs. And when our gov’t goes bankrupt, I will go back to providing direct health care to those who ask, and ask nicely.
What the heck – I’ll reply. Right now I drive as much as I need or want to. If gas dropped $.50 I probably would not drive any more – because I do not need or want to.
If it went up 50 cents/gal… I’d probably be reevaluating some of those “want to” miles.
Flit, forget the cheap gas example. The problem is that the Obama approach is not in any way, shape, or form “insurance.”
Insurance is based on actuarial principles wherein the insurer asses the various levels of risk, then spreads cost across a wide variety of purchasers. Progressives will never, ever allow genuine health insurance to exist.
Let me explain. We have John Doe and Juanita Wong. Both are 18, both are B-average students, went to the same high school, took the same driver’s ed class, got the same good grade, etc. The point is that the only difference is that John is male and Juanita is female. Thus John will have to pay a car insurance 3-4 times that of Juanita just because he is male. Is this fair? In a perfect world, no. But in the real world, males between the ages of 16-25 are far more likely to have a car accident than females in the same age group. Thus males in this age group pay far higher (i.e. “not fair”) premiums than do females. After the age of 25, the probabilities tend to converge, so the premiums for males tends to diminish.
In the same vein, someone with a record of regular traffic violations including speeding tickets and collisions can expect to pay a much higher premium than someone with no violations at all. Why? Because the first driver has an established history demonstrating a much higher expected value of future costs than the second driver. Note I haven’t even raised the issue of who might have been at fault in any of the first driver’s history of collisions.
So far, so good. Those with a higher risk should expect to pay a higher premium, and this has been a staple of car insurance since, well, forever. And I can see you shaking your head from here.
The problem is that Progressive ideology is based on equality of result, not equality of opportunity. In this case, the first example of boys paying higher premiums than girls is unacceptable, since it violates the Progressive sense of fairness (AKA equality of outcome). All young drivers should pay the same right; do otherwise would be {gasp} sexist!
The second example highlights the challenge of “pre-existing conditions” for health care. I don’t think you’ll find too many people arguing against higher car insurance premiums for higher-risk drivers. Heck, for a long time (pre-WW2) companies would not issue life insurance policies for private pilots. The activity was seen as very high risk, and (I suspect) the companies didn’t have reliable actuarial tables to estimate said risk. IIRC, Alexander Seversky (designer of the P-35, P-43, and P-47) couldn’t get life insurance for that exact reason.
The actuarial argument for high insurance premiums is that the client is engaging in, or faces very high-risk situations, and is therefore obligated to pay for said risks. This goes back to the above “bad driver” scenario. I would not be surprised to find at least some drivers insurance companies would refuse to ensure such a driver, as they could not legally charge a premium appropriate to the calculated risk.
Which brings us to pre-existing health conditions. “It’s just not fair” that people can’t buy health insurance with these conditions. Yes, and it’s just not fair that some people can’t get car insurance, at least not without insanely large premiums.
It is not a fundamental fact that a 22-year-old man who doesn’t smoke, drinks moderately, exercises, and is withing 2% of his optimum weight can reasonably expect fewer health issues than a 32-year-old man who smoke & drinks heavily, never exercises, and is 30% over his optimum body weight? Is not the former actuarialy far less likely to encounter health problems than the latter, just as the good driver is actuarialy less likely to have an accident than someone with record of accidents and traffic violations? Should not the healthy man then pay smaller premiums than the slob?
Yet according to Progressive ideology, both should pay the same premium in the interest of “fairness.” In fact, a health insurance company should not refuse an insurance policy to someone even if they are grossly overweight, smoke, drink heavily, have diabetes, and demonstrate a strong genetic tendency for cancer. It’s not fair! The fact that the latter is not only far more likely to incur costs, but very high costs, has no relevance, because companies who make a profit are pretty much by definition evil for Progressives. They devoutly believe in disinterested, objective bureaucrats running things for the greater good, as opposed to the selfish money-grubbing capitalists in charge of private enterprise.
The simple fact that a company which loses money equates to an improperly-run company is beyond their experience. The idea that costs should be commensurate with risks is also alien.
Which is why, Flit, I say this sort of “health insurance” is anything but. It does not equate costs with risks, nor assign higher costs to higher risks. The Progressive approach in fact completely removes the concept of “risk” from the equation.
I think I can see where you’re coming from, to a degree. This is an insanely wealthy country (c. $12 trillion GDP), and it just doesn’t make sense that poor folks have to bankrupt themselves for extraordinary health care. There’s issues I have with definitions of “poor,” “too expensive,” “extraordinary,” and “appropriate” to start with {g}, but I think I grasp your elemental motivation.
Where we strongly differ is that I am opposed to Yet Another Federal Program Which We Promise Won’t Cost That Much (cross our hearts & hope to die!) Even Though That’s Never Been True of ANY Federal Program Which Lasted More Than Five Years, And Is Centrally-Directed, Top-Down, Command & Control Oriented.
The Feds are the people who have given us the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, Homeland Security (“you want fries with that body scan?”), the BATF, Ruby Ridge, and Waco. Not to mention literally hundreds of no-knock raids using SWAT equipment & tactics just to bust someone for holding 2 pounds of pot. Or the unprintable idiots in State who thought the “reset button” was a good idea, nor the protocol buffoons who never told Obama that the President of the Republic does not bow to anyone, period.
Won’t even mention that moronic “no first use of nukes, ever” strategy.
The thing is that, Flit (by all appearances) you trust these people. I don’t.
This is the coming of age of that “New Math” they taught us back in the 60′s and 70′s. Spend more money, borrow more money and the deficit goes down. Right….
Well…we could all go the route of this family. Because I’m sure it’s what P.BO and his minions are working towards.
I’m in between Prowler and BillK. I’m starting to make a transition to go Galt…I’m just not quite ready yet. Have some things to settle and plans to make. I’m with Prowler on the point that in November 2010 this country has the opportunity – golden – to take back our Republic.
If that fails, my own Galt plans may be put on the fast track.
Kris, I may be imprecise in my expression of going Galt. I do not mean to imply that I’m going to become a lazy leech rather than a productive citizen. What I do mean to imply is that I will produce in such a way as to best discourage leeches and help those who by their character and hard work deserve help, especially those of my own household. But to the rest, “No mas”…
So for example, I will continue to work hard at bartering my services or working for non-monetary profit to others (such as building and finishing furniture).
If you remember Atlas Shrugged, John Galt did not quit working, he merely worked for and with a different set of people.
If you remember Atlas Shrugged, John Galt did not quit working, he merely worked for and with a different set of people.
Precisely Bill K. I hope to change what I do, how I do it and for whom in the next 5 years. Calling more of my own shots, developing a network of like-minded people.
I don’t intend on becoming a leech – I intend to ensure that no one leeches off of me. And I mean that in more ways that financial.
Time to kick back a bit, barter a bit, do a little for cash. I plan on keeping my head down and doing my part to starve ‘em out of office.
YES. That’s where I’m headed. Brushing up on my IT skills – learning how to do the basics in terms of computer repair and system design. Going rate around here for that type of thing is about $80/hour. Cash. I call the shots: hours, customers, etc. Something I’m considering as a side job.