Posted on 03/10/2017 6:58:05 AM PST by pgkdan
The Affordable Care Act was based on government coercion of individuals and redistribution of wealth. So, too, is the Republican plan to “replace” it.
“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,” said Obamacare.
This section of the law was clinically entitled: “Requirement to Maintain Minimum Essential Coverage.”
It was not a choice the government offered individuals. It was a command. It said the “individual shall.”
If the “individual” did not comply with this dictate, what did the government do?
“If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a),” the law said, “…there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection ©.”
In his infamous ruling upholding this law, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded correctly that the Commerce Clause does not empower the government to force people to buy health insurance.
But Roberts then determined that the Obamacare mandate was not really a mandate, and that the “penalty” the government imposed for failing to follow this mandate was not really a “penalty.”
It could be construed as a tax, Roberts argued.
Therefore, he concluded, the government could constitutionally use its taxing power to penalize people who failed to buy the health insurance the government did not have the constitutional power to force them to buy.
Thus a Republican-appointed chief justice preserved the most coercive element of Obamacare.
In redistributing wealth, Obamacare not only expanded the already existing Medicaid program, it also created a wholly new form of federal subsidy aimed at middle-class Americans who earned too much money to qualify for even the expanded version of Medicaid — but earned less than 400 percent of the poverty level.
Under Obamacare, this class of Americans would receive a subsidy to buy health insurance in the government’s insurance exchanges.
That meant that Americans who did not qualify for Medicaid or the Obamacare subsidy — because they earned more than 400 percent of poverty or bought insurance through their employer — would be forced to subsidize the health insurance of those who went on the expanded Medicaid rolls or bought insurance through the exchanges.
This system of redistribution doubled the coercive nature of Obamacare: Not only did the government force people to buy insurance for themselves and their dependents, it forced them to help buy insurance for people they did not know.
Once this system of compounded coercion was enacted, the bureaucracy added yet another layer to it. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a regulation ordering individuals to buy health insurance that covered abortion-inducing drugs and devices and employers to provide insurance that covered these things.
The Obama administration even sought to apply this rule to Christian business owners, Catholic schools and orders of Catholic nuns.
That is where freedom stood in Obama’s America.
Then the nation elected a Republican House, Senate and president pledging to repeal and “replace” Obamacare.
This week, the Republican House unveiled its legislation to do just that.
The bill, says a summary published by the House Ways and Means Committee, “would reduce the penalty to zero for failure to maintain minimum essentially coverage; effectively repealing the individual mandate.”
But the Republicans would replace the Obamacare penalty with their own penalty — politely called the “Continuous Health Insurance Coverage Incentive.”
This Republican “incentive” would give Americans 63 days to buy health insurance — or else.
“Beginning in open enrollment for benefit year 2019,” says a summary published by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, “there will be a 12-month look back period to determine if the applicant went longer than 63 days without continuous health insurance coverage. If the applicant had a lapse in coverage of greater than 63 days, issuers will assess a flat 30 percent late-enrollment surcharge on top of their base premium based on their decision to forego coverage.”
The Republicans intend to replace the Obamacare subsidies with a “refundable tax credit” — which can be paid to someone who owes no tax.
This subsidy, according to Ways and Means, will be determined by age and income, rising from $2,000 per year per person for individuals under 30 to $4,000 per year per person over 60. Individuals will be eligible for the full credit if they have incomes up to $75,000, and joint filers will be eligible with incomes up to $150,000.
“The credits are additive for a family and capped at $14,000,” says the committee’s summary.
So, one family that does not pay taxes could get up to $14,000 in cash — from families that do pay taxes or from newly issued government debt — to buy insurance the government insists they must buy in 2019 or face a 30 percent surcharge when they do.
Americans who work, support themselves and do not take government subsidies are not the beneficiaries of this Obamacare repeal — or, that is, this Republican “replacement.”
Americans who work, support themselves and do not take government subsidies are not the beneficiaries of this Obamacare repeal — or, that is, this Republican “replacement.”
The Earned Income Tax Credit isn't enough of my money going to parasites? This makes me sick to my stomache.
There’s disparity between non-taxed employer provided plans and taxed plans individuals buy. They are trying to level that playing field. There are three ways to do it, tax employer based plans, give a tax credit to individuals buying coverage, or require ALL INDIVIDUALS to buy heath insurance INDIVIDUALLY like car insurance.
Which do you prefer?
This is one thing Roberts got right in his decision. Of course it's a tax. It's administered by the IRS, isn't it?
Option #2 is B.S. Leveling the playing field between employer plans and individual plans would involve a tax deduction for the individual plan, not a tax credit.
Ok change it to tax deduction.
Which do you prefer?
Do you have an employer based HC plan?
Here is one case where I think the GOP effort will fall flat on its face, and the 30% surcharge will often be waived.
If I'm completely healthy and I'm beyond that 63-day window, what incentive do I have to sign up for an insurance plan? I can easily envision a scenario where insurers get so desperate to enroll new, healthy customers that they start waiving that 30% surcharge just to attract new customers who recognize this as a total scam unless you have a pre-existing condition.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a car dealer years ago when I was buying my first new car. He gave me a price that wasn't what I was willing to pay, so I got up to walk out the door.
"You're not going to get a better price from another dealer," he said.
"You're not competing against another dealer," I said. "I'm either going to buy the car for the price I'm willing to pay, or I'm going to keep driving that old piece of crap parked out there until next year's models come out."
I got the car (an SUV) for the exact price I wanted to pay.
I’d prefer Option #2 — as a tax deduction. I’m OK with Option #3, but only if done at the state level.
Ryan knows Trump needs the R&R bill so he exploited the situation to shove through this POS. This is a rat bill from a gang of rinos. It doesn’t even rid us of the “Cadillac” tax. Ryan thinks he has Trump over a barrel. let’s not forget Ryan took money from Soros. Maybe Trump can find a way around him.
Again everyone is talking about the wrong things.
The topic of discussion should be:
Can the government fix the medical industry or would the industry be better off if the government repealed obummer care and devoted its attention to those things which only the government can do.
If you wonder what that might be, read the Constitution.
The government can not regulate the medical industry/profession. It is too complex.
No. I've had them for most of my life, but I'm self-employed so I'm considered an "individual" for insurance purposes.
This bill is a hot mess. Ryan needs to be squashed
So are your HC premiums 100% tax free like they were with employer based plans?
Do you really think Ryan is thinking he’s pulling the wool over Trump’s eyes?
I don’t believe that for a second. If he is Trump’s gonna come down on him like a ton of bricks. I think Ryan knows this.
It’s not a hot mess...its just being portrayed that way by certain people who like to bitch about problems but never solve them.
Ryan’s plan is going through four committees and then to a vote in the full Congress (step 1)
HHS Secretary will deregulate to the extent possible (step 2)
New legislation will be enacted in House and Senate (step 3)
I’ll find out for sure when I do my taxes with my accountant, but it doesn’t really matter at the end of the day. I’ll send a Freep-Mail separately to explain.
Repeal/replace is NOT ONE BILL.
I’m amazed at those here who obviously haven’t taken the time to watch Spicer explain this at every press briefing this week.
I like the way Trump put it, this bill opens negotiations on the three phased plan for repeal replace. This initial starting point is 1/3rd of the total.
And what problem can you point to that the Republicans have solved? There is absolutely nothing wrong with the people here who have no faith the Republicans will honor their promises. They haven’t yet, and all of their remedies depend on a future congress having the guts to do what they don’t.
The only part of Obamacare that should be brought back and expanded needs a new name. It goes by the term of “Cadillac tax”, but really it should be a phase-out of the tax-exempt compensation of employer health plan coverage. Like all such subsidies it distorts the market and is unfair to those who don’t qualify for them. It also creates incentives to have every small healthcare cost paid by a third party, and so not purchased with market pricing signals.
The wimps of both parties in Congress try to even it out by providing similar subsidies to those not getting such employer coverage, but that just increases the cost and delivery distortions in the market.
The answer is to get the federal government out of this stuff—not to extend its bad policies. Yet another reason that Obamacare repeal and the tax cuts should both be done in reconciliation this spring is that the personal income tax cuts should be enough to offset the employer healthcare-based subsidies that some have been receiving.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.