Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 22 Dec '17 22:26
    Is the law of the land.

    Obama's insurance mandate is no longer law of the land.

    I remember many here gloating that Obama Care is the Law of the Land.

    How does it look now that the shoe is on the other foot?
  2. Standard member HandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    22 Dec '17 22:44
    Originally posted by @eladar
    Is the law of the land.

    Obama's insurance mandate is no longer law of the land.

    I remember many here gloating that Obama Care is the Law of the Land.

    How does it look now that the shoe is on the other foot?
    President Trump claimed he repealed the Affordable Care Act on Wednesday. But in striking down an important provision of the ACA in the Republican tax bill passed this week, Trump may have unwittingly helped solidify the law instead.

    There was a significant benefit for Republicans in repealing the individual health-insurance mandate in the tax bill. The resulting savings on subsidies to millions of lower-income Americans allowed the Republicans to pay for more than 20 percent of their bill. Without this, it would have been much more difficult to pass massive tax cuts for corporations and choice items such as the estate tax threshold change. Republicans also have a rhetorical victory, bringing back a trophy to fulfill their anti-ACA promises.

    But that benefit didn’t come without some significant costs. Trump and the Republicans have now taken ownership for driving up insurance premiums for millions of middle-class families who buy insurance on the ACA’s individual markets. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that premiums will rise 10 percent out of the gate in 2019.

    Most people understand the logic of the individual mandate, even if they never loved it. If people think about their health-care needs before they get sick instead of waiting until they fall ill, it leads to a better, fairer system. Still, the mandate, requiring those Americans who can afford it to buy insurance or else pay a small fine, was never popular. President Barack Obama included it only grudgingly in the ACA after coming out against it. Like most people who study the issue, he was persuaded that having a mechanism to compel more participation would bring everyone’s costs down. Ironically, it may have also been a nod to conservatives who originated the idea.

    When premiums rise on middle-class families, taking the blame is part of the deal Republicans have now made. And premiums will rise, particularly in rural areas or states with higher uninsured rates that didn’t expand Medicaid. In other words, a lot of Republican voters will be asked to pay the price.

    Not only will Trump and the Republicans be blamed for raising premiums, but also they may have just solidified the rest of the ACA. First of all, most of the people helped by the ACA will see no change to their premiums. Those who earn under 400 percent of the poverty level (approximately $100,000 for a family, $50,000 for an individual) will be largely protected from the impact of these rate increases because of fixed subsidies. So when insurance premiums on these low- and moderate-income families go up, it will actually be the government, not the families, that will pay the bill. Because prices will stay stable for millions of Americans, it will ensure steady and constant demand for the ACA offerings.

    In a larger sense, the Republicans’ rhetorical victory of cutting out the individual mandate will make the ACA — which is increasingly popular — even more popular. The individual mandate was the only aspect of the law that didn’t enjoy wide support among the public. The other components of the law — protecting preexisting conditions, ending lifetime caps, ensuring that certain benefits such as chemotherapy and mental health are covered by law — enjoy widespread popularity.

    A more popular law will be a more challenging target to repeal. And already Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), with an even narrower majority after the Alabama Senate race, is signaling that repeal may be a bridge too far.

    So where does this leave us? It leaves us with two laws.

    Call the first one Obamacare. It provides preexisting condition protections and other safeguards to American families. And for the millions covered under the Medicaid expansion or who have family incomes less than $100,000, it delivers affordable health-care coverage.

    Call the second one Trumpcare. It exposes many — especially in rural areas and those who make too much for subsidies — to significantly increasing premiums, driven by the calculated decision from Republicans to get rid of the mandate.

    This is damage to middle-class families that the Republicans should aim to quickly undo. Early next year, they should seek to pass some simple solutions that will bring down premiums and increase competition. They should pass a permanent reinsurance package — an extension of a current bipartisan Senate proposal. They should also consider an option introduced by Democratic Sens. Tim Kaine (Va.) and Michael F. Bennet (Colo.) to allow Americans in areas where there isn’t enough competition to buy into something like Medicare. This will help attract Democrats and, more importantly, drive competition and lower premiums.

    This year’s recently ended ACA enrollment period attracted unexpectedly high figures despite countless efforts to diminish it. The elimination of the individual mandate won’t alter the reality of coverage for millions. For people who are affected, the ball is in Republicans’ court, and the need for action is urgent.

    --Washington Post

  3. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    22 Dec '17 23:13
    Originally posted by @eladar
    Is the law of the land.

    Obama's insurance mandate is no longer law of the land.

    I remember many here gloating that Obama Care is the Law of the Land.

    How does it look now that the shoe is on the other foot?
    I hate to rain on your parade, but the individual mandate is still the law of the land and will be until 2019.
  4. 23 Dec '17 02:26
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    I hate to rain on your parade, but the individual mandate is still the law of the land and will be until 2019.
    Actually the Trump administration has declared that the IRS will not enforce it this year.

    In any case it is only a matter of days until it is dead.
  5. 23 Dec '17 02:28
    Originally posted by @handyandy
    President Trump claimed he repealed the Affordable Care Act on Wednesday. But in striking down an important provision of the ACA in the Republican tax bill passed this week, Trump may have unwittingly helped solidify the law instead.

    There was a significant benefit for Republicans in repealing the individual health-insurance mandate in the tax b ...[text shortened]... n Republicans’ court, and the need for action is urgent.

    --Washington Post

    In other words you have nothing to say. That's ok I don't think you were here when no1 and company were making the its the law of the land comments.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    23 Dec '17 02:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @eladar
    Actually the Trump administration has declared that the IRS will not enforce it this year.

    In any case it is only a matter of days until it is dead.
    I think you've received some bad info; here's a right wing site complaining about the IRS' decision announced in October, 2017:

    Now, though, the agency says it’s through giving taxpayers a pass on their legal obligations. Taxpayers must respond to the ObamaCare-related line items on their returns or face delays in their processing. “This process reflects the requirements of the ACA and the IRS’s obligation to administer the health care law,” the agency wrote. “Taxpayers remain obligated to follow the law and pay what they may owe at the point of filing.”

    “The [earlier] announcement was interpreted by some as weakening of the mandate but really it just said they weren’t going to step up enforcement,” Gordon Mermin of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center told the Associated Press. “Now it appears they are going to increase compliance.”

    The IRS says it made the decision to begin enforcing the mandate after discussions with National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson. “In my opinion, rejecting silent returns at the time of filing is the least burdensome approach because the taxpayer would correct the omission immediately,” Olson told Forbes’ Kelly Phillips Erb. “If the IRS accepts a silent return and later corresponds about it with the taxpayer, the taxpayer may be required to spend time and money months later to try to resolve the problem.”

    The bad news, then, is that the IRS is demanding that taxpayers indicate their health-insurance status and, if they are uninsured, pay a hefty penalty.

    https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/health-care/item/27225-irs-to-start-enforcing-obamacare-s-individual-mandate

    Yes, its a matter of days ................................ 375 to be exact:

    The House voted 227 to 203 Tuesday to pass a tax reform bill that eliminates in 2019 the individual mandate to buy health insurance coverage.

    http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/house-passes-tax-reform-bill-ending-individual-mandate-2019
  7. 23 Dec '17 02:48
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    I think you've received some bad info; here's a right wing site complaining about the IRS' decision announced in October, 2017:

    Now, though, the agency says it’s through giving taxpayers a pass on their legal obligations. Taxpayers must respond to the ObamaCare-related line items on their returns or face delays in their processing. [b]“This process r ...[text shortened]... ndividual-mandate

    Yes, its a matter of days ................................ 375 to be exact.
    He signed it today. It goes into effect next year. This is why he signed it today.

    If the IRS enforces it they will be going agsinst Trump's instruction. Hopefully enough Obma lap dogs will be replaced that people will actually follow Trump's dictates.
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    23 Dec '17 02:53
    Originally posted by @eladar
    He signed it today. It goes into effect next year. This is why he signed it today.

    If the IRS enforces it they will be going agsinst Trump's instruction. Hopefully enough Obma lap dogs will be replaced that people will actually follow Trump's dictates.
    So Trump just hasn't noticed what the IRS said two months ago?

    I'm sorry but you are simply wrong; the individual mandate will be in effect until January 2019. People who don't have insurance next year will be liable for the tax.
  9. 23 Dec '17 03:04
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    So Trump just hasn't noticed what the IRS said two months ago?

    I'm sorry but you are simply wrong; the individual mandate will be in effect until January 2019. People who don't have insurance next year will be liable for the tax.
    The IRS run by Obama people. Hopefully Trump will get his people in place.

    From what I read, it will simply require people to say they have insurance.
  10. Standard member HandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    23 Dec '17 03:07
    Originally posted by @eladar
    In other words you have nothing to say. That's ok I don't think you were here when no1 and company were making the its the law of the land comments.
    Did you read the article? Or is it too deep for you?
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    23 Dec '17 03:09 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @eladar
    The IRS run by Obama people. Hopefully Trump will get his people in place.

    From what I read, it will simply require people to say they have insurance.
    You don't read too good then:

    The bad news, then, is that the IRS is demanding that taxpayers indicate their health-insurance status and, if they are uninsured, pay a hefty penalty.

    I do not believe the President has any legitimate power not to collect a tax required by law. Could you cite to some authority to the contrary?
  12. 23 Dec '17 03:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    You don't read too good then:

    The bad news, then, is that the IRS is demanding that taxpayers indicate their health-insurance status and, if they are uninsured, pay a hefty penalty.
    The head of the IRS has been recently replaced. We will see if the new guy needs to be replaced too.
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    23 Dec '17 03:12
    Originally posted by @handyandy
    Did you read the article? Or is it too deep for you?
    It's an interesting point that the Republicans have voted to remove the one unpopular part of the law while leaving the popular parts intact.
  14. 23 Dec '17 03:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    It's an interesting point that the Republicans have voted to remove the one unpopular part of the law while leaving the popular parts intact.
    It is alao interseting the Obama appointee gets replaced soon after the IRS said it would not honor Trump's decree.

    It is about time the government fall into line as it did for Obama's immigration policy. IRS was willing to do Obama's bidding to illegally go after conservative groups. Time to do Trump's bidding.
  15. Standard member HandyAndy
    Non sum qualis eram
    23 Dec '17 04:25
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    It's an interesting point that the Republicans have voted to remove the one unpopular part of the law while leaving the popular parts intact.
    They may be dumb but they're not stupid.