http://www.usatoday.com/news/story/2012-03-26/supreme-court-health-care/53768996/1
Wednesday morning, the justices will hear arguments on whether the individual mandate can be thrown out and the rest of the law upheld. Neither side wants that to happen.
Although the mandate is the law's most unpopular element, even proponents say if it goes, it should take at least some of the most popular provisions with it. That would include guaranteed coverage for people with pre-existing conditions and limits on premiums for those with expensive ailments — changes that the government says could not be paid for unless millions more people buy insurance.
The states and business group challenging the law argue that the mandate isn't "severable" at all — if it's struck down, the entire law should fall. The law "was a unique package deal," argues Michael Carvin, the lawyer representing small businesses. His brief says the law "cannot survive and never would have been enacted without its unconstitutional heart."
emphasis mine
it is now apparent, that there was either no severability clause or no effective severability clause between the individual mandate and the rest of the PPACA ("Obamacare" ).
As I cannot believe that the drafters of such an important bill were completely incompetent, I can only conclude that the lack of a severability clause was intentional. Although there are many people (No1 most notably on this board) who are perfectly happy to see the individual mandate go and the rest of the law stay, there are apparently at least a substantial number of proponents of the legislation that believe that the individual mandate is a key component of the bill, without which the rest of the legislation might be impractical.
The question I have, is whether the individual mandate will really have the desired effect of "forcing" people to buy health insurance. The maximum penalty for failing to buy health insurance appears to be a little more than $2000 per family or 2.5 of the family's household adjusted gross income.
Given that health care premiums for a family,when purchased privately, can easily exceed $2000 per month, why is a $2000 per year tax necessarily going to force people to spend more than 10 times that on insurance premiums. Presumably, these are people who cannot afford to purchase private health insurance or they would do so anyway. Or, is the individual mandate just designed to be a revenue source to help fund the rest of the goodies given out by the legislation?
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by sh76The quote: "The states and business group challenging the law argue that the mandate isn't "severable" at all ... was a unique package deal..."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/story/2012-03-26/supreme-court-health-care/53768996/1
[quote]Wednesday morning, the justices will hear arguments on whether the individual mandate can be thrown out and the rest of the law upheld. [b]Neither side wants that to happen.
Although the mandate is the law's most unpopular element, even proponents say if it goes, revenue source to help fund the rest of the goodies given out by the legislation?[/b]
Your statement: "it is now apparent, that there was either no severability clause or no effective severability clause between the individual mandate and the rest of the PPACA ("Obamacare" )."
Why is it now apparent that there is severability? Certainly it is not simply due to the challengers' assertion that it is.
As to whether it imposes an mandate, you seem to agree it does not impose a mandate to buy insurance.
Originally posted by sh76Given the chaos of the drafting procedure because of the election of Brown and the fact that the House version had a severability clause (as virtually every major bill does), the idea that its exclusion was intentional is far-fetched.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/story/2012-03-26/supreme-court-health-care/53768996/1
[quote]Wednesday morning, the justices will hear arguments on whether the individual mandate can be thrown out and the rest of the law upheld. [b]Neither side wants that to happen.
Although the mandate is the law's most unpopular element, even proponents say if it goes, revenue source to help fund the rest of the goodies given out by the legislation?[/b]
Your last paragraph makes it clear you are abysmally ignorant of the provisions of the bill. Are you unaware that there will be generous subsidies provided to offset the cost of insurance? Are you unaware that there will be competitive exchanges? Are you unaware there will be provisions to bring down the cost of insurance? Apparently so.
This might help your confusion:
Q-6: Can you illustrate how the credits to enhance affordability will work?
A: The Act creates a credit that would be used to reduce health insurance premiums for low- and middle-income Americans who purchase coverage through the Exchange. The amount of a credit an individual or family might receive will depend on family size and household income. Family size and income will be compared with the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and the credit computed based on those two factors.
As a rule of thumb, families can anticipate that the greater their income, the less the credit; the larger their family, the greater the credit. FPL rises based on size of family. Hence, the poorest, largest families will receive most premium credit. The credit will phase out at 400 percent of FPL. Under current law, an individual with income up to $43,000 and a family of 4 with up to $88,080 of income can receive some premium credit.
More specifically, taking the affordability credits into consideration, the maximum proportion of income that individuals will pay for health insurance increases with income, on a sliding scale:
Up to 133% FPL — 2% of income
133 – 150% — 3% - 4%
150% - 200% — 4% - 6.3%
200% - 250% — 6.3% - 8.05%
250% - 300% — 8.05% - 9.5%
300% - 400% — 9.5%
Information about the FPL can be found at http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/index.shtml.
Note that individuals will pay a penalty if, even with this premium credit, they do not acquire health insurance. (See above, “How would the individual mandate be enforced?&rdquo😉
Q-7: Are there any exceptions to the individual mandate?
A. Yes. Yes. The approved measure provides hardship exceptions for those individuals and families whose incomes are too small to be able to afford the premiums required to pay for a basic insurance policy. More specifically, individuals or families who find that the least expensive policy available requires more than 8% of household income would be exempted from the mandate.
http://www.realtor.org/small_business_health_coverage.nsf/Pages/health_ref_faq_indiv_mandates?OpenDocument
The 11th Circuit if the Court of Appeals struck down the mandate, but found it entirely severable from the rest of the Act. As neither party supports that ruling, the SC appointed this guy to argue to uphold it. http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202546180312&slreturn=1
He'll get 30 minutes on Wednesday to do so.
Originally posted by no1marauderAre you saying that there will be nobody that will be unable to afford health insurance, but whose income it too high to be eligible for these generous subsidies?
Given the chaos of the drafting procedure because of the election of Brown and the fact that the House version had a severability clause (as virtually every major bill does), the idea that its exclusion was intentional is far-fetched.
Your last paragraph makes it clear you are abysmally ignorant of the provisions of the bill. Are you unaw ...[text shortened]... es? Are you unaware there will be provisions to bring down the cost of insurance? Apparently so.
If so, then why would anyone ever need to pay this penalty?
Originally posted by sh76Yes. The subsidies phase out at $88,000 a year household income. I seriously doubt that lack of insurance among those having a higher income than that is a serious problem in the US.
Are you saying that there will be nobody that will be unable to afford health insurance, but whose income it too high to be eligible for these generous subsidies?
If so, then why would anyone ever need to pay this penalty?
No one ever does need to pay the penalty under the law. In fact, you'd be foolish to do so. The related fact that it is foolish for someone to be uninsured when they can easily afford to be insured, as well as studies which invalidate the whole "economic man" model when it comes to consumer behavior in this and many other fields, makes me believe that the individual mandate is completely unnecessary and based on false premises. But that is not to say it is unconstitutional.
Originally posted by no1marauderPrivate family health insurance (not part of a group) can cost well over $2,000/month in, for example, New York. If anything, the additional requirements on insurers are likely to increase this in 2014 and beyond.
Yes. The subsidies phase out at $88,000 a year household income. I seriously doubt that lack of insurance among those having a higher income than that is a serious problem in the US.
No one ever does need to pay the penalty under the law. In fact, you'd be foolish to do so. The related fact that it is foolish for someone to be uninsured whe ...[text shortened]... etely unnecessary and based on false premises. But that is not to say it is unconstitutional.
It is quite reasonable to expect that someone making $88,000 a year is not able to spend more than 25% of his pre-tax income on health insurance. For those people, going without insurance and risking bankruptcy in the event of a real medical emergency may be a viable option.
Pre-PPACA, using an HSA with a cheap high deductible policy to cover catastrophes was the best option for many such people. However, my understanding is that the PPACA guts the HSA option.
http://www.hsacoalition.org/issue-analysis/roy-ramthun-on-the-future-of-hsas-under-obamacare/
http://news.investors.com/article/542780/201008051824/are-hsas-doomed-under-obamacare-.htm
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/22/more-americans-using-hsas%E2%80%94under-threat-from-obamacare/
Originally posted by sh76You worry about highly unlikely hypotheticals regarding people with incomes well above average who A) Don't presently have health insurance; and B) Supposedly can't afford it.
Private family health insurance (not part of a group) can cost well over $2,000/month in, for example, New York. If anything, the additional requirements on insurers are likely to increase this in 2014 and beyond.
It is quite reasonable to expect that someone making $88,000 a year is not able to spend more than 25% of his pre-tax income on health insurance. ...[text shortened]... tp://blog.heritage.org/2011/06/22/more-americans-using-hsas%E2%80%94under-threat-from-obamacare/
I'll worry about the tens of millions of workers who really can't afford health insurance and don't presently have it.
Deal?
Originally posted by no1marauderHow about we worry about both?
You worry about highly unlikely hypotheticals regarding people with incomes well above average who A) Don't presently have health insurance; and B) Supposedly can't afford it.
I'll worry about the tens of millions of workers who really can't afford health insurance and don't presently have it.
Deal?
At any rate:
The penalty will be phased in, starting at $95 or 1 percent of income in 2014, whichever is higher, and rising to $695 or 2.5 percent of income in 2016. But families would not pay more than $2,085.
American Indians don’t have to buy insurance. Those with religious objections or a financial hardship can also avoid the requirement. And if you would pay more than 8 percent of your income for the cheapest available plan, you will not be penalized for failing to buy coverage.
Those who are exempt, or under 30, can buy a policy that only pays for catastrophic medical costs. It must allow for three primary care visits a year as well.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/21/us/health-care-reform.html
So if you're struggling while making about double what the average family does, you A) Won't have to buy insurance if you can't find it on the exchanges with premiums less than 8% of your annual income but B) You'll be able to buy cheaper premium catastrophic cost insurance even then.
That seems like a fair deal for the approximately 4.5% of households with incomes over $90, 000 who don't have health insurance (as compared to 16% of the population as a whole). http://www.gallup.com/poll/121820/One-Six-Adults-Without-Health-Insurance.aspx