Obamacare: A tax or a fine?

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Tuesday, October 19. 2010

Obamacare: A tax or a fine?

Murchison: How Big Should Government Be? A quote:

No genius can figure out what government could do "for us" if it really tried. Easier to figure is what it might instead do "to us" once it really decided to save us: narrowing choices, curtailing the varied freedoms of action Americans still enjoy. That's why there's this lawsuit in Florida (as in other venues), where the wait-a-cotton-picking-minute spirit has Our Protectors at least momentarily on the defensive.

If the Feds can tax a non-activity (ie not buying the insurance plan they want us to buy), they can tax anything we don't do, "for our own good."

I am annoyed with Obamacare for at least three additional reasons:

1) I am very happy with my catastrophic ("major medical") insurance plan. It covers nothing elective or "preventive," no obstetrics, no vision, no dental, and has a $5000 deductible. I can see any physician I choose. Even including the deductible, it's relatively cheap. Under Obamacare, I cannot own this insurance.

2) The politicization of medical care promises to be an unholy mess.

3) There will be perverse incentives for your doctors to under-treat you.

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects, Our Essays at 19:37 | Comments (6) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I'll say tax. I am covered on my wife's plan. Starting next year 2011 her employer will give her a dollar amount on her health care package, which we will have to report as income. I figure that's an additional 15 to 20 grand that we will have to claim. I could be wrong, but that is what I am hearing.

#1 jappy on 2010-10-19 21:10 (Reply)

"3) There will be perverse incentives for your doctors to under-treat you."

Worse. There will be a requirement to under-treat you because the treatment they are allowed to provide is determined solely on basis of momentary cost.
IOW if there's a cheaper alternative to the treatment that is most effective in your case they'll be required by law to choose that cheaper alternative.
This will be the case even if that cheaper alternative has a higher possibility of adverse side effects, even life altering side effects.

If the choice for example is amputation of a limb or long term medication, amputation will be mandated because even with the "free" prostetic limb (cheapest model of course, a wooden peg leg will do for you) it'll be the cheaper solution (and they can always set a steep deductible on "medical aids", and will, so you'll end up paying for that prostetic yourself).

#2 J.T. Wenting on 2010-10-20 01:11 (Reply)

I have the same opinion of the individual mandate whether it's termed a tax or a fine: it's against the Constitution and it's against everything a free nation should be.
It is also true that the Demcare plan will probably lower the standard of healthcare, stifle innovation, and lower people's standards of living for many reasons, all of them bad. But thing #1 is the anti-liberty idea that the government may order anyone to purchase insurance or any other product or service.
Before the trolls get going on driver's insurance, I will remind them that states only require "financial responsibility" to protect others in case you cause them a loss or injury. You can (but no one does) post a bond instead of taking out an insurance policy. Your bank may require you to insure your home or car while it is under lien, but after that the decision is yours.

#3 Geoff Brown on 2010-10-20 10:06 (Reply)

Chesterton:
"A citizen can hardly distinguish between a tax and a fine, except that the fine is generally much lighter." - ILN, 5/25/31

#4 Pajak (Link) on 2010-10-20 11:05 (Reply)

Jappy,

I've commented this on other Maggie's posts, but at first I suspect that your employer will only be required to list the company expense to your W-2 as a non-taxable amount (like they do now with 401K matches...I believe it's code C or D on the W-2). You're correct, the end-game 3-5 years from now is for it to be taxed. But full Obamacare has to take effect first.

#5 Soviet of Washington on 2010-10-20 18:03 (Reply)

I pay $235/month for a $10,000 deductible (covers me and my better half). Blue Cross of NC. Is my plan going to be cancelled? They haven't sent me any warnings. I think it's too much money for what I get, but it's preferable to any gov plan. My company will no longer have employees. I hire everyone through a temp service. I think we're all going to work for GE or the Gov if they have their way. Small companies don't seem welcome by the bureaucrats, they just want more sheeple to do what they're told.

#6 Stan on 2010-10-20 19:05 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, October 19. 2010

Obamacare: A tax or a fine?