Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
Well with obamacare I have always thought that the law was designed to win either way. If people are forced to buy it dems win but if people are forced to pay a fine then dems win...
But we have seen many other results. For example, many people have been turned into part time workers, just as many have lost their insurance as have been enrolled in obamacare (though I am not sure if they are enrolled in medicaid or obamacare), and many have chosen the fine rather than to buy insurance.
Did the dems intend for people to choose the fine? Was it intended to be a fine?
Well, they argued at court that it was a fine and not a tax. The court of course decided rightly that it was a tax. But to me it is apparent that did the administration view it as a tax it would have been far more palatable and reasonable to simply create a new payroll tax along side FICA that would deduct a small amount from your pay and call it a insurance tax. Those who had insurance would be exempt from the new payroll tax. Of course people would see the tax on each paycheck rather than just yearly hidden in the tax form. What is easy to glean is that the admin viewed its main purpose as punitive rather than as a funding mechanism for medicaid and yet they still choose to have it administered by the IRS which tells us something about how they view the tax code overall - as a tool to force their will upon the population rather than mainly as a funding source.
Did the dems think people would choose the fine over getting insurance? I suspect they thought that given the choice of paying 10 thousand a year and being insured or paying two thousand a year and being uninsured people would choose to get the benefit of insurance even at a higher cost. They seriously underestimated how much people are aware that insurance companies will screw you out of benefits if they can and how much people prefer to have money in their pockets for short term pleasures rather than for long term security. And lets not forget who the uninsured are: aside from the poor who now qualify for extended medicaid, there are the rich who can be self-insured and the invulnerable who are far more interested in drinking and getting laid.
Did they intend so many people to become part time workers? I doubt they did. When it comes to obvious market forces the dems run with blinders. This could and should be the downfall of the whole program.
How about the shortage of doctors? France has a shortage of doctors and the opponents to the plan have been saying for three years that there would be a shortage of doctors. They obviously knew and like France they would love to collect more in taxes from us to subsidize medical school in an attempt to make more doctors. Doctor pay has and will go down and all along they said doctors earn too much. So clearly this is a consequence they wanted and we should be informing the American people of this fact.
Less medical care and poorer outcomes? I think they did know but simply dont care all that much and think they can legislate doctors and hospitals into giving good enough care with little compensation. Grandmas will die to paraphrase obamas words and they are OK with that. Given the choice of having care rationed by them and with them in control or having care "rationed" by market forces... well they don't understand market forces and hate the whole concept anyway.
Other intended or unintended consequences to talk about?
But we have seen many other results. For example, many people have been turned into part time workers, just as many have lost their insurance as have been enrolled in obamacare (though I am not sure if they are enrolled in medicaid or obamacare), and many have chosen the fine rather than to buy insurance.
Did the dems intend for people to choose the fine? Was it intended to be a fine?
Well, they argued at court that it was a fine and not a tax. The court of course decided rightly that it was a tax. But to me it is apparent that did the administration view it as a tax it would have been far more palatable and reasonable to simply create a new payroll tax along side FICA that would deduct a small amount from your pay and call it a insurance tax. Those who had insurance would be exempt from the new payroll tax. Of course people would see the tax on each paycheck rather than just yearly hidden in the tax form. What is easy to glean is that the admin viewed its main purpose as punitive rather than as a funding mechanism for medicaid and yet they still choose to have it administered by the IRS which tells us something about how they view the tax code overall - as a tool to force their will upon the population rather than mainly as a funding source.
Did the dems think people would choose the fine over getting insurance? I suspect they thought that given the choice of paying 10 thousand a year and being insured or paying two thousand a year and being uninsured people would choose to get the benefit of insurance even at a higher cost. They seriously underestimated how much people are aware that insurance companies will screw you out of benefits if they can and how much people prefer to have money in their pockets for short term pleasures rather than for long term security. And lets not forget who the uninsured are: aside from the poor who now qualify for extended medicaid, there are the rich who can be self-insured and the invulnerable who are far more interested in drinking and getting laid.
Did they intend so many people to become part time workers? I doubt they did. When it comes to obvious market forces the dems run with blinders. This could and should be the downfall of the whole program.
How about the shortage of doctors? France has a shortage of doctors and the opponents to the plan have been saying for three years that there would be a shortage of doctors. They obviously knew and like France they would love to collect more in taxes from us to subsidize medical school in an attempt to make more doctors. Doctor pay has and will go down and all along they said doctors earn too much. So clearly this is a consequence they wanted and we should be informing the American people of this fact.
Less medical care and poorer outcomes? I think they did know but simply dont care all that much and think they can legislate doctors and hospitals into giving good enough care with little compensation. Grandmas will die to paraphrase obamas words and they are OK with that. Given the choice of having care rationed by them and with them in control or having care "rationed" by market forces... well they don't understand market forces and hate the whole concept anyway.
Other intended or unintended consequences to talk about?
