LJWorld.com weblogs The Free Market

Obamacare Doomed! Here's the Loophole that Anyone Can Exploit!


Well, I've read around about this decision and the details of the bill and apparently there is a loophole in the law that will sow the seeds of its own destruction. We all know the most controversial part of the law which requires that everyone purchase health insurance or else pay a penalty. The Supreme Court ruled that this law was constitutional because this penalty is a tax. They ruled that Congress cannot mandate that people buy health insurance, but that they can tax you if you do not. They ruled that this is a tax and not a penalty because the tax is so small. Vertigo has mentioned a figure around $95 several times in the forums. Now obviously $95 is a lot less per year than it would cost to buy health insurance. The Court did say, however, that if the tax was so high and burdensome that it would basically ruin you if you did not buy health insurance, that would be unconstitutional since that would be forcing people to buy health insurance via the tax code. Here are some more key facts: the bill has several features which are meant to protect people from not having insurance such as no longer allowing insurance companies to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions. One more thing, the IRS is not allowed to use aggressive methods in collecting the penalty/tax for not buying health insurance.

So, what's the loophole? Don't buy insurance, don't pay the penalty, and then only buy insurance when you get sick since they can't deny you coverage. The penalty/tax is so small that it's a lot cheaper than buying insurance, and the IRS is likely not going to be able to collect it from you anyway. Not only that, you can wait until you are sick and then buy insurance and be fully covered. And here's the kicker: since the Court ruled that the law is constitutional only so long as the penalty/tax remains small enough to be considered to not force people to choose to buy health insurance, they can't raise it without risking the bill being overturned!

Obviously this is not going to work if enough people exploit this loophole since then there won't be enough healthy people paying insurance premiums to pay for the care of the sick. The government will have to step in to cover the costs and they won't be able to raise the penalty to force people into the system. The insurance companies will still have to cover tons of extra costs and will likely go out of business without government help.


Liberty_One 5 years, 1 month ago

My prediction: as more people exploit the loophole, insurance premiums will start to rise dramatically. The Free Market will be blamed as a failure and the call will be put out for the government to step in and implement single payer or some other Big Government health care system.

notajayhawk 5 years, 1 month ago

Insurance premiums are going to skyrocket anyway - along with health care costs in general - because of the provisions of the Act pertaining to the loss ratio mandate.

Alyosha 5 years, 1 month ago

For your claim to be correct, you'd also have to accept the premise that a single-payer "full-out socialized medicine" was Romney's goal in -- and even if only in -- Massachussetts. Would you assent to that? If not, why not?

Focussing on the loophole, if it's so obvious, doesn't it drain the claim that this law is coercive of any validity? Coercion can't strictly said to exist if it's so easily avoidable.

In other words, if the law does not represent coercion, all the terror and fear people have been articulating (see many of the comments on this site prior to Justice Roberts' declining to use the Supreme Court as a policy making body) is without any basis and merit.

QED, no?

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

Yes, but if it's not coercive, it won't work the way it's intended to work.

Bryan Moore 5 years, 1 month ago

That may work for a few years but I believe the "tax" increases year over year. I heard on a certain news channel that it is something like $95 the first year but then goes up in future years for non-participation. I think for singles it is - 1st year $95, 2nd year $300+, third year $600+ and so on and for families it is somewhere around $300 the first year and over $2000 by the third. The increases top out in a formula averaging the price of plans offered on exchanges (not sure if that is state exchange or national avg.) and of course all with exceptions for low income levels. Eventually you would end up paying just as much to not have insurance as you would to have it. Also your plan would work if you got sick but what if you were in a home accident unconscious and not able to access new coverage before treatment was required?

Bryan Moore 5 years, 1 month ago

I would have to agree with mom of three, the levels of taxation/penalty would have to be in the 2000+ pages of the law somewhere and should have been evaluated by the SCOTUS during this decision. Unless it is a matter of "standing", having no one actually having to pay the amount yet and as so suffering no harm yet maybe the SCOTUS left it an open question for later when it actually happens.

notajayhawk 5 years, 1 month ago

I believe they already settled the issue of "standing". If you read the decision, they said it was a "tax" (or, actually, that it was "fairly possible" it was a tax) for purposes of whether Congress had a right to impose it (under the authority to levy taxes). But they ALSO said as far as the Anti-Injunction Act goes, it is NOT a tax, since Congress clearly intended it as a penalty. So in other words, it's constituional, because it is a tax but it's not a tax.

mom_of_three 5 years, 1 month ago

i heard it would goes as high as $695 tax or 2.5% of your income, whichever was higher.
Since this would be listed in the documents, which the high court approved, you would think they approved the increasing amounts.

notajayhawk 5 years, 1 month ago

I kind of wondered about that myself. The court said it was "fairly possible" it's a tax as far as whether Congress had the authority to levy it. But they ALSO said that as far as the Anti-injunction Act was concerned, it was clearly NOT a tax but a penalty. They also rejected the states' argument that it was unfairly distributed, again saying it was NOT a direct tax. So how is the IRS supposed to collect it?

Robert Schehrer 5 years, 1 month ago

They will withhold any tax refund you havd coming and apply it to the penalty.

Alyosha 5 years, 1 month ago

"I heard" isn't really a valid citation that any other reader need pay attention to or give any weight to.

Read the law and point to the specific section that details the penalties for being a freeloader (Mitt Romney's term for those who don't get insurance but rather pay the penalty).

In courtroom settings, "I heard" is only hearsay, and isn't given any substantive weight.

Robert Schehrer 5 years, 1 month ago

As with so many things that have been reported about the Health Care Bill, your comments that all you need to pay is $95. is misleading. That is the minimum that anyone would pay in 2014. The minimum goes up to $695. in 2016. The real amount that you would pay is 1% of your income in 2014 and increases to 2.5% in 2016. Blue Cross has estimated that on average a family of three in 2016 would pay $1,736. While IRS will not put you in jail for non-payment, they will reduce your income tax refund by the amount of the health insurance penalty that you did not pay.

Robert Schehrer 5 years, 1 month ago

No it will not collapse. It has a cap, so that no one will pay a penalty that is greater than the national average premium for health insurance. That's why it's is constitutional. If you want to pay the penalty and still not have health insurance, that will be your decision. Yes, you could wait until you think you might need it. But you are taking a risk that you will be in a postion to purchase it. What if you are in an accident, have a stroke or a heart attack? Kind of hard to tell the ambulance driver you want to purchase health insurance, when you can't speak.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

"What if you are in an accident"

PIP insurance.

"have a stroke or a heart attack?"

Your wife buys the policy online while you are on the way to the hospital. You'll be on the hook for the ambulance ride and for the emergency room, but you can play the system for the bypass surgery or the occupational therapy.

mom_of_three 5 years, 1 month ago

and they have deductions and assistance for lower income families. But I haven't read too many details about those.

parrothead8 5 years, 1 month ago

Lol...you need to "read around" a bit more. Try starting with the legislation itself, and educate yourself rather than relying on things you've heard "mentioned...several times in the forums." I'm not saying that you're wrong to look for loopholes or anything, but you really need to rely more on your own reading and interpretation rather than things you read around the Internet. It would give you a lot more credibility.

Bryan Moore 5 years, 1 month ago

Maybe so, but given the choice of paying $1500 for nothing (tax) or $2000 for basic insurance, which do you think most people would choose? They may not be equal but the cost/benefit could reach a point where it may not be equal but the alternative would become cutting off your nose to spite your face.

mom_of_three 5 years, 1 month ago

I have read enough parts to know that there aren't death panels. enough to debunk those stupid emails I used to get, with the palin panickers.

Mark Jakubauskas 5 years, 1 month ago

Perhaps what should have been done instead is a simple free-market solution: If you don't have health insurance or can't pay via credit card or cash, you don't get treatment. No ambulance, no ER, nothing. People want to choose to go without health insurance or some form of health coverage (like Medicare/Medicaid), OK, fine...but you don't get the benefit, either.

Alyosha 5 years, 1 month ago

That violates the Hipocratic oath that medical professionals take. It's also unChristian. There are many reasons people don't have insurance: some because of willful not-getting it on the part of citizens, other times through no fault of a citizen (say, having your insurance cancelled because you have a particular disease).

DeckDoctors 5 years, 1 month ago

You're pretty loosey-goosey with that "unChristian" phrase. How do you know what is Christian or "unChristian"? Can you cite a verse or passage to support your opinion?

Alyosha 5 years, 1 month ago

That violates the Hippocratic oath that medical professionals take. It's also unChristian. There are many reasons people don't have insurance: some because of willful not-getting it on the part of citizens, other times through no fault of a citizen (say, having your insurance cancelled because you have a particular disease).

RoeDapple 5 years, 1 month ago

Okay . . . since brownstain, in his infinite wisdom, has decided Kansans don't want it and sent back the check, how does this really affect us?

Bunny_Hotcakes 5 years, 1 month ago

The check he sent back was to allow Kansas to build its own exchange. Now we'll just get stuck in someone else's.

Richard Payton 5 years, 1 month ago

Only 14 States have exchanges in place as of today. Will Kansas have an exchange in place by 2014 or will the Governor tell the Fed's to keep the Medicaid money?? I'll let you answer this poll question.

pizzapete 5 years, 1 month ago

Don't pay the penalty? You don't think the government is going to or be able to collect the money? Good luck with that.

sourpuss 5 years, 1 month ago

The IRS has all the enforcement it needs - payroll deduction. It may not arrest you over the fine alone, but it will get its money, just like it does now. To think that you can't pay this tax is just silly. Also, health insurers cannot deny you coverage based on a pre-existing condition, but they probably will deny you based on your opt-out status, as this is a voluntary act, and they would have a right to do so. But, Liberty, if you think you will save money dodging the IRS and paying cash for your medical, then go right ahead. It's a free country, even for people who can't add.

somedude20 5 years, 1 month ago

Fair, fair, fair....Marsha, Marsha, Marsha......

Is it fair for a large number of the population to jack up the costs of healthcare by NOT having insurance or paying for the healthcare that they use?
Imagine all restaurant in America were 1/3 of the people who go there do not pay for their food, and they eat alot. They eat the burger but do not pay for it. Well, the restaurant needs to stay open because they provide a basic human need (food for life, like how a hospital provides health) so they pass the costs of all the people who take, take, take, but never ever pay and they pass the costs to the goverment and to the people who do pay for that service. So for the people who are responsible and pay for what they use, we now must pay for others who don't...does not sound like liberty

somedude20 5 years, 1 month ago

The problem is that people don't take responsibility for their own actions (or lack there of) and the rest of us (if you pay taxes or pay for health insurance, you're paying for them) have to pay for their ignorance. People who want to live have to pay for it just like people who want to drive, have have insurance for it.

gudpoynt 5 years, 1 month ago

Damn pesky gov't and their laws that prevent hospitals from turning away people who need emergency care! If only we didn't have that stupid law.... if only hospitals could pick and choose exactly what level and quality of care they wanted to provide.... expensive care for those with money... inexpensive care for those with less.... no care for those with none.... if only we could treat health care like some stupid piece of crap electronic that we hang on our living room walls... then the free market would take care of itself, and all would be right with the world.

Liberty_One -- providing discount lunacy for 6 years and counting.

beatrice 5 years, 1 month ago

Hole is correct, but I don't think it starts with loop.

(sorry. couldn't resist -- don't really mean it)

tolawdjk 5 years, 1 month ago

You're loophole sounds suspiciously like fraud and tax evasion, but then, coming from you, I'm not surpised.

beatrice 5 years, 1 month ago

Some might consider calling our government a "criminal organization" an act of treason.

LO, you are sounding exactly like those people who claim to have proof that they don't need to pay their taxes. Those people often end up in jail because of their irrational thinking.

beatrice 5 years, 1 month ago

The hell you speak for me! The hell you fight for my liberty! You are just whining for yourself. You aren't standing up for anyone but yourself, and you are doing poorly at that!

Since you have apparently failed to notice, we are no longer fighting for our independence against a royalty based on another continent. You are making false accusations against our elected officials, our representation. As a result, I absolutely think fellow citizens who call our government a "criminal organization" and say that people should disobey our laws and not pay taxes are traitors. If that fits you, then so be it.

Liberty275 5 years, 1 month ago

Our government is a criminal organization. Send that to Holder and tell him I said it.

somedude20 5 years, 1 month ago

You mean like people who don't have health insurance and are stealing it while the rest of us pay for it and for them? Yes, we should defend that...If only there was a way to get them to pay for themselves or to tax them if they don't so that the rest of us aren't on the hook for em.

Alyosha 5 years, 1 month ago

I think you're incorrect, here, Liberty. It's your belief that government is a criminal organization, not a fact. Metaphors aren't reality. Also, you presume, counter to established law going back to English common law, that taxes are theft. That's a radical and extreme view (which you're perfectly free and entitled to hold, of course), wholly outside the legal traditions of this country.

Leslie Swearingen 5 years, 1 month ago

I know that in times past I have been totally alone and very sick and I would not wish that on anyone. I credit God with finding the path out of that for me. There has to be some way to get help for those who are in pain and sick without being hateful and suspecious about it. Those of you who have families and good jobs should respect those things and appreciate them, and have some compassion for those who don't. Now, my family that was scattered is back together and we are all enjoying it. Because of Medicaid I have a primary care doctor who is very good and I am now well taken care of in that regard. From the vantage point of old age I would strongly advise those who are young to please watch what you eat and exercise. Get out there and move. Trust me you will be so happy you did. So many things we bring on ourselves and we are then sorry after the fact.

Daniel Dicks 5 years, 1 month ago

Yes, that is a "loophole" for those willing and stupid enough to use it. But it is not the HOOPHOLE that currently exists and costs us way too much in higher premiums. Yep, one can still avoid "preventative care" which is free now thanks to ACA, and just wait until they are in crisis in the Emergency Room. You're right to be stupid is still intact.

Daniel Dicks 5 years, 1 month ago

That is all L1 might be right about. I can't imagine folks flocking to this alternative "loophole" versus buying a policy if possible. Especially if you factor the cost to one's health. It is just more Chicken Little rightwing fear mongering. Single-payer ; we'll get there eventually.

Daniel Dicks 5 years, 1 month ago

The "whole" point of the mandate was to PAY for ACA. That is the only way it can work. That IS the case. Even Mr. Rmoney knows that.

mom_of_three 5 years, 1 month ago

get sick, buy insurance - yes, it sounds like a loophole. BUT one question which hasn't been asked - how long does it take for insurance to kick in? Will it be immediate in all circumstances, in some circumstances, such as a new child or new job? If it isn't an immediate kick in after you find out you are sick, then you may get sicker in the mean time. And if you are fighting a serious illness, that could be very deadly.

Kate Rogge 5 years, 1 month ago

The ACA is directed towards providing access to health care insurance for those who cannot obtain it now (because they cannot afford it, or they cannot get it because of a medical history of existing conditions). It is not a stick to compel those who don't currently have insurance even though they can afford it (surely that group doesn't number in the tens of millions).

Kate Rogge 5 years, 1 month ago

I have woken up. I agree that what the bill delivers are 30 million new customers for private insurance companies. It should be a single payer system, but the Republicans insisted on keeping it in the family. But it also makes it possible for people who have heretofore been denied insurance and/or cannot afford insurance to obtain it.

Jayhawk1958 5 years, 1 month ago

If they can afford to buy insurance but don't already then why wouldn't they already have it?

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

Maybe they think they won't need it.

I didn't have health insurance from my early 20's until my 40's, and I never really needed it.

I took good care of my health, and paid for my occasional health care out of pocket.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

Sure both sides of the aisle and the medical insurance industry,pharmaceutical industry,shareholders,golden parachutes,BOD salaries and CEO salaries are keeping insurance cost going through the roof. Yet so many say WE MUST keep this fraudulent system intact.

I say what the hell for?

Top Corporations Aid U.S. Chamber of Commerce Campaign to kill prudent medical insurance reform http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/us/politics/22chamber.html?pagewanted=all[/ ======= Former Lawmakers and Congressional Staffers Hired to Lobby. The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on ANTI INSURANCE REFORM lobbying. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/05/AR2009070502770.html ======== http://www.commoncause.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773613&ct=7146131 http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2009/06/diagnosis-reform.html ========= Health Insurers Funded Chamber Attack Ads http://undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com/2010/01/health-insurers-funded-chamber.php[/

HazardArea 5 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

booyalab 5 years, 1 month ago

It felt better than constructing an actual logical retort, huh? I can see that. Logic is hard.

booyalab 5 years, 1 month ago

"it was meant to fail so that it could be replaced by an even more interventionist plan." Undoubtedly.

Alyosha 5 years, 1 month ago

Since it was based on RomneyCare in Massachussetts, do you believe that RomneyCare was meant to fail so it could be replaced by something as interventionist?

Also, since RomneyCare, which became ObamaCare, was designed by conservatives, do you believe conservatives secretly wish for a more interventionist plan?

Your claim rests on faulty premises.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

Does RomneyCare enforce the penalties aggressively, and are they high enough to influence people to buy insurance and/or really help make up the costs of the uninsured?

If so, then it's different from the ACA in those ways, apparently.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

The Washington Post:

Nearly half of the insiders previously worked for the key committees and lawmakers, including Sens. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), debating whether to adopt a public insurance option opposed by major industry groups. At least 10 others have been members of Congress, such as former House majority leaders Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) and Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), both of whom represent a New Jersey pharmaceutical firm.

The hirings are part of a record-breaking influence campaign by the health-care industry, which is spending more than $1.4 million a day on lobbying in the current fight, according to disclosure records.

And even in a city where lobbying is a part of life, the scale of the effort has drawn attention.

For example, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by Pfizer, with more than $6 million.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

Health Insurers Funded Chamber Attack Ads

By Peter H. Stone

Just as dealings with the Obama administration and congressional Democrats soured last summer, six of the nation's biggest health insurers began quietly pumping big money into third-party television ads aimed at killing or significantly modifying the major health reform bills moving through Congress.

That money, between $10 million and $20 million, came from Aetna, Cigna, Humana, Kaiser Foundation Health Plans, UnitedHealth Group and Wellpoint, according to two health care lobbyists familiar with the transactions. The companies are all members of the powerful trade group America's Health Insurance Plans.

The funds were solicited by AHIP and funneled to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to help underwrite tens of millions of dollars of television ads by two business coalitions set up and subsidized by the chamber. Each insurer kicked in at least $1 million and some gave multimillion-dollar donations.

"There's no question that AHIP has quietly solicited monies from their members which were funneled over to the chamber for their ads," said a source. The total donated by the health insurers, according to one estimate, was as much as one-quarter of the chamber's total health care advertising budget.

A spokesman for Kaiser said it contributed funds to AHIP last year for positive ads on health care reform, and that AHIP has told the insurer that none of its monies were sent to the chamber.

Last August was bruising for the health insurance industry: Obama and congressional leaders attacked its abuses and profits and AHIP President Karen Ignagni warned publicly that "the vilification strategy isn't going to get health reform passed."

In late October, Ignagni wrote in a letter to the Washington Post defending a health insurer-funded study critical of congressional cost estimates, "Let me be clear and direct, health plans continue to strongly support reform." However, by that time money was already flowing through AHIP to the chamber to fund its negative ads.

Richard Heckler 5 years, 1 month ago

Now think of the additional millions or billions that go to political campaigns.....

Wonder why health insurance gets more expensive?

akt2 5 years, 1 month ago

There won't be enough doctors. Regardless of how much insurance you have. People will still be using the ER because they can't get in to see a doctor. The volume of patients treated in ERs will be staggering. If you are referred to a specialist you can plan on 4 or 5 months . Some of them already schedule at least a couple months out. 26 year olds will get to stay on their parents insurance. So what? Unless they have a chronic disease 20 somethings don't use doctors that much. Supposedly seniors will have more coverage for medication. This won't matter either because there are already drug shortages in this country. The demand on the healthcare system including providers is going to far exceed the supply.

gatekeeper 5 years, 1 month ago

B.S. I am currently having two issues and was referred to a specialist on a Friday afternoon. My first appt was the next Monday afternoon (waited 3 whole days, including a weekend). Was scheduled for a procedure within a week and one week later am having my follow up appt. If further surgery is needed, was told would be scheduled to happen within two weeks.

For my second issue, I got into the doctor within two days, was treated and told if further tests were needed, they would be done the next week.

My company has offices in Canada and I've talked to people up there a lot about their health system. Yes, you need a regular mammogram or other preventative tests, you schedule them a couple months in advance. If you have a problem, you are quickly given the needed tests and medical procedures. They have walk in clinics just like we have here. Only the preventive care takes a little bit of time. Funny, they love their govt run health care system, are all healthy and fine and are amazed at how terrible and expensive medical care can be down here.

Got any links to prove your flawed statement about people already have to wait months to see a specialist?

geekin_topekan 5 years, 1 month ago


I don't want to invest in America! M-m-my doctors going to become a-a-a whore. Every non-white, or day labor is going to make a rush toward the first doctor's office that they se-e-eee and there won't be any left for m-m-e-eeee!

Jesus shined on Justice Roberts. Praise him!

OK, now that I got that out of my system--What was the question again?

Mike Ford 5 years, 1 month ago

I pay $2465 a year for insurance that is basicially accident insurance with some health insurance added in for my wife and I. Minor pre existing conditions prevent us from getting real health insurance. When I hear dimwits like weiser and can't have it both ways talking their nonsense about freeloaders they sound like reality disconnected interpreters for Rush Limbaugh. It's not about free stuff dimwits. It's about an economically fairer health system like I've seen in Canada or read about in Northern Europe because ' unlike Dittoheads I read. Why do people like this willfully walk into a fan metaphorically? If you don't want government intervention exercise, eat right, don't smoke or drink excessively, wear a motorcycle helmet, get regular doctor appointments.....no one is taking your freedom dimwits....they're simply trying to get you to take responsiblity for your health and be caring and considerate of others. This tax is probably less than what you're paying now for all of the uninsured that show up at the emergency room. Maybe if the hospitals and insurance companies opened up the books and showed the pointless yellers this maybe the yelling would stop. I guess reality doesn't matter.....

booyalab 5 years, 1 month ago

I'm sorry about your pre existing conditions, but the reality of Obamacare will be higher healthcare costs for everyone.

pace 5 years, 1 month ago

no. that is wrong. We were paying more for less than any other industrial nation. Read, research, turn off fox, Turn off fox.

Alyosha 5 years, 1 month ago

Your claim that "the reality of Obamacare will be higher healthcare costs for everyone" is simply your belief. You should argue that claim, using not partisan fiction but facts and citations.

Or are you a fortune teller? If so, can you let me know this week's lottery numbers?

booyalab 5 years, 1 month ago

I don't see Obamacare collapsing so easily. It is as unconstitutional as Medicare, which isn't in danger of going away anytime soon. It screws over young people, like Medicare....only much more so. Old, relatively rich people get the benefits.....young, relatively poor but healthy young people get very little, if any, benefit but pay disproportionately more. Medicare was bad enough as far as being fiscally unsustainable goes. Now we have the same problem magnified several times.

werekoala 5 years, 1 month ago

I just wanted to say that on a professional level, I admire the grace and panache with which you have executed this pivot. Lesser men would be bartering chickens for whiplash treatments...

"Hey everybody,.good news! You know that thing that we have been screaming bloody murder about for the past two years? That we said was a bad as communism?

Funny story, but we finally got around to reading the darn thing, and you won't believe the loophole we found..."

I would tell you about some other tax "loopholes" I exploit through owning a home and donating old clothes to charity, but I don't want to spoil the surprise for you...

Daniel Dicks 5 years, 1 month ago

Don't worry L1. There will still be 26 million or so left uninsured. Especially in the red states refusing the Medicaid expansion provision in ACA. So there will be many left by the republicans for your "loophole" when they finally do need medical services and show up in our ER forcing higher costs on the rest of us. Does this please you? And yes, that was some tortured reasoning by Chief Justice Roberts sans commerce clause. But no one will remember that years later. Are you sure your not an anarchist rather than a libertarian?

Daniel Dicks 5 years, 1 month ago

When the "uninsured" comes into the ER because they are in crisis due to not participating in preventative care in clinics, the rest of us pay for it through higher premiums. So having more uninsured is more costly to the rest of us. You are completely upside down(delusional) in your assessment of the facts and plain wrong.

Daniel Dicks 5 years, 1 month ago

Who said "most" are uninsured? Who are you talking to? An imaginary opponent? My point is about %20 ARE uninsured in the ER. And the rest of us pay for it.

Now take some personal responsibility for your healthcare and stop freeloading on the rest of us because you think you're entitled and delusional.

Daniel Dicks 5 years, 1 month ago

When you go without health insurance, you are freeloading on the rest of us. Pretty simple, no ideology, just a plain fact you choose to ignore because it doesn't fit with your alternative reality. You sir, got it upside down and backwards when it comes to "personal responsibility".

akt2 5 years, 1 month ago

No point in sugar coating it. The initial onslaught of users will be crippling to healthcare providers. Mass Medicaid. They'll be lined up out the doors. Go to the ER when you have a cold, stub your toe, have vomited twice in the past 4 hours, have a rash, or have a temp of 100. They already do that, so x that by however many millions. The next expansion for hospitals should probably be the waiting rooms at the ER.

avarom 5 years, 1 month ago

TOPEKA – (June 28, 2012) – Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt today issued the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision upholding key provisions in the Affordable Care Act:

“I’m deeply disappointed in the Court’s decision. The era of big government lives on.

“The Court’s majority declared Obamacare to be nothing more than an old-fashioned tax-and-spend program. No more can Congress or the President claim that this is ‘not a tax.’ American voters now must decide, through the 2012 elections, the wisdom of this formerly hidden tax increase. Kansas policy leaders also now have the choice whether or not to spend more Kansas taxpayer funds to expand the Medicaid program.

“The states’ arguments were not ignored. The Supreme Court today flatly rejected the federal government’s unprecedented power grab under the Commerce Clause. It also rejected the federal government’s effort to transform the Medicaid program from a federal-state partnership into a centralized program run by Washington, from Washington and solely for Washington. These legal rulings will benefit the long-term vigor of our federal system.”

raytech70 5 years, 1 month ago

I already know several efforts to popularize the loophole-- some are even offering to foot the penalty... I'm doing the loophole-- thousands and thousands of others I know will as well... Obamacare will be known as the biggest mistake our country has ever committed... it won't be as drastic as prohibition but it's going to hurt BAD. It may even result into the end of the country as we know it... all thanks to our Kenyan Muslim dictator his butt ugly wife.

Daniel Dicks 5 years, 1 month ago

Like I said earlier regarding the "loophole", the right to be ignorant and refuse health insurance is still intact. Stay healthy!

Terry Sexton 5 years, 1 month ago

I bet you don't really know thousands & thousands of others.

beatrice 5 years, 1 month ago

LO: "And it is no crime to disobey an unjust law."

As will all other major developed nations in the world, doing what is necessary so all people have access to health care is just ... and the Supreme Court just ruled in its favor.Disobeying this law will be a crime.

Liberty_One, I want you to know that you speak for no one but yourself, and in this case, speaking appears more like a whine because you didn't get your way.

beatrice 5 years, 1 month ago

If theft is not just, why do you support allowing people access to healthcare when they do not have insurance or any means to cover their care? I know libertarians would prefer those without insurance be allowed to just die rather than be given healthcare, but fortunately, libertarians are only a fringe group in American society.

Unlike you, I do not stand up just for myself, but for a society, of which I am only part. You only care about yourself and you only speak for yourself.

Mike Ford 5 years, 1 month ago

living on stolen lands is not just liberty. think of your circumstances liberty if you were with your ancestors as paupers in a fiefdom in Europe. Mr. Roberts has a part in that mess also. Mr. Roberts represented Alaska in the Venetie case in 1989. Alaska aboriginal land claims are different than the lower 48. Mr. Roberts clerked for the tutor of all Indian haters....William Rehnquist. When the City of Sherill V Oneida Indian Nation case came forward many of the justices came to clerk Roberts for advice who wrongly advised them that the Oneidas had no claim and ignored the Indian Non Intercourse Act of 1790 using the Alaska model incorrectly. The Alaska Native Settlement Claims Act created five boroughs and each borough had it's resouces harvested and sold on the open market and distributed to tribal community members who gave up their land claim areas. Such is not the case in the lower 48. Mr. Robert's incorrect advise led to the dismissal of two century old land claims by a number of the Iroquois Confederacy members whose land was illegally taken without an act of the US Congress whose powers over Indian Affairs derived from the Commerce Clause. These tribes were prevented from suing eastern US states from 1790 to 1973 when the state's sovereign immunity was finally pierced as the US Government joined the tribes in suing the thieving states. Roberts went partisan states rights and ignored precedent. Quit whining liberty......you're living on stolen land in denial/

fiddleback 5 years, 1 month ago

This libertarian scheming is cute, but arizonajh said it above: "Given the choice of paying $1500 for nothing (tax) or $2000 for basic insurance, which do you think most people would choose? They may not be equal but the cost/benefit could reach a point where it may not be equal but the alternative would become cutting off your nose to spite your face."

For most, exploiting this "loophole" would mean the penalty costs them their tax refunds. So the IRS may not be able to aggressively pursue evaders who didn't have a refund coming, but how taxpayers are willing to play such a game? You true believers can call this a fatal flaw, but really, how many people are either 1. so stingy that they'd rather pay $1500-1999 for nothing than $2000 for coverage, and/or 2. sufficiently angry/libertarian enough to play this game of chicken with the IRS, out-of-pocket medical bills be damned?

At least you've got that one raytech guy above on board, the one spitting on our "Kenyan Muslim dictator [and] his butt ugly wife." Maybe y'all can hold a convention and congratulate each other on fighting for our freedom and saving money while doing it...

fiddleback 5 years, 1 month ago

Of course, as a libertarian, you'd consider any shift towards third-party (gov't) payment a fatal flaw, but you're not really addressing my point: your headline "Obamacare Doomed!" is an utter hyperbole because this "loophole" has very dubious appeal, even to single skinflints and anti-gov't curmudgeons. Also hyperbolic and sophomoric is the conspiracy theory that ACA is just a crippled straw-man to give single payer more appeal. Do you really think Obama and the Dems plan that far ahead, playing some 20-year game of chess, sacrificing all their political capital just to pass something in which they have no faith? To quote a sardonic Dr. Jones, "What a vivid imagination."

On a separate note, I want to say how rewardingly amusing I found your exchange below with your former neighbor. The idea that a bootstrap-yanking white Libertarian not only shared a duplex but had lengthy visits with a liberal Native American and his family, only to have arguments erupt years later on the Libertarian's blog....priceless. There's an indie screenplay in there somewhere; it could be called "Cowboys and Indians" and be the ultimate postmodern western...darn it, now you've gone and stirred up my imagination.

fiddleback 5 years, 1 month ago

Ah, I see-- when you brought up these previous neighbors, it sounded like "tuschie" was perhaps the son and that the relationship had soured (Otherwise, why even bring them up? Why assume that your readers are bigoted rubes who need reminding that tuschie doesn't represent all American Indians? Other than raytech, it doesn't seem like that dim of a bunch...) Still, for the purposes of the screenplay, tuschie may have to be the son of the neighbor. Also, at the end of the movie, you two have to fight to the death...at least in paintball or World of Warcraft....

"before you embarrassed yourself here" also gave me a laugh. The fact that some liberals would help perpetuate this nonsense theory is hardly surprising, nor does it change its credibility. In their case it's a pipe dream because they don't want to give up on single payer, just as some conservatives still dream of repeal. And as you might recall, both dumb liberals and dumb libertarians became 9-11 truthers... this conspiracy-mongering is what's embarrassing. I would think a smarter libertarian would readily see that the government can't even keep up with managing short-term outcomes, let alone have such prescience and confidence in steering long-term ones.

fiddleback 5 years, 1 month ago

Uh, yes, I think the Dems creating an intentionally crippled public-private hybrid, losing a House majority and possibly a 2nd pres. term in the process, and assuming that they wouldn't be blamed and would somehow be given the chance to implement a single payer system, qualifies as just a bit of a grand scheme. It's not only complicated, but so clearly back-a**wards from how D.C. actually thinks and behaves, with the short-term being nearly their only concern. Look at how just about every pol's actions and votes are based not on long-term progress, but on keeping one's seat and how it can all be spun at election time. Incrementalist strategies spanning decades are total anathema to this environment. I doubt you could even show me a think tank doing this sort of planning, because the variables make it a ludicrous waste of time. It really just resides in the heads of conspiracy theorists, to make it easier to vindicate or villainize the central characters, and in either case provide a comforting sense of order in their minds, becoming too cute of a fit to be reasonably scrutinized.

Alyosha 5 years, 1 month ago

Your claim falls apart when you recall that RomneyCare has the same mechanisms. So anything you claim about ObamaCare also must apply, logically, to RomneyCare. Do you admit that the RomneyCare "was designed to fail and that it is just a stepping stone on the path to greater government control of health care"?

Mike Ford 5 years, 1 month ago

when I started at my job in 1997 my health care premiums were $34.00 a week. When my employer did away with company health care in February 2011 my premiums were at $75.00 a week with a cafe plan that didn't tax my health care contributions so when my plan $ came back to me I had $55 a week to put towards insurance after that the contribution was now taxed. I was spending $1440 a year in 1997 and $3400 to $3600 a year on insurance just for myself in year 2011 before it was done away with. If our insurance comes down to $2000 a year and is actually full on health insurance instead of the accident/quasi health insurance we have now I'm okay with this. I just love all of the preacher screaming on the corner types screaming for rapture as Europe and Canada think this country is a bunch of raving idiots who yell the loudest about nothing. Liberty...you must have at least twenty posts on your own blog.....no need to control your ego.... I'm waiting for a comment.

Mike Ford 5 years, 1 month ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

There is a built in control on price inflation, in that insurance companies set maximum levels of reimbursement for services.

So, a provider can't just charge whatever they want - if their charge is more than the insurance company's "reasonable" level of reimbursement, the company will drop it down to that level.

The real problem is that providers will inflate their charges for those without insurance to make up for that.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

There may also be some truth in that view.

However, you can see on insurance bills that insurance companies routinely pay out less than the providers ask for.

And, insurance companies base their reimbursement rates on what they consider "reasonable and customary" charges for procedures.

I agree that it's in the provider's best interests to set their charges at or above the insurance company's level of reimbursement, so as to get as much as they can.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

High cost and lower quality that is warranted by that cost, in my experience.

Of course, I have other things that seem to increase the costs than you do, which isn't that surprising.

The desire for every new piece of expensive technology among doctors, whether it really improves care or not, and the massive profits of drug companies would be among them.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

Perhaps not always, if there are efficiencies that can be exploited, and expanding customer bases.

But, if you look at the prices of name brand drugs, and then those same prices once the patent's expired, you'll see how much more the drug companies are charging for those drugs.

So, with drug companies, I think their massive profits are in fact directly related to the high costs of medication.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

That's a different question - I'd have to think about it.

But, you do see that their profits are directly related to the high costs of medication, and thus part of the problem of high health care costs?

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

There are other reasons that the costs are so high, including high CEO salary/benefit packages, high advertising costs, and greed.

Can you see that?

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

That's called shifting the ground of the conversation.

And, I never said those things were only present in drug companies.

I'll go along for a little bit, but not forever - I find the shifting ground conversation to be less than productive.

Cell phones are cheap for a number of reasons, including cheap labor costs (probably in China), large customer bases, "trickle down" technology, etc.

Now, back to the original question - can you see that high costs of drugs are in fact directly related to the drug companies massive profits, and thus part of the problem of high costs of health care? And, that while patent issues may be part of the problem, they're not the whole problem?

If you're interested in the issue, I highly recommend a movie called "Side Effects" - it's written by somebody who worked for drug companies for quite a while, and it's an insider view of how they operate.

jafs 5 years, 1 month ago

As I said, I don't claim that's always the case, but with drug companies, it is.

Watch the movie - it's very interesting.

Let's assume for a moment that we eliminate patents - that means that the company (or individual) that engages in the hard work, time, energy, and financial investment of R & D gets nothing for their trouble, and the guy down the block has access to that information immediately. Why would anybody make that investment in that case?

They'd have to compete against somebody who has no money invested, so they can sell the product for less, and put the inventor out of business.

Daniel Dicks 5 years, 1 month ago

I think L-1 is so rooted in an ideology that he can't think clearly. He must find reasons to denegrate anything that does not fit it. And if that means using convoluted logic and twisted facts in a seemingly delusional manner, so be it. Sarah Palin has nothing on you L-1. I'll give you that.

It only speaks to the need of a more concentrated effort to be made in the field of mental health.

JayhawkFan1985 5 years, 1 month ago

Liberty, you remind me of something my grandmother used to say since she was a good Presbyterian...

"If wishes were horses then beggars would ride?"

Just remember they got Capone on tax evasion too...

ivalueamerica 5 years, 1 month ago

Probably one of the least thought out opinion pieces I have read in some time.

I doubt the writer has any grasp on reality let alone grasp of what he is talking about, but even if this giant loophole does exist, it will be cleaned up in a matter of minutes making it a moot point.

Anything of substance or just chicken little running around yelling the sky is falling the sky is falling?

ivalueamerica 5 years, 1 month ago

attacking the critic for making an hysterical article without substance.

If you made a serious supportable point, I would attack it, but you failed to do so, I am simply pointing out your extreme failure

Commenting has been disabled for this item.