Tempra Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 The ACA doesn't force you though. You just pay more in taxes if you don't. Just like with the Ryan plan.Basically, to use an example, it's the difference between having your taxes lowered by $500 or getting an extra $500 on your tax refund.Again, psychologically they feel different (and thus people react to them differently), but this doesn't mean they don't amount to exactly the same thing. It's exactly like how you can get 2 different answers to the same question from people, all depending on how you ask the question.You can't move beyond the similar outcome. Being dragged out of your house and walking out of the house on your own accord may have similar results, but they are very different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 The ACA doesn't force you though. You just pay more in taxes if you don't. Just like with the Ryan plan.Basically, to use an example, it's the difference between having your taxes lowered by $500 or getting an extra $500 on your tax refund.Again, psychologically they feel different (and thus people react to them differently), but this doesn't mean they don't amount to exactly the same thing. It's exactly like how you can get 2 different answers to the same question from people, all depending on how you ask the question.Hmmm...maybe. I'm starting to be a bit more convinced. I guess the best way of thinking about isn't that the Ryan's Plan tax credit is equivalent to a mandate, but that the ACA's so-called "mandate" isn't a true mandate at all, but rather a tax incentive. I think I can accept that argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Clarence Thomas accepted $15,000 gift from the American Enterprise Institute, then later ruled in their favorSome how I don't think this and Thomas's other indiscretions will bring about the same calls for resignation as a weiner picture.What law or ethics rule do you believe he violated? Judges are allowed to accept gifts of unlimited value from individuals who do not have official business before the court. AEI filed amici briefs in those cases, which do not qualify as "official business." Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 You can't move beyond the similar outcome. Being dragged out of your house and walking out of the house on your own accord may have similar results, but they are very different.As I intimated in my last post, the ACA doesn't do the equivalent of dragging you out of your home. What it does is the equivalent of raising the general tax level then offering a tax credit to those who purchase insurance. At least, that's how I understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 You can't move beyond the similar outcome. Being dragged out of your house and walking out of the house on your own accord may have similar results, but they are very different.Yes, strangely I can't get over the fact that they both do the exact same thing. It's almost like that's the point of the conversation or something. I mean, they do the same thing. As you admit, they have similar outcomes. The only difference is in how they make you feel.Also, your analogy is terribly silly. A better one would be saying it's the difference between the police surround your house and saying "Come out now" and the police kicking your door down and dragging you out.Hmmm...maybe. I'm starting to be a bit more convinced. I guess the best way of thinking about isn't that the Ryan's Plan tax credit is equivalent to a mandate, but that the ACA's so-called "mandate" isn't a true mandate at all, but rather a tax incentive. I think I can accept that argument.The "mandate" is that you pay a fine if you don't buy health insurance.Hilariously, that fine is smaller then the credit you get for buying health insurance under Ryan's plan. Ryan's plan actually incentivizes you more to buy insurance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 As I intimated in my last post, the ACA doesn't do the equivalent of dragging you out of your home. What it does is the equivalent of raising the general tax level then offering a tax credit to those who purchase insurance. At least, that's how I understand it.But it is not the equivalent of raising the taxes and then offering a tax credit. What happens if I refuse to buy health insurance AND pay the tax under the ACA? I get a lien on my car, my house, and I can even go to jail. Under Ryancare, what happens if I refuse to buy health insurance? I don't get to take the refundable tax credit. Do you really believe these are equivalent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Jon Huntsman is in the race.And here's a decent piece on him from politico: Jon Huntsman bets on electabilityIt seems that a presidential candidate who launched his campaign without criticizing President Barack Obama and aims to run a let’s-get-serious campaign would be more at home on the “No Labels” line than running under the Republican banner.But Jon Huntsman, who formally began his bid Tuesday testifying to the virtues of civility, is betting that GOP voters will ultimately want to defeat Obama more than just club him upside the head.It’s the central assumption of Huntsman’s candidacy: electability will trump purity.No, Huntsman is not going to drop the rhetorical daisy-cutters on the president in a way that will make the pulses of party activists quicken. And, no, he’s not a down-the-line conservative on every issue.“What’s going to unite Republican voters in South Carolina is: Who do they think can win in November, who can beat Obama,” said Richard Quinn, Huntsman’s Palmetto State strategist. “They’re sophisticated enough to know that you don’t beat Obama by appealing to a very small base of folks who just hate the guy.”This guy should be the GOP nominee. Unfortunately for the GOP (and possibly the country and world), unless he does get dirty he'll probably lose to one of the nutters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 But it is not the equivalent of raising the taxes and then offering a tax credit. What happens if I refuse to buy health insurance AND pay the tax under the ACA? I get a lien on my car, my house, and I can even go to jail. Under Ryancare, what happens if I refuse to buy health insurance? I don't get to take the refundable tax credit. Do you really believe these are equivalent?Actually the equivalent would be if you didn't buy health insurance under the Ryan plan and then payed the amount of the tax credit less on your taxes.See how that works out for ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 But it is not the equivalent of raising the taxes and then offering a tax credit. What happens if I refuse to buy health insurance AND pay the tax under the ACA? I get a lien on my car, my house, and I can even go to jail. Under Ryancare, what happens if I refuse to buy health insurance? I don't get to take the refundable tax credit. Do you really believe these are equivalent?Well, it is the equivalent of raising taxes then offering a tax credit, because if you refused to pay the higher tax then the same consequences would occur as if you refused to pay the tax penalty in the ACA. But I can see your argument about it not being equivalent to the Ryan Plan.Dammit, I need to stop flip-flopping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Yes, strangely I can't get over the fact that they both do the exact same thing. It's almost like that's the point of the conversation or something. I mean, they do the same thing. As you admit, they have similar outcomes. The only difference is in how they make you feel. Nope. If I don't buy health insurance or pay the tax under ACA, it has very serious consequences. If I don't buy health insurance under Ryancare, I may lose some money. Also, your analogy is terribly silly. A better one would be saying it's the difference between the police surround your house and saying "Come out now" and the police kicking your door down and dragging you out. The refundable tax credit is the same as having your house surrounded by the police? Uhhhh.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 The link upthread listed only 10 Senate Republicans supporting the 2007 bill, which dropped to only 3 in the 2009 bill. So at best, you're still talking less than a quarter of Senate Republicans, and nobody on the House side. Your link also says the following:According to Ezra Klein of The Washington Post, the list of HAA Republican supporters is deceptive: "The plan has a lot more fake support than it has real support. If every Republican who has co-sponsored [HAA] would commit to voting for it, the plan might pass. But they haven't."So we're still left with nothing more than a small minority of Republicans supporting that mandate.I guess I must concede your position; Republicans never supported an individual mandate; they simply backed an idea they thought was unconstitutional in order to avoid a Democratic initiative. Hooray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Nope. If I don't buy health insurance or pay the tax under ACA, it has very serious consequences. If I don't buy health insurance under Ryancare, I may lose some money. If you don't buy health insurance under the ACA, you lose money.If you don't buy health insurance under Ryan's place .... you lose money.The refundable tax credit is the same as having your house surrounded by the police? Uhhhh....Um, you were the one who used the analogy of being dragged from your house. I just fixed it for you.I know it was all of 5 minutes ago, but your memory goes back that far, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonfish Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Nope. If I don't buy health insurance or pay the tax under ACA, it has very serious consequences. If I don't buy health insurance under Ryancare, I may lose some money. I'm about to flip-flop again, so apologies in advance. It seems to me that you're comparing apples to oranges. Or rather, an apple and an orange to an apple. It's right and proper to compare what happens when you don't buy insurance under the ACA and what happens when you don't buy insurance under the Ryan Plan. As it happens, both essentially have the same outcome: your tax burden is higher than if you simply bought insurance. However, for some reason you consider what would happen if you didn't pay your increased tax burden under the ACA, but don't consider what would happen if you didn't pay your increased tax burden under the Ryan Plan. As it happens, these options also have the same outcome. That's what makes them equivalent, I think.However, I might change my tune in 5 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awesome possum Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Ryan's plan and Obamacare are two sides of the same "You lose money if you don't have insurance" coin. Everything else after that is semantics.The conservative position is that the difference comes in taking away the choice. You can either choose to lose money or have the government take it from you. It's called being Selectively Pro-Choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tempra Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 If you don't buy health insurance under the ACA, you lose money.If you don't buy health insurance under Ryan's place .... you lose money.As I said, you've latched onto Slate's belief that these provisions are "materially" the same because they lower your tax liability. You cannot dispute or address fundamental differences between the provisions, such as a person being jailed and/or having their property attached with tax liens for failing to comply with the mandate. But, hey, if you don't buy health insurance under Ryancare, you lose money also!!! They are the same. REALLY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snake Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 Okay, lets see if this works out right. Probably not and if that is the case those who know correct the errors.Say you owe 2000 dollars in taxes.Under the ACANo insurance = 2000 + fineInsurance = 2000 + premiumsUnder RyanCareNo insurance = 2000Insurance = 2000 + premiums - tax incentive.Is that close to right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.