Doctor Fate wrote:Which is more: the tax or insurance? In most cases, by far, it is the insurance.

Clearly, given the case I was talking about, in response to ARJ's question, it will be the insurance. However, the cover will be lower for people who do not take out insurance.

So it is not free-riding, given that they are paying something.

So, why not free-ride? Pre-existing conditions cannot be exclusionary, the tax for not having insurance has no punishment for failing to pay it (so far), so what's the downside of free-riding? Unlike every other "tax" the IRS collects, you cannot face a lien or additional penalty, so how is this confusing?

insurance will cover more (and under the ACA cannot exclude pre-existing conditions either), so there are downsides.

I cannot understand how conservatives who claim to be proponents of individual responsibility have a problem with this tax penalty.
What it clearly represents is a way to pay for the mistake made in 1982 (?) when access to emergency wards was guaranteed, but no way to pay for this use was provided in the law.
People were getting something for nothing, and hospital emergency wards were operating at a loss AND at less than peak efficiency because of the mandate to emergency wards that they not turn anyone away.

Why was it okay to mandate that emergency wards take responsibility for these people and costs but it isn't okay to demand that people take responsibility for insuring themselves OR at least compensating the system that ends up supporting them?
If corporations are people too, those corporate entities called hospital's emergency wards have been getting screwed for 30 years. And, undoubtedly genuinely indigent people aren't the only ones they've had to accomodate.
This is an issue of personal responsibility. If the people who didn't have insurance could be, and actually were turned away from emergency wards, then their conscious decision not to buy insurance would be a legitimate "personal choice". But, as long as they can turn up at an emergency ward with no fear of being turned away they have been able to irresponsible.
Morally, truly conservative people should be on the side of Romney Care and Obama Care where it comes to a tax penalty. its about personal responsibility. (The other option is to repeal r
Reagans law about access to emergency wards...)

As for it being "regressive". Only 1% or less of massachussetts residences currently pay the fine. If its being regresive, the reality is that a tiny tiny minority are being effected. The arguement hardly seems worth the air. (especially to those of us who feel that these people's previous uninsured state was privately irresponsible. )

Purple wrote:I repeat, I repeat: "I merely wish to cast doubt on the final accuracy of the 16,500 number". Why does that require an argument?

Because it is in no way demonstrated. You've not cast doubt. The IRS is hiring 1200+ to implement technology infrastructure. How many more will be needed to fully implement the policy two years from now? We don't know, but is it not reasonable to presume that tech infrastructure is but a fraction of it?

Again, what is the issue?

Remember: GOP rep's said, from the beginning, this was a tax. Liberals scoffed.

Now . . . it's a tax.

GOP rep's say between 12-16.5K IRS employees will be required to run the program. Right now, in its infancy, we are at appx. 10% of that number.

Again, what's the issue? Did you just want to do a drive-by?

danivon wrote:So it is not free-riding, given that they are paying something.

Maybe. Again, there is no enforcement mechanism.

Plus, if one is able to avoid paying for years and then gets some serious condition, isn't that free-riding?

So, why not free-ride? Pre-existing conditions cannot be exclusionary, the tax for not having insurance has no punishment for failing to pay it (so far), so what's the downside of free-riding? Unlike every other "tax" the IRS collects, you cannot face a lien or additional penalty, so how is this confusing?

insurance will cover more (and under the ACA cannot exclude pre-existing conditions either), so there are downsides.

If it remains the law, watch the numbers. My prediction: we will not see the number of uninsured fall by anything like the predicted amounts. People will game the system.

fate

Maybe. Again, there is no enforcement mechanism

really? Its a line in your tax return.
Are you claiming exemption from health insurance tax? Yes or No. If yes provide health insurance polciy number.

For those audited (And whats that 5%? ) , the clerk enters the policy number in a database search....
If the name associated with the number is the same ...pass. If not, a phone call is made...
This is really pretty easy in the era of internet enabled databases....
its as enforceable, perhaps more so, then any other tax deuction claim.

Ricky: the point is that there's no penalty for not paying the penalty... er, the tax. If you stand up at IRS HQ and shout out "I don't have any insurance and I refuse to pay your @#!^&$! coercion fee" there's nothing the IRS can do except withhold a refund.

That said, it's amazing how many taxpayers set things up so they get a fairly large refund. It's stupid - it's just giving the IRS your money for an average of about 8 months. They pay no interest. You could have been investing or spending that money all along simply by claiming more exemptions. Perhaps a few more will wise up given this extra incentive, but it would be wrong to discount the enforcement mechanism afforded by withholding refunds. That's not a negligible tool; it's just that it won't work on everyone.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Purple wrote:I repeat, I repeat: "I merely wish to cast doubt on the final accuracy of the 16,500 number". Why does that require an argument?

Because it is in no way demonstrated. You've not cast doubt.

This is so amusing.

I pointed out, which had NOT been done when the stat was first presented, that it came from a bunch of Republicans (during a partisan battle in a very partisan environment), and that it was contested by the agency involved. To you, this does not serve to cast ANY doubt on the accuracy of the guesstimate. I understand. You are an ultimate partisan. Anything said by a bunch of Republicans that supports your debating stance is and will be accepted 100% with no room for ANY doubt whatsoever. (And woe betide anyone who simply tries to question the possibility of bias.)

Cool!

You get to win ALL arguments. That is so cool! I wish I could do that. Unfortunately, winning arguments comes second with me to understanding the true nature of the world. In order to do that I'm forced to keep an open mind. It's a real pain in the ass.

Let me try another approach.

Let's say Rickyp posted thus: "According to a Congressional Task Force the IRS will only need 4,800 new hires to fully implement ACA." Then, a week later, you run across that number and see that it comes from only the Democrats on some committee. Would you not feel compelled to report that finding here? Just so everyone can be fully informed? Might you not add, "I merely wish to cast doubt on the final accuracy of the 4,800 number."??

Purple wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

Purple wrote:I repeat, I repeat: "I merely wish to cast doubt on the final accuracy of the 16,500 number". Why does that require an argument?

Because it is in no way demonstrated. You've not cast doubt.

This is so amusing.

I pointed out, which had NOT been done when the stat was first presented, that it came from a bunch of Republicans (during a partisan battle in a very partisan environment), and that it was contested by the agency involved. To you, this does not serve to cast ANY doubt on the accuracy of the guesstimate. I understand. You are an ultimate partisan. Anything said by a bunch of Republicans that supports your debating stance is and will be accepted 100% with no room for ANY doubt whatsoever. (And woe betide anyone who simply tries to question the possibility of bias.)

Cool!

No, you're being rather foolish. I didn't say "I win." I didn't say, "Republicans are right."

However, I refuse to say this won't happen. It's on its way to potentially happening.

Let me put it this way: if it took 1200 new hires to implement technology regarding Obamacare, how many will it take to monitor the program?

At best, you don't know yet. 16,500 could be low. It could be high.

The answer won't be zero. It's already 1200 and there's no reason to think that is the end.

You get to win ALL arguments. That is so cool! I wish I could do that. Unfortunately, winning arguments comes second with me to understanding the true nature of the world. In order to do that I'm forced to keep an open mind. It's a real pain in the ass.

Well then, you have to be open to the idea that an IRS spokesman, employed by the Administration (or at least supervised by someone hired by the Administration) denied what he/she cannot know.

purple

there's nothing the IRS can do except withhold a refund.

Thats not nothing. And the IRS can and does have the power to do much more to recover unpaid taxes... Thats why people fear the IRS....

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-bill-wi/

The link above goes into the 16,500 IRS job claim in detail, in a nonpartisan manner. In the interests of understanding the true nature of the world.

rickyp wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/26/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-repeats-claim-health-care-bill-wi/

The link above goes into the 16,500 IRS job claim in detail, in a nonpartisan manner. In the interests of understanding the true nature of the world.

Good link. The conclusion is what I've been saying--it will be thousands and it could be 16,500 or more. I say "or more" because that figure is based on a CBO estimate. One thing is nearly inevitable about government estimates: they are nearly always wrong, and they err on the low end.

rickyp wrote:http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/jan/26/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-repeats-claim-health-care-bill-wi/

The link above goes into the 16,500 IRS job claim in detail, in a nonpartisan manner. In the interests of understanding the true nature of the world.

Thank-you. Doctor Fate of course pulls from that link only what he wishes. What I see is that they say, "Ultimately, we have several problems with 16,500 figure." And all I say is that the 16,500 figure shouldn't be used without caveats.

Here's the original use on this board, the use I thought might be a little misleading:

Doctor Fate wrote:...now the government will get a slice (16K+ new IRS agents and several new boards).

No caveats, no sourcing, no acknowledgement that it could be much less. I felt that deserved correction. (I didn't realize it would take three people several hours to come to an agreement about the correction, if indeed we have.)

Even the Republican report that's the source of the 16,500 number acknowledges that it may be nearer to 11,800. So they used a caveat.

16,000 or 11,000. who cares? The fact of increasing the size of the IRS shows more government control, and the power of a taxing authority over a people.

To me, that is the issue. The cost is a concern as well. 2 Trillion over 10 years is not something to be overlooked.