It All Depends on What Your Definition of Tax Is
Americans for Limited Government traces the evolution of Barack Obama's "firm pledge" to avoid "any form of tax increase" on families earning less than $250,000 a year into a squishy promise that does not "draw lines in the sand" or "absolutely rule things out" but instead allows the administration to "do what it takes." As Katherine Mangu-Ward noted this morning, the president's attempts to narrow his pledge so that it does not include the taxes he ends up raising (such as the federal cigarette tax, raised a few weeks after he took office, or the proposed levies on Americans who fail to buy health insurance) recently prompted a testy exchange with George Stephanopoulos in which the ABC interviewer cited the dictionary definition of tax, which Obama saw as evidence that Stephanopoulos was "stretching a little bit."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Obama is falling apart. This is more entertaining than watching him lose the election would have been.
I would like to see someone ask him point blank, You are a Constitutional law professor, where in the Constitution is the authority for government to force the citizenry into buying a service.
Should I expect a lawyerly answer?
TrickyVic, that would be either stretching it or racist.
I've never viewed the cigarette tax as a breach of that promise.
Enjoying this is racist. Dictionaries are racist. The English language is racist. Television is racist. Straight up.
Stephanopoulos is Greek. Jimmy the Greek was Greek. Jimmy made drunken racist remarks. Therefore the entire ABC exchange is racist.
Well, the health care tax BETTER be a tax, because if it ain't a tax it's either a criminal fine imposed without a jury trial or a civil judgment imposed without a jury trial, and in either case it would be unconstitutional in the extreme.
I'm beginning to regard Obama as lying jerk. Does that make me a racist?
I guess Stephanopoulos is still a bit angry about not getting a position in the Hillary Clinton administration.
Lester Hunt | September 21, 2009, 5:54pm | #
Does that make me a racist?
Your self doubt is racist
Dear Mr. President,
Denying loudly ond often that you lied does not change the fact that you knowingly lied during your campaign in order to garner votes from the foolish parts of the electorate. If you try to weasel out by saying something like "After taking office and getting to know the full extent of the crisis facing us, I can no longer responsibly keep my earlier pledge, made in good faith, to not raise taxes on middle class Americans" I won't buy that either.
But your more credulous supporters will be happy to blame Bush and the GOP for you and the Democratic congress raising taxes on them.
Just trying to help,
J sub D
Wow, I joe'd this thread on the third comment.
Why couldn't it be an administrative fine? Does not the EPA, OSHA and the like issue these all the time?
Just sayin'.
I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Liberty!
Should I expect a lawyerly answer?
It's a lawyerly day in the neighborhood.
For me, the definition of tax is
(1) any payment of money to any branch of government for anything other than goods or services received is a tax.
One clarification: If you pay money to the government for services/goods delivered to everyone just for breathing, that's a tax.
If you want to define "tax" so broadly, I hereby propose calling corporate profits a "tax" on consumers. So are my (employee-sponsored) health, life, and disability insurances. Wait, my 401k looks a lot like a tax, too! And surely my mandated auto insurance, and building codes, and consumer product regulations. How much further down the rabbit hole should I go? I am sure that after all this, I have nothing left anyway.
How about we calling "money taken from people by the government and used for the general welfare" a tax, and leaving at that?
Chad - that would mean FICA does not qualify, and that is patently absurd.
Go back to your subrock dwelling.
R C Dean | September 21, 2009, 6:26pm | #
For me, the definition of tax is
(1) any payment of money to any branch of government for anything other than goods or services received is a tax.
One clarification: If you pay money to the government for services/goods delivered to everyone just for breathing, that's a tax.
Wow, we almost agree RC. Now, will you concede that most FICA money is NOT a tax, as you DO receive services for it...and in relation to how much you pay, not for "just breathing"? Of course, FICA does have some subsidy elements that are rightfully considered taxes, but for most people, these are small.
Thanks for all but conceding that our "tax" rates are a lot lower than you like to think they are.
You do not receive services for FICA.
For me, the definition of tax is
(1) any mandatory payment of money to any branch of government for anything other than goods or services received is a tax.
I agree, with the small addition.
Obama is falling apart.
Haven't seen me smoking, though, have you?
The Angry Optimist | September 21, 2009, 5:50pm | #
I've never viewed the cigarette tax as a breach of that promise.
Keep stretchin' Merriam.
Please spare us your "rationalization" on why signing a tax law collecting almost exclusively from "families earning less than $250k a year" is not raising their taxes.
Even Joe gave up on that one.
For me, the definition of tax is
(1) any mandatory payment of money to any branch of government for anything other than goods or services received in contemporaneous exchange is a tax.
Some more tweaking.
Because I knew what Candidate Obama meant, and frankly, the cigarette tax is a stupid talking-point to hang your hat on. Primarily because of your "almost exclusively" point - it would be akin to describing a tariff on imported tobacco as a breach of that pledge as well.
Keep your powder dry, yo. I promise you the President is *actually* going to break that promise.
Now, will you concede that most FICA money is NOT a tax, as you DO receive services for it...and in relation to how much you pay, not for "just breathing"?
He clearly meant for a service you get at the time, not the theory that in 30 years that service might still exist and might pay you some of your money back.
Unless you were referring to the fact that FICA funds get raided by the treasury and pay for services today that we'll be paying interest for long after the pretense of our FICA money going to fund our retirement is abandoned.
Chad:
It's not a user fee, because to be a user fee it would have to be applied only to those citizens who volunteer to pay it. Charging a fee to go to a national park is not a tax, because if I don't want to go to a national park I don't have to pay.
And if it's not a user fee, all it can be is a tax or a fine, whether civil or criminal. Those are the only choices. None of your gibberish has anything to do with the question, because there are already a limited number of set categories for the ways the state acquires money, and this new pile of money HAS TO fit into one of those existing categories. So pick one.
Chav,
Why don't you go reduce your entropy footprint.
I would like to see someone ask him point blank, You are a Constitutional law professor, where in the Constitution is the authority for government to force the citizenry into buying a service.
TrickyVic, the fact that you looked up the Constitution for government authority indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. . . .
Obama wants me to buy health insurance.
By the way, I don't mind not calling it a tax, because to me it's CLEARLY a fine. Calling it a tax actually gives Obama a break, in my opinion.
If a law declares conduct one must engage in, and if you fail to engage in that conduct you have to pay the government a penalty, that is a FINE. It's that simple.
Why couldn't it be an administrative fine? Does not the EPA, OSHA and the like issue these all the time?
Most administrative fines can be adjudicated at the defendant's option. The ones that can't be are also unconstitutional.
Frankly you are being too generous with excluding all fees for contemporaneous service, in my opinion, since government generally makes sure it has a monopoly on virtually any service it provides, with very few exceptions.
Here in Los Angeles, we are forced to pay high fees for our water and sewer service. It goes up almost monthly. Most of that money is then slushed over from the DWP, supposedly a seperate entity, into the city's general fund (which taxpayers have recently sued to prevent). Then when the pipes collapse, and the infrastructure fails (as it has 3 times in the past month) they want to raise the rates further to pay for that.... because they didn't maintain any of it since 1918. Because the money for that, of course, went to the city's general fund. Did I mention the DWP provide breast feeding instruction and breast pumps to their pregnant employees, at thousands of dollars per employee, too?
Needless to say, the city council is not exactly a neutral body when reviewing these potential rate hikes. They haven't turned one down in... well, I'm not old enough to remember, despite being a practicing lawyer for over a decade now.
My definition of tax is any time the city has the threat of force, prison, starvation or thirst to hold over my head to keep extorting my hard earned money out of my pocket. AKA every dime I pay to them or their attendant agencies.
I don't care whether one calls anything a tax or nor.
As far as I'm concerned, anything that Obama does that has the effect of increasing my expenses in any way (and increases the redistribution of wealth) is entirely his fault and he is 100% responsible for it.
That includes the health care insurance mandate, the proposed regulation to force insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions and not charge them higher premiums (which will have the effect of making them raise MY premiums and everyone else's), the cap and trade legislation that will increase my electric bill and gasoline bill.
Every bit of it will be entirely his fault and every bit of it is absolutely unecessary.
Stephanopoulos is Greek. Jimmy the Greek was Greek. Jimmy made drunken racist remarks. Therefore the entire ABC exchange is racist.
And Kevin Bacon once played a guy named Jimmy.
If you want to define "tax" so broadly, I hereby propose calling corporate profits a "tax" on consumers.
And I'm with ya there. Corporations don't pay taxes anyway. Corporations collect taxes.
no, obama wants you to buy me insurance.
Let's tweak further: any involuntary payment of money required by law not satisfying a previously-incurred obligation.
Taxes:
* FICA
* Purchasing private health insurance under government penalty
Not taxes:
* Giving a mugger your wallet or purse
* Paying to repair the car you rammed
* Choosing to purchase a good or service from a state agency (e.g., vanity license plates)
Ambiguous:
* Highway toll
Maybe we could just call it a "forced contribution to the welfare of others." Catchy?
But of course if you don't carry insurance or pay the huge fine, the IRS shows up at your door demanding the non-tax.
It would almost be worth going without health insurance and being arrested just for the chance to subpoena Barack Obama at my tax evasion trial. "Your Honor, he clearly said it wasn't a tax! He absolutely rejected the notion!"
But it gets worse... much worse. Obama goes on to claim the absence of his plan to have young, healthy people subsidize everyone else's health care would force people to carry others' burdens:
That's exactly the opposite of what it actually tries to accomplish. There are two kinds of people who don't carry insurance right now: the poor, who cannot pay for their care no matter what laws you pass, and the young and healthy, who as rational actors balk at the notion of paying tens of thousands of dollars in premiums over a period of their lives when they are unlikely to need much health care. The point of mandates is to drag the latter kicking and screaming into the system so that the system can have "community rating" under which they will pay even higher premiums in order to subsidize care for older, sicker people.
George Stephanopoulos (in your dreams):
"So, um, Mr. President, if we can't agree on the actual meaning of words,
why should any American trust anything you say ever again?"
Fuck it. I don't care what its called or whether or not Obama lies through his teeth. We need some form of health care reform and what he's advocating, though far from perfect, would represent a moderate step in the right direction. Get it done already.
"So, um, Mr. President, if we can't agree on the actual meaning of words,
why should any American trust anything you say ever again?"
Well George, now there you go again. The fact that you insist on words having an actual meaning indicates to me that you're stretching a little bit right now. . . .
JD, what would be perfect?
Fuck it. Just do what Obama says already.
A system in which all have some form of insurance, receive some level of reasonable care, and isn't driving individuals or the government towards bankruptcy.
"George, the fact that you looked up Merriam's Dictionary..."
Tee hee hee. The Definer in Chief seems to think that there's an actual woman out there named Merriam Webster who publishes a dictionary. And not just any dictionary. A dictionary in which all the definitions are wrong!
And I'm with ya there. Corporations don't pay taxes anyway. Corporations collect taxes.
All business and corporate taxes are ultimately paid by the consumer.
And I'll do you one better Jsub, in NJ, as a business, I am required to actually be a tax collector for the state. I must charge, collect and send to the state, every quarter, sales tax on all my services.
J D | September 21, 2009, 7:35pm | #
A system in which all have some form of insurance, receive some level of reasonable care, and isn't driving individuals or the government towards bankruptcy.
J D, you left out the part where we all get a pony. A pony with insurance.
I don't care for ponies - they smell like Congressmen. But if that's what a perfect health care system is for you than who am I to judge?
Can we train the ponies to bite Lonewacko's dick off?
What I'm taking away from all of this is that we can stop calling revisionist and dishonest regurgitation nouns and titles to fit the ruling partisan and/or politcal class format, Orwellian, and start calling like behavior, Obamian.
::*of* nouns and titles...::
We can call the ommission of prepositions JWian.
Can we train the ponies to bite Lonewacko's dick off?
Only if you want your insurance premiums to go up. And the pony's.
And in case that wasn't clear enough, Warty, let me be blunt: socialized medicine/insurance mandates makes LoneWhacko's dick your personal responsibility.
Our commitment, customer is God.
=====FREE SHIPPING FREE====== http://www.icfshop.com
All the products are free shipping, and the the price is
enticement , and also can accept the paypal payment.we can
ship within 24 hours after your payment.
accept the paypal
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
our price:coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32coogi DG edhardy
gucci t-shirts $15CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes
$35jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33EDhardy gucci ny New
Era cap $15coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16.our price:
(Bikini)coach chanel gucci LV handbags $32.coogi DG edhardy
gucci t-shirts $15.CA edhardy vests.paul smith shoes
$35.jordan dunk af1 max gucci shoes $33.EDhardy gucci ny New
Era cap $15.coach okely CHANEL DG Sunglass $16
=====FREE SHIPPING FREE===== http://www.icfshop.com
I wish you a happy shopping and happy every day!
LoL, you have to admit he has a good point D00d!!
Warty
ww.anonydou.ch
I've never viewed the cigarette tax as a breach of that promise. Obama wanted someone to say that.
One thing nobody has challenged Obama and his minions on is the fact that states already require their citizens to purchase private insurance, so that horse has already left the gate. It's just a matter of transferring the principle behind 'no-fault' to the federal level.
Not defending this state of affairs--just pointing out it's too late to challenge the constitutionality of this particular gambit.
And I'll do you one better Jsub, in NJ, as a business, I am required to actually be a tax collector for the state. I must charge, collect and send to the state, every quarter, sales tax on all my services.
Just going from your Facebook picture, just what sort of business are you allowed to run from prison?
Can we train the ponies to bite Lonewacko's dick off?
We must invite him, Dick(head) Hoste, UnderDipshit, and Tony to the Chili Con Carnival! Their tears will be so yummy and sweet.
Stephanopoulos is Greek. Jimmy the Greek was Greek.
Actually, #1 is correct, #2 is not.
That is wrong.
Illegal aliens and sex offenders should not have any form of taxpayer-funded insurance.
Illegal aliens and sex offenders should not have any form of taxpayer-funded insurance.
You mean, if they're not in prison, right? 😉
Actually, #1 is correct, #2 is not.
Racist!!!!
If by not-Greek you mean American, okay. But he'd better be of Greek extraction with a name like Dimetrios Georgios Synodinos.
We all get care now.
The only way you can stop health care costs from rising is to force people to stop inventing expensive new ways to make us healthier. I'd rather not be stuck at 2009 levels of health care tech for the next 1000 years.
Obama wants me to tell everybody that he is talking in his sleep right now.
PL, sorry, was thinking of that other "The Greek" (Nick?) who grandpa would trash about not being Greek for real.
Obama also wants to tax "gold-plated" health insurance, ones that are "too" generous in their coverage. But it won't be a tax on families making less than $250,000 -- b/c it will be a tax on the insurance company. But as any student of economics learns, it makes absolutely no difference whether you tax the buyer or the seller. The results will be the same. George Steph and the group noted this recently as well. Did someone say "you lie"?
It's all lies. Nothing of import that the man has said has stood.
Coward?
Charlie
This stealth rebranding of taxes is something I had begun wondering about recently while pondering the FDIC's role in the various bailout efforts of the past year. All commercial banks pay what are ostensibly insurance premia to the FDIC, in exchange for insurance of their depositors in the event the bank fails. But the premia are only very lightly risk-rated; that is, the "insurance premium" a bank pays to the FDIC bears very little relationship to the actual risk of loss posed by its balance sheet and business mix. And FDIC Chair Sheila Bair has proposed using FDIC funds to support bailout efforts that have only a tangential relationship to the FDIC's mission of insuring depositors.
So with the FDIC we have the government operating yet another wealth transfer scheme - collecting funds in a manner not closely related to the risk it claims to insure, deploying those funds in the advancement of other policy objectives, and if you don't pay it, the government will shut down your business and put you in jail. If that doesn't qualify as a tax, I don't know what does.
A simple thought experiment: would the underlying reality be any different if the government announced a "tax cut" equal to the defense budget, but simultaneously announced the creation of the Federal Invasion Insurance Corporation, which would charge all taxpayers "insurance premia" to fund the Department of Defense?
What would the government's share of the economy be if all its revenues were properly categorized as taxes? I'm not sure, but I do know it would be a lot larger, and a lot more honest.
http://www.pecuniarius.com/blog/?p=192
I still don't understand how this will work for those that can't afford health insurance (or the fine). Will they end up going to jail? Will they have assets seized?
@TallDave
Your right and I wonder if anyone is going to call him on it.
TallDave | September 21, 2009, 7:14pm | #
There are two kinds of people who don't carry insurance right now: the poor, who cannot pay for their care no matter what laws you pass, and the young and healthy, who as rational actors balk at the notion of paying tens of thousands of dollars in premiums over a period of their lives when they are unlikely to need much health care.
You miss two things here, Dave. First, there is definitely a third kind - people with pre-existing conditions. I met one just the other day, in fact. He just got divorced and lost the insurance he had through his wife's employer. Due to a heart attack he had a few years ago, no one will insure him at any price. All he can do is wait five years for Medicare and pray.
Second, you GREATLY exaggerate what young people pay for insurance. A single person in their thirties (like me) is probably costing his or her employer around $4500. My girlfriend, who is back in college right now, is paying a whopping $130 per month for health insurance through the university.
I highly doubt that many young people are "rationally" choosing to forego insurance. Most of the time, it wouldn't be rational for them to not have insurance if it weren't for the assumed subsidies they receive (free emergency care, bail outs from Mom and Dad, etc). I have been uninsured three times in my life, all less than three months, between jobs and school and such. Each time, the cost of setting up insurance was much higher than any possible value I could possibly expect to extract in a few weeks or months. Ultra-short plans are better now than they used to be, but they are still quite crappy.
What would the government's share of the economy be if all its revenues were properly categorized as taxes?
Funny you should ask. A number of years ago I read a column by Marilyn Vos Savant in which she answered a similar question. I don't remember what her sources were, but she gave the figure of 75 to 85 percent for federal, state and local taxes, licenses, permits, fees, etc. She calculated that direct taxes alone accounted for as much as 50 percent of one's income and another 25 to 35 percent went to pay for the taxes etc. that are passed on in the price of goods and services one buys.
Constitutional professor? Never happened. He was an hourly part time teacher. His views on the Constitution have, in my opinion, been wrong in every case.
A Lawyer in California
Reading this article is racist. Thinking about anything but paying taxes is racist. Not working hard enough to maximize government revenue is racist. Capitalism = racism. Exhaling carbon dioxide is racist. Just turn over your estate to the feds now and die...... thats not racist(and you are absolved).
Oh, and have fun reading stuff like this:
http://insurance.freeadvice.com/reviews/316/comments/Anthem+Blue+Cross+and+Blue+Shield/
http://insurance.freeadvice.com/reviews/21/comments/AETNA+Insurance/
http://insurance.freeadvice.com/reviews/311/comments/United+Healthcare/
Now, of course, one would expect internet-reviews to be self-selected towards people who have a complaint, and therefore be skewed towards negativety. But this little story has a nice control. How do NON-health insurance companies fare?
How about State Farm, for example?
http://insurance.freeadvice.com/reviews/69/
Hmmm...not great, but not bad considering the skew. Or how about GEICO?
http://insurance.freeadvice.com/reviews/11/
Hmmm....similar to State Farm. Indeed, all the non-health insurance companies consistently look much, much better in the reviews than the health insurers.
Now, can anyone admit there is a fundamental reason why this is, and that health insurance simply has deep-rooted differences that cause it to fail where other forms of insurance do not?
FICA is not a tax??? LMAO.
From Wikipedia (emphasis mine):
I can't see ANY rationalization for FICA not being considered a tax. Maybe you would have an argument if it still actually went into a trust fund, which it hasn't since the Reagan administration raided it to fund the arms race with the Soviets.
Auto insurance does not pay for oil changes.
Whether you get a service in return or not is totally irrelevant to the definition of tax. Everything government does is an alleged "service" to society. Just because a prison or highway or park facility gets built doesn't mean that magically negates the fact that those funds were raised through either (1) taxation or (2) selling debt (e.g. Treasury bonds, "IOU"s, etc).
Being forced to insure a sick person with a pre-existing condition is akin to buying homeowners insurance while your house is burning or auto insurance after a wreck. It makes absolutely no financial sense for the insurance company. It will make absolutely no financial sense for the government (that is, me as the taxpayer). On this basis alone Obamacare is a major FAIL.
Auto insurance by the way is voluntary. You can choose not to drive and thus not pay for the insurance. Obama was comparing apples to oranges if everyone in the US is forced to buy into it.
@Chad
He just got divorced and lost the insurance he had through his wife's employer. Due to a heart attack he had a few years ago, no one will insure him at any price.
Actually he would have been covered under COBRA at the group coverage price.
Second, you GREATLY exaggerate what young people pay for insurance. A single person in their thirties (like me) is probably costing his or her employer around $4500.
So your response to "paying tens of thousands of dollars in premiums over a period of their lives when they are unlikely to need much health care" is that it is "GREATLY exaggerate" since it's only "around $4500" per year"? You do realize that in 5 years (lets say 18-23) they would have hit the "tens of thousands ammount.
The health insurance mandate penalty is more like a fine than a tax, to be honest. Not that that makes it any less reprehensible or foolish.
It would be unique among administrative fines, as far as I know, since existing ones are levied against only those whose activities fall under a particular agency's jurisdiction (OSHA for workplaces, EPA for storers of hazardous chemicals, Parking Authority for drivers, etc). To subject every man, woman, and child in America to an administrative fine merely for existing would be unprecedented.
Auto insurance does not pay for oil changes.
Here we go again.
Failing to get an oil change is extremely unlikely to lead to a coverable claim under auto insurance. When your engine seizes up, your insurance company doesn't give a damn because it's not covered under your policy.
Failing to visit a doctor regularly can allow little health problems to grow into big problems. That's why health insurance covers office visits.
Also note that if you have glass coverage on your auto, the insurance company *will* pay to have small windshield chips repaired, so as to avoid paying for a new windshield when the chip inevitably expands into a crack. So even auto insurance covers preventative repairs when it makes sense to do so!
Wow, we almost agree RC. Now, will you concede that most FICA money is NOT a tax, as you DO receive services for it...and in relation to how much you pay, not for "just breathing"?
FICA is a tax. The money that is involuntarily taken from your wages is dumped into the general fund and used for current expenses, including things not related to the ostensible purpose of the tax.
The government's "promise" to pay you something in the future out of someone else's taxes, or out of borrowed money, or maybe not at all if they change their mind in the meantime due to their Ponzi scheme going belly up -- well, that's hardly a service.
Obama is of the mindset that "rolling back the tax cuts" does not equal "tax increase". Utter bullshit, but they believe it.
Here's how it translates into another realm:
Company X lowered the price of their widgets a few years ago, but they got bought out by another company and, so as to bamboozle their customers, refers to their impending price increase as "a rollback of price cuts made by the previous ownership".
No matter how you slice it... it's shit. And Obama owns one hell of a shit-slicer*.
* Not a product hawked by the late Billy Mays.
He just got divorced and lost the insurance he had through his wife's employer. Due to a heart attack he had a few years ago, no one will insure him at any price
Then he doesn't have a job, which makes him "the poor."
I am also very skeptical of the "no one will insure him at any price" claim. These typically turn out to be bullshit unless you have a very rare and expensive disease.
Oh, and have fun reading stuff like this:
Oh, well if it's an anonymous complaint on a web site it MUST be true!
The plural of unreliable anecdote is not reliable data.
Failing to visit a doctor regularly can allow little health problems to grow into big problems. That's why health insurance covers office visits.
Yet strangely collision insurance does not cover brake maintenance. Why, it's almost like they expect you to exercise common sense or something.
It's a tax STUPID.
See page 29 of the Baucus bill.
The bill says it's a tax.
Reading is fundamental
free emergency care,
Why do Obama and other socialists just assume uninsured Americans never pay for their emergency care? Is it just inconceivable to them that most Americans pay their bills?
This assumption says more about the socialist mindset than about the uninsured.
TallDave, you don't know what you're talking about. Please educate yourself on public policy issues before commenting on them. A blind ideologue does not a pragmatist make.
"Being forced to insure a sick person with a pre-existing condition is akin to buying homeowners insurance while your house is burning or auto insurance after a wreck. It makes absolutely no financial sense for the insurance company. It will make absolutely no financial sense for the government (that is, me as the taxpayer). On this basis alone Obamacare is a major FAIL."
Provided that the contract would be honored, it would still make sense if the policy only covered health problems that were not due to the pre-existing condition. Obviously this would give the insurer a lot of leeway in excuses for denying payment, but that's a risk the insured would have to consider.
"To subject every man, woman, and child in America to an administrative fine merely for existing would be unprecedented."
They're renting a body from the government. They have to pay for insurance so the owner can maintain that investment.
Being forced to insure a sick person with a pre-existing condition is akin to buying homeowners insurance while your house is burning or auto insurance after a wreck.
Not exactly. If you've had a heart attack, there are plenty of conditions not attributable to your heart problems. Accidents, cancer, viral, bacterial, or fungal disease, parasites, glandular diseases, etc.
I'm sure insurers would be happy to write an accident-only policy, were it not illegal in every state to write one. Lots of 20 years olds would buy that, since they rationally figure they won't be suffering a heart attack or cancer.
Did anybody cover pre-existing conditions on automobile insurance? Those aren't covered either.
TallDave | September 22, 2009, 1:11am | #
He just got divorced and lost the insurance he had through his wife's employer. Due to a heart attack he had a few years ago, no one will insure him at any price
Then he doesn't have a job, which makes him "the poor."
I think you mean that he doesn't have a job that provides group insurance. Ain't none of those out there nowadays, right?
Iam also very skeptical of the "no one will insure him at any price" claim. These typically turn out to be bullshit unless you have a very rare and expensive disease.
Try to buy insurance as a late-50's male after telling them you had open-heart surgery a few years ago. Good luck.
BeesInTheBrain | September 22, 2009, 12:23am | #
@Chad
Actually he would have been covered under COBRA at the group coverage price.
He has already exhausted his COBRA, you idiot.
Then what? No one will insure him ever again, until Medicare.
TallDave | September 22, 2009, 1:14am | #
The plural of unreliable anecdote is not reliable data.
But the plural of a plural of a plural...(repeat a thouand times)...of a plural is a bit more interesting.
Suki | September 22, 2009, 5:43am | #
Did anybody cover pre-existing conditions on automobile insurance? Those aren't covered either.
Chronic, long-term "pre-existing" conditions don't exist for auto insurance. That is precisely why auto insurance more-or-less works.
I still have not seen anyone give a good response as to how a hypothetical "free market" system would handle pre-existing conditions. Please go ahead and try to explain exactly how it would work for A: A person who discovers a chronic condition while uninsured and B: A person who discovers a chronic condition while insured, but then later loses the insurance.
Educate yourself on public policy? RL, anyone who wants to cover people with pre existing conditions for those conditions under an insurance model knows nothing about insurance. That is because insurance is about risk management, and if one already has an illness the risk of contracting it is 100%; thus there is no risk it is a certainty. That should be common sense, but many people are idiots who don't understand economics.
The only health insurance policies that actually resembles insurance are the catastrophic plans. Insurance is designed to cover a risk of an event occurring with a large and definite cost; and one can generally only write policies covering large groups of people with similar risks unless actuarial underwriting is done. For example someone with a heart condition could be insured against developing other non related conditions; if the law allows it of course, since many states require X disease to be covered in order to write a policy thus if one has X disease one is out of luck.
Regular doctor visits don't fit into this model precisely because they are occurring at regular intervals and shouldn't cost very much. Sometimes they do but that is because the third party payment mechanism increases demand for doctor visits since consumers are not directly affect by the costs and the AMA restricts the supply of providers. However in a free market the ideal would be people being responsible and getting regular checkups on their own and this would be "covered" by the insurance company via lower premiums compared to those who don't provided the insurer can obtain this information.
None of this means we have to just let people with pre existing conditions die, that is what charity care is for. If that is not available then the government, preferably the States, could step in. However, liberals commonly accuse those who don't want to shift all the costs of treating such people onto the young, healthy, rich, and/or the insurers as not wanting to do anything. They argue about social responsibilities but don't seem to want to make society in general pay for them, or at least know they are paying for them. The worst thing about mandates is that the costs are hidden in the sense that many people won't connect them with government, as they do so with the cost of many regulations on the books right now; thus they just blame the evil private companies and want the government to do more.
Also, ideology isn't a bad word; all it means is that one has principles and a worldview. Pragmatism itself is an ideology, I submit it is a bad one though because it rarely takes into account long term effects or attempts to discover and limit unintended consequences. What works is almost always what works in the short term according to things easily seen.
Cash for clunkers for example, many pragmatists cite this as an excellent program ignoring the fact that the new cars aren't much more fuel efficient, require energy to destroy, and may be replaced by cars with higher mpgs but also a larger carbon footprint due to production costs. The program merely moved ahead future sales, replaced secondary family vehicles, reduced the supply of used cars the young and poor depend up, and spent taxpayer dollars to destroy perfectly good vehicles and give a handout to the middle class and auto workers. I like to point out the fact that at the very least the cars could be resold or donated to poorer buyers and the money raised used to purchase carbon offsets, after all if carbon offsets let Al Gore get away with living in a mansion and flying a private jet they can be at least used to prevent us from destroying resources. Trees and goofy solar panels are better than nothing. Environmentalists and Free Market "ideologues" pointed all this out, but many pragmatists were like "car sales up, it worked!"
@Chad
John Cochrane in the WSJ about pre existing conditions.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203609204574316172512242220.html
Essentially you pay a higher premium to buy a right future insurance at a given price.
For current people it is mostly charity or government assistance, however the answer is not forcing everyone into a mandatory community rating style system. Nor is it single payer, co ops, or a public option potentially open to the general public.
There is moral hazard with offering such government assistance, however the costs of mandates are likely higher and it could be minimized by limiting eligibility to such a plan to those with conditions developed before or around the time of the passage of the bill.
The main problem here is the static assumption of the world that treats all current costs in the system as fixed baring government intervention, when the truth is government intervention makes health care and insurance more expensive and it needs to be rolled back not increased.
"Also note that if you have glass coverage on your auto, the insurance company *will* pay to have small windshield chips repaired, so as to avoid paying for a new windshield when the chip inevitably expands into a crack. So even auto insurance covers preventative repairs when it makes sense to do so!"
But you have to pay extra for glass coverage and the government does not force you to buy it.
You can choose not to and assume that risk yourself.
still have not seen anyone give a good response as to how a hypothetical "free market" system would handle pre-existing conditions.
The answer is that free markets aren't required to achieve outcomes desired by socialists.
The market is simply a term for the aggregate result of millions of people engaging in freedom of contract. It is not "required" to achieve any particular outcome at all.
Healthcare is not a right.
Health insurance is not a right.
There are no affirmative rights.
If you want to provide charity to someone else, go right ahead. Nobody is stopping you.
But it isn't the function of markets (or government) to be in the mandating charity business.
Chad,
If you are missing a bumper from your car before you buy insurance, the new insurance company does not get you a new one.
If you are missing a limb and no insurance, why should your new insurance company pay for an artificial limb at no additional charge?
@CHAD
He has already exhausted his COBRA, you idiot.
Then what? No one will insure him ever again, until Medicare.
If you are going to make up anecdotal evidence, you need to put more thought into it. COBRA would have covered your mysterious "friend" for 36 month.
R L said:
"TallDave, you don't know what you're talking about. Please educate yourself on public policy issues before commenting on them. A blind ideologue does not a pragmatist make."
What I really liked about this comment was the convincing way the author used data and logic to back her assertions.
Chad: Now, can anyone admit there is a fundamental reason why this is,
Because there are no national health insurance plans, unlike auto insurance?
Just to get back on topic.
"It All Depends on What Your Definition of Tax Is"
It's a tax STUPID.
See page 29 of the Baucus bill.
The bill says it's a tax.
Reading is fundamental
There are no taxes
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
Capital Gains Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Court Fines (indirect taxes)
Dog License Tax
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Interest Expense (tax on the money)
Inventory Tax I
RS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Local Income Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Road Toll Booth Taxes
Road Usage Taxes (truckers)
Sales Taxes
School Tax
Septic Permit Tax
Service Charge Taxes
Social Security Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Toll Bridge Taxes Toll
Tunnel Taxes
Trailer Registration
Tax Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers' Compensation Tax
Why can he not get insurance that covers conditions not related to heart disease?
I suspect this would only apply if the windshield was installed after a certain date specified in the policy.
A fifteen-year-old windshield is unlikely to be covered.
Therein lies one of the problems.
A person with a history of cancer can not insure against heart attacks in many cases.
Sure, just get a policy that excludes coverage of heart disease- if the state permits it.
A swing and a hit!
The chronic condition is not covered; other conditions will continue to be covered.
If you are missing a limb and no insurance, why should your new insurance company pay for an artificial limb at no additional charge?
Because silly, it's a *right* to be able to do this.
Haven't you kept up? Convenience rights, rights that make a claim or demand on someone else to provide, are now created out of thin air as needed.
You must be one of those authoritarian racists who wants to use the Constitution as a bludgeon against those who want limitless entitlements.
BeesInTheBrain | September 22, 2009, 10:48am | #
@CHAD
He has already exhausted his COBRA, you idiot.
Then what? No one will insure him ever again, until Medicare.
If you are going to make up anecdotal evidence, you need to put more thought into it. COBRA would have covered your mysterious "friend" for 36 month.
It did...leaving him 5-6 years short of Medicare. Now what?
Oh, and I am willing to bet you have never had to deal with COBRA. Remember, your insurance will be coming through your former employer, who wants nothing to do with you ever again. Therefore, they will farm the adminstration of your COBRA out to a third party...who has no interest in you, either, as you are just an expense. They do everything in their power to make your life miserable and hopefully get you to drop the insurance or give them an excuse to drop you. It is amazing how often they "lose" payments, after one of which they drop you (with no warning).
Prove it.
By the way, have I mentioned that the only reason health insurance ever got tied with employment was because of President Roosevelt's wage control policies during the 1940's?
"""I've never viewed the cigarette tax as a breach of that promise."""
Why not? It's is a tax increase that all incomes pay into, including middle class.
"""No matter how you slice it... it's shit. And Obama owns one hell of a shit-slicer*."""
Obama doesn't own it, it's standard equipment in the oval office.
"""Why can he not get insurance that covers conditions not related to heart disease?"""
Sort of like getting car insurance that covers collisions only from certain cars.
The purpose of insurance is to help you pay your bills, assuming it will help when you will need it the most. If a guy has heart problems, he needs insurance to help him with that. I think one could aruge that it should cost him more, be he should be denied.
"""I still have not seen anyone give a good response as to how a hypothetical "free market" system would handle pre-existing conditions"""
Free market says if you charge too much for a service, people won't come because they can't afford it, therefore you must lower your price to attract customers. Insurance usurps free market by spreading the cost across a group of people allowing providers to charge a rate greater than what an individual can afford. In a true free market system system pre-existing would be irrelevant because you would be paying all the costs anyway. However you would be able to shop around for the best price.
Actually he would have been covered under COBRA at the group coverage price.
COBRA doesn't apply to firms with fewer than 20 employees -- quite a lot of workplaces.
Please go ahead and try to explain exactly how it would work for A: A person who discovers a chronic condition while uninsured and B: A person who discovers a chronic condition while insured, but then later loses the insurance.
Said individual would have to pay out of pocket, go into debt, or rely on charity. I have no problem with that. You don't have a right to live forever on someone else's dime.
Whoops ... amendment
B: A person who discovers a chronic condition while insured, but then later loses the insurance.
In THIS case, the insurance company should keep paying for it. You don't keep paying "insurance" premiums AFTER your car is totaled. The whole point of paying premiums is for them to pay out when a calamity is realized. If the calamity happens to be on taht lasts a long time, that's the insurance company's problem to deal with.
Sorry for multiple posts but ...
IMO, there IS a problem with insurance companies demanding you keep paying premiums every month, while you are sick, and then not fully paying for illnesses that you got when you were covered.
That is the correct way to deal with the vast majority of the pre-existing conditions. If it occured while you were paid up, it's the insurance company's responsibility. NOT to force the NEXT insurance company to bear the burden, but the make the PREVIOUS one live up to their obligations to the insured.
The only other cases are when someone allows their insurance to lapse, which is their own fault.
"""You don't have a right to live forever on someone else's dime."""
No you don't. But even if you have good insurance, it's still on, partly, someone else's dime.
If you run up a tab you can't pay, the charity or writeoff still goes to someone else's dime.
Point being, health care as is, and has been for a while, is covered by more dimes than your own.
So how do we end that? Some hospital stays cost more than the person will make for the next 20 years. How is one expected to pay that off?
I had a friend who was in the hospital for three months, his bill was over 300,000. I suppose you could treat it like a mortgage for the next 40 years, if he lives that long. Then who's dime should it be if he dies? 😉
If you think about it, over the decades we've built a system of health care/health insurance around the concept of spending someone else's dime because you don't have enough dimes.
After all, isn't the concept of buying insurance to protect you from having to pay the full amount?
Insurance does not muck up the free market, what we have that calls itself "insurance" that covers routine things that could be paid out of pocket screws it up.
Technically, a mandate is not a tax. It is a regulation that imposes costs on someone enforced by a fine. Whatever one calls it though it is going to cost people a lot of money, so the about debate whether or not it is a tax is irrelevant. It distracts from the real issue of the costs of enacting something that is both immoral and won't work, which is something that needs to be pounded home everyday.
Insurance is not on someone else's dime when it is properly constructed. Everyone negotiates a contract to pay a premium based upon their risk in return for a promise for a payout should the unfortunate event occur.
It is kind of like buying a lottery ticket one hopes never to win, are lottery winnings "on someone else's dime"? Only if the law forces the lottery to sell tickets to special interest groups at lower costs or that have a higher chance of wining.
Hazel Meade | September 22, 2009, 3:34pm | #
Whoops ... amendment
B: A person who discovers a chronic condition while insured, but then later loses the insurance.
In THIS case, the insurance company should keep paying for it. You don't keep paying "insurance" premiums AFTER your car is totaled. The whole point of paying premiums is for them to pay out when a calamity is realized. If the calamity happens to be on taht lasts a long time, that's the insurance company's problem to deal with.
Ding ding ding ding! Hazel is the winner, and correctly points out that for health insurance to function properly, health insurance companies would need to keep paying to treat a condition that was discovered while the customer was insured even after the customer dropped the insurance.
This is the only way the market could function properly, like any other insurance. IT IS ALSO IMPOSSIBLE, BECAUSE THE EFFECTS OF DISEASES CANNOT BE ISOLATED.
Ergo, market-based insurance cannot function properly.
Thank you for your help in completing my proof, Hazel.
Why was his hospital stay so expensive?
Were expensive procedures involved?
There should be laws regulating prices.
Why not?
Heart attacks do not increase the risk of cancer.
Insurance is like gambling, although the "payoff" requires something bad to happen. What a scam, if you think about it.
This is the only way the market could function properly, like any other insurance. IT IS ALSO IMPOSSIBLE, BECAUSE THE EFFECTS OF DISEASES CANNOT BE ISOLATED.
Nonsense.
Moreover, you can define the terms of the insurance policy in such as way as to include (or not include) coverage for downstream effects. You could even have the insurance company pay premiums to offset the increase in premiums in increased risk to any subsequent insurance company.
You lack imagination. There's ALWAYS some way to work out an insurance policy to cover any kind of risk.
If a disease X discovered on insurer A's watch, increases your risk of developing Y, there's no reason your insurance policy can't cover the cost of insurance against Y, even if you are buying the policy from insurer Y.
Er, insurer B, but you get the drift.
I think you mean that he doesn't have a job that provides group insurance. Ain't none of those out there nowadays, right?
I have one of those myself. I pay for my own medical care.
Try to buy insurance as a late-50's male after telling them you had open-heart surgery a few years ago. Good luck.
It's expensive, but not impossible. Anyways, why can't he just save that money and pay his own medical bills? You act like paying for what you use is something unthinkably horrifying.
still have not seen anyone give a good response as to how a hypothetical "free market" system would handle pre-existing conditions.
You can buy PEC coverage now; lots of policies already have it. You can also buy guaranteed-reissue policies.
Socialists like to throw up their hands and say "Only the government can fix this problem!" They're idiots. Free markets are far better at delivering value. That's why the Soviet Union collapsed and we have the highest living standards in history.
Oh, and I am willing to bet you have never had to deal with COBRA. Remember, your insurance will be coming through your former employer, who wants nothing to do with you ever again. Therefore, they will farm the adminstration of your COBRA out to a third party...who has no interest in you, either, as you are just an expense. They do everything in their power to make your life miserable and hopefully get you to drop the insurance or give them an excuse to drop you. ?
First of all, lots of times your former company re-hires you in the future. Secondly, COBRA is not much different at all from employer insurance. Why would they want to drop you? They would have one less paying customer.
"""Why was his hospital stay so expensive?""
Becuase 24 hour care in a $1000+ a day room is expensive. He had some sort of menigitis that almost killed him.
""There should be laws regulating prices.""
Should there? Regulation requires government involvement. Should government dictate what a doctor can charge?
"""Insurance is not on someone else's dime when it is properly constructed."""
The purpose of insurance is to avoid having to pay the full cost. Otherwise, why have insurance. It's not a savings account.