Flutterby™! : John Roberts: evil genius

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

John Roberts: evil genius

2012-06-28 15:34:12.744192+00 by Dan Lyke 9 comments

comments in descending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2012-06-30 02:46:36.558998+00 by: Mars Saxman

insurers are going to start to go boom

One can only hope.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-06-30 01:32:31.597638+00 by: TheSHAD0W

Dan: The penalty for not having insurance is that high. Obviously, you're going to want insurance; but insurers are going to start to go boom as more Obamacare requirements phase in.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-06-29 19:47:00.933099+00 by: Dan Lyke [edit history]

Shadow, I'm not sure where you're coming up with that 55% federal tax number, unless you're including energy taxes at a really high rate... Top marginal income tax this year was 35%, it might go as high as 39.6% next year, but if you're in that rate paying health insurance is a drop in the bucket, not 15-20% of AGI. And if you're at that rate you're also likely not really at that rate 'cause you're funnelling things into capital gains rather than taking it as income.

[Edit: specified income tax as top marginal rate]

#Comment Re: made: 2012-06-29 10:30:35.791163+00 by: meuon

While humorous, I like that story.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-06-29 00:22:27.700198+00 by: TheSHAD0W

Uhm. Considering the end result would effectively push the top tier income tax rate to 55%, not counting state income taxes, you're going to wind up with this situation.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-06-29 00:08:28.784205+00 by: other_todd

Apparently the reason Robert locked it is because he knew it would be reposted at the New York Daily News:


P.S. If this is actually the beginning of a squeeze play to move to socialized medicine, I will applaud. But I would need more convincing.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-06-28 22:40:39.623867+00 by: Dan Lyke

Given the practical matter that we in the U.S. pay substantially more of our GDP for healthcare for substantially worse results than other developed nations, I frankly have no problems with either centralized medicine or putting the squeeze on insurance companies.

And I think that universal coverage will lead to net reduced costs.

I do think we're going to have to have "death panels", but the reality is we already have them. I watched a woman die last year because of the way transplant decisions are made. And we can keep people "alive" on respirators indefinitely, so much of our healthcare costs are essentially a question of "where do we draw the line?"

However, I don't think my personal opinion on the health care situation has much to do with admiring Chief Justice Roberts' ability to chart and maneuver a political course.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-06-28 21:54:53.258153+00 by: TheSHAD0W

Gots to disagree with you.

The "individual mandate" is a trap, designed to move everyone to centralized medicine. It is indeed a penalty, applied to anyone who isn't insured - but for people with middle-class or lower incomes, the penalty is significantly lower than insurance would cost, while the government promises to pay your medical bills. This essentially turns the government into your insurer.

For people in the higher income brackets, the penalty is higher than insurance would cost, so the wealthy will obviously choose insurance. Obamacare is, however, loaded with language designed to choke the hell out of insurers. You may recall that Obama promised that "if you like your current insurance, you can keep it"; he did not say you'd be allowed to switch policies, or that your insurer wouldn't go out of business.

The end result is socialized medicine, combined with a significant progressive tax hike designed to pay for it.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-06-28 17:00:40.769669+00 by: markd

Access denied :-(