Did Barack Obama Read the Baucus Bill?
Yesterday I took some friendly fire from readers for my dubious response to President Obama’s claims to George Stephanopoulos that charging people money if they don’t have health insurance was not a tax increase. George broke out the dictionary definition of “tax,” which the President blew off. In other areas, people like Steve Benen crowed about how Obama had “schooled” George on what “tax” means. Rather than looking at Merriam-Webster, Stephanopoulos should have just broken out a copy of the legislation in question.
Let’s all open up our copy of the Baucus plan and turn to page 29. We find ourselves in SUBTITLE D: SHARED RESPONSIBILITY. And what does the bill tell us will happen if you fail to purchase health insurance?
Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax. If a taxpayer’s MAGI is between 100-300 percent of FPL, the excise tax for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or an individual claimed as a dependent) is $750 per year. However, the minimum penalty for the taxpayer unit is $1,500. If a taxpayer’s MAGI is above 300 percent of FPL the penalty for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or as an individual claimed as a dependent) is $950 year. However, the maximum penalty amount a family above 300 percent of FPL would pay is $3,800.
So, Mr. President… would you care to explain to us one more time how this isn’t a tax?
Follow more of this argument at Memeorandum.
UPDATES: Spelling of “Merriam-Webster” corrected. Thank you for pointing that out. Of course, since the original spelling was incorrect, the entire premise of the article must be faulty. (/sarc)
Second, one of our frequent commenters is continuing to describe this as “gotcha journalism.” How utterly convenient of Obama’s supporters. Allow me to clue you in on something… When an elected official refers to the capital of Oregon as Portland instead of Salem in a momentary lapse of high school lessons and people jump all over him saying he doesn’t even know anything about his country, that’s “gotcha journalism.”
This is a President who has consistently gone out of his way to assure everyone that he wasn’t going to be funding his various initiatives by taxing the middle class getting into an argument with a journalist who called him out and claiming this wasn’t a tax increase when he knew full well that it was. This is, to invoke a recent town hall instance, a case of “peeing on our legs and telling us it’s raining.”
And let us also be very clear on the fact that this is not a “fine” we’re talking about. The word “fine” has a very specific meaning in this context, and it is a penalty imposed by the court system on persons who have broken the law. If you are caught driving without liability insurance (again… note liability against damage to others) you can be taken into court for breaking the law and given a fine. If the President wishes to extend this discussion to make it illegal to be breathing while not having health insurance and taking citizens to court to fine them for it, we’ll be happy to have that discussion as well. But this is not a fine. It’s a tax which would frequently be imposed on a specific sub-set of citizens who, for whatever reason, feel that they can’t afford to purchase health insurance. And the President getting into an argument claiming that it’s not is simply dishonest.
61 Responses to “Did Barack Obama Read the Baucus Bill?”
EEllis, you can give up shouting at the ocean. On this issue, I've read these comments over and over and ironically, GreenDreams – the person who accuses others of spouting talking points – will simply fall back on the same DNC talking points over and over again. Yes, you are correct. The big savings in tort reform have little or nothing to do with the actual damage awards in cases which go to court. They come from costs to medical providers being reduced when their malpractice insurance goes down in price and less doctors being sued out of the business. His response of showing a study in one town in Texas looks more like an anomaly than anything else. Interestingly enough, a study just breaking on CNN this morning indicates that Texas has one of the highest numbers of uninsured people of all fifty states. Do you suppose it has anything to do with the number of non-citizens? Gee.
Unfortunately, for all of the accusations which get tossed about regarding conservatives “being in the pockets of the insurance companies” the real problem is that certain liberals are sadly all too aware of how well their party's bed is feathered by trial lawyers. Howard Dean, in a stunning moment of honesty, came right out and said as much this year, but many of our liberal readers will never admit it openly.
Also, getting back to the other “old chestnut” the way that Democrats argue against interstate competition is baffling beyond words. GreenDreams' example is preposterous. I moved from New Jersey to upstate New York for my job quite a few years ago and my health coverage premiums (from the SAME COMPANY) dropped dramatically. More and broader competition reduces costs. What the secret reason is for Democrats wanting to defend the status quo on this one is beyond me, but I'm sure there's a lot of money involved.
GD said a lot of extraneous stuff
You clipped articles and posted links without really challenging my points just deflecting the discussion as usual. Malpractice insurance went down, the number of doctors went up, it was a good thing. That in one small town in Texas the rates Medicare pays are higher means what? How about the 10 counties that had zero obstetricians before tort reform that now have them?
Your own article seems to indicate the reason for the high Medicare costs is from a tendency of the medical professionals in that area that were “racking up charges with extra tests, services, and procedures.” How would that effect my point? Right it wouldn't.
“His response of showing a study in one town in Texas looks more like an anomaly than anything else”
Well the article he clipped it from seems to think its from extra tests, services, and procedures. How in the world GD thinks that effects the point I was making I just don't know. Personally I wonder if that “culture” in the area medical profession may have come about because of the economically depressed nature of the area. Anecdotally many doctors say that they write off a certain percentage of their practice, patients on medicare/medicaid, as only break even, depending on the rest of their practice to make money. What do you do if most of your practice is medicare/medicaid? Extra tests, services, and procedures?
EEllis
“Don't let ideology blind you to facts.”
I don't have time to teach you the entire history of the US Constitution and the Texas Constitution that draws its authority from the Federal Mandate. However, let's start at the beginning. The governmental system you live under is special in that it derives its authority from the people. This is different from say monarchs who like to say they derive their authority from God. That's why the Constitution starts “We the people,” and not “And God said.”
The fact that the government derives its power and authority from the consent of the governed, you are wrong to think the a state exists outside of that consent. All of those people who give that consent are also known as “the general public,” and laws defining and protecting all individuals in this society are laws that are defined to serve and protect the general public.
The person owning liability insurance receives nothing for the money he puts out for that insurance. If he hits someone and smashes himself or his car, he gets nothing. Every person in society he hits, ANY ONE, receives payment covering damage or injury from the accident. Everyone in society is also known as the general public, so the liability insurance one is forced to buy by the State is designed to protect the general public.
If liability insurance was designed to protect the individual from loss, it would not be required just like comprehensive insurance is not required. In simplest terms, a millionaire who could afford to pay for damages he caused out of pocket is still required to carry liability insurance. It's a law to protect the general public, not the individual.
“Every person in society he hits, ANY ONE, receives payment covering damage or injury from the accident. Everyone in society is also known as the general public, so the liability insurance one is forced to buy by the State is designed to protect the general public.”
I see what you are trying to say I just don't think like that and there is no reason to believe that Texas passed it's laws based on your beliefs. Did they say “Lets require insurance so someone won't be be screwed over by some irresponsible person” or “Lets require insurance so society won't be damaged”.
“If liability insurance was designed to protect the individual from loss, it would not be required just like comprehensive insurance is not required. In simplest terms, a millionaire who could afford to pay for damages he caused out of pocket is still required to carry liability insurance. It's a law to protect the general public, not the individual.”
First off in a two party accident the have to be two parties so yes it is to protect a individual, just not the individual who purchased it. Second you don't have to have liability insurance rather it's actually proof of financial responsibility which for us broke suckers = insurance. I again believe that it's to protect an individual, not the “public”, who is damaged. Texas law states that “Financial responsibility” means the ability to respond in damages for liability for an accident. Nowhere is it stated or hinted that the reason is for some “public” good. Show me where any state says that. If it is so obvious then it must be stated somewhere. I know it is not the case in Texas.
EEllis
” there is no reason to believe that Texas passed it's laws based on your beliefs.”
Actually, they did.
http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/news/2008/news200846…
from that Austin link:
” Texas law requires people who drive in Texas to be financially responsible for the accidents they cause.”
And further:
” The 80th Legislature amended the current financial responsibility law in 2007 to increase the auto liability limits amid concerns that the current limits aren’t enough to cover the costs of an accident resulting in severe injury or major vehicle damage.”
The Texas legislature is clearly only concerned with the fiscal safety of the general public. What happens to the guy that doesn't have insurance is in no way part of their thinking.
Nothing you linked to backs your point and you continue to misstate my remarks.
“What happens to the guy that doesn't have insurance is in no way part of their thinking.”
They want individuals to be responsible for damage caused. When did I state otherwise or even mention “the guy” without insurance? How does that have anything to do with anything?
You interpret those comments to mean the concern for individual liability is because of the public interest in such but Texas law has a dearth of such things. Nowhere in the financial responsibility law is any language that even vaguely refers to that legal idea.
By the way any acknowledgement about you being totally wrong about everyone needing insurance? At least in Texas.
I give up.
The quotes I last sent demonstrate clearly the purpose of the law, to protect the general public from uninsured motorists. If that concept is too difficult to grasp, I can't help.
From your original comment:
”
” I disagree, the purpose of liability insurance is to protect an individual from incurring costs due to a insured person's actions or to state it otherwise purpose of mandating liability insurance is to prevent any one individual from incurring costs due to the actions of another. It is not to protect society but individuals..”
” to protect an individual from incurring costs due to a insured person's actions”
Completely wrong.
From Texas' own web site discussing the reason for mandated liability insurance:
” ” Texas law requires people who drive in Texas to be financially responsible for the accidents they cause.”"
The law protects all people from uninsured, thus, it protects the general public. Period.
Jazz and EEllis. The proof is in the lack of pudding in Texas. Here's an article from THIS year, 6 years after the “tort reform” you herald. Surprise. Both health care and health insurance costs continue to rise apace. SEVEN TIMES the rise in salaries. That's the cost savings you think tort reform can bring????
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus…
Sorry. I know it's from that bastion of left wing thought, the Dallas Morning News.
[...] Did Barack Obama Read the Baucus Bill? (themoderatevoice.com) [...]