PDA

View Full Version : Affordable Care Act upheld.



Tetragrammaton
06-28-2012, 10:18 AM
I don't really care anyway, but I said it would happen.

Spesh
06-28-2012, 10:30 AM
Chief Justice John Roberts cast the deciding vote. Interesting.


In a victory for President Obama, the Supreme Court decided to uphold his signature health care law's individual mandate in a split decision, upending speculation after hostile-seeming oral arguments in March that the justices would overturn the law. The mandate has been upheld as a tax, according to SCOTUSblog (http://news.yahoo.com/the-supreme-court-s-obamacare-decision--live-coverage-from-scotusblog.html), with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal wing of the court. Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog says Roberts' vote "saved' the Affordable Care Act.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-issue-obamacare-decision-135554880.html

Tetragrammaton
06-28-2012, 10:35 AM
The smart money was 6-3, with Roberts and Kennedy with the majority. Kennedy went the other way, of course, but it must be frustrating for the Bush-appointed Chief Justice to deliver this victory for Obama.

LouPhinFan
06-28-2012, 10:54 AM
I wouldn't necessarily say it's clear victory for Obama. They upheld it as a tax and Obama was saying all along that it wasn't a tax. Obama now has to sell it during the election as a tax.

Obama in September: "You know that healthcare thing that I said wasn't a tax? Yeah, turns out it is. Sorry about that."

Romney can harp on that until November.

jared81
06-28-2012, 11:18 AM
I wouldn't necessarily say it's clear victory for Obama. They upheld it as a tax and Obama was saying all along that it wasn't a tax. Obama now has to sell it during the election as a tax.

Obama in September: "You know that healthcare thing that I said wasn't a tax? Yeah, turns out it is. Sorry about that."

Romney can harp on that until November.

Agreed. Good news for Obama's legacy. Bad news for his re-election. I can just see the attack ads now, they have obama on camera many times saying it wasn't a tax.

LouPhinFan
06-28-2012, 11:20 AM
Agreed. Good news for Obama's legacy. Bad news for his re-election. I can just see the attack ads now, they have obama on camera many times saying it wasn't a tax.

Plus Romeny can now say the only way to get "Obamacare" repealed is to elect him as POTUS. That will carry some weight with independents.

BAMAPHIN 22
06-28-2012, 11:27 AM
This was a close vote... In a 5-4 ruling, the high court decided the individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance is valid as a tax, even though it is impermissible under the Constitution's commerce clause.

Locke
06-28-2012, 11:43 AM
Plus Romeny can now say the only way to get "Obamacare" repealed is to elect him as POTUS. That will carry some weight with independents.

It definitely might. It's not that easy to repeal something once it's in effect though. We'll see how it plays out...

LouPhinFan
06-28-2012, 11:50 AM
It definitely might. It's not that easy to repeal something once it's in effect though. We'll see how it plays out...

Agreed, but it is one play that Roms can make during the election.

Tetragrammaton
06-28-2012, 11:54 AM
No one is really going to care about the logistics of whether or not it is a tax. The Republicans bet everything on this being overturned.

LANGER72
06-28-2012, 11:55 AM
Congrats to those who wanted the mandate/ tax. The SCOTUS has spoken. I think it is sad that the US government has gained more control of it's citizens lives. I am not sure how it will affect me in the years going forward, especially of Obama wins.
Hopefully this is all part of a grand political scheme to rid the US of Obama and his policies. That theory is all we have left.

jared81
06-28-2012, 11:56 AM
It definitely might. It's not that easy to repeal something once it's in effect though. We'll see how it plays out...


this bill will never be repealed, the republicans can wine all they want, but there is 0 chance they will even have enough votes. what will happen now though is states will have a greater chance of being able to opt out. this was the courts way of taking alot of the politics out of the bill. the bill stays, but the teeth of the bill has been weakened.

Gonzo
06-28-2012, 12:01 PM
this bill will never be repealed, the republicans can wine all they want, but there is 0 chance they will even have enough votes. what will happen now though is states will have a greater chance of being able to opt out. this was the courts way of taking alot of the politics out of the bill. the bill stays, but the teeth of the bill has been weakened.

What I've been hearing is he could hand out waivers to each state so they can opt out if they choose. No doubt the insurance companies will fight that tooth and nail though, and considering how many pockets they have their hands in on both sides of the aisle, they'll likely win.



Sent from my VS910 4G using Tapatalk 2

hooshoops
06-28-2012, 12:26 PM
:crazy:

Spesh
06-28-2012, 12:31 PM
Plus Romeny can now say the only way to get "Obamacare" repealed is to elect him as POTUS. That will carry some weight with independents.

It certainly gives Romney a rallying point. As other have mentioned if Romney gets elected all he has to do is start handing out vouchers. That will influence many voters.

That being said, to get those votes Romney now needs to make a definitive plan or alternative to Obamacare. I dont think it will be enough for him to just say "oh, ill repeal it". People are as sick of the problem as they are of the solution.

tylerdolphin
06-28-2012, 12:46 PM
I dont have a dog in this fight and cant say I know much about Obamacare. Just stopped by to say I am really enjoying the level of mad a lot of my American friends are at right now judging by facebook.

Spesh
06-28-2012, 01:02 PM
CNN, though, was not alone in its rush to report the news.
"Fox News was so eager to see the healthcare mandate fail they forgot to read past the 1st page of the ruling," Jason Keath wrote (https://twitter.com/jasonkeath/status/218349088599572481), pointing to a screengrab of the network's breaking news stumble (https://twitter.com/jasonkeath/status/218349088599572481/photo/1).
And late Wednesday, the Chicago Sun-Times accidentally published the shell of what their front page story would've looked like (http://www.businessinsider.com/chicago-sun-times-obamacare-decision-copy-supreme-court-2012-6) had the voted against the individual mandate.
On Twitter, Roberts, who joined the liberal wing of the court in upholding the mandate, began trending both in the U.S. and worldwide.
"Judging by my Twitter feed," Buzzfeed's McCay Coppins wrote (https://twitter.com/mckaycoppins/status/218354034912931840), "Chief Justice Roberts is now conservative public enemy number one."
"Roberts is the Severus Snape of the Supreme Court," Jezebel.com's Erin Gloria Ryan tweeted (https://twitter.com/morninggloria/status/218346979766452226).
Conservatives on Twitter expressed their outrage in tweets.
"Obama lied to the American people. Again," former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin tweeted (https://twitter.com/SarahPalinUSA/status/218353507491786752). "He said it wasn't a tax. Obama lies; freedom dies."
An alarming number of Twitter users, Buzzfeed noted, declared their intent to move to Canada (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=AthlG9bk8CAFS.Ada98pQV6bCMZ_;_ylu=X3oDMTFlaHFiM2tkBG1pdANCbG9nIEJvZHkEcG9zAzE2BHNlYwNNZWRpYUJsb2dCb2R5QXNzZW1ibHk-;_ylg=X3oDMTMyYW91MzU4BGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDNThlNWNkM2MtNWZkMC0zNzBmLTk5OTQtNGVmYjNiMjAwYTZkBHBzdGNhdANibG9nc3x0aGV0aWNrZXQEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdl;_ylv=0/SIG=12vqocj4u/EXP=1342112217/**http%3A//www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare).
"Don't worry," former head Onion writer Joe Garden wrote on Twitter (https://twitter.com/joegarden/status/218354007809335296). "Despite the health care ruling, America will still find a way to crush its poor."


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/health-care-ruling-scotus-cnn-gaffe-fox-news-154347515.html

:lol:

Gonzo
06-28-2012, 01:07 PM
I dont have a dog in this fight and cant say I know much about Obamacare. Just stopped by to say I am really enjoying the level of mad a lot of my American friends are at right now judging by facebook.

Lol, the funniest part is that so many of them have no clue what its about. I've heard so many that think its a universal federal healthcare plan like Canada's (which is amazing, BTW, so I wish it was) :lol:

Sent from my VS910 4G using Tapatalk 2

MadDog 88
06-28-2012, 01:35 PM
Lol, the funniest part is that so many of them have no clue what its about. I've heard so many that think its a universal federal healthcare plan like Canada's (which is amazing, BTW, so I wish it was) :lol:

Sent from my VS910 4G using Tapatalk 2Perhaps the majority that are whining should have gotten on board with the universal plan 3 years ago.

Gonzo
06-28-2012, 01:40 PM
Perhaps the majority that are whining should have gotten on board with the universal plan 3 years ago.

They're upset because they don't want the government in charge of their healthcare (though for some reason they have no problem with corporations controlling it with profit being the guiding force behind all medical decisions).

Sent from my VS910 4G using Tapatalk 2

Eshlemon
06-28-2012, 01:56 PM
Agreed. Good news for Obama's legacy. Bad news for his re-election. I can just see the attack ads now, they have obama on camera many times saying it wasn't a tax.

If more than one justice, Ginsburg, backed the commerce clause as the WH pretended could see this as being a non-viable. "Read my lips, no new tax's" was used very effectively against Bush, expect the see a lot of this again too.

jared81
06-28-2012, 02:04 PM
I dont have a dog in this fight and cant say I know much about Obamacare. Just stopped by to say I am really enjoying the level of mad a lot of my American friends are at right now judging by facebook.

most people dont know alot about it. the people that are against it are mainly made because it isnt really about bringing cost down. its about bigger government. if you want to save money on health care the first thing they can do is pass TORT reform. TORT reform is basiclly a way to stop ridiculous lawsuits that people in europe make fun of the american judicial system. the other thing you could do would to be allow insurance companies to sell over state lines. the reason why obama doesnt want TORT refrom is because he gets a ton of money from trial attoronys. one of the big trail attorneys in orlando just held a big fundraiser for obama last month, which obama was actually at.

this is about politics and not about care.

trojanma
06-28-2012, 02:13 PM
To say that the problem is only a TORT reform issue is a huge oversimplification designed straight republican talking points.

The affordable healthcare act is an imperfect solution at best but...

-The massive cost of healthcare is result of...
-Our aging population
-Defensive medicine
-Enormous admin costs driven by insurance company profit moives
-Frivolous Lawsuits
-Waste and Fraud by healthcare providers
-A la carte medical care driven patients

A real solution would involve everyone giving something up.
Some Doctors giving up some pay or at least changing their fee structure to some sort of pay for performance.
TORT Reform.
Some sort of curtailing of insurance costs either through competition or regulation or both
A general shift in allocation of resources from expensive after the fact procedures to cost cutting preventive measures.

LouPhinFan
06-28-2012, 03:16 PM
All this is really moot. The fatter this country gets the more expensive healthcare is going to get, regardless of who is paying for it.

Dogbone34
06-28-2012, 03:40 PM
what an unaffordable mess the left has dumped on america

trojanma
06-28-2012, 04:30 PM
Guess What Healthcare was an unsustainable ballooning cost long before the ACA.

Two Tacos
06-28-2012, 04:36 PM
what an unaffordable mess the left has dumped on america

Yes, yes, an unaffordable mess that will reduce the defict by $200 Billion. Crazy left.


http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf

LANGER72
06-28-2012, 04:47 PM
Where is my free Obama care? I want my free cell phone. I want free food stamps. Give me, give me, give me...what a country.

jared81
06-28-2012, 04:59 PM
Guess What Healthcare was an unsustainable ballooning cost long before the ACA.

and still is, you seem to be pretty good with the democratic talking points as well.

trojanma
06-28-2012, 05:05 PM
Where is my free Obama care? I want my free cell phone. I want free food stamps. Give me, give me, give me...what a country.

What a joke. Why don't you call it Romney care.

Giving basic preventative healthcare to this country's populous is ultimately a cost SAVER.
An overweight, sickly, diseased populace is inherently unproductive.

Once the Republicans had turned this into a political issue and completely distorted the facts people are posting nonsense like this.

If you are going to criticize the ACA at least do it where it deserves criticism.
It makes completely unrealistic calculations and ask physicians to take cuts to service that will result in docs leaving the profession. The AMA signed off on the law because they were promised fixes down the road.

trojanma
06-28-2012, 05:08 PM
and still is, you seem to be pretty good with the democratic talking points as well.

I am a physician. Trust me I am all about TORT reform. Defensive medicine and lawsuits are bad but suggesting that they own all the cost of healthcare is overly simplistic.
FWIW I voted for McCain in the last election. I just don't bye into the sensationalism pushed around by many Republican movers and shakers.

Tetragrammaton
06-28-2012, 05:09 PM
What left? Where? What do they have to do with any of this?

Dolphins9954
06-28-2012, 07:37 PM
Sad day for America and probably one of the worst decisions by the SC. Now the government can force you to buy whatever their top donors want us to buy.

Locke
06-28-2012, 07:47 PM
What left? Where? What do they have to do with any of this?

You're trying to reason with the unreasonable. He himself probably doesn't even know what the left has to do with this...

Funky Fin
06-28-2012, 07:54 PM
Plus Romeny can now say the only way to get "Obamacare" repealed is to elect him as POTUS. That will carry some weight with independents.

As an independent voter, Obama has done nothing to vote himself out of office in my perspective.

Locke
06-28-2012, 07:56 PM
Plus Romeny can now say the only way to get "Obamacare" repealed is to elect him as POTUS. That will carry some weight with independents.

Thinking about it more, anything Romney has to say on the topic of Obamacare is easily countered with his Romneycare mandate. I don't think, in the end, this will have much sway one way or another. All the outrage was used up when it first passed. At this point, we won't even be talking about this anymore in 30 days...

Dolphins9954
06-28-2012, 08:07 PM
Yes, yes, an unaffordable mess that will reduce the defict by $200 Billion. Crazy left.


http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf


That was in 2011. The new CBO projections have it costing over 800 billion more than expected because of fuzzy numbers by the Dems and Obama.



President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection (http://cbo.gov/publication/43076) released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.


http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1175831

Dolphins9954
06-28-2012, 08:19 PM
poPOp6q1VFo

LANGER72
06-28-2012, 08:37 PM
What a joke. Why don't you call it Romney care.

Giving basic preventative healthcare to this country's populous is ultimately a cost SAVER.
An overweight, sickly, diseased populace is inherently unproductive.

Once the Republicans had turned this into a political issue and completely distorted the facts people are posting nonsense like this.

If you are going to criticize the ACA at least do it where it deserves criticism.
It makes completely unrealistic calculations and ask physicians to take cuts to service that will result in docs leaving the profession. The AMA signed off on the law because they were promised fixes down the road.


It seems the AMA sold out the doctors. The only way the doctors can continue to make the money they are making now is to either make a deal with the devil(they did through the AMA) or hope that some form of private medicine remains for the more affluent...or to provide the extra care that will be needed over and above the basic wellness care that the Obama plan will be watered down to in less than 10 years. To provide the same care that we have today with private insurance and include another 30 million patients while holding or reducing the prices...I just can't see how it is possible.
Care to explain it to me?

LANGER72
06-28-2012, 08:50 PM
Thinking about it more, anything Romney has to say on the topic of Obamacare is easily countered with his Romneycare mandate. I don't think, in the end, this will have much sway one way or another. All the outrage was used up when it first passed. At this point, we won't even be talking about this anymore in 30 days...

Romney will have to come up with an alternate plan and present it to the public. This topic will be a key talking point all the way until the election.
Do I think Romney will succeed? No.
Obama has triumphed and prepare for 4 more years. Sad.

irish fin fan
06-28-2012, 09:27 PM
I step in the right direction ...

jared81
06-28-2012, 10:49 PM
Thinking about it more, anything Romney has to say on the topic of Obamacare is easily countered with his Romneycare mandate. I don't think, in the end, this will have much sway one way or another. All the outrage was used up when it first passed. At this point, we won't even be talking about this anymore in 30 days...

You are funny. You obviously support Obama. Even you have to realize that he isn't up to the job and doesn't deserve reelection.

Locke
06-28-2012, 10:54 PM
You are funny. You obviously support Obama. Even you have to realize that he isn't up to the job and doesn't deserve reelection.

Obviously I do, as I trust Romney about as far as I can toss him. But if there was a strong third party candidate, I'd probably vote for them. Since all we have is Gary Johnson, my vote defaults to Obama.

I am simply stating facts with that post you quoted. It's not blind support of Obama, it's simple fact. The Martin-Zimmerman thing was the hot topic of the month a few weeks ago. That thread went to 50 pages or something. 9954 posts something new in regards to the case, and now it's already half-way down the page. It's the exact same thing. Fox News and Limbaugh will harp on it incessantly leading up to the election, but it's not going to have the effect it would have had it just passed through Congress....

Spesh
06-28-2012, 11:15 PM
You are funny. You obviously support Obama. Even you have to realize that he isn't up to the job and doesn't deserve reelection.

Whoa! Wait a second now....

You dont support Obama? Wow, just shocking development. Just...damn. I think everyone can safely say they did not see that coming.

......what that has to do with the ACA is beyond me, but apparently its of the utmost importance to point out peoples upcoming or previous political votes so we can safely divide the forum in every thread. Because, as you know, there is such a vast difference between the 2 candidates that its important to know exactly where one person stands and another person doesnt. Now if youll excuse me, im going to be busy hanging my Romney pro-gay marriage hot pink 2002 flyers.....err wait, my pro-gay marriage 2012 Obama flyers.

Two Tacos
06-29-2012, 12:20 AM
That was in 2011. The new CBO projections have it costing over 800 billion more than expected because of fuzzy numbers by the Dems and Obama.




http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/1175831

The actual estimate that the propaganda you quoted used is here:

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

Here are the key parts that the author left out:


CBO and JCT now estimate that the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of just under $1.1 trillion over the 2012–2021 period—about $50 billion less than the agencies’ March 2011 estimate for that 10-year period
(see Table 1, following the text).




CBO and JCT have previously estimated that the ACA will, on net, reduce budget deficits over the 2012–2021 period; that estimate of the overall budgetary impact of the ACA has not been updated.



So the 2011 cost estimate was $50 Billion higher than the 2012 estimate but showed a $200 Billion deficit reduction when the overall effect was look at. The 2012 estimate did not recheck this, which is why I used the 2011 estimate. The reason the propaganda you quoted mentioned none of this should be obvious.

**edit** yes both 2011 and 2012 estimates were 100s of billions higher than Obama's initial estimate. I'm not arguing that. He used way too optimistic forecasts on the economy.

Funky Fin
06-29-2012, 02:14 AM
It seems the AMA sold out the doctors. The only way the doctors can continue to make the money they are making now is to either make a deal with the devil(they did through the AMA) or hope that some form of private medicine remains for the more affluent...or to provide the extra care that will be needed over and above the basic wellness care that the Obama plan will be watered down to in less than 10 years. To provide the same care that we have today with private insurance and include another 30 million patients while holding or reducing the prices...I just can't see how it is possible.
Care to explain it to me?

How will medical care be watered down? Doctors and their medical care will be just fine. They make enough money as it is and a little less won't hurt them if they're doctors for the right reasons. I can say that because my wife is a D.O. (doctor of osteopathic medicine). If she was going into the medical field because of the money she would have stayed as pharmacist as she has a double degree in that field (PharmD, MPH). She became a medical doctor because she wants to help people in a direct manner instead of sitting behind a counter dispensing prescriptions. And as a doctor she is extremely pleased to see everyone now have access to health care despite the bottom line ($$$).

Dolphins9954
06-29-2012, 08:24 AM
The actual estimate that the propaganda you quoted used is here:

http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf

Here are the key parts that the author left out:







So the 2011 cost estimate was $50 Billion higher than the 2012 estimate but showed a $200 Billion deficit reduction when the overall effect was look at. The 2012 estimate did not recheck this, which is why I used the 2011 estimate. The reason the propaganda you quoted mentioned none of this should be obvious.

**edit** yes both 2011 and 2012 estimates were 100s of billions higher than Obama's initial estimate. I'm not arguing that. He used way too optimistic forecasts on the economy.

Like everything the government tells us, it will cost a lot more than what we were told. And if by a miracle we do have a savings. Do you really think the government will save that money????

One thing both sources agree on is that it will cost more. How much more is debatable. But I think it's the safest bet in the world that it will be significantly higher. Just like Romneycare this bill will do nothing about the rising costs of healthcare. Which makes the 10 year projection nothing but a guessing game. And like all 10 year projections by the government. They almost never turn out to be true.

NY8123
06-29-2012, 09:33 AM
This provision will solve nothing long term, even in Canada where the perception that health care is free (very wrong perception) they have the same problems the US is having. I work with a guy from Canada and the health care isn't in any better situation there than it is here, he says they just get there money from someplace else. All this bill does is pass on the higher profits and higher rates to the US citizen, doctors routinely over prescribe medication, they routinely over prescribe treatments and checkups, this bill just makes the healthcare business even more profitable for the next 50 years.

If you want a sweeping change with unprecedented reform, pass an amendment to the US Constitution that all government budgets need to be balanced. That would force every sector of American society to have to sacrifice enough to do what is necessary to dig out of this hole we have created for ourselves, until then you are putting a patch on something that is unpatchable.

LouPhinFan
06-29-2012, 09:34 AM
ObamaCare has been upheld. But whether you are horrified, elated, or indifferent, one fact remains. The cost of health care just keeps on rising. In fact, medical care now represents nearly 20% of total US GDP.

Health care spending is so far out of control that not only individuals and families, but the entire economy is buckling under the strain. General Motors spends so much money for its employees’ health care that Warren Buffet has called the corporation “a health and benefits company with an auto company attached.” Each year, General Motors, like Ford and other U.S. automakers, pays more than $1,500 in health care costs for every car they make. Japan’s Honda pays only $150.

The chairman and CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, says that his company spends more money on insurance for its employees than it spends on coffee.

It hasn’t always been like this. We now spend more than $2.5 trillion annually on medical care. But as recently as 1950, Americans spent only about $8.4 billion ($70 billion in today’s dollars). The increase has been mind-boggling. After adjusting for inflation, we now spend as much on health care every ten days as we did in the entire year of 1950...


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/06/28/beyond-obamacare-debate-why-does-health-care-cost-so-much/#ixzz1zBlx5Q15


A good op-ed on the subject of healthcare, not necessarily the ACA.

Two Tacos
06-29-2012, 10:28 AM
Like everything the government tells us, it will cost a lot more than what we were told. And if by a miracle we do have a savings. Do you really think the government will save that money????

One thing both sources agree on is that it will cost more. How much more is debatable. But I think it's the safest bet in the world that it will be significantly higher. Just like Romneycare this bill will do nothing about the rising costs of healthcare. Which makes the 10 year projection nothing but a guessing game. And like all 10 year projections by the government. They almost never turn out to be true.

The CBO releases a new estimate every yearbased on current trends and analysis. I wish more people would read these reports and not rely on politically motivated hacks to tell them what the report says. They’re really not that long. And the ACA does do something, in fact many things, about the rising costs of health care. It just doesn't do everything, or possibly enough things. I was a lot happier with Obama's proposal than what wound up getting passed. They gutted some key parts. There is no other workable alternative though. What does Romney want to do? So far, all I’ve heard is that he is going to, “Repeal it on his first day in office”. Which is either a flat out lie or a display of profound ignorance on the way our government works. There is no way for him to just repeal it; it’s an act of Congress.

daniel3
06-29-2012, 01:27 PM
The whole process was a joke. They argued tooth and nail on the idea that its not a tax and the law is enforced by the power afforded to the government through the interstate commerce clause of constitution. Then the ruling comes in and even though its not constitutional through use of the clause, but bill is all OK because its really a tax? How did they change the argument like that?

LANGER72
06-29-2012, 07:16 PM
The chief justice found a way to pass the bill. He created the pathway through flawed logic and flimsy precedent.
It is done. Water under the bridge.
Some aspects of ACA are nice ideas, but the way this whole act was deemed through congress and then Roberts apparent stroke while deliberating really puts a damper on any citizen that believes in the rule of law. Just dirty politics at it's finest and a new low in a dark period in American history.
With all these precedents being set, both parties will be enjoying the punitive screw fest going forward. This will get even uglier.

Dolphins9954
06-29-2012, 07:34 PM
The CBO releases a new estimate every yearbased on current trends and analysis. I wish more people would read these reports and not rely on politically motivated hacks to tell them what the report says. They’re really not that long. And the ACA does do something, in fact many things, about the rising costs of health care. It just doesn't do everything, or possibly enough things. I was a lot happier with Obama's proposal than what wound up getting passed. They gutted some key parts. There is no other workable alternative though. What does Romney want to do? So far, all I’ve heard is that he is going to, “Repeal it on his first day in office”. Which is either a flat out lie or a display of profound ignorance on the way our government works. There is no way for him to just repeal it; it’s an act of Congress.


I rely on the fact that everything the government tells us something will cost almost never turns out to be close to the truth. It's never failed me. As for Romney, he's a tool and a lot of the reason why we have Obamacare to begin.

Dolphins9954
06-29-2012, 09:24 PM
Here's a pretty good fact sheet about Obamacare from a liberal source.....

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/03/19/fact-sheet-the-truth-about-the-health-care-bill/

Dolphins9954
06-29-2012, 10:30 PM
Who really wrote the Healthcare Bill.


GsIcS7egnyw

LouPhinFan
06-30-2012, 12:19 AM
The chief justice found a way to pass the bill. He created the pathway through flawed logic and flimsy precedent.
It is done. Water under the bridge.
Some aspects of ACA are nice ideas, but the way this whole act was deemed through congress and then Roberts apparent stroke while deliberating really puts a damper on any citizen that believes in the rule of law. Just dirty politics at it's finest and a new low in a dark period in American history.
With all these precedents being set, both parties will be enjoying the punitive screw fest going forward. This will get even uglier.

Roberts is craftier than that. He may have upheld the bill but in doing it how he did, he crippled the Liberals' future chances of using the commerce clause to do anything on their agenda. He set limits on what Congress can do under that clause. That's very important.

Dolphins9954
06-30-2012, 12:51 AM
Roberts is craftier than that. He may have upheld the bill but in doing it how he did, he crippled the Liberals' future chances of using the commerce clause to do anything on their agenda. He set limits on what Congress can do under that clause. That's very important.

He could have done the same thing by ruling against the bill. Would have been a lot better. Now all the government has to do is call it a tax and force us to buy whatever their top donors want us to buy. For the greater good of course.

Two Tacos
06-30-2012, 03:32 AM
The Obama team also argued that it was a tax when presenting to the SCotUS. Roberts didn't just make something up that no one else suggested. Congress has the power to tax. Congress can and has structured taxes to encourage or discourage the purchasing of specific products. None of this is new. Gas guzzler tax, cigarette taxes, any number of corporate loop holes etc... Bush signed an act that let you pay $3500 less in taxes if you bought a hybrid than someone who bought no car at all. The idea that this is some devious new thing that attacks our freedom is ridiculous. Roberts followed the Constitution, on this issue at least. The other judges broke down in party lines, which is disgraceful. Everyone should have ruled against on commerce and for on taxes. That is the disturbing thing about the ruling. It highlights how insanely partisan our country has gotten. Roberts is considered a traitor because he upheld Congresses power to tax. Politics should not be in the SCotUS.

Two Tacos
06-30-2012, 03:38 AM
I rely on the fact that everything the government tells us something will cost almost never turns out to be close to the truth. It's never failed me. As for Romney, he's a tool and a lot of the reason why we have Obamacare to begin.

Initial quotes on long term things are tuff. That's why it's important to pay attention to the updated projections by the CBO. The CBO is nonpartisan, or at least as nonpartisan as anything with the word Congressional in its title can be.

phinfan3411
06-30-2012, 10:00 AM
The CBO releases a new estimate every yearbased on current trends and analysis. I wish more people would read these reports and not rely on politically motivated hacks to tell them what the report says. They’re really not that long. And the ACA does do something, in fact many things, about the rising costs of health care. It just doesn't do everything, or possibly enough things. I was a lot happier with Obama's proposal than what wound up getting passed. They gutted some key parts. There is no other workable alternative though. What does Romney want to do? So far, all I’ve heard is that he is going to, “Repeal it on his first day in office”. Which is either a flat out lie or a display of profound ignorance on the way our government works. There is no way for him to just repeal it; it’s an act of Congress.

Could you please tell us all what Obama's proposal was, and what "they" gutted from it??

LANGER72
06-30-2012, 10:07 AM
The Obama team also argued that it was a tax when presenting to the SCotUS. Roberts didn't just make something up that no one else suggested. Congress has the power to tax. Congress can and has structured taxes to encourage or discourage the purchasing of specific products. None of this is new. Gas guzzler tax, cigarette taxes, any number of corporate loop holes etc... Bush signed an act that let you pay $3500 less in taxes if you bought a hybrid than someone who bought no car at all. The idea that this is some devious new thing that attacks our freedom is ridiculous. Roberts followed the Constitution, on this issue at least. The other judges broke down in party lines, which is disgraceful. Everyone should have ruled against on commerce and for on taxes. That is the disturbing thing about the ruling. It highlights how insanely partisan our country has gotten. Roberts is considered a traitor because he upheld Congresses power to tax. Politics should not be in the SCotUS.


The issue that was presented before the SCOTUS was that it was a mandate. It could not be upheld. Additional attorneys were hired to argue that it was instead a tax. Call it defecation or poop...it is still crap. Either way, they are forcing the public into buying into something that is not popular with a majority of US citizens in it's present form and also the repeated under the table manner in which it was "deemed" and "read the bill after we approve the bill" moved along until "they found a way".. He went against the will of the people and common sense to build his legacy and to fancifully "protect the objectivity of the court". He did neither. Roberts should have ruled against the mandate...end of story. Instead, "he found a way" to go along with this financially unsustainable program. That was over and above what he was supposed to do.
After Romney get's elected and the GOP takes all three houses(lol), all the liberal leaning states should be taxed to their eye balls, and shut off all federal support for their liberal programs per Obama's administrations precedent with AZ....lol

Locke
06-30-2012, 12:13 PM
The issue that was presented before the SCOTUS was that it was a mandate. It could not be upheld. Additional attorneys were hired to argue that it was instead a tax. Call it defecation or poop...it is still crap. Either way, they are forcing the public into buying into something that is not popular with a majority of US citizens in it's present form and also the repeated under the table manner in which it was "deemed" and "read the bill after we approve the bill" moved along until "they found a way".. He went against the will of the people and common sense to build his legacy and to fancifully "protect the objectivity of the court". He did neither. Roberts should have ruled against the mandate...end of story. Instead, "he found a way" to go along with this financially unsustainable program. That was over and above what he was supposed to do.
After Romney get's elected and the GOP takes all three houses(lol), all the liberal leaning states should be taxed to their eye balls, and shut off all federal support for their liberal programs per Obama's administrations precedent with AZ....lol

Jesus would be so proud...

Two Tacos
06-30-2012, 01:14 PM
Could you please tell us all what Obama's proposal was, and what "they" gutted from it??

Key point was the public option. The original house bill house was a lot closer to what was on obama's platform during the campaign. The senate democrats punked out on that one.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

Two Tacos
06-30-2012, 01:23 PM
The issue that was presented before the SCOTUS was that it was a mandate. It could not be upheld. Additional attorneys were hired to argue that it was instead a tax. Call it defecation or poop...it is still crap. Either way, they are forcing the public into buying into something that is not popular with a majority of US citizens in it's present form and also the repeated under the table manner in which it was "deemed" and "read the bill after we approve the bill" moved along until "they found a way".. He went against the will of the people and common sense to build his legacy and to fancifully "protect the objectivity of the court". He did neither. Roberts should have ruled against the mandate...end of story. Instead, "he found a way" to go along with this financially unsustainable program. That was over and above what he was supposed to do.
After Romney get's elected and the GOP takes all three houses(lol), all the liberal leaning states should be taxed to their eye balls, and shut off all federal support for their liberal programs per Obama's administrations precedent with AZ....lol

The court doesn't consider public opinion, politics, or any of that stuff. They consider the legality and constitutionality of the act. It doesn't matter if the arguments were presented first, or which lawyer made the argument, the arguments get considered. The court room is about the rule of law, not the will of the people.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

jared81
06-30-2012, 03:54 PM
The court doesn't consider public opinion, politics, or any of that stuff. They consider the legality and constitutionality of the act. It doesn't matter if the arguments were presented first, or which lawyer made the argument, the arguments get considered. The court room is about the rule of law, not the will of the people.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

You feel that way now. I doubt you would feel that way if the supreme court threw out the whole law. The constitution is interpreted differently by different people. Clarence Thomas sees the constitution a different way then sottomayer. The justices are human beings, of course they listen to the politics and have their personal opinions ingrained.

Tetragrammaton
06-30-2012, 04:06 PM
Why is everyone so confused about it being a tax? It is just like any other exemption.

phinfan3411
06-30-2012, 05:07 PM
Key point was the public option. The original house bill house was a lot closer to what was on obama's platform during the campaign. The senate democrats punked out on that one.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

Why do people keep believing this?

Obama and Baucus took single payer off the table, Obama had already threw us all under the bus prior to it even going to the floor, it has been discussed here many times before. He had made the deals with the pharmaceuticals, and insurance groups etc, what kind of health "reform" do you expect from someone that appoints a former lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry, as your secretary of health?

If you do not believe me, and i doubt you do, go back through some of those debates, or google internal white house memo, huffington post, and you will get your answer.

In the meantime, maybe take off your Obama cheerleader outfit, and send it out to get washed at least, as it is starting to smell.

Yeah, that Obomber is one heck of a president, best since Bush.

LANGER72
06-30-2012, 05:20 PM
The court doesn't consider public opinion, politics, or any of that stuff. They consider the legality and constitutionality of the act. It doesn't matter if the arguments were presented first, or which lawyer made the argument, the arguments get considered. The court room is about the rule of law, not the will of the people.

Sent from my SGH-T959V using Tapatalk 2

LOL..you are telling me that Ginsberg and Sotomayer, 2 liberal judges, would vote in favor of anything disputed by conservatives without bias? :sidelol:

This ruling had everything to do with politics.

It has happened before, and it will happen again.

The bill and the taxes are law.

Dolphins9954
06-30-2012, 05:49 PM
It's funny watching people defend this corporatist wet dream. The bill was literally written by the health insurance companies. Obama gave a sweetheart deal to the drug companies. And the lobbyists got everything they wanted and then some. This bill is the epitome of all the shady backroom corporate deals that everyone on the left rails against. Especially those in the 99% movement. This is classic corporatism. But it's ok because it's for the greater good and will lead universal healthcare or non-profit insurance. YEAH RIGHT!!! Give me some of what you're smoking. For medical reasons of course. Oh wait here comes the feds I'm out!!

JamesBW43
06-30-2012, 07:46 PM
It's funny watching people defend this corporatist wet dream. The bill was literally written by the health insurance companies. Obama gave a sweetheart deal to the drug companies. And the lobbyists got everything they wanted and then some. This bill is the epitome of all the shady backroom corporate deals that everyone on the left rails against. Especially those in the 99% movement. This is classic corporatism. But it's ok because it's for the greater good and will lead universal healthcare or non-profit insurance. YEAH RIGHT!!! Give me some of what you're smoking. For medical reasons of course. Oh wait here comes the feds I'm out!!

I haven't been able to find the section myself, but I've read from other sources that insurance companies will have to spend 85% of an individual's insurance premiums on actual health services or give the consumer a rebate. I mostly agree with you here, but if that's true, and if there aren't any ways around it, I think that's a small silver lining at least.

Tetragrammaton
06-30-2012, 07:49 PM
Obama and Baucus took single payer off the table, Obama had already threw us all under the bus prior to it even going to the floor, it has been discussed here many times before. He had made the deals with the pharmaceuticals, and insurance groups etc, what kind of health "reform" do you expect from someone that appoints a former lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry, as your secretary of health?

If you do not believe me, and i doubt you do, go back through some of those debates, or google internal white house memo, huffington post, and you will get your answer.

The public option is one thing, single-payer is another. Unfortunately, only a handful of Congressmen have mentioned single payer at all.

phinfan3411
06-30-2012, 08:17 PM
The public option is one thing, single-payer is another. Unfortunately, only a handful of Congressmen have mentioned single payer at all.

You are correct, but my point still stands.

The Huffington Post broke the story, and showed to all that wanted to see that as usual, the fix was in.

Obama was no different than the crooks before him, as 9954 wrote, the "reform" was written by the very industry that needed the reform, i fail to see how we can take much of a step forward with that.

The only thing i have seen so far that has made me happy about this legislation is the pre existing conditions.

The insurance industry owed us AT LEAST THAT, as i see over and over how much obesity and smoking are going to cost everyone down the road, but nobody brings up how much of our hard earned money that goes to our medical care, ACTUALLY GOES TO WHERE IT IS INTENDED.

How much money goes to the health insurance industry?

How many people have they helped get well?

How much money have they used to pay off our legislators to get our system to this very place?

You know, a place where my small doctors office that needs about three extra employees just to take care of the freaking insurance.

Why can't we pay cash for all the little stuff, and only have insurance for the big things? Oh, yeah...not enough money for the health insurance companies.

I spent years on the phone fighting with insurance companies that did everything in their power to not cover my wife, because she is a type 1 diabetic.

Honestly, Obama, Bush, and the health insurance industry can kiss m.........

By the way, i also have a big problem with the Obomber apologists, you know the people that used to whine continuously about things like torture, but do not seem to have any problem with Obama ordering drones to attack rescuers, and funeral goers (because everyone knows everyone at a suspected terrorists funeral must be evil) in whatever country we are currently bombing.

Tetragrammaton
06-30-2012, 08:31 PM
You are correct, but my point still stands.

The Huffington Post broke the story, and showed to all that wanted to see that as usual, the fix was in.

Obama was no different than the crooks before him, as 9954 wrote, the "reform" was written by the very industry that needed the reform, i fail to see how we can take much of a step forward with that.

The only thing i have seen so far that has made me happy about this legislation is the pre existing conditions.

The insurance industry owed us AT LEAST THAT, as i see over and over how much obesity and smoking are going to cost everyone down the road, but nobody brings up how much of our hard earned money that goes to our medical care, ACTUALLY GOES TO WHERE IT IS INTENDED.

How much money goes to the health insurance industry?

How many people have they helped get well?

How much money have they used to pay off our legislators to get our system to this very place?

You know, a place where my small doctors office that needs about three extra employees just to take care of the freaking insurance.

Why can't we pay cash for all the little stuff, and only have insurance for the big things? Oh, yeah...not enough money for the health insurance companies.

I spent years on the phone fighting with insurance companies that did everything in their power to not cover my wife, because she is a type 1 diabetic.

Honestly, Obama, Bush, and the health insurance industry can kiss m.........

By the way, i also have a big problem with the Obomber apologists, you know the people that used to whine continuously about things like torture, but do not seem to have any problem with Obama ordering drones to attack rescuers, and funeral goers (because everyone knows everyone at a suspected terrorists funeral must be evil) in whatever country we are currently bombing.

You aren't wrong, but what you want, and what I want, is never going to happen as long as corporations have all the power they have. The Moyers video that Carlos posted said there were six health care lobbyists for every Congressman.

LouPhinFan
07-01-2012, 12:03 AM
Yep, let's kill all of the health insurance companies. Me and probably at least 100,000 (probably many more than that) other hard working people that work for insurance companies and the peripheral companies they employ as vendors can just go find new jobs. Me, well I'm in my mid-30s, well educated, and hard working. I'll find another job after some searching. But that 40 year old African-American single mother with the kid in college and one in high school, well she's been processing medical claims since she was 20. She's got no other job skills because that's all she's ever done. She has no prayer of finding a job other than grocery store clerk making half or less of what she was making before. Screw her. Am I right?

Tetragrammaton
07-01-2012, 12:50 AM
Yep, let's kill all of the health insurance companies. Me and probably at least 100,000 (probably many more than that) other hard working people that work for insurance companies and the peripheral companies they employ as vendors can just go find new jobs. Me, well I'm in my mid-30s, well educated, and hard working. I'll find another job after some searching. But that 40 year old African-American single mother with the kid in college and one in high school, well she's been processing medical claims since she was 20. She's got no other job skills because that's all she's ever done. She has no prayer of finding a job other than grocery store clerk making half or less of what she was making before. Screw her. Am I right?

Blood alone moves the wheels of history.

I can't support an industry just because it keeps people employed. The same goes for makers of weapons to kill people for me.

Of course, if you believe in capitalism, other industries would absorb people. A single-payer program would require more government workers, and if people saved as much money as some think they would, other industries would grow from that money being displaced.

LouPhinFan
07-01-2012, 09:04 AM
Blood alone moves the wheels of history.

I can't support an industry just because it keeps people employed. The same goes for makers of weapons to kill people for me.

Of course, if you believe in capitalism, other industries would absorb people. A single-payer program would require more government workers, and if people saved as much money as some think they would, other industries would grow from that money being displaced.

Easy for someone on the outside looking in to say. But then again "more government workers" means bigger government and most democrats would LOVE that.

Tetragrammaton
07-01-2012, 09:09 AM
Easy for someone on the outside looking in to say. But then again "more government workers" means bigger government and most democrats would LOVE that.

So would most Republicans.

I don't know what to tell you. Sometimes changes in law mean jobs lost. Should someone not be pro-life because an abortion clinic being shut down means lost jobs? What about people who were in favor of Prohibition?

phinfan3411
07-01-2012, 11:11 AM
Yep, let's kill all of the health insurance companies. Me and probably at least 100,000 (probably many more than that) other hard working people that work for insurance companies and the peripheral companies they employ as vendors can just go find new jobs. Me, well I'm in my mid-30s, well educated, and hard working. I'll find another job after some searching. But that 40 year old African-American single mother with the kid in college and one in high school, well she's been processing medical claims since she was 20. She's got no other job skills because that's all she's ever done. She has no prayer of finding a job other than grocery store clerk making half or less of what she was making before. Screw her. Am I right?

No offense to you Lou, but my opinion will not change.

I also do not believe in unions, public unions to be specific, but private i have trouble with when they break laws to hurt non union companies or to provide themselves a advantage.

I have no issue with the workers that take these jobs, as long as they are not an advocate for that type of behavior, hey i'm in the same boat, i have to support my family, i do not have a job in either sector, but i would take one to put food on the table.

Lets go a bit deeper though, do you think what i have said about the health insurance industry is wrong?

Also, how much money spent on health insurance ACTUALLY goes to care?

Be honest now, if you know.

phinfan3411
07-01-2012, 11:26 AM
One more thing, on this you will have to trust me, my only source is a friend of mine that is a very intelligent contractor for a local portion of a nation wide, not for profit, health insurance company.

The story he told me really pissed me off, and to be honest, it is very believable.

Not for profit does not mean no profit, the government lets them make a small percentage each year, anything bigger than this percentage is supposed to be refunded to their customers.

Well, their take on this is they will never do this as it is too hard to raise rates, and there is no way they are going to give money back to their customers, so with a few months left in the fiscal year they all get together with their accountants to determine where their profit margin is.

Once that margin is figured out, the amount of money is spent on everything you could think of, advertising, new furniture, big fancy bus their executives use once a year, bonuses, you name it.

Now my friend knows about this because as i said he is a contractor, and he does benefit from it. The company i am speaking of have a brand new building here they have already refurnished a few times here in downtown Buffalo, and as a customer of theirs i can verify i have never received a refund.

LANGER72
07-01-2012, 11:30 AM
One of my neighbors lost his job and has no insurance. He is in the process of getting medicaid or whatever the state offer's for coverage for his kids until he gets back on his feet. He was paying $400 per month through his employer for health insurance, with co pays around $50.
One of his kids got the flu and he took the child to the pediatrician with the understanding that he would be paying cash. The bill was only $65 including a couple of tests. The copay would have been $50! The current system is really screwed up. The doctors and insurance triple the costs for their own benefit.
In terms of my family, I really never thought about the breaks and disparities. I am thinking about them now because of all the money I am throwing away with each paycheck.
If Megadeficitcare gets canned by Ronmey(which I hope happens), then some rules, regulations, and nationwide standard pricing control's on medical care and proscription drugs need to be implemented on the providers side. That needs to be rammed through. The ACA and the current system are unacceptable.

LANGER72
07-01-2012, 11:33 AM
One more thing, on this you will have to trust me, my only source is a friend of mine that is a very intelligent contractor for a local portion of a nation wide, not for profit, health insurance company.

The story he told me really pissed me off, and to be honest, it is very believable.

Not for profit does not mean no profit, the government lets them make a small percentage each year, anything bigger than this percentage is supposed to be refunded to their customers.

Well, their take on this is they will never do this as it is too hard to raise rates, and there is no way they are going to give money back to their customers, so with a few months left in the fiscal year they all get together with their accountants to determine where their profit margin is.

Once that margin is figured out, the amount of money is spent on everything you could think of, advertising, new furniture, big fancy bus their executives use once a year, bonuses, you name it.

Now my friend knows about this because as i said he is a contractor, and he does benefit from it. The company i am speaking of have a brand new building here they have already refurnished a few times here in downtown Buffalo, and as a customer of theirs i can verify i have never received a refund.

They probably have wads of "extra" petty cash at the Christmas Party grab bags too. Not for profit is a ruse. Everyone gets paid or they would not be wasting their time there.

Dogbone34
07-01-2012, 12:45 PM
and democrats used to worry about the government in their bedroom

MadDog 88
07-01-2012, 01:27 PM
Yep, let's kill all of the health insurance companies. Me and probably at least 100,000 (probably many more than that) other hard working people that work for insurance companies and the peripheral companies they employ as vendors can just go find new jobs. Me, well I'm in my mid-30s, well educated, and hard working. I'll find another job after some searching. But that 40 year old African-American single mother with the kid in college and one in high school, well she's been processing medical claims since she was 20. She's got no other job skills because that's all she's ever done. She has no prayer of finding a job other than grocery store clerk making half or less of what she was making before. Screw her. Am I right?Unfortunately, the alternative is worse. Health and medical needs should not be profit based. So many want to blame Obama but the real culprit is the huge companies.

Dogbone34
07-01-2012, 02:50 PM
will there be medical advances without profit?

I don't know how this will turn out. It looks like massive new taxes to fund a government take over of health care.

Tetragrammaton
07-01-2012, 07:55 PM
The more I read about Chief Justice Roberts' switch, the more intrigued I am. It is one of the more principled acts anyone in government had done in a long time.

Dolphins9954
07-01-2012, 08:04 PM
The more I read about Chief Justice Roberts' switch, the more intrigued I am. It is one of the more principled acts anyone in government had done in a long time.

Child please.

LANGER72
07-01-2012, 08:19 PM
:sidelol:
Child please.

Tetragrammaton
07-01-2012, 08:54 PM
Child please.

Have you read the stuff I am referring to? He stood up to his colleagues in a way Ron Paul could only dream about.

LouPhinFan
07-01-2012, 11:59 PM
No offense to you Lou, but my opinion will not change.

I also do not believe in unions, public unions to be specific, but private i have trouble with when they break laws to hurt non union companies or to provide themselves a advantage.

I have no issue with the workers that take these jobs, as long as they are not an advocate for that type of behavior, hey i'm in the same boat, i have to support my family, i do not have a job in either sector, but i would take one to put food on the table.

Lets go a bit deeper though, do you think what i have said about the health insurance industry is wrong?

Also, how much money spent on health insurance ACTUALLY goes to care?

Be honest now, if you know.

I get it, it's logic. The needs of the many out weight the needs of the not so many.

Should healthcare be for profit? No, but at this point it's too late for that. But then again profit is what has driven the quantum leaps in modern medicine over the past 50 years. Without profit motive doctors would probably still be drilling holes in patients' heads to "get the evil spirits out".

If everyone is going to wave their fingers at the health insurance industries, then you better wave them at the doctors and especially the hospitals. Their non-insurance charges are outrageous. I see hospital contracts every day. A $3000 ER visit for a broken arm? Well health insurance just saved you $2000 because their flat fee contract pays that hospital only $1000 for every ER visit. And I'm being generous with that $1000. I've seen some contracts that pay $500 or less per ER visit.

Health Insurance costs aren't all the health insurance companies' fault. Many hospitals have formed huge conglomerates of health care providers and then use real bargaining power with the insurance companies. Health insurance companies aren't as powerful and you think they are.

jared81
07-02-2012, 09:33 AM
Unfortunately, the alternative is worse. Health and medical needs should not be profit based. So many want to blame Obama but the real culprit is the huge companies.

i dont care what anyone says. our health care coverage is the best in the world. i understand it sucks for those that dont have it, i think thats a seperate issue. for those of us who do have coverage. being able to go to the doctor, getting a surgery when you need it, is much better than the rest of the world.

my buddy is from england and he just had a baby. his wife was induced into labor. when he called his mother back in england and said that they had a scheduled time and date to go into the doctor for deliver. she couldnt believe that they would be able to plan a delivery. he said that the national healthcare in england would never pay a scheduled delivery. instead of making women wait until they deliver, its much safe to have them check into a hospital. if you dont feel the same way i do, i will call obama and tell him you have a war on women.

trojanma
07-02-2012, 11:06 AM
One of my neighbors lost his job and has no insurance. He is in the process of getting medicaid or whatever the state offer's for coverage for his kids until he gets back on his feet. He was paying $400 per month through his employer for health insurance, with co pays around $50.
One of his kids got the flu and he took the child to the pediatrician with the understanding that he would be paying cash. The bill was only $65 including a couple of tests. The copay would have been $50! The current system is really screwed up. The doctors and insurance triple the costs for their own benefit.
In terms of my family, I really never thought about the breaks and disparities. I am thinking about them now because of all the money I am throwing away with each paycheck.
If Megadeficitcare gets canned by Ronmey(which I hope happens), then some rules, regulations, and nationwide standard pricing control's on medical care and proscription drugs need to be implemented on the providers side. That needs to be rammed through. The ACA and the current system are unacceptable.

You have some unhealthy disdain for doctors.
First off using an anecdote to try and make a generalization for an entire system is STUPID.
I know for a fact that most of the university centers that I have been a part of offer discounts to people paying cash.
1. One center i previously worked at offered all tests for half off and I have personally waived the fee for others that I can.
2. The center that currently employs me has a charity program that offers some percentage of coverage for uninsured that covers up to 100% of all outpatient costs.

The reasons that certain clinics or hospital are more costly to an individual person over one in a large insurance collective is that the large collectives negotiate their price.

Now one point that I think that you are illustrating is the inherent flaw in the "fee for service model". Since it provides a fiscal benefit for each test or procedure ordered.

trojanma
07-02-2012, 11:18 AM
I get it, it's logic. The needs of the many out weight the needs of the not so many.

Should healthcare be for profit? No, but at this point it's too late for that. But then again profit is what has driven the quantum leaps in modern medicine over the past 50 years. Without profit motive doctors would probably still be drilling holes in patients' heads to "get the evil spirits out".

If everyone is going to wave their fingers at the health insurance industries, then you better wave them at the doctors and especially the hospitals. Their non-insurance charges are outrageous. I see hospital contracts every day. A $3000 ER visit for a broken arm? Well health insurance just saved you $2000 because their flat fee contract pays that hospital only $1000 for every ER visit. And I'm being generous with that $1000. I've seen some contracts that pay $500 or less per ER visit.

Health Insurance costs aren't all the health insurance companies' fault. Many hospitals have formed huge conglomerates of health care providers and then use real bargaining power with the insurance companies. Health insurance companies aren't as powerful and you think they are.

You make a valid point.

The only way that this healthcare issue is going to be solved is for everyone to give up something. Doctors, Hospitals, Insurance Companies, Drug Companies, Lawyers and patients. Unfortunately in our current political that is not feasible. The interests with the most money take away the most and those with the least will get hammered. This is our american democracy.

I have seen certain doctors who are swimming under structural costs barely keeping their clinics afloat and I have seen other "lucrative" that rake in gobs of money it makes your head spin.

Our health system is broken. It was broken before the ACA and it will be broken after.
The bottom line is that there is only so much money in the system. You cannot expand the basics to everyon without taking something away. Competition and efficiency only do so much and it will be quickly overrun by our unhealthy aging populace who will require more service.

MadDog 88
07-02-2012, 12:53 PM
i dont care what anyone says. our health care coverage is the best in the world. i understand it sucks for those that dont have it, i think thats a seperate issue. for those of us who do have coverage. being able to go to the doctor, getting a surgery when you need it, is much better than the rest of the world.

my buddy is from england and he just had a baby. his wife was induced into labor. when he called his mother back in england and said that they had a scheduled time and date to go into the doctor for deliver. she couldnt believe that they would be able to plan a delivery. he said that the national healthcare in england would never pay a scheduled delivery. instead of making women wait until they deliver, its much safe to have them check into a hospital. if you dont feel the same way i do, i will call obama and tell him you have a war on women.
I don't need to rely on a buddy to tell me, I have lived in Japan and Italy over the last 16 years and have witnessed social medicine first hand. Many retired Americans live inboth and love the setup. I have used it several times and have no complaints. Of course there are flaws in every system but why bother telling someone who is to foolish to realize health care insurance companies are fleecing you.

Several years ago, I read a ranking that the USA doesn't even break the top 30 in medical care around the world. Pretty sad considering we are the leaders of the free world.

Just out of curiosity, does your job provide you with health care

jared81
07-02-2012, 01:22 PM
I don't need to rely on a buddy to tell me, I have lived in Japan and Italy over the last 16 years and have witnessed social medicine first hand. Many retired Americans live inboth and love the setup. I have used it several times and have no complaints. Of course there are flaws in every system but why bother telling someone who is to foolish to realize health care insurance companies are fleecing you.

Several years ago, I read a ranking that the USA doesn't even break the top 30 in medical care around the world. Pretty sad considering we are the leaders of the free world.

Just out of curiosity, does your job provide you with health care

yes........how do you explain all of th medical break throughs in the past 30 years. do you honestly think if you take the profit away, this would continue?

trojanma
07-02-2012, 01:53 PM
yes........how do you explain all of th medical break throughs in the past 30 years. do you honestly think if you take the profit away, this would continue?

This statement is ONE hundred percent INCORRECT.
I don't know who told you this but it is wrong
The vast majority of MEDICAL research over the last 30 years has gone on in major university centers.
This research was classicaly funded by grants from National Institutes of Health and various other foundations.
Now with years of cuts and decline more and more research is coming from private sources. This has created major moral dilemmas for researchers who want to be able to work in an intellectually honest setting.

Even if a company such as Pfizer makes a drug like Lipitor that drug's founding is based on years of research that was performed by non-pharma sourcs.

MadDog 88
07-02-2012, 02:29 PM
yes........how do you explain all of th medical break throughs in the past 30 years. do you honestly think if you take the profit away, this would continue?
Why wouldn't it continue? There is no reason to believe research woud come to a stand still.

If you were laid off and suddenly without medical coverage, is it fair to say you would feel differently if you were to become ill and had to pay exorbitant insurance rates? The answer should be yes but the point is, it's easy to say our system is fine as long as your not effected.

Eshlemon
07-02-2012, 03:08 PM
I haven't been able to find the section myself, but I've read from other sources that insurance companies will have to spend 85% of an individual's insurance premiums on actual health services or give the consumer a rebate. I mostly agree with you here, but if that's true, and if there aren't any ways around it, I think that's a small silver lining at least.

Hard to search and find the 85% section because that appears to have been reduced to 80% in one of those backroom deals...



Monday, November 22, 2010
New Affordable Care Act rules give consumers better value for insurance premiums

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced today that consumers will soon begin receiving unprecedented information on the value of their health insurance coverage, and some will receive rebates from insurance companies that spend less than 80 percent of their premium dollars on health care.

Today's announcement is part of the Obama Administration’s effort to increase transparency in the health insurance marketplace. The notification will let consumers know if their insurer did not meet the 80/20 standard -- and that they or their employer will receive a rebate. HHS is also considering requiring insurers notify consumers if their insurer did meet the 80/20 standard. For the text of these proposed notifications, please visit:

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2012pres/02/20120216b.html

...which was lower than the previous.


Medicare, the publicly managed plan for the elderly in the United States, spends 5 percent of each health care dollar on administrative expenses, compared with the 17 percent devoured by private insurers on average
http://masscare.org/health-care-costs/overhead-costs-of-health-care/

...odds on the average now dropping under 83%? And the profit from a mediocre industry average of 3.5% jumps to 5%? I don't have any and need to add some health insurance companies to my portfolio.

LouPhinFan
07-02-2012, 03:09 PM
You make a valid point.

The only way that this healthcare issue is going to be solved is for everyone to give up something. Doctors, Hospitals, Insurance Companies, Drug Companies, Lawyers and patients. Unfortunately in our current political that is not feasible. The interests with the most money take away the most and those with the least will get hammered. This is our american democracy.

I have seen certain doctors who are swimming under structural costs barely keeping their clinics afloat and I have seen other "lucrative" that rake in gobs of money it makes your head spin.

Our health system is broken. It was broken before the ACA and it will be broken after.
The bottom line is that there is only so much money in the system. You cannot expand the basics to everyon without taking something away. Competition and efficiency only do so much and it will be quickly overrun by our unhealthy aging populace who will require more service.

You're exactly correct. The fact of the matter is healthcare in this country is incredibly complicated. People point the finger at insurance companies and rightfullly so, but there are many other facets of the system that have just as much blame. Then you add to this the fact that our population takes poor care of itself and are getting more obese, it just compounds the problem. And no "dreamy" system of whatever healthcare you want will change that.

phins_4_ever
07-02-2012, 07:09 PM
yes........how do you explain all of th medical break throughs in the past 30 years. do you honestly think if you take the profit away, this would continue?

Most research is done non-profit in research labs on and off campus of universities, dedicated research labs etc. While maybe some pharmaceutical companies sponsor such research the majority of the research is funded through grants and donations.

Looking at your responses in this thread and your 'yes' answer to the question if you have health insurance I almost wager the guess that you are maybe working for a government (local or state) or for some company who has a preferred group rate. Most people who have government insurance and/or are part of a group rate don't realize that the average insurance is for the majority of business unaffordable and if they can afford it the insured still have huge deductibles and/or huge co-pays.

I find it interesting as well that a country who calls itself the best in everything has the worst health care system of civilized countries. Yet those opposed to the ACA have no better solution. The same people (Boehner, Cantor etc) who are against the ACA and denying affordable coverage to everybody are the ones who are enjoying government funded and supported health insurance themselves.

No system is perfect but we have the most imperfect system.

Dogbone34
07-02-2012, 07:30 PM
we let nancy pelosi take over the nations health care system.

that was real smart. nice work america.

Dolphins9954
07-02-2012, 08:05 PM
So who do I have to F to get an Obamacare waiver????

trojanma
07-02-2012, 08:18 PM
Do some of you guys have anything else to offer except these unintelligible quips.

Dolphins9954
07-02-2012, 08:25 PM
Do some of you guys have anything else to offer except these unintelligible quips.

zMDs8MEktHE

trojanma
07-02-2012, 08:26 PM
I will offer some criticisms and concerns over the ACA from the point of physicians.

The mass expansion of medicaid is one.
Medicaid is very limited and I suspect that most if not all private practices will not agree to see patients with it. This will shift a very large population of patients to non-profits and universities. Those institutions do not have the infrastructure to deal with them.

The calculations that suggest the budget benefits of the ACA are largely tied to doctors accepting built in reductions in payouts this may drive many smaller and less profitable clinics out of business further restricting access to care. Doctors tacitly accepted these built in reductions with the understanding that hey will be fixed down the road.

Our medical system is not generally equipped to deal with a large influx of patient.

trojanma
07-02-2012, 08:30 PM
zMDs8MEktHE

This says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Dolphins9954
07-02-2012, 08:40 PM
This says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Get a grip bro. A little comedy is in order when talking about this piece of sh!t bill along with all the government does to us from both sides of the aisle.

Valandui
07-03-2012, 12:14 AM
Apparently Rick Scott is refusing to implement it in Florida. We'll see if this holds up.

JTC111
07-04-2012, 04:05 PM
I haven't been able to find the section myself, but I've read from other sources that insurance companies will have to spend 85% of an individual's insurance premiums on...

It's called a "medical loss ration" and it's actually either 80% or 85%. The former is for the small group and individual market; the latter for the large group market. Here's the text in the bill for that secton.:

‘‘SEC. 2718. BRINGING DOWN THE COST OF HEALTH CARE COVERAGE. ‘‘(a) CLEAR ACCOUNTING FOR COSTS.—A health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage (including a grandfathered health plan) shall, with respect to each plan year, submit to the Secretary a report concerning the ratio of the incurred loss (or incurred claims) plus the loss adjustment expense (or change in contract reserves) to earned premiums. Such report shall include the percentage of total premium revenue, after accounting for collections or receipts for risk adjustment and risk corridors and payments of reinsurance, that such coverage expends—
‘‘(1) on reimbursement for clinical services provided to enrollees under such coverage;
‘‘(2) for activities that improve health care quality; and
‘‘(3) on all other non-claims costs, including an explanation of the nature of such costs, and excluding Federal and State taxes and licensing or regulatory fees. The Secretary shall make reports received under this section available to the public on the Internet website of the Department of Health and Human Services.
‘‘(b) ENSURING THAT CONSUMERS RECEIVE VALUE FOR THEIR PREMIUM PAYMENTS.—
‘‘(1) REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE VALUE FOR PREMIUM PAYMENTS.—
‘‘(A) REQUIREMENT.—
Beginning not later than January 1, 2011, a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage (including a grandfathered health plan) shall, with respect to each plan year, provide an annual rebate to each enrollee under such coverage, on a pro rata basis, if the ratio of the amount of premium revenue expended by the issuer on costs described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) to the total amount of premium revenue (excluding Federal and State taxes and licensing or regulatory fees and after
accounting for payments or receipts for risk adjustment, risk corridors, and reinsurance under sections 1341, 1342, and 1343 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) for the plan year (except as provided in subparagraph
(B)(ii)), is less than—
‘‘(i) with respect to a health insurance issuer offering coverage in the large group market, 85 percent,

or such higher percentage as a State may by regulation determine; or
‘‘(ii) with respect to a health insurance issuer offering coverage in the small group market or in the
individual market, 80 percent, or such higher percentage as a State may by regulation determine, except that the Secretary may adjust such percentage with respect to a State if the Secretary determines that the application of such 80 percent may destabilize the individual market in such State.
‘‘(B) REBATE AMOUNT.—
‘‘(i) CALCULATION OF AMOUNT.—The total amount of an annual rebate required under this paragraph shall be in an amount equal to the product of—
‘‘(I) the amount by which the percentage described in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (A) exceeds the ratio described in such subparagraph; and
‘‘(II) the total amount of premium revenue (excluding Federal and State taxes and licensing or regulatory fees and after accounting for payments or receipts for risk adjustment, risk corridors, and reinsurance under sections 1341, 1342, and 1343 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) for such plan year.
‘‘(ii) CALCULATION BASED ON AVERAGE RATIO.—
Beginning on January 1, 2014, the determination made under subparagraph (A) for the year involved shall be based on the averages of the premiums expended on the costs described in such subparagraph and total for the plan.
‘‘(2) CONSIDERATION IN SETTING PERCENTAGES.—In determining the percentages under paragraph (1), a State shall seek to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers, competition in the health insurance market in the State, and value for consumers so that premiums are used for clinical services and quality improvements.
‘‘(3) ENFORCEMENT.—The Secretary shall promulgate regulations for enforcing the provisions of this section and may provide for appropriate penalties.
‘‘(c) DEFINITIONS.—Not later than December 31, 2010, and subject to the certification of the Secretary, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners shall establish uniform definitions of the activities reported under subsection (a) and standardized methodologies for calculating measures of such activities, including definitions of which activities, and in what regard such activities, constitute activities described in subsection (a)(2). Such methodologies shall be designed to take into account the special circumstances of smaller plans, different types of plans, and newer plans.
‘‘(d) ADJUSTMENTS.—The Secretary may adjust the rates described in subsection (b) if the Secretary determines appropriate on account of the volatility of the individual market due to the establishment of State Exchanges.
‘‘(e) STANDARD HOSPITAL CHARGES.—Each hospital operating within the United States shall for each year establish (and update) and make public (in accordance with guidelines developed by the Secretary) a list of the hospital’s standard charges for items and services provided by the hospital, including for diagnosis-related groups established under section 1886(d)(4) of the Social Security Act.’’.
(g) Section 2719 of the Public Health Service Act, as added y section 1001( (https://sites.google.com/site/healthreformnavigator/ppaca-sec-1001)4) of this Act, is amended to read as follows: