DescentBB

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/ ... 6420120628

So much for the republicans being able to hold that over for the election...

My question is how are you going to mandate a person to pay a "tax" as the majority opinion calls it, when 51% of the citizens of this country already pay no federal income taxes?

wasn't the point of the mandate to get people to buy insurance to avoid being taxed?

Obama, your reaction please?

Levying taxes as a punishment or against a specific group of people seems very very wrong to me.

Afraid I agree there. None of Obamacare addresses the real problem, the escalating costs of health care, not the stupid health insurance. They aren't the same concept. I have to say to Obama and all of the moronic politicians in Congress, It's not that we all need to be forced to by overpriced insurance, what we need is actual health care for those everyday medical issues that we can afford when we need it, without having to buy insurance. Insurance should only be for major life or death medical issues and be optional to purchase. If one doesn't want to buy it or can't afford it, they can either get charity, or die. That's life. If I want to forgo expensive end-of-life treatments, let me do it on my dime and have that freedom to choose that option.

Spidey wrote:Levying taxes as a punishment or against a specific group of people seems very very wrong to me.

well at least he's trying to screw everyone now not just the rich

So now the government truly owns you. If you breathe, you owe them a tax.

hey look at that. you don't have to worry about going into debt for the rest of your life because you needed a liver transplant.

Best thing I've seen involving this so far? People raging on Twitter that they're moving to Canada because the US now has "socialized healthcare."

There you go -- we should implement the canadian HC model in the US ! Problem solved.

It's moments like that when you say to yourself "holy ★■◆● how ★■◆●ing stupid is my country."

Ferno wrote:hey look at that. you don't have to worry about going into debt for the rest of your life because you needed a liver transplant.

No…now you are going to spend your ENTIRE life in debt, paying your insurance premiums, just in case you MIGHT need a liver transplant.

Top Gun wrote:It's moments like that when you say to yourself "holy ★■◆● how ★■◆●ing stupid is my country."

Got that one right...put the SCOTUS right at the top of the list.

What, for making a constitutionally-correct decision? For not bowing to the drooling hordes?

Top Gun wrote:Best thing I've seen involving this so far? People raging on Twitter that they're moving to Canada because the US now has "socialized healthcare."

I love it.


and when they get here and find out about our healthcare.. it'll be too late for them to do anything about it. But they might say something like: I'm moving to europe!

Spidey wrote:No…now you are going to spend your ENTIRE life in debt, paying your insurance premiums, just in case you MIGHT need a liver transplant.

yeah we'll see.

which other nations lack socialised healthcare btw?

Take a look. I don't really see any other first-world countries without it, though I just gave it a quick breeze-through.

Top Gun wrote:What, for making a constitutionally-correct decision? For not bowing to the drooling hordes?

Obama himself said it wasn’t a tax. (Allegedly)


It was struck down, under the defense the Admin was using (commerce clause)…and upheld under the premise the white house denied. (a tax)

Somebody has to be wrong.

roid wrote:which other nations lack socialised healthcare btw?

Hey, don’t kid yourself we still don’t have anything that is even close to universal care…but, we do now have a bastardized private system…that’s now bound to fail.

The US healthcare system was bound to fail even before Obama Care, so that is nothing new.

Krom wrote:The US healthcare system was bound to fail even before Obama Care, so that is nothing new.

I'll agree with that.

I think that in practice the only people this will really hurt will be the lower middle class. The majority of the upper middle and upper class people had and were going to have health insurance anyways. The lower class will get taken care of by government anyways... so it leave the people in the middle who don't have enough money to be giving it up, but aren't considered poor enough to get much of the government's sympathy.

The one thing I'm afraid is more captured regulatory agencies related to this.... I'd honestly prefer straight up social health care over more "too big to fail" bailout fiascoes from which a select few walk away billionaires.

ThunderBunny wrote:So now the government truly owns you. If you breathe, you owe them a tax.

Well, I did some quickie checking. It will be far cheaper just to pay the fine of $695 per year than pay my health insurance premiums of $2484 per year. That doesn't include the $10,000 deductible that I have to satisfy per year either. So I have to shell out $12,484 just to be covered BEFORE I can get actual health CARE! So is essence, the Plutocrats own me MORE, thanks to the government! The money I save by not paying private health care insurance companies could be actually put towards, uuuuum, actual health care!

EDIT:

Romney loved his MA healthcare mandate sooooo much, he enshrined it in his official governor's portrait. Take a gander at the item on the desk in front of his wife's portrait. It's hard to see, but there is that medical dual-snake seal, or Caduceus, pictured on the cover of the book. Go to the wiki page to view it larger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorsh ... itt_Romney

tunnelcat wrote:medical dual-snake seal

*twitch*

It's actually a symbol of Commerce. The single snake symbol is the proper symbol of medicine, but so many people get it wrong that it's practically the new right.
wiki/Caduceus#Misuse_as_symbol_of_medicine
But, yeah

White House claims ObamaCare fine a 'penalty,' despite court calling it a 'tax'

so IFit's a fine and not a tax. where does that leave the law?? because the Scotus says it's constitutional because it's a Tax and not a fine. Congress has the right to levy a tax on the people. it does not have the right to fine the people

I can see the White House's dilemma. they just gave Romney ammunition that Obama raised Taxes on the middle class. and that is contrary to the Robin Hood stance he's been trying to portray for himself.

"It's a penalty, because you have a choice. You don't have a choice to pay your taxes, right?" Carney said.

HUH?!?!?!? what choice do you have. spend money to get insurance or spend money paying a fine/tax
what kind of BS double talk is that?

roid wrote:It's actually a symbol of Commerce. The single snake symbol is the proper symbol of medicine, but so many people get it wrong that it's practically the new right.
wiki/Caduceus#Misuse_as_symbol_of_medicine
But, yeah

Heh, heh ..... well, that makes it worse, actually. If the 2 seals are commonly interchanged, that tells me that the 2 ideas are flip sides of the same coin, which means that the medical industry in the U.S. is only about commerce, not about healing people.

I think your tinfoil hat's a weeee bit too tight.

LOL, perhaps. However, Romney IS a venture capitalist and Romney DID bring into Massachusetts ROMNEYCARE, back when the Republicans dearly loved the idea. The health insurance industry must have loved it back then too. They jumped right in. But then, that Democrat Obama decided to use it as a pattern for the Affordable Healthcare Act, thinking every Republican would like the idea. But oh no, every Republican screamed socialism, SOCIALISM! We can't have that! If Romney liked it so much when he was gov, why is it BAD as a national program NOW to every Republican in the country? Hypocrites.

It's also my opinion that the healthcare industry is more interested in making money instead of providing actual care. When my husband was hit by a car while riding his bike a few years ago and was injured, the very first thing the hospital did was to put a lien our house, even though we had good insurance and the guy who hit him had good insurance and payment definitely wasn't going to be a problem. Nice business practice to do to someone when they're sick or injured. "Oh, poor baby. You've got a broken leg. Let us take care of that, AFTER we put a lien on your house to be sure we don't get stiffed."

Oh, don't get me wrong, the pricing scheme of the entire healthcare industry is nothing short of disgusting. Hell, you can't even get a basic breakdown of most of the stuff you're paying for.

TC, I don't know what dirt bag ins. company you have you have but let me give you a opposing view. I have Blue Cross Blue shield and pay about 3200.00 a year for premiums with a 80/20 plan. Deductible maxes at 5,000.00. This means I pay 20% of bill until I pay 5000.00 for the year. So last year when I had my Mitral valve repaired, the hospital bills were in excess of 100,000.00. I paid 5,000.00. At no time was my house leaned and the best part was I didn't even have to get approval from my primary care physician to pick the heart surgeon I wanted. So TC, I'd say shop around a bit more for a better insurance company.

Top Gun wrote:Oh, don't get me wrong, the pricing scheme of the entire healthcare industry is nothing short of disgusting. Hell, you can't even get a basic breakdown of most of the stuff you're paying for.

Wrong TG. I get from the insurance company a complete cost break down of precedures/tests and office visits.

I know that sort of breakdown exists, but I'm talking about more in the specific sense. Like, for instance, why I should be charged $120 for a 5-minute check-in with a doctor...who's actually getting that money, and how can they justify that price?

woodchip wrote:TC, I don't know what dirt bag ins. company you have you have but let me give you a opposing view. I have Blue Cross Blue shield and pay about 3200.00 a year for premiums with a 80/20 plan. Deductible maxes at 5,000.00. This means I pay 20% of bill until I pay 5000.00 for the year. So last year when I had my Mitral valve repaired, the hospital bills were in excess of 100,000.00. I paid 5,000.00. At no time was my house leaned and the best part was I didn't even have to get approval from my primary care physician to pick the heart surgeon I wanted. So TC, I'd say shop around a bit more for a better insurance company.

I did shop around! That's the cheapest I could find for an individual policy, and that's from a local company. Blue Cross was quoting even worse here in Oregon!

As for the lien put on our house, that's standard operating procedure for the Corvallis Clinic. I've heard of other private clinics that do the same thing to protect themselves from those poor, sick deadbeats, even if you're not one. You have no say on the matter, as they explained to us in no uncertain terms, with a subtle eff you undertone.

here's a question.

since the SCOTUS has ruled Obama care a Tax it is constitutional because congress has the power to levy a tax on the people
and according to the Constitution ALL tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives.

Clause 1: Bills of revenue

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills

and since the Obama care bill originated in the Senate. does that make it an illegal bill constitutionally?

CUDA wrote:and since the Obama care bill originated in the Senate. does that make it an illegal bill constitutionally?

First, I'm going to entertain this as hypothetically correct. As this would be a violation of the power of the House of Representatives, it would have to be the House of Representatives bringing a lawsuit against the Senate in the Supreme Court, if this avenue was to be explored. Congress suing itself is kind of a non-starter, because is the person who instigates United States Congress v. United States Congress going to have much of a political career from that point forward?

Of course, that hypothetical is entirely moot, because, if you'd done even a cursory bit of research, you'd realize that you're just wrong. The Affordable Care Act was introduced in the House and sent to the Committee on Ways and Means on September 17, 2009. The bill passed in the House on October 8, 2009. The bill's first activity in the Senate was on October 8, when it was first read. It subsequently passed by the Senate, with amendment, on December 24, 2009. The House agreed to the Senate's amended version on March 21, 2010, and it was signed by the President two days later. Now, I'm no expert, but the last time I checked, October comes after September. Therefore, ACA went through the legislative process precisely as prescribed by the Constitution, and anyone who claims otherwise is grasping at imaginary straws.

Research: Do some.

Nice work.

nice work, indeed.....

it always amazes me how many folks accept what some biased source tells them to think, and do utterly zero fact checking.
Hell, everyone makes mistakes, but, really, given the wealth of information that can be dug up, and I mean factual real info, there
is no excuse to keep regurgitating ideologically driven BS. Thanks, BF for the fact checking.

Someone should "fact check" the name of the law....

Everytime I hear "The Affordable Care Act" I have to laugh.

Spidey wrote:Someone should "fact check" the name of the law....

Okay.

In addition, HHS believes that by adding competition to state markets, CO-OPs have the potential to promote efficiency, reduce premiums and/or premium growth, and improve service and benefits to enrollees. HHS notes that by their nature, traditional cooperatives, on which the CO-OP program is modeled, focus on responsiveness to their members and accountability to member needs, which may create flexibility to reduce administrative costs. HHS states that direct savings could be substantial after the initial start-up period and resulting attempts to maintain or regain market share by traditional insurance issuers competing with CO-OPs could lead to system-wide savings across millions of enrollees.

(emphasis mine)

http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587370.pdf

HHS determined that the benefits of the final rule, while not monetized, include the fact that the Exchanges, combined with other actions being taken to implement the Affordable Care Act, will improve access to health insurance, with numerous positive effects, including earlier treatment and improved morbidity, fewer bankruptcies and decreased use of uncompensated care. The Exchanges will also serve as a distribution channel for insurance reducing administrative costs as a part of premiums and providing comparable information on health plans to allow for a more efficient shopping experience.

(emphasis mine)

http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/589934.pdf

The Government Accountability Office and Department of Health and Human Services seem to be saying that the law is quite likely to reduce premiums and direct costs for individuals.


What about the national deficit? The Congressional Budget Office has been mulling that one over.

The legislation will reduce budget deficits by about $140 billion during the 2010-2019 period and by an amount in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP during the following decade.

CBO’s estimates take into account the views of a variety of outside experts (including those on our Panel of Health Advisers), and aim to be in the middle of the wide range of possible outcomes.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/ ... -26-10.pdf

Sounds like a likely net improvement over the pre-ACA status quo.

Until the most dramatic provisions of the law go into effect, starting in 2014, there won't be concrete data to work from, but I'll be interested in hearing why the DHHS, GAO, and CBO are not qualified to provide reasonable estimates of the ACA's effects on individual healthcare costs and the national deficit.

I’m sure all government agencies are qualified to tell people what they want to hear.