US Supreme Court Say NO NO NO to Obamacare!!

[huevonkiller]

1990s Bill Clinton is more Republican than Romney, the guy flat out scares me.

I'd rather have Obama be President again and get all the blame.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

I just want him to lose to see butthurt obama supporters, which will amuse me.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Obama loss will drag the country into a new civil war. :MARIS61:

 

[barfo]

This thread is precious.

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

States can opt out, if i read correctly.

They can opt out of the Medicaid expansion. The one thing the Supreme Court overturned was the federal penalty of taking away all Medicaid funding from states that opted out of the Medicaid expansion. The court ruled that it should be a free choice for states as to how they handle Medicaid and the penalty took away that choice. The rest of the bill, as I understand it, is not subject to opt-out.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I keep thinking that the name is a misnomer. No part of health care (as I understand, even after that excellent post) got more affordable...an MRI is still $3k, my dad's post-cancer medication is still the same cost, one night in the ER still costs the same...

When will people realize that this is "helping" people get insured by taxing/mandating the heck out of others? Why mandate insurance (or "tax" it, if that's more constitutionally correct)? Why not make it more affordable, removing price gouging, etc.? Why would any supporter think it's ok to soak taxpayers with the ridiculous costs associated with post-cancer care instead of reducing the amount of gouging that providers/medicine manufacturers can get away with? Medicare and Medicaid is over $700B overrun this year, without the ObamaCare expansion. The interest on that debt is paid by taxpayers, who are also paying for the debt expanding the program, as well as the budgeted program.

These two reasons, imho, are two reasons why many of the supporters (including the President) will be voted out this year. And I have no doubt that Romney would make good his promise to make the first thing he does to repeal PPACA. Unlike, say, closing Gitmo.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I wonder about this bill.

More taxes across the board, higher costs to insurance companies, more taxes to insurance companies and a near inability to raise premiums to insurance companies. I mean, I get the fact Obama/Pelosi/Reid want to eliminate insurance companies, but this is a fairly punitive way to do so.

My prediction- within 90%+ of all health care in this country will be via the national health care plan, dramatic increase in taxes, fraud on an unprecedented scale and the continued decline of the middle class.

 

[Eastoff]

When will people realize that this is "helping" people get insured by taxing/mandating the heck out of others?

That is how insurance works already. You always pay and when someone goes wrong, you get money from the big pool.

Why mandate insurance (or "tax" it, if that's more constitutionally correct)?

Because if they didn't mandate healthcare, it wouldn't be fair to include the no denial of patients with preconditions. it was proposed by the republicans years ago, and is quite the compromise really.

Why not make it more affordable, removing price gouging, etc.?

I believe they tried to do some of these things. Like there was a change to the ability to sue doctors for malpractice.

Why would any supporter think it's ok to soak taxpayers with the ridiculous costs associated with post-cancer care instead of reducing the amount of gouging that providers/medicine manufacturers can get away with?

Because right now, when someone goes to the ER and doesn't have insurance, and they rack up a 15000$ bill, and can't pay for it. Do you know who ALREADY fronts the bill? Everyone else with healthcare already. the hospitals eat that cost and move the cost onto their paying customers.

 

[Minstrel]

I keep thinking that the name is a misnomer. No part of health care (as I understand, even after that excellent post) got more affordable...an MRI is still $3k, my dad's post-cancer medication is still the same cost, one night in the ER still costs the same...

When will people realize that this is "helping" people get insured by taxing/mandating the heck out of others? Why mandate insurance (or "tax" it, if that's more constitutionally correct)? Why not make it more affordable, removing price gouging, etc.?

Most of the law hasn't gone into effect yet, so what things cost today isn't really related to the ACA. From my understanding, there are regulations on what insurance companies can charge and the profits they can take, but those provisions don't go into effect until 2013/2014. One detail that I recall is that a minimum of 80% of the money that insurance companies take in must go to providing health care, for example.

 

[Eastoff]

Most of the law hasn't gone into effect yet, so what things cost today isn't really related to the ACA. From my understanding, there are regulations on what insurance companies can charge and the profits they can take, but those provisions don't go into effect until 2013/2014. One detail that I recall is that a minimum of 80% of the money that insurance companies take in must go to providing health care, for example.

and insurers cannot kick off children until they are 25.

 

[BrianFromWA]

That is how insurance works already. You always pay and when someone goes wrong, you get money from the big pool.

That's NOT how insurance works. Insurance is a gamble on the company betting that the premiums they charge a customer would be higher than the costs they have to pay out for him. It's voluntary on both ends. If I don't like that a company is charging me $1000 a month, then I can choose not to pay that. If a company doesn't think that they can cover me for the premium I want, they don't have to. Insurance is a separate issue from health care (which was my point to begin with).

Because if they didn't mandate healthcare, it wouldn't be fair to include the no denial of patients with preconditions.

Why? If they deem it'll cost more for the care of a cancer survivor than someone who's never had it, why shouldn't they be able to either charge them accordingly or not take the risk at all?

Because right now, when someone goes to the ER and doesn't have insurance, and they rack up a 15000$ bill, and can't pay for it. Do you know who ALREADY fronts the bill? Everyone else with healthcare already. the hospitals eat that cost and move the cost onto their paying customers.

A) Why is the bill 15000? (Because health care isn't "affordable") B) Why aren't they paying for it? (they have other priorities for that money) C) Right now, I can negotiate (and do) with hospitals. With this mandate, I don't have the option of not having insurance.

 

[Eastoff]

That's NOT how insurance works. Insurance is a gamble on the company betting that the premiums they charge a customer would be higher than the costs they have to pay out for him. It's voluntary on both ends. If I don't like that a company is charging me $1000 a month, then I can choose not to pay that. If a company doesn't think that they can cover me for the premium I want, they don't have to. Insurance is a separate issue from health care (which was my point to begin with).

Why? If they deem it'll cost more for the care of a cancer survivor than someone who's never had it, why shouldn't they be able to either charge them accordingly or not take the risk at all? A) Why is the bill 15000? (Because health care isn't "affordable") B) Why aren't they paying for it? (they have other priorities for that money) C) Right now, I can negotiate (and do) with hospitals. With this mandate, I don't have the option of not having insurance.

Sorry I don't have better answers, but that's my general understanding in trying to answer your questions.

 

[Eastoff]

Why? If they deem it'll cost more for the care of a cancer survivor than someone who's never had it, why shouldn't they be able to either charge them accordingly or not take the risk at all?

PS you are literally describing a death panel that chooses who gets to be on insurance, and who doesn't.

 

[BrianFromWA]

Look, I think we want the same things. I don't want cancer medicine to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don't want an MRI to cost $3k. I don't want a stay in a hospital to cost $2000 a night. But that's not getting fixed at all with this.

What's happening here is that another group of people (in this case, mostly people who don't want to pay for insurance, or those whose medical situations are such that insurance is cost-prohibitive) are going to get something for free or at a reduced rate. They like that, sure...and for them, there probably isn't much difference between PPACA and "affordable health care." But for the other 255 million Americans, there will now be a tax if they don't choose to pay the insurance companies' rates for now having to cover previously uninsurable-for-cost-prohibition customers. Costs for their care didn't go down. But the price they have to pay for insurance just went up, and business' costs for having plans for their employees went up.

 

[BrianFromWA]

PS you are literally describing a death panel that chooses who gets to be on insurance, and who doesn't.

Why should a private company be forced to pay for someone's care? Why isn't that person? Or their family? Or their neighborhood? Or their church? Why are you now restricting the ability of a private company to choose its customers, or the prices they charge for them? It's not Blue Shield's concern that I get cancer or not unless I'm their client. Why the heck should they have to take on a case where they lose money?

So spare with the scary words.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Look, I think we want the same things. I don't want cancer medicine to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don't want an MRI to cost $3k. I don't want a stay in a hospital to cost $2000 a night. But that's not getting fixed at all with this.

What's happening here is that another group of people (in this case, mostly people who don't want to pay for insurance, or those whose medical situations are such that insurance is cost-prohibitive) are going to get something for free or at a reduced rate. They like that, sure...and for them, there probably isn't much difference between PPACA and "affordable health care." But for the other 255 million Americans, there will now be a tax if they don't choose to pay the insurance companies' rates for now having to cover previously uninsurable-for-cost-prohibition customers. Costs for their care didn't go down. But the price they have to pay for insurance just went up, and business' costs for having plans for their employees went up.

Good post.

And when the fraud sets in, the cost to you and me will be hundreds of dollars per month. Some people just can't afford it. But if they can't, they then get fined on top of it all. It's kind of like living in a communist country.

 

[Eastoff]

Good post.

And when the fraud sets in, the cost to you and me will be hundreds of dollars per month. Some people just can't afford it. But if they can't, they then get fined on top of it all. It's kind of like living in a communist country.

No, in a communist country healthcare is free and everyone gets it. There is no money to be fined in the first place.

 

[MARIS61]

IMO, this will just mobilize average joe america and the tea party types stronger than what we saw 2 years ago.

Since "average joe america" and "the tea party types" are polar opposites (politically speaking) I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Since "average joe america" and "the tea party types" are polar opposites (politically speaking) I'm not sure what your point is.

tell that to the scores of democratic congressmen and senators that have gotten voted out of office the past two years. :MARIS61:

 

[PapaG]

I wonder about this bill.

More taxes across the board, higher costs to insurance companies, more taxes to insurance companies and a near inability to raise premiums to insurance companies. I mean, I get the fact Obama/Pelosi/Reid want to eliminate insurance companies, but this is a fairly punitive way to do so.

My prediction- within 90%+ of all health care in this country will be via the national health care plan, dramatic increase in taxes, fraud on an unprecedented scale and the continued decline of the middle class.

CBO: At Least 75% Of Obama’s Mandate Tax Will Fall On Families Making Less Than $250K

 

[PapaG]

and insurers cannot kick off children until they are 25.

25 year-old children. Well, at least Obama's economy has record numbers of 25 year-olds still living with Mommy and Daddy.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

No, in a communist country healthcare is free and everyone gets it. There is no money to be fined in the first place.

Good point.

 

[PapaG]

Good point.

There is also free food in Communist countries!

Mmmm mmm. Nothing like a half-day wait from some tasty bread and water!

 

[MickZagger]

Conservative circle jerk....:MARIS61::MARIS61:

 

[oldguy]

Dude honestly, you need to stop the illegal immigration thing you just look unreasonable for no reason.

Give immigrants work visas, no welfare, and we're all fine.

Don't forget the new health care they get now.

Go Blazers

 

[maxiep]

CBO: At Least 75% Of Obama’s Mandate Tax Will Fall On Families Making Less Than $250K

[video=youtube;56c1fSdTAWI]

Oops.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

 

[PapaG]

Roberts rewrote a law, changing it from a "penalty" to a "tax". He is constitutionally unentitled to write or rewrite laws.

Impeach him now.

 

[PapaG]

Conservative circle jerk....:MARIS61::MARIS61:

No surprise who shows up for a circle jerk. As a union member though, you really don't have a right to say anything, since unions are exempt from ObamaCare.

 

[MickZagger]

No surprise who shows up for a circle jerk. As a union member though, you really don't have a right to say anything, since unions are exempt from ObamaCare.

No need to take offense. Jeez.