Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Naw, they're just concerned with ObamaScare and delusional talking points.

Mind you Obamacare was oringially conceived by Republicans, instituted by the Republican nominee, and upheld by a Republican Supreme Court Justice. So much for socialism I guess.

I think what gets lost in the argument is the fact that both sides agree that something needs to be done to curve the rising costs of healthcare insurance. However, anytime the government steps in and takes something over means more tax dollars coming out of all of our pockets. The logic of it all is that if ONLY those who do not have health insurance are "taxed" to get on this program, how in the world is that going to be enough to support this program? I can't see it being enough to pay for all types of healthcare needed.

Also, speaking from experience, any time a healthcare agency deals with state money, their reimbursement is not nearly as quick as it is dealing with private insurance. It can take up to six months, sometimes longer to get reimbursement back. The argument that someone else had the other day was, "at least the health agency is getting reimbursed" but that argument fails when you consider that the health agency has to have money coming in every month to maintain its day to day operations, purchase supplies, pay its employees, etc...I hope you guys keep in mind that the same issues will take place when these health agencies are waiting for this government reimbursement. I work for a mental health agency, and 70% of our money comes from medicaid and medicare, while the other percentage comes from private insurance and self pay. When your payer source is a governmental payer, then you have to deal with the government approving/or denying the health services rendered. To assume this wouldn't happen in the medical health field as much as it does the mental health field is being quite ignorant to the way in which government interference works when it comes to healthcare.

I hate to say it, but too often, the American people only take a small portion of something instead of looking at all of the components. I'm all for everyone having affordable health insurance, but I'm also for everyone having access to that health service without some government no-name approval of that service.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

I think what gets lost in the argument is the fact that both sides agree that something needs to be done to curve the rising costs of healthcare insurance. However, anytime the government steps in and takes something over means more tax dollars coming out of all of our pockets. The logic of it all is that if ONLY those who do not have health insurance are "taxed" to get on this program, how in the world is that going to be enough to support this program? I can't see it being enough to pay for all types of healthcare needed.

Also, speaking from experience, any time a healthcare agency deals with state money, their reimbursement is not nearly as quick as it is dealing with private insurance. It can take up to six months, sometimes longer to get reimbursement back. The argument that someone else had the other day was, "at least the health agency is getting reimbursed" but that argument fails when you consider that the health agency has to have money coming in every month to maintain its day to day operations, purchase supplies, pay its employees, etc...I hope you guys keep in mind that the same issues will take place when these health agencies are waiting for this government reimbursement. I work for a mental health agency, and 70% of our money comes from medicaid and medicare, while the other percentage comes from private insurance and self pay. When your payer source is a governmental payer, then you have to deal with the government approving/or denying the health services rendered. To assume this wouldn't happen in the medical health field as much as it does the mental health field is being quite ignorant to the way in which government interference works when it comes to healthcare.

I hate to say it, but too often, the American people only take a small portion of something instead of looking at all of the components. I'm all for everyone having affordable health insurance, but I'm also for everyone having access to that health service without some government no-name approval of that service.

Please correct me if I was wrong -- but this is forcing insurance companies to cover everyone -- but along with that, forcing everyone to buy insurance. While the government is mandating it, they won't be 'running' it directly. Most government interactions will be between the government and the insurance agency, not the gov't and consumer and/or provider. If that is wrong, please point me in the right direction.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Please correct me if I was wrong -- but this is forcing insurance companies to cover everyone -- but along with that, forcing everyone to buy insurance. While the government is mandating it, they won't be 'running' it directly. Most government interactions will be between the government and the insurance agency, not the gov't and consumer and/or provider. If that is wrong, please point me in the right direction.

That's the gist it. To put a fine point on it, the law now requires insures to end discriminating based on gender, they can no longer deny coverage to kids based on pre-existing conditions, or drop coverage based on sudden illness. It also eliminates lifetime cap limits on patients.

[12thMan]

Daseal, the mandate really applies to the 30 million uninsured Americans with legal status.

[RedskinRat]

Busted: Audio of Obama Lawyer Arguing Obamacare...

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Please correct me if I was wrong -- but this is forcing insurance companies to cover everyone -- but along with that, forcing everyone to buy insurance. While the government is mandating it, they won't be 'running' it directly. Most government interactions will be between the government and the insurance agency, not the gov't and consumer and/or provider. If that is wrong, please point me in the right direction.

That's only part of it:

For people who can't afford health insurance, the Federal government will pay the states to add them to Medicaid. The income requirement will be expanded to include more of the working poor.
Those who don't qualify for the expanded Medicaid will receive tax credits. States will be required to set up insurance exchanges to make it easier to shop for private health insurance coverage.

You're still going to have several million more people going on medicaid instead of purchasing private health insurance - which means rising taxes on everyone to help shoulder the burden of the cost. I think it remains to be seen just how lower premiums could and will be with more people paying into the private health insurance companies. That I cannot argue for or against until I actually see it put into motion, but my earlier argument would still remain the same; health agencies still having to deal with a long wait period on reimbursement by medicaid, and I could possibly understand an even lengthier wait when adding millions more onto the program.

However, my personal opinion, I do see some good points from Obamacare, although some of it is kind of a wait and see approach. I can understand that subsidizing health insurance enough so that many more could afford to pay the premiums could help lower the premiums. That's basically how it's set up in many workplaces - more employees who are on the company insurance plan, the lower the rates ---- I just wished it was THAT easy though! You also have to consider the flipside - the more people on the insurance, the more claims, which often averages in higher insurance premiums the next year.

I do like the idea of being able to keep children on your insurance plan until they're 26. Seems like more and more kids are graduating college around that age because they're either in grad school or they have had to take a bit longer to get through their schooling. The upside is that I'm assuming parents would still get to possibly claim those children as dependents (although I could be very wrong on that one)?

Lastly, I do like the idea of who are falling into that "doughnut hole" of medicare being able to be covered. That happened to my mother, and I think she has skipped a lot of healthcare that she needed to be on because of not being covered.

Overall though, if the argument is that the right does not have a better plan to put in its place, it's because the right is thinking more in terms of job creation and getting folks back to work - at least that's the claims from the Romney camp. Whether if that comes to fruition or not would remain to be seen, but having people working is ultimately the best solution to a lot of this economic stuff that the government keeps jumping into.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Also, you say that $500B in new taxes on ALL Americans. Well that's not true either. Without even breaking out the calculator the law doesn't affect ALL Americans, so how could it jack up taxes on ALL Americans?

Some taxes from Obamacare that affect ALL Americans:

Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013 | Fox News

[NC_Skins]

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Some taxes from Obamacare that affect ALL Americans:

Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013 | Fox News

Dear god. Fox news again? Sammy, for the love of god stop reading that crap.

As usual, they distort and exaggerate the truth. Let's start with that first point.

1. The ObamaCare Medical Device Manufacturing Tax

This 2.3 percent tax on medical device makers will raise the price of (for example) every pacemaker, prosthetic limb, stent, and operating table. Can you remind us, Mr. President, how taxing medical devices will reduce the cost of health care? The tax is particularly destructive because it is levied on gross sales and even targets companies who haven’t turned a profit yet.

These are often small, scrappy companies with less than 20 employees who pioneer the next generation of life-prolonging devices. In addition to raising the cost of health care, this $20 billion tax over the next ten years will not help the country’s jobs outlook, as the industry employs nearly 400,000 Americans. Several companies have already responded to the looming tax by cutting research and development budgets and laying off workers.

Read more: Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013 | Fox News

Plastics Today

An article authored by Paul N. Van de Water states: "The House will soon consider legislation to repeal the excise tax on medical devices that was enacted to help pay for health reform. The provision is sound, however, and the industry lobbying campaign aimed at repealing it is based on misinformation and exaggeration."

In a head-on attack on the main industry criticisms of the tax, Van de Water says: "The tax will not cause manufacturers to shift production overseas. The tax applies equally to imported and domestically produced devices, and devices produced in the United States for export are tax-exempt. The tax will have little effect on innovation in the medical device industry. To the contrary, health reform may well spur medical device innovation by promoting more cost-effective ways of delivering care."

Excise Tax on Medical Devices Should Not Be Repealed — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

^^I suggest you all read that article in regards to the Medical Excise Tax.



At this point, Fox News should be treated much like The Onion when it comes to stories.

[12thMan]

Seriously, the Fox talking points have got to stop.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

One more thing SS33, your $700B estimate is looking at a different time frame when the law was originally passed. The first two years of it didn't cost much because there wasn't much implementation. The new estimates cover 2011-2012.

On a side note every year it costs more to repeal the law, which explodes the deficit. CBO says repeal would costs $230 billion. Basically Republicans are full of shit when they say repeal and replace.

I think the repeal cost is based on going with (Obamacare + taxes) vs. projected costs going back to the old system. I don't think the CBO number refers to what Republicans are proposing at all. So how can you say the Repubs are full of **** in this case?

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

snip

Those links really don't support your own positions very much:

From your own links:

All of that being said, there is room for improvement in how the medical device tax is assessed. Small companies that are often engines for important innovations need more protection from the tax. Any potential impact of the tax on R&D in the United States needs to be rethought and changed. Medical innovation is a powerful resource of the United States and a growing pillar of our economy.

Subsequent to posting this article, Thomas C. Novelli, VP Government Affairs of the Medical Device Manufacturers Association, pointed out to me: "There is no tiered-approach to the device tax and the tax applies to companies regardless to revenue. And since this tax is based purely on revenue, the smaller companies (which constitutes the majority of the industry) will bear the brunt of the tax. Many of these companies are either not profitable or have a very low profit margin. Both the Bloomberg article, and the corresponding articles that cite the Bloomberg article (including the CBPP) fail to consider this reality."

and

Tax Will Have Minimal Effect on Consumers

The effect of the excise tax on consumers’ costs for health care and health insurance will be minimal and will be swamped by other factors. Spending on taxable medical devices represents less than 1 percent of total personal health expenditures, so a small increase in their price would have an almost imperceptible effect on health insurance premiums.

"Swamped by other factors". Not very comforting. Especially since we all know out premiums are indeed going up, for all the "concessions" made by the health care industry to cover more people.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

I think the repeal cost is based on going with (Obamacare + taxes) vs. projected costs going back to the old system. I don't think the CBO number refers to what Republicans are proposing at all. So how can you say the Repubs are full of **** in this case?

The latter part of your statement, Republicans have neither set forth a proposal for how they plan to repeal the law nor one to replace it. Frankly they're full of shit because Obamacare is a Republican model. If they've abandoned their own idea, one that originated at a Republican think tank, what do you suppose they plan to replace the law with? They aren't that's what.

They're full of it.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

The latter part of your statement, Republicans have neither set forth a proposal for how they plan to repeal the law nor one to replace it. Frankly they're full of shit because Obamacare is a Republican model. If they've abandoned their own idea, one that originated at a Republican think tank, what do you suppose they plan to replace the law with? They aren't that's what.

They're full of it.

Maybe they just realized it was a bad idea.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Maybe they just realized it was a bad idea.

maybe, or maybe they realize they should have done it first.