Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Giantone

ok ,I get it you don't like the man but this is BS.

He's being sarcastic if you couldn't tell.

[NC_Skins]

Senate theatrics over taxes - POLITICO.com

Here you go fellow GOPers. Your boys in the Senate denying tax cuts for small businesses unless the Democrats extend Bush's tax cuts for the rich again...



Tell me again how it's Obama's fault? (I say this partly in jest)

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

"Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured....but not everyone must prove they are a citizen."

Given that there people who don't have identification papers who have managed to vote in many elections it is incumbent upon the government not the governed to prove citizenry....and since there is no wide spread prevalence of election fraud it is even more imperative for the government make a strong case for these voter ID laws.

A poll tax by any other name is a poll tax, especially when it is enacted during an election year.

[NC_Skins]

Some more lulz. (and irony) Almost hilarious (yet saddening) to watch people vote against their own best interest all to tow the party line.




Benefit me? This can't be!! The GOP said it wouldn't!! SO did Fox News!!

[saden1]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Some more lulz. (and irony) Almost hilarious (yet saddening) to watch people vote against their own best interest all to tow the party line.




Benefit me? This can't be!! The GOP said it wouldn't!! SO did Fox News!!

Hopefully their governors will follow in Rick Perry's footsteps and opt-out. I doubt they will be sincere though. Much like they did with the stimulus they will tell their incompetent base one thing while writing letters to the administration behind the scenes that reads like the pleas of Kolkata street beggars.

[Giantone]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

He's being sarcastic if you couldn't tell.

....nope,don't know how I missed it.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I haven't seen one healthcare economist or insurance industry study that says your healthcare premiums will get jacked up to pay for someone else's healthcare plan. If you can show me ONE independent study reflecting that, I'm all ears.

http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/8226.pdf

Obamacare Has Increased Cost of Health Insurance, Says Kaiser Foundation | CNSNews.com

From the link: "However, he continued, “Our analysis is that the Affordable Care Act [ObamaCare] could have been responsible for about one-and-a-half percentage points – we say 1 to 2 percentage points – of the increase that we’re documenting this year,” he said."

and that's just from 2010 to 2011, when most of the provisions haven't kicked in.

and this: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...0-premiums.pdf

From the link: CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.

and this from PolitiFact (no bastion of conservatism for sure):
PolitiFact | Nancy Pelosi says 'everybody' will get more and pay less under the health care law

Even one of the main architects of Obamacare is changing his tune:
How Obamacare Dramatically Increases the Cost of Insurance for Young Workers - Forbes

from the link:
"Gruber now: Obamacare will increase premiums by 19-30 percent
As states began the process of considering whether or not to set up the insurance exchanges mandated by the new health law, several retained Gruber as a consultant. In at least three cases—Wisconsin in August 2011, Minnesota in November 2011, and Colorado in January 2012—Gruber reported that premiums in the individual market would increase, not decrease, as a result of Obamacare.
In Wisconsin, Gruber reported that people purchasing insurance for themselves on the individual market would see, on average, premium increases of 30 percent by 2016, relative to what would have happened in the absence of Obamacare. In Minnesota, the law would increase premiums by 29 percent over the same period. Colorado was the least worst off, with premiums under the law rising by only 19 percent."

And just sayin: When Medicare was passed in 1965, for example, the federal government estimated it would cost $12 billion in 1990. Medicare actually cost $110 billion in 1990.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

Given that there people who don't have identification papers who have managed to vote in many elections it is incumbent upon the government not the governed to prove citizenry....and since there is no wide spread prevalence of election fraud it is even more imperative for the government make a strong case for these voter ID laws.

A poll tax by any other name is a poll tax, especially when it is enacted during an election year.

The only reason I can see why people object to this law is that they beleive that some people are to dumb to bring an ID to vote. Hell, even if they forget their ID they can still vote and their ID checked following the election. BTW that quote did not say one thing about voter ID.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Some more lulz. (and irony) Almost hilarious (yet saddening) to watch people vote against their own best interest all to tow the party line.




Benefit me? This can't be!! The GOP said it wouldn't!! SO did Fox News!!

That's the problem now days people just look at how something benefits them and they don't care that other have to pay for it.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

The only reason I can see why people object to this law is that they beleive that some people are to dumb to bring an ID to vote. Hell, even if they forget their ID they can still vote and their ID checked following the election. BTW that quote did not say one thing about voter ID.

It's not that they are too dumb, it is that they have never had an ID or needed one. And the implication of your statement can't be misconstrued to mean anything other than for a citizen to show some kind of an identificaiton to "prove" their ability to vote.

There are two ways to prove citizenry and both require the government to be proactive in the verification process. One way places unnecessary burden upon the citizens and the other does not.

The burdensome way is what unscrupulous Republicans are doing which is to force citizens to spend money and energy to obtain a passport, birth certificate or a drivers license obtained by first proving citizenship. And if they don't have any documents at all they have to look to the government, the same government asking them to prove citizenship, to get more documents that show they are indeed citizens.

The unburdensome way is what we do here in Washington state. Anyone can show up to the DMV and register to vote or reigister online. Once the state has your information it checks your name and information against a database that contains all voters eligable to vote based on national citizenship and felons records. Once the election is complete the voting records are made available for participating parties to see and any party can challenge a voter's vote. The voter is then notified of the challenge and they have until the date the election is suppose to be certified prove that the challenge is unfounded.

At the end of the day what we in Washington state is what every state should be doing regardless of a citizens ability to show an ID. Common sense tells you that the government should proactively verify whether a voter can vote in an election cycle and if they can do that then why do you even need an ID? You can't tell me that the government that issued you an ID that proves your citizenship status doesn't know your citizenship status or can't verify it.


Innocent until proven guilty, you understand?

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Oh my god, are you really going to argue semantics now? Jobs being shipped overseas is jobs lost in America. They'd have to lay off people in America just to give jobs to somebody overseas. It's job loss.

Not all jobs lost go overseas. Some are just lost, particularly if there's no demand for said job anymore by circumstances like say increased taxes on a manufacturer. Again, show where the Fox link said those jobs would be sent overseas.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

No, it doesn't. Him sharing a concern isn't him agreeing with Fox.

They made the same take on the same point. I can't see how you could spin this other than agreement on that point, and certainly not call one side exaggerating for it. They both agree the tax hurts small businesses that are important in the medical device field. Maybe you're confusing Fox with the AdvaMed article cited in the CPBB story.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

In other words, he's saying that this tax isn't going to matter really because the number of people covered by the new health insurance which will ultimately increase revenues!!!! Significant increase is the actual word he used.

And here's one example of where the CBPP article makes a foolish conclusion. If you increase demand for medical devices by making more people eligible for them, but decrease supply by increasing taxes on the manufacturer, then medical devices will be more expensive and harder for the average person to get. Even in the best case scenario, how much sooner does someone's health care insurance run out with the increased cost of medical devices? Looking at how hospital costs for everything from surgery to bandages has gone up since insurance companies took a stronger role in setting prices, it's not a rosy picture for people needing those medical devices in the future.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Here is exactly what Fox said.

No. No way companies are laying off people or cutting R&D due to the looming tax. If anything, they are using this as an excuse like many companies like to do. Hrmm...how do I cut my work force, and push the extra work onto others without looking like the bad guy? Oh, I know, I'll just claim this new tax is going to kill my profits!!

But companies must be laying off people for a reason, including profit. They won't actually do such things to hurt themselves, just to not look like the bad guy. I think you're confusing rhetoric by companies that live or die by such business decisions, with rhetoric by posturing politicians in Washington. Sure politicians act like you describe, but people whose bottom line is affected by laying off or hiring people? Really?

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Since you want to argue semantics, Fox's title is this "Five major ObamaCare taxes that will hit your wallet in 2013" is misleading and false as well. Notice the word WILL, and not the word COULD. Distorting? Yes. Misleading? Yes. False? Yes.

There are many medical devices that aren't being taxed. So this tax isn't going to affect everybody's wallet. Not everybody will need to buy a medical device that's being taxed. Hey, not according to Fox!!

You forget that we're all paying for this system, now more than ever. So we are absolutely affected by taxes like this. Not because we may have to get that kind of care ourselves, but because if costs for that kind of service rises, guess who funds the system to support it?

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Listen, we aren't going to agree on this, so you keep believing Fox and I'll chose not to. That we can agree on.

Hey, I'm cool with agreeing to disagree. I'm just saying I don't see where Fox exaggerated *in this case*. I don't agree with believing or dismissing any source out of hand, even if it's Fox or MSNBC or any biased source. It leads to getting entirely too comfortable with getting only one side of debates.

[12thMan]

Sammy, here you go. Premiums set to drop for women. I'll get to those other links later.

Health Insurance Prices For Women Set To Drop : Shots - Health Blog : NPR

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

@mlmpetert,

This is a really good way to frame the discussion. Good questions. Some I've considered but mostly on the pro-side. Before I delve into my answer(s), I just want to correct one or two things you said and then take a step back to help understand "Obamacare" from a slightly different angle.

It's not a bill. It's the law of the land and has been for two years. I know you know that, but it makes a difference in terms of how we discuss and/or debate the law. Once we peel back the term "Obamacare" for a second and call it by it's proper name, The Patient's Bill of Rights/Affordable Care Act, that too makes a huge difference. Most people hear "Obamacare" and immediately certain images, right or wrong, pop into their heads. For the sake of our discussion, Obamacare is fine. Just wanted to point that out.

Secondly, this law doesn't cover ALL Americans. It covers approximately 30 million (revised number per CBO). That's it. No undocumented immigrants and no one gets free medical care. No free rides. Period. That said, all Americans insurance plans aren't directly affected by this law. So most of what we're debating isn't what falls under the Patient Bill of Rights Act portion, because if we go point by point, the vast majority of people here -- left and right -- would agree with most of those rights. What we're debating is the individual mandate. Correct? The idea that those who *don't* have insurance should. Okay, that sounds pretty libertarian to me. Pull your own weight, pal. Is that an expansion of the social safety net. Sure. But it's also an economic imperative. Too much of the nations debt, too much of our GDP is driven by healthcare costs. It's ludicrous to say you're a fiscal hawk and want to do absolutely nothing about our broken healthcare system. It doesn't make moral sense or fiscal sense.

And to that end, I absolutely agree with the court's decision. Whether it falls under the Commerce Clause or the Congress' taxing authority is besides the point in my opinion. It's the law of the land. It was the right thing to do. Republicans believed so in the 90s, Democrats got it passed in the 2000s. This wasn't a unique idea. This wasn't some new radical Obama agenda. Both parties have embraced the idea of universal healthcare at one time or another. The political will power just wasn't there in the past. This time is was and the Supreme Court validated the law passed by the other two branches of government. So you have ALL three branches on the same page regarding a Republican concept.

In terms of Nanny State and redistribution of wealth. I touched on this earlier. There are no giveaways under this law. You can't give me one example, under this law, of "free health insurance". In fact, you appear to contradicting yourself. You say Congress is forcing people to buy insurance, then you turnaround and call it free and wealth distribution. Which is it? There are some tax credits for lower income families who decide to purchase insurance. That's hardly Nanny state. I've yet to see a definitive argument that explains how this is redistribution of wealth. I'm open ears if you want to take a stab it.

The Supreme Court limited the Medicaid provision of the law, basically giving the states ability to deny funding or opt out. In some cases I don't think it's a wise move, but I can live with states making decisions based on the needs of the people and not politics. My biggest concern is how do we address cost containment. I've neither read nor heard anything that says with certainty that costs will come down dramatically because of the law. It's an imperfect law with room for improvement. Just like Social Security and other social programs that passed in their original form. It will be a lot better in the coming years.

12th, my bad in not responding to you sooner. I honestly appreciate you taking the time to voice your thoughts, of which I enjoyed hearing.

I used to like these political threads because they moved slowly and allowed me to hear things I normally wouldn’t, think about things in a thoughtful way, and have informative debate less focused on opinion and more focused on reason. In addition, of course, to calling out and making fun of politicians and their often ridiculous policies. Not saying that isnt true anymore, but for me some of these threads move too fast to keep up with in a casual manor. Not sure if ive changed or if these political threads turn into 15 pages faster than they used too.

When I was putting my post togather asking for your thoughts I literally started typing out Affordable Care Act (I was still gonna call it a bill though), but I just couldn’t do it. The works of Ayn Rand popped into my head and I became even more disgusted with our political system than I normally am. Weve all been hearing about the impending expiration of The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (aka The Bush Tax Cuts), which just like ObamaCare and depending on the person or context can be viewed in opposite extremes. I wonder if Bush or Obama was thinking of Rand’s Equalization of Opportunity Act when they signed their respective bills? So while our populist jargon may do more to conjure up emotion than fact i got to think its much better than deceptive names decided for us, no matter your side of the aisle.

Honestly my biggest issues with The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act To Save Your Mom’s Life isn’t the forced participation (aka individual mandate). It’s the complexity and length of the law. Like most I don’t know much about the law, its hard to understand because its hard as hell to figure out the particulars of it. And in my opinion transparency is the most important thing in a good law, even if its not…. I guess that’s the emotion before reason political ideology im guilty of. But while I am the type of person that says pull your own weight, I will admit that youre more than right in that pulling your own weight in terms of healthcare costs has become a fiscal burden and drag on others/our economy. But im not too sure Obamacare fixes that?

And im not too sure you do either as our biggest concern is shared; how do we address cost containment. This is a huge issue and what I thought the bill was supposed to fix (in addition to saving our moms). I mean me and you are expecting healthcare costs to continue to rise. And while actuarial tables may say more people = less risk/average cost, elementary school tables say more people covered also equal higher total costs (even if the average is less). I just don’t see how this ends well. At some point the actuary’s "proverbial" (sounds ridiculous right?) slide rule breaks.

But while ill say thats my biggest concern its only my biggest concern when it comes to this bill…err law of the land. Obviously that’s the case with most people, but this law has kind of broken politics for me. I just think people are getting too worked up about things that are out of their control.

Don’t get me wrong I still care and like to follow politics and their affects/effects on the world. And I still thoroughly believe that progressivism is a cancer and acts as democracies only kryptonite. If people can vote to entitle themselves to stuff then its only a matter of time. Sadly progressivism is a cancer that even Obamacare cant cure. But I now realize that carcinogens/progressivism is something that democracies allow for. So while getting cancer sucks its also inevitable.

[NC_Skins]

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study | Reuters

Why is it we keep being spoon fed about how wonderful our system is and how we have the best care in the world....blah..blah...blah


Not even remotely close.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

U.S. scores dead last again in healthcare study | Reuters

Why is it we keep being spoon fed about how wonderful our system is and how we have the best care in the world....blah..blah...blah


Not even remotely close.

for someone who decries using Fox News as a source, listen to how the study publisher is described in the linked article:

Previous reports by the nonprofit fund, which conducts research into healthcare performance and promotes changes in the U.S. system, have been heavily used by policymakers and politicians pressing for healthcare reform.(emphasis added)

Anytime the US is compared in a world study, you need to ask yourself, is the US going to stack up equally with a country like the Netherlands(#1 on the list). They are two completely different animals with 2 different economies. Sometimes statistics just don't say the whole truth.