Sign in to follow this  
wiegie

Obamacare is upheld

Recommended Posts

The whole concept of Accountable Care Organizations, ACOs, is an interesting one. My employer is one of the pioneer ones so we will see first hand whether the model can succeed or fail. Healthcare is going to change dramatically over the next 10-20 years no matter who wins this fall. It simply must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what exactly it was that caused so many to prefer to see Obama and by extension USA Inc fail rather than lift a finger to work things through? It's kinda new and kinda alarming to have a major political party that thinks job one is to get rid of the president rather than work for the country's benefit.

 

Oh yeah.........there is no way on this planet ACA will be repealed. Not a dog's chance, despite all the puffed up buffoon Republican governors parroting their crap on their paymaster's talk shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what exactly it was that caused so many to prefer to see Obama and by extension USA Inc fail rather than lift a finger to work things through? It's kinda new and kinda alarming to have a major political party that thinks job one is to get rid of the president rather than work for the country's benefit.

 

Oh yeah.........there is no way on this planet ACA will be repealed. Not a dog's chance, despite all the puffed up buffoon Republican governors parroting their crap on their paymaster's talk shows.

 

 

 

u born yesterday right? you think this is a kinda new concept. Its so very sad. This has been going on forever. Politics is a game to most.

Whats even worst is that the media will force feed an agenda down your throat until you either accept it or give up,

America will never call it what it is. People no longer want to work to better themselfs They just want to be taken care of.

They thurst for socialism.

Edited by moneymakers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

u born yesterday right?

 

:pc: He is 55

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I see the huge reference to the commerce clause. As I understand it, the references to the commerce clause were not necessary for Roberts' logic (which is why RBG had something to say about it in her opinion), and as a result, they aren't really a part of the precedent, and as such, shouldn't play a role in future rulings.

 

I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, however, I believe this is right.

 

 

a majority of the court ruled that the government's powers under the commerce clause are limited. under several new deal era cases, any limits on those powers were basically obliterated. this is one of only 2 or 3 rulings since (US v Lopez is another) that in the last couple decades that have asserted there ARE limits. it's an important precedent in that respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I tend to agree about the commerce aspect. I have always maintained that the mandate is a tax, the Democrats were just too craven to call it one (a marker as to how far the conversation has been poisoned). I think health insurance costs are a tax too, in effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what exactly it was that caused so many to prefer to see Obama and by extension USA Inc fail rather than lift a finger to work things through? It's kinda new and kinda alarming to have a major political party that thinks job one is to get rid of the president rather than work for the country's benefit.

 

Oh yeah.........there is no way on this planet ACA will be repealed. Not a dog's chance, despite all the puffed up buffoon Republican governors parroting their crap on their paymaster's talk shows.

 

 

I am, perhaps, more jaded. I think politicians rarely think about the good of the people and spend the majority of their time thinking about staying in office and staying or becoming the party in power.The phenomenon is not new to this congress, it was not new to congress when Bush was in Office and it was not new when Clinton was in Office. I don't know who started it but I think it was old when the Whigs were a viable party.

 

In the end all politicians understand that "serving the people", an obscene expression if ever there was one, beats being part of the people. Ruling is addictive and lucrative, and I do not trust the behavior of addicts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am, perhaps, more jaded. I think politicians rarely think about the good of the people and spend the majority of their time thinking about staying in office and staying or becoming the party in power.The phenomenon is not new to this congress, it was not new to congress when Bush was in Office and it was not new when Clinton was in Office. I don't know who started it but I think it was old when the Whigs were a viable party.

 

In the end all politicians understand that "serving the people", an obscene expression if ever there was one, beats being part of the people. Ruling is addictive and lucrative, and I do not trust the behavior of addicts.

 

 

No, this is different. We all know they spit and curse at each other all the time but eventually stuff got done. Now, not so much. For example, if they'd made the effort, the Republicans could have got a couple of things out of the ACA. In exchange for making passage easier, they could perhaps have got some measure of tort reform and multi-state insurance, for instance. Instead they chose to be completely obstructive and now end up with being forced to waste time trying to repeal something that will be pretty darn popular by the time a repeal opportunity arises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this is different. We all know they spit and curse at each other all the time but eventually stuff got done. Now, not so much. For example, if they'd made the effort, the Republicans could have got a couple of things out of the ACA. In exchange for making passage easier, they could perhaps have got some measure of tort reform and multi-state insurance, for instance. Instead they chose to be completely obstructive and now end up with being forced to waste time trying to repeal something that will be pretty darn popular by the time a repeal opportunity arises.

 

 

I don't know if it is different, or just fresher in our minds. You seem an astute observer so I will give your perspective some ongoing thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this is different. We all know they spit and curse at each other all the time but eventually stuff got done. Now, not so much. For example, if they'd made the effort, the Republicans could have got a couple of things out of the ACA. In exchange for making passage easier, they could perhaps have got some measure of tort reform and multi-state insurance, for instance. Instead they chose to be completely obstructive and now end up with being forced to waste time trying to repeal something that will be pretty darn popular by the time a repeal opportunity arises.

 

 

Thinking working together is a good thing is fine but when one side opposes massive government control over citizenry and massive federal control over states there simply is not a lot of room for working together..

 

On both counts this is what Obamacare was from day one.

 

Now that the courts ruled the way they did, I suspect both sides will have to work together to come up with a real solution as this one does not do it's name justice. Without state Medicaid support via funding this bill is nothing more than taxes to control a system.

 

The Dems could have easily inserted tort reform, open access across state lines, and insurance legislation as to age of siblings with preexisting conditions had they desired to drive down costs without the massive bureaucracy of 20 something new hidden tax programs not to mention state funding. The Democrats had the votes to do all these things. Why didn't they include tort reform or open up competition between state lines for carriers?

 

The fallacy is sitting back and really believing this was ever really about cost of healthcare, it was always about control of healthcare and still is. The key difference today is the knowledge that this Federal tax program is now out in the open therefore funding will be the next big fight. Without State Funding which is where the largest percent of uninsured would have gone via unprecedented Medicaid expansion this bill has to now be funded via open Federal taxes.

 

Not sure many realize this today but reality is just around the corner.

 

So the real questions center on what was ultimately accomplished:

 

1)Those uninsured, that really couldn't afford it will have to pay a fine because they still can't afford it, however, since 48% don't pay income tax to begin with where is the vehicle to collect?

 

2) The states no longer are forced expand their medicaid roles so this falls on the Federal Government? Tax to Fund this new entitlement will be a battle given the difficulty to collect no matter how much we expand the IRS. The heavy lifting in other words is now a Federal problem, not an individual state problem.

 

3) How many business concerns, both small and conglomerate self insured, will drop coverage all together forcing individuals to state exchanges to cover 100% of the real costs given it may be far less expensive to pay fines for all sizes of business?

 

This bill doesn't reduce anything it only moves the piles of cash around and the costs will/must be absorbed at the federal level as an entitlement benefit funded by Americans via federal tax dollars.

 

BTW, Republican arguments will most likely begin to shift away from open repeal because they really don't have to now that this is little more than a tax plan. Simply killing funding will take care of this so government will now have to really look for ways to reduce costs or the American people will and should vote them out of office.

 

Both sides are pretty smart. The left knows good and well this is simply the first phase of moving to a single payer system and they knew opening up any cracks like tort reform or more open competition would hurt the long term goal of a single payer system completely controlled by the federal Bureaucracy.

 

The right knew all along this was a tax system that the Federal Government was hiding real costs in State Budgets and do not want the Federal Government controlling 1/6th of the economy based on an unsustainable system where by we are going broke given almost 50% don't contribute to government revenue via income taxes.

 

At least today, the curtain has been pulled back and all will begin to learn this is a huge federal power entitlement program based on tax to fund principles and we will be electing leaders going forward to fund or not at this time in history.

 

My take is the government can't handle this control given we are so inefficient we are borrowing more annually than most countries spend annually. Debt spending is out of control and this will add a few trillion over the next decade unless Congress implements a FICA type tax in the range of 7-10 % so all really contribute to healthcare. Of course those that already have and pay insurance won't be really happy about this plan.

 

Meanwhile all those without today will continue to flood our emergency rooms as their primary care provider and in the future it will be worse because the government policies of scaling back medicare reimbursement will drive more and more primary doctors away. Of course all the illegals, all the ones that elect to pay a fine, and all those that can't afford to do either will still flood are emergency rooms when they have a cold.

 

Unfortunately, we haven't really fixed anything which is what we get for having leaders sign bills they never even read. We did create a massive new entitlement that raising some 20 new taxes and ancillary items have no hope of covering costs. The Feds wanted this and today, the only way to pay for it is via taxes at a federal level given they can't force the states and any state would be foolish to pay for through their existing revenue model.

Edited by Ice1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the whole thread and don't intend to. I am just curious - given the long standing and well documented record of the Federal government when it intrudes into the private sector, are there seriously people in this country who think that the addition of a Federal layer of beauracracy into the health care system will actually reduce costs, and improve the system? That's just mindnumbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Four more years.

 

 

I give this country about that long given its current path also. Well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the whole thread and don't intend to. I am just curious - given the long standing and well documented record of the Federal government when it intrudes into the private sector, are there seriously people in this country who think that the addition of a Federal layer of beauracracy into the health care system will actually reduce costs, and improve the system? That's just mindnumbing.

 

Exactly!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I give this country about that long given its current path also. Well said.

 

 

Exactly again!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the whole thread and don't intend to. I am just curious - given the long standing and well documented record of the Federal government when it intrudes into the private sector, are there seriously people in this country who think that the addition of a Federal layer of beauracracy into the health care system will actually reduce costs, and improve the system? That's just mindnumbing.

 

 

 

No, they don't think the FedGov will do a good job, the problem is that when a Country has more freeloaders then hard

working taxpayers, the freeloaders will let the FedGov do as they please as long as they benefit. They could care less

about how it affects the taxpayers or the Country as a whole.

 

This is nothing more then a tax increase on the middle class, with the state of our Country in at the moment, that

is not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) The states no longer are forced expand their medicaid roles so this falls on the Federal Government? Tax to Fund this new entitlement will be a battle given the difficulty to collect no matter how much we expand the IRS. The heavy lifting in other words is now a Federal problem, not an individual state problem.

 

3) How many business concerns, both small and conglomerate self insured, will drop coverage all together forcing individuals to state exchanges to cover 100% of the real costs given it may be far less expensive to pay fines for all sizes of business?

 

To address 2 and 3:

 

2. If a state wants to opt out of the additional federal money, it apparently can. Once it's citizens figure out that the people in the next door blue state are getting health care while they aren't.........well, good luck with that.

 

3. Why would a business that can drop insurance right now without penalty do so after a penalty can be assessed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To address 2 and 3:

 

2. If a state wants to opt out of the additional federal money, it apparently can. Once it's citizens figure out that the people in the next door blue state are getting health care while they aren't.........well, good luck with that.

 

3. Why would a business that can drop insurance right now without penalty do so after a penalty can be assessed?

 

 

Oh yeah.......and tort reform is a Republican wish, as is inter-state insurance, so why not ask for them and force the Democrats to say why they shouldn't be included?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah.......and tort reform is a Republican wish, as is inter-state insurance, so why not ask for them and force the Democrats to say why they shouldn't be included?

 

 

You're serious? The GOP was left completely out of the closed door meetings on Obamacare. I'm not saying the GOP could have solved all the issues with health care, but some of their ideas were (and are) quite credible and realistic. Tort reform (ask your doctor how much they pay in insurance premiums), allowing small businesses to band together for coverage, allowing companies to sell across state lines and thus compete with much larger customer bases are all very solid principles and were the foundation of the GOP health insurance reform platform right from the onset. They were discarded without consideration during the creation of the Obamacare abomination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is always an accounting. When the laws of nature and/or the laws of economics are violated there is always an accounting. The accounting may not be immediate, but it comes just the same. Rewarding the fruits of the labor of the productive to the non-productive violates the laws. In some few exceptional circumstances there may be benefits to doing so, but on average and in the long run that just isn't so. We are on a non-sustainable path. Borrowing to sustain that path for another year or two does nothing but make the inevitable accounting worse.

 

Just my opinion of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the whole thread and don't intend to. I am just curious - given the long standing and well documented record of the Federal government when it intrudes into the private sector, are there seriously people in this country who think that the addition of a Federal layer of beauracracy into the health care system will actually reduce costs, and improve the system? That's just mindnumbing.

 

 

Well, for one thing, tell me who has higher overhead costs? CMS or private insurers? I know who reimburses providers less, and that's the feds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for one thing, tell me who has higher overhead costs? CMS or private insurers? I know who reimburses providers less, and that's the feds.

 

 

CMS has lower per patient overhead because it has the power of government enforcement behind it. The private sector absorbs a substantial amount of that reduced overhead by transfer to its clientele as doctors increase private service fees to cover the differences. And how do you think that will affect the system when the government caps all charges rather than the current system that allows doctors to spread the impact of current government sponsored care and its significantly reduced fees across private insurance charges? Obamacare explicitly provides the government the power to do this. Many doctors already do not accept Medicare and Medicaid patients because of the requirement for greatly reduced fees to provide services to those patients as well as the greatly elongated timeline in recovery those fees from the government.

 

No one is saying the system isn't greatly flawed and needs reform. But this is clearly a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

Edited by Bronco Billy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, now I'm participating in the debate when I know better. The true believers can't be swayed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.