Archive

Obamacare Mandate Upheld By Supreme Court

  • tk421
    Because they don't want nor need to, maybe? What the hell does it matter to you if someone choses to not buy insurance? That is there choice and the fucking federal government shouldn't have anything to do with it. Pathetic, the way that people are ok with the government taking over their lives.
  • FatHobbit
    tk421;1219173 wrote:Because they don't want nor need to, maybe? What the hell does it matter to you if someone choses to not buy insurance? That is there choice and the fucking federal government shouldn't have anything to do with it. Pathetic, the way that people are ok with the government taking over their lives.
    This is an issue as long as the hospitals are forced to treat patients who can't pay.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/lawyers-have-already-drafted-13000-pages-of-regulations-for-new-obamatax-law/


    The national disgrace continues --- only Nov '12 can save us.
  • jhay78
    Footwedge;1218988 wrote:I read it and I feel pretty confident in attacking the messenger...because the messenger spews opinions without a single reference as to what is actually written in the 2700 pages.

    Where are the footnotes? The references? Maybe Obamacare is awful...but so far, not this journalist...or any other has shown a thing.

    All hokey pokey political grandstanding at this point.
    u joking?
    FatHobbit;1219180 wrote:This is an issue as long as the hospitals are forced to treat patients who can't pay.
    Good article from a while ago talking about that issue:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/02/02/myths-of-the-free-rider-health-care-problem/
    People talk about “free-riding,” or uncompensated care, as if it were a law of physics, like gravity: a fundamental problem that has no other solution than forcing everyone to buy health insurance. But it’s not. In fact, “free-riding” is a direct result of a clumsy, unfunded mandate passed by Congress in 1986, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA.

    EMTALA requires that hospitals provide emergency care to anyone who needs it, regardless of citizenship, legal status (i.e. illegal immigrants), or ability to pay. Technically speaking, EMTALA only requires this of hospitals that accept Medicare and Medicaid insurance. But since Medicare and Medicaid represent more than half of all health expenditures in the United States, very few hospitals are equipped to function without government funding, and therefore, nearly every hospital in the United States is covered by EMTALA.

    EMTALA is, indeed, the central factor in the “free-rider” phenomenon. The government forces hospitals to care for these individuals, without financially compensating hospitals for the cost of doing so. It is one of the largest and most coercive unfunded mandates in the United States.

    Personally, I think it’s a good thing that we as a country ensure that everyone, regardless of ability to pay, has access to emergency health care. (We might even call it universal health care.) As I wrote last year,
    [INDENT]There are some instances in which we should obviously consider more than economics: Certainly no wealthy nation should allow a destitute woman who has been hit by a car to die in the street. Likewise, in a pressing emergency, catastrophic care should be provided to those who need it, and the costs can be sorted out later…A more organized program to cover these expenses — provided that the distinction between emergency, chronic, and routine care were reasonably well defined — would be a step forward, and would also clarify the boundaries of the free market in health insurance.
    [/INDENT]Even leaving comprehensive health reform aside, there are many, many alternatives to caring for these individuals that don’t involve an individual mandate. The government could cut other spending or raise taxes in order to fully reimburse hospitals for EMTALA care. The government could require hospitals to check for Medicaid, Medicare, and S-CHIP eligibility, and then fully fund care for the remainder of the uninsured. You could repeal EMTALA and replace it with a PPACA-like expanded Medicaid program. None of these adjustments are optimal, but none of them impose a Constitutionally problematic individual mandate.

    (In an ideal world, we would replace both EMTALA and government-controlled Medicaid with cash payments or premium support for the indigent to purchase their own catastrophic coverage in the private market.)
  • Footwedge
    tk421;1219173 wrote:Because they don't want nor need to, maybe? What the hell does it matter to you if someone choses to not buy insurance? That is there choice and the fucking federal government shouldn't have anything to do with it. Pathetic, the way that people are ok with the government taking over their lives.
    Hobbit nailed it. And you folks don't understand how major medical health care works. Period.

    A man has a strong history of heart disease in his family. His perfectly fit father has a heart attack at 65...and has stents put in. Lives another 20 years. His son dies of sudden cardiac arrest at age 60....a perfectly healthy individual. His brother insists on getting a heart cath done. Insurance company tells him fuck you. The brother compiles a full file case history to present to his insurance company. His insurance company again says fuck you to having a heart cath done. The brother will not take no for an answer.... threatening to sue. The brother demands a referral to a cardiologist. The cardiologist gets the permission to do a heart cath after nemerous letters and copies of reports.

    Insurance company caves and allows heart cath at a cost of 17K. But there's more. The brother needed two stents for a major blockage...so the cost rises to 34K. Insurance policy pays all but $250. Cardiologist tells the brother that his blockage was at a spot which is almost always fatal. Less than a 10% chance of survival. Brother avoids fatal heart attack by 2 weeks according to the cardiologist.

    The brother has a sister. She has no health insurance. The hospital offers her a full 50% reduction to have a heart cath done. So the brother's cost was 34K and the sister's cost is only 17K. Who pays for the extra 17K? Why the brother did because his 34K was bumped in order to pay for the uninsured or the underinsured...that's who.

    It's called socialized medicine.

    So who is this hypothetical family that I'm talking about? That would be me...and my family.

    Conservatives that listen to Beck, Franz, and the chubby fuck on the AM dial are as ignorant as ignorant can be. And the fleas that glue themselves to their verbal diarrhea need to research the topic on their own. But will they? Of course not.
  • Footwedge
    jhay78;1219229 wrote:u joking?

    Ahem...care to cite even one lousy stinking sentence from the actual bill? Nobody else has. So I wouldn't expect you to do so either. Substance...looking for substance here.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/2012/07/04/obamacare039s_lost_tribe_doctors_283954.html
  • Bigdogg
    Lov me some real clear LoL
  • O-Trap
    It's actually a WSJ article.
  • jhay78
    Footwedge;1218988 wrote:I read it and I feel pretty confident in attacking the messenger...because the messenger spews opinions without a single reference as to what is actually written in the 2700 pages.

    Where are the footnotes? The references? Maybe Obamacare is awful...but so far, not this journalist...or any other has shown a thing.

    All hokey pokey political grandstanding at this point.
    Footwedge;1219240 wrote:Ahem...care to cite even one lousy stinking sentence from the actual bill? Nobody else has. So I wouldn't expect you to do so either. Substance...looking for substance here.
    Being a reference guy and all, I figured you'd have multiple sources to back up the claim that "Maybe Obamacare is awful...but so far, not this journalist...or any other has shown a thing." But I get it, you want a powerful centralized government running the healthcare industry. Carry on.
  • Footwedge
    jhay78;1219419 wrote:Being a reference guy and all, I figured you'd have multiple sources to back up the claim that "Maybe Obamacare is awful...but so far, not this journalist...or any other has shown a thing." But I get it, you want a powerful centralized government running the healthcare industry. Carry on.
    What I would like to see is just one lousy stinking lemming actually quote the bill when blabbering their nonsense. So far...nothing.

    We already have socialized medicine. I've cited a very clear example of it. The new version of socialized medicine may or may not be better...or worse.

    Until people read the bill, they shouldn't be spouting off their partisan snippets.
  • Footwedge
    I wonder why the CEO's of both the Cleveland Clinic and the University Hospitals in Cleveland both raved about Obamacare. What do those people know that the doctors don't? Why would they say such things...being hugely successful businessmen in the Health Care field?

    Maybe the CEO's are closet commies, eh?

    Ignorance we can believe in.....
  • superman
    Footwedge;1219431 wrote:I wonder why the CEO's of both the Cleveland Clinic and the University Hospitals in Cleveland both raved about Obamacare. What do those people know that the doctors don't? Why would they say such things...being hugely successful businessmen in the Health Care field?

    Maybe the CEO's are closet commies, eh?

    Ignorance we can believe in.....
    Or maybe big pharma is in bed with the insurance companies and this bill allows them to make tons of money off the backs of taxpayers.
  • Footwedge
    "In Ohio, 200,000 people who don't have [insurance] will now be covered. That is the strongest, and best, part of the legislation."
    -- University Hospitals CEO Executive Thomas F. Zenty III


    "Now we know the rules of the game. But we haven't heard the end of the health care decision -- this will continue for five or 10 years before we move to a re-shaping of health care to pay for value, instead of just volume.
    -- Cleveland Clinic CEO Toby Cosgrove

    "As a result of this decision . . . there will be fewer Americans who went bankrupt for becoming ill, there will be more diseases caught at early stages or prevented, there will be millions of Americans who will no longer be punished for having a pre-existing condition."
    -- Dr. Arthur Lavin, co-chair of Doctors for Health Care Solutions

    These people are obviously flaming liberals who hate our country.
  • pmoney25
    Well at least when things get crazy, we will have some insurance coverage. Reminds me of a Chris Rock skit on Taxes and Insurance.

    You know what's worse than taxes? What's worse than tax is insurance. You got to have some insurance. They shouldn't even call it insurance. They just should call it ''in case shit. l give a company some money in case shit happens. Now, if shit don't happen, shouldn't l get my money back? That's right, man, you better have some medical insurance, or you gonna die.
    That's right, everybody. You got to eat right and exercise. No, you don't, you need some coverage. Coverage will save your life. That's right, we all gonna die, but at least if you got some coverage...you will die on a mattress. That's right. When l was a kid, we didn't have no insurance. We didn't have a damn thing.

    The odd thing is that Healthcare has been great for Insurance Companies, Drug Companies and the Government but terrible for Doctors and patients. The whole Doctor-Patient relationship has been completely destroyed the last 40-50 years. With the help of the Govt, Insurance companies have help drive prices in Medical Care through the roof.

    Footwedge is right, Obamacare and the recent system are both socialized medicine. The decisions should be made by Patients/Doctors not Insurance Companies/Politicians.
  • georgemc80
    tk421;1219173 wrote:Because they don't want nor need to, maybe? What the hell does it matter to you if someone choses to not buy insurance? That is there choice and the ****ing federal government shouldn't have anything to do with it. Pathetic, the way that people are ok with the government taking over their lives.


    So you attack the rhetorical question in my post. But don't comment on the rest. I am curious how this legislation truly affects the average American like myself. Married, two kids, middle class AGI about 150k, employer insurance, ( I don't like having to pay for it, but its a damn necessity) I surmise that it only helps others. If it helps those who can't afford healthcare, then I am all for it, especially if it doesn't affect me in the least.
  • Con_Alma
    Footwedge;1219451 wrote:"In Ohio, 200,000 people who don't have [insurance] will now be covered. That is the strongest, and best, part of the legislation."
    -- University Hospitals CEO Executive Thomas F. Zenty III


    "Now we know the rules of the game. But we haven't heard the end of the health care decision -- this will continue for five or 10 years before we move to a re-shaping of health care to pay for value, instead of just volume.
    -- Cleveland Clinic CEO Toby Cosgrove

    "As a result of this decision . . . there will be fewer Americans who went bankrupt for becoming ill, there will be more diseases caught at early stages or prevented, there will be millions of Americans who will no longer be punished for having a pre-existing condition."
    -- Dr. Arthur Lavin, co-chair of Doctors for Health Care Solutions

    These people are obviously flaming liberals who hate our country.

    No, they are business men that understand that they now have the ability to receive a higher pay for their service for those 200,000 referenced than they would if they were not insured.
  • I Wear Pants
    Con_Alma;1219742 wrote:No, they are business men that understand that they now have the ability to receive a higher pay for their service for those 200,000 referenced than they would if they were not insured.
    Sounds like the type of thing Republicans generally rave about. You know, being successful businessmen. Or does that train of thought only count when it's guys they like?
  • Con_Alma
    I Wear Pants;1219864 wrote:Sounds like the type of thing Republicans generally rave about. You know, being successful businessmen. Or does that train of thought only count when it's guys they like?
    I don't know what you mean by "count". I don't know if I personally like those guys or not. I know it sounds as if this legislation will be good for their business and for that reason they should be excited about it. That's their job.
  • I Wear Pants
    Con_Alma;1219866 wrote:I don't know what you mean by "count". I don't know if I personally like those guys or not. I know it sounds as if this legislation will be good for their business and for that reason they should be excited about it. That's their job.
    What I mean is if this were a GOP favored issue they'd be spouting off on how Republicare is good for businesses and if the Dems oppose it it's because they're practicing class warfare or something.

    I just hate how they both pick and choose when to make those sort of arguments.
  • Con_Alma
    I Wear Pants;1219871 wrote:What I mean is if this were a GOP favored issue they'd be spouting off on how Republicare is good for businesses and if the Dems oppose it it's because they're practicing class warfare or something.

    I just hate how they both pick and choose when to make those sort of arguments.
    ???

    Who made that argument?

    Because it's good for "business" should be a concern for us all. The most significant problem with healthcare in this country was it's cost. This legislation did absolutely nothing that will impact that. It did, however, force more people to subsidize even more people's high cost care.
  • O-Trap
    georgemc80;1219738 wrote:If it helps those who can't afford healthcare, then I am all for it, especially if it doesn't affect me in the least.

    It infringes on your right to choose. If you're already making the choice mandated, then it will affect your life very little, but while you once chose the expense as a sound investment, you now are obligated to pay the expense via mandate.

    Those who cannot afford healthcare already get treatment if they go to the hospital. Just FYI.
    I Wear Pants;1219864 wrote:Sounds like the type of thing Republicans generally rave about. You know, being successful businessmen. Or does that train of thought only count when it's guys they like?
    Unfortunately, you're right. It seems like so many Republicans love the notion of successful business that they don't stop and take issue when a private business gains success through mandatory public funding.
  • I Wear Pants
    Con_Alma;1219873 wrote:???

    Who made that argument?

    Because it's good for "business" should be a concern for us all. The most significant problem with healthcare in this country was it's cost. This legislation did absolutely nothing that will impact that. It did, however, force more people to subsidize even more people's high cost care.
    The argument with healthcare has always been that it saves money by allowing people to get illnesses and injuries checked out before they get to a stage where they have awful consequences (both monetary and health wise).

    We've already had a form of paying for people's care at a high cost ever since ERs couldn't turn people away. If you accept that it only makes sense to accept this (or rather something like this not necessarily this exact plan) because it should decrease costs. Hopefully people will go to the doctor earlier and catch things before they require expensive treatments and surgeries and things which would put them out of work (which we would then have to pay for as well).

    At least that has been my understanding.
  • Con_Alma
    Six months from now, in January 2013, five major ObamaCare taxes will come into force:
    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.
    2. The ObamaCare High Medical Bills Tax
    This onerous tax provision will hit Americans facing the highest out-of-pocket medical bills. Currently, Americans are allowed to deduct medical expenses on their 1040 form to the extent the costs exceed 7.5 percent of one’s adjusted gross income.
    The new ObamaCare provision will raise that threshold to 10 percent, subjecting patients to a higher tax bill. This tax will hit pre-retirement seniors the hardest. Over the next ten years, affected Americans will pony up a minimum total of $15 billion in taxes thanks to this provision.
    3. The ObamaCare Flexible Spending Account Cap
    The 24 million Americans who have Flexible Spending Accounts will face a new federally imposed $2,500 annual cap. These pre-tax accounts, which currently have no federal limit, are used to purchase everything from contact lenses to children’s braces. With the cost of braces being as high as $7,200, this tax provision will play an unwelcome role in everyday kitchen-table health care decisions.
    The cap will also affect families with special-needs children, whose tuition can be covered using FSA funds. Special-needs tuition can cost up to $14,000 per child per year. This cruel tax provision will limit the options available to such families, all so that the federal government can squeeze an additional $13 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.
    The targeting of FSAs by President Obama and congressional Democrats is no accident. The progressive left has never been fond of the consumer-driven accounts, which serve as a small roadblock in their long-term drive for a one-size-fits-all government health care bureaucracy.
    For further proof, note the ObamaCare “medicine cabinet tax” which since 2011 has barred the 13.5 million Americans with Health Savings Accounts from purchasing over-the-counter medicines with pre-tax funds.
    4. The ObamaCare Surtax on Investment Income
    Under current law, the capital gains tax rate for all Americans rises from 15 to 20 percent in 2013, while the top dividend rate rises from 15 to 39.6 percent. The new ObamaCare surtax takes the top capital gains rate to 23.8 percent and top dividend rate to 43.4 percent. The tax will take a minimum of $123 billion out of taxpayer pockets over the next ten years.
    And, last but not least...
    5. The ObamaCare Medicare Payroll Tax increase
    This tax soaks employers to the tune of $86 billion over the next ten years.
  • Con_Alma
    I Wear Pants;1219875 wrote:The argument with healthcare has always been that it saves money by allowing people to get illnesses and injuries checked out before they get to a stage where they have awful consequences (both monetary and health wise).

    We've already had a form of paying for people's care at a high cost ever since ERs couldn't turn people away. If you accept that it only makes sense to accept this (or rather something like this not necessarily this exact plan) because it should decrease costs. Hopefully people will go to the doctor earlier and catch things before they require expensive treatments and surgeries and things which would put them out of work (which we would then have to pay for as well).

    At least that has been my understanding.

    The cost for services will not lower because of this plan. I will pay the same for a particular treatment of service as I did prior. The price isn't going to drop there will simply be more people using it. If anything this greater demand is going to increase costs.