Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Hts121

Health Care

Recommended Posts

Individual mandate found constitutional under the taxing power.  Roberts again joins the liberal bloc..... he might have even wrote the opinion from what I heard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great news. Too bad CNN (with continued slumping ratings on tv) botched the report and stated it was revoked on their "This Just In" section of the website.

Regardless, I am still happy. Nice job by SCOTUS with their complete poker face move during the last week.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a shocking decision!  I thought the mandate had about a 25% chance of being upheld and if it was upheld I thought it would be 6-3 with Roberts and Kennedy joining the liberals.  Instead it goes 5-4 with Roberts joining the liberals and Kennedy dissenting.  I never expected this outcome.

 

I'm also really surprised that it was upheld under taxing power.  I thought the solicitor general argued the whole time that this was NOT a tax???  I'm really intrigued by this ruling.  I'm also happy that the law was upheld because it really will help a lot of people.  We still have more work to do to lower costs, however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plan is working!

Yes! First, the individual mandate, next, WORLD DOMINATION!  :evil:

 

Shhhhhh..... don't give away the entire plan..... we'll talk at the meeting

 

9f5ea05e7b6c5128.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upholding it as a tax will certainly energize the anti-tax base, many of whom have never heard of the commerce clause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listened to Glen Beck at 11am -- he was blaming everything on whoever advised George Bush to select John Roberts, then encourage everyone to "get out their checkbooks" and give money to Mitt Romney. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^That will be the spin.  They are going to sell it as Romney being the last hope to pull the 1000 page bill out of our windpipe.  However, unless the GOP wins 60 seats in the Senate (.... mind the new 'rules' please....) then they can forget about a repeal even making it to Romney's desk.  And, I think the GOP is overestimating how important this issue is to everyone other than the votes they already have locked in.  Sure, there are people that disagree with it.... but Romney already has in the bag any sizeable portion of the population who would actually swing their vote one way or another on this issue

 

^He (and his team) have consistently had trouble answering that question.  They've tried to draw the distinction of a state doing it being different than the federal government doing it.  But their answers have been weak.  Putting aside the technicalities that would have allowed SCOTUS to rule it unconstitutional for the feds to impose an individual mandate under the commerce clause, f it is unconstitutional (as the talking point goes) for the government to 'force us to buy something in the marketplace' then it that restriction would apply to states and the feds alike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now they need to keep costs in check. No way it should cost $1000 a month for insurance with pre existing conditions. Honestly EVERYONE has pre existing conditions.

 

Not everyone.  But that's what the govt wants you to believe.  And what is your basis for analyzing what the cost should be for a pre-existing condition?  What if that condition is a spinal deformity that limits your movements or causes constant pain?  What if that condition is gout?  Or glaucoma?  Or high blood pressure? 

 

The law was upheld on the basis that it was a tax.  At least they're calling it what it really is.  But by also striking down the section that requires states to expand Medicaid, the overall reform seems to be pretty far from settled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to see how Mitt Romney finds a way to denounce the Supreme Court ruling that RomneyCare is, in fact, constitutional.

 

It may well be constitutional, but that doesn't mean changes cannot be made which may also be constitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^The "law" (i.e. "ACA" or "Obamacare") isn't a tax.  One provision in that law was validly included under Congress' taxing power - the individual mandate.  AND, if it is properly termed a tax, it is only an elective tax on those who can afford to buy insurance but choose not to.  Excuse me if I don't sympathize...

 

^Good luck with that, Mitt.  60 votes if you want to discuss any significant changes.  That's the standard your party has set, unfortunately

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Legalities aside, the economic implications of this are enormous.  I would simply remind everyone to consider the law of unintended consequences.

 

What happened when the government decided anyone with a 540 credit score or better should qualify for a mortgage?  We had a huge price run-up and the bubble burst.

 

What about the subsidized low interest student loans for everyone?  We now have a situation of massive student debt and uncontrolled rising tuition costs.

 

The same can be said for the expansion of the food stamp program, or the Section 8 housing voucher program...  all created or expanded with good intentions, but got out of control on the backside by artificially inflating prices.

 

Expanding coverage for many is one thing (which we cannot afford) but the argument that this reform will control costs is ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a wierd decision.  The law said, and went pains to say it was not a tax, but a penalty.  It sounds like the court said, the penalty is unconstitutional, but we will will consider it a tax, so it is constitutional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^Good luck with that, Mitt.  60 votes if you want to discuss any significant changes.  That's the standard your party has set, unfortunately

 

After seeing the impact on campaign donations by corporate entities, I don't think it's implausible at all to consider Republicans could take back the Senate.  We've already seen what can happen when one side outspends the other by 3-1 or more...  I think the backlash from the business sector on this will be something that Democrats totally underestimated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to see how Mitt Romney finds a way to denounce the Supreme Court ruling that RomneyCare is, in fact, constitutional.

It may well be constitutional, but that doesn't mean changes cannot be made which may also be constitutional.

Absolutely true. I don't think anyone here will argue that the current law is imperfect and needs improving.

 

Expanding coverage for many is one thing (which we cannot afford) but the argument that this reform will control costs is ridiculous.

Agreed. There are cost control measures in place which will help offset some of the increases caused by the inability to deny those with pre-existing conditions, but they're far from sufficient. My personal preference for a cost control measure would be competition from a public option, but I think we all know the likelyhood of that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AHA STATEMENT ON THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION TO UPHOLD THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Rich Umbdenstock

President and CEO

American Hospital Association

 

June 28, 2012

 

Today's historic decision lifts a heavy burden from millions of Americans who need access to health coverage. The promise of coverage can now become a reality.

 

The decision means that hospitals now have much-needed clarity to continue on their path toward transformation. But transforming the delivery of health care will take much more than the strike of a gavel or stroke of a pen. It calls for the entire health care community to continue to work together, along with patients and purchasers, to implement better coordinated, high-quality care.

 

Now that the Supreme Court has made its decision, hospitals will continue their efforts to improve the law for patients, families and communities.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If you wish to subscribe or unsubscribe from this publication, please click here and include subscribe or unsubscribe in the subject line and your contact information in the body of the email.

 

Copyright 2012 by the American Hospital Association. All rights reserved.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While the law falls short of lowering costs or comprehensively controlling costs as was hoped for ever since health care reform was first proposed over half-a-century ago.... it does indeed have significant cost control measures, particularly for those that need it most.

 

Yes... a public option would have been the best way to do that, but we know that is a poison pill in any legislation.  I suppose we can still hope for it on a state-by-state basis just as we can hope for (and have seen) tort reform on a state-by-state basis.  Tort reform will have a minimal impact on costs (unless accompanied by something that will force any savings to be directed towards lowering costs as opposed to increasing profits.... but even then the costs savings will not be significant), but every little step we can take helps.

 

^Good luck with that, Mitt.  60 votes if you want to discuss any significant changes.  That's the standard your party has set, unfortunately

 

After seeing the impact on campaign donations by corporate entities, I don't think it's implausible at all to consider Republicans could take back the Senate.  We've already seen what can happen when one side outspends the other by 3-1 or more...  I think the backlash from the business sector on this will be something that Democrats totally underestimated.

 

Again, they need to do more than "take back" the Senate.  A supermajority is needed now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expanding coverage for many is one thing (which we cannot afford) but the argument that this reform will control costs is ridiculous.

Agreed. There are cost control measures in place which will help offset some of the increases caused by the inability to deny those with pre-existing conditions, but they're far from sufficient. My personal preference for a cost control measure would be competition from a public option, but I think we all know the likelyhood of that happening.

Surgeries for Americans with insurance cost twice as much or more than they do in other countries  because we are paying the costs of those who did not buy health care coverage and don't pay for treatmentHealth care coverage is not offered by many employers and otherwise too expensive.  ACA should help hospitals to get paid for every patient that they treat, and henceforth reduce the cost of surgeries and other treatments for people who have insurance.

 

I wanted a single-payer program, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Correction.... hospitals may collect half as much when treating an indigent.... but surgeries for people with insurance are SIGNIFICANTLY less costly than surgeries for people without insurance.  Take a look at your hospital bill.  You will see significant write-offs and adjustments the hospital has given to your insurance provider that you wouldn't get if you don't have insurance.  We're talking 60%-80% in many cases.  Insurance companies only pay a fraction of the bill originally charged.  They have the buying power to negotiate the rates down with hospitals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

 

He later added: "The federal government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. ... The federal government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance."

 

My question - as is with most social policies - has always been "where is the money coming from?"  I hope everyone acknowledges this is our answer.  This will be funded through additional taxes.  This is why the IRS has been involved from the start.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/politics/supreme-court-health-ruling/index.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the monies collected from the "tax/fine" will go into a fund to help pay for the costs the uninsured would otherwise push on the rest of us.

 

As far as the general question of "where is the money coming from"... you would have to be more specific.  What money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Correction.... hospitals may collect half as much when treating an indigent.... but surgeries for people with insurance are SIGNIFICANTLY less costly than surgeries for people without insurance.  Take a look at your hospital bill.  You will see significant write-offs and adjustments the hospital has given to your insurance provider that you wouldn't get if you don't have insurance.  We're talking 60%-80% in many cases.  Insurance companies only pay a fraction of the bill originally charged.  They have the buying power to negotiate the rates down with hospitals.

 

I fixed my earlier post to make a point that health care costs in America are frightfully expensive because "indigent" people get treated at hospitals and don't pay.  The hospitals act by increasing charges for their insured patients.  What the hell kind of health care system is that?

 

By eliminating that "convention", hospitals should be able to drive health care costs down.

 

The other fine cost control methods would target:

Bureaucracy--Medicare is an efficient system because it is a single payer system without extra management or profits.

Over testing--this may be "defensive medicine".  Better record keeping as is done at Cleveland Clinic would address this.

Excess equipment--does every hospital in town need to duplicate every new multimillion dollar imaging machine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what did I hear something about 16,000 new tax agents will be hired for the IRS?  That's an added billion dollars a year right there...

Well you probably didn't hear this...

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/03/irs-expansion/

The Treasury Department on Feb. 14 released the IRS budget request for fiscal year 2012 that shows the agency is seeking 1,269 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) at a cost of $473 million to help implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. That includes 291 IRS agents, most of them (193) to "ensure accurate delivery of tax credits."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fixed my earlier post to make a point that health care costs in America are frightfully expensive because "indigent" people get treated at hospitals and don't pay.  The hospitals act by increasing charges for their insured patients.  What the hell kind of health care system is that?

 

It's pretty much the best system in the world, that's what kind of health care system it is.  Every time I fly internationally, I meet a foreigner coming to America for procedures because we have the best doctors & hospitals in the world.  Blew out your knee while skiing in the Alps?  Ok it's a free surgery and it will be scheduled in 18 months...  Just because coverage is "free" in Europe & elsewhere, doesn't mean it's better care.  Sadly Americans won't know how good they had it till it's gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fixed my earlier post to make a point that health care costs in America are frightfully expensive because "indigent" people get treated at hospitals and don't pay.  The hospitals act by increasing charges for their insured patients.  What the hell kind of health care system is that?

 

It's pretty much the best system in the world, that's what kind of health care system it is.  Every time I fly internationally, I meet a foreigner coming to America for procedures because we have the best doctors & hospitals in the world.  Blew out your knee while skiing in the Alps?  Ok it's a free surgery and it will be scheduled in 18 months...  Just because coverage is "free" in Europe & elsewhere, doesn't mean it's better care.  Sadly Americans won't know how good they had it till it's gone.

It's the best system in the world, but only if you've got good insurance already or a lot of money to pay out of pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty much the best system in the world, that's what kind of health care system it is. 

Unless you are poor, then you don't get treatment unless it is priority.  No "wellness" programs for them.

 

 

Every time I fly internationally, I meet a foreigner coming to America for procedures because we have the best doctors & hospitals in the world.  Blew out your knee while skiing in the Alps?  Ok it's a free surgery and it will be scheduled in 18 months...  Just because coverage is "free" in Europe & elsewhere, doesn't mean it's better care.  Sadly Americans won't know how good they had it till it's gone.

Do you chase down people on crutches at the airport and make them tell their stories?  I am really skeptical about this one, gp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, its true. When I was working in Canada, one of my friends had a double-compound fracture of his leg playing hockey.  Laid in a hospital hallway for 36 hours before a doctor was available to operate.

 

Another was so excited because after a 4 year wait, she now had her own doctor and didn't have to go to the clinic anymore.

 

I came home for a Dr. appointment on a monday, and the Dr. wanted me to have an MRI on Tuesday morning.  I called to say I wouldn't be back until Tuesday night because of the MRI.  When I got back, they were all laughing because everyone knows it takes 6 months to schedule an MRI!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to meet a right-winger that hasn't had multiple in depth conversations with random foreignors who have wait around for health care like a ride at Cedar Point.  It's the one time they like to cite those socialist commies as a source of info....

 

Let's ask some Americans - http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-11-2010/the-apparent-trap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm insulted by your comments. We are just having a conversation. You're the only one here who thinks he has all the answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to page three to read about wait times.  I am quite skeptical about your claim of waiting 36 hours in a hallway with a double compound fracture.

 

Myth #1: Canadians are flocking to the United States to get medical care.

Myth #2: Doctors in Canada are flocking to the United States to practice.

Myth #3: Canada rations health care; that’s why hip replacements and cataract surgeries happen faster in the United States.

Myth #4: Canada has long wait times because it has a single-payer system.

Myth #5: Canada rations health care; the United States doesn’t.

 

http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/government-elections/info-03-2012/myths-canada-health-care.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm insulted by your comments. We are just having a conversation. You're the only one here who thinks he has all the answers.

 

Thinks?  Now I'm insulted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...