Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter markomalley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the question we should ask ourselves now is, what value do health insurance companies provide for the consumer?
Obamacare is a big windfall for the insurance companies. But calling the fine a tax is good: people will get tossed out of their healthplans at work, they won’t be able to afford insurance,. they will pay a tax to avoid it. Then we will see that health insurance companies don’t do anything to help anyone, get rid of them, and pay for medical care from the taxes.
Everyone will save money and get better healthcare.
Now if we can just admit that abortion is not healthcare, we’ll be on the right path.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
If “it was never aimed at the poor,” why are those who will benefit most from it those who now qualify (or might qualify, depending on the Cooperation Factor of the State in question) for Medicaid? Even on the “progressive” Ed Show this evening, Howard Dean admitted that Medicaid qualifiers are by far the greatest beneficiaries (I assume he means in the short term). He also admitted misgivings about the practical funding for Medicaid (he must mean the option for the States).

I keep hearing claims on the news (from supporters of it) about all the supposed new advantages (lower premiums for everyone, greater efficiency of health delivery, and more), but in the last 3 years I haven’t seen the actual math laid out. The only way that truly everyone will be able to afford premiums (if not Medicaid) is (a) if everyone purchases plans, which is not guaranteed, and/or (b) if the rich greatly subsidize the poor via massive Medicaid expansion. There are many, many households & individuals that cannot afford more than ~$200/mo in premiums. If their premiums or out-of-pocket costs are more than that, who will pay those?

Maybe the math does add up, but if so, I think it’s been poorly laid out by the administration.
Click to expand...
Jeffrey said:
True lib cra p is how.
Click to expand...
The March 2012 CBO Estimate of the cost of Obamacare is that it adds 1.252 Trillion over the next 10 years. (Table 2 on page 11 of this document). The estimate shows that it adds approximately an additional 150 billion to the debt every year AFTER it is fully implemented.

I, personally, think that the CBO estimates are very over-optimistic. The reason why is that I believe they radically under-estimate the number of employers who will stop providing health coverage after the law is fully implemented. The cost of insurance has already risen by over 30%…and that is before all the provisions of the law have been put in place (what, exactly, is a qualifying health plan…for example).

According to the 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation report on health insurance coverage, already 1% fewer employers offer health coverage for employees than before Obamacare was implemented…with small employers, there is already a 4% drop (Exhibit 3.1 page 48). And Obamacare hasn’t even been fully implemented yet. The other shoe hasn’t dropped.

Why? Probably because insurance costs a whole lot. On average, an employer will pay out $10,944 for employee+spouse+children coverage (that’s up over $1,000 since Obamacare was enacted). (exhibit 6.4 page 69). On the other hand, section 1512 of PL 111-148 requires an employer to pay a $2,000 per employee penalty (oh, excuse me, according to SCOTUS, it’s a tax) if the employer doesn’t provide health coverage for employees + dependents. $11k per employee for health coverage vs $2k penalty for not providing health coverage. You do the math.

Employers are not stupid. Once the waivers granted to the Friends of Obama (FOBs) expire, these employers will drop their people from coverage, swelling the numbers of folks who receive government-subsidized health care.

Face it…this law was never, ever designed to improve access to health care. It was designed to exert increased government control over 1/6 of the economy.

And that was exactly the attitude of the DNC. See here for DNC twitter reaction to the SCOTUS ruling (caution…their reactions are definitely NSFW)
 
Viki63 said:
I think the question we should ask ourselves now is, what value do health insurance companies provide for the consumer?
Click to expand...
They allow risk to be shared across a wide pool, rather than to be borne by the individual.
Obamacare is a big windfall for the insurance companies. But calling the fine a tax is good: people will get tossed out of their healthplans at work, they won’t be able to afford insurance,. they will pay a tax to avoid it. Then we will see that health insurance companies don’t do anything to help anyone, get rid of them,
Click to expand...
I agree. Get rid of insurance companies. All of them. Not because they are evil, but because the system of third parties paying for services has evil consequences.
and pay for medical care from the taxes.
Everyone will save money and get better healthcare.
Click to expand...
So do you propose that the government be the insurer…or do you propose that healthcare be nationalized?

(By nationalized, I mean that, all hospitals and clinics be run by the government and all doctors, nurses, etc., be government employees, and that all medical supply companies and pharmaceutical companies be taken over by the government and run by government managers and funded by appropriations)

If the former, how do you propose to save costs? If the latter, what happens if Congress doesn’t appropriate enough money to run these new, nationalized industries?
 
_Abyssinia said:
That is defeatist. I believe ObamaCare can and will be repealed.
Click to expand...
It’s defeatist because it’s pragmatic and correct. Obamacare will not be overturned, even by subsequent Republican administrations. Think about it. Mitt is hardly a conservative, he put it in in Massachusetts. If he wins, he’ll tweek it, but never overturn it entirely.
 
JRRTFAN said:
It’s defeatist because it’s pragmatic and correct. Obamacare will not be overturned, even by subsequent Republican administrations. Think about it. Mitt is hardly a conservative, he put it in in Massachusetts. If he wins, he’ll tweek it, but never overturn it entirely.
Click to expand...
RomneyCare can be repealed in its entirety:
Repealing the law won’t happen before January 2013. It would be dependent on a triple Republican victory this November: Mitt Romney would need to defeat President Barack Obama, Republicans must hold their majority in the House, and they must also gain enough seats in the Senate so they have at least 50 of their own in the upper chamber.
Click to expand...
What about the filibuster? Don’t you need 60 votes to do anything in the Senate?
Click to expand...
Not in this case. Because Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion ruled the individual mandate a “tax,” a Republican-led Senate could repeal that provision–and others–using what is called “budget reconciliation,” a procedural tactic that requires only a simple majority vote. The Republican vice president, in this hypothetical scenario, would break the tie. (Democrats used the same method in 2010 to pass the health care bill.)
Click to expand...
Budget reconciliation is at least one option that Senate Republicans are considering.
Click to expand...
abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/republicans-repeal-obamacare/story?id=16676550

If it is not done through a triple victory, it may be possible to repeal ObamaCare, in its entirely or in parts like the mandate, through executive waivers that Romney gives to all 5 states, which he has said he will do and this attorney says can be done.

Fact that it has been categorised as a tax makes a repeal possible. I do not know if it could be done if it was established under the Commerce clause.
  1. RomneyCare was designed just for Massachusetts, whereas ObamaCare is a federal mandate that is imposed on states regardless of the differences between the states.
  2. RomneyCare was enacted after Romney balanced the state budget. Obama has not balanced the budget and when he had a Demcorat majority Congress for 2 years did not propose a budget. Obama has incurred more debt than any previous president.
  3. Romney said in a June 2011 Republican Presidential Debate that ‘if people don’t like it in our state, they can change it.’ Obama in comparison is against ObamaCare’s repeal.
  4. RomneyCare has bipartisan support in Congress. And RomneyCare was crated with the help of the conservative Heritage Foundation. ObamaCare has no bipartisan support
  5. RomneyCare is popular, it has 84% of Massachusetts residents are satisfied with their health care. Fox news poll has 60% of voters saying that mandate is ‘violation of individual rights.’ Rasmussen says 54% want to see ObamaCar repealed.
  6. ObamaCare is 2070 pages long. RomneyCare in 2006 was 70 pages long.
  7. RomneyCare is constitutional by virtue because ‘numerous and indefinite’ powers for states in the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. If ObamaTax had gone through Congress it probably would of never been passed if it would of been stated to be a tax.
  8. There is not a high chance of Obama vetoing any portion of ObamaCare. Mitt Romney vetoed eight parts of RomneyCare which was overturned by the majority Democrat legislature. Romney has said he would changes things in RomneyCare.
  9. RomneyCare did not raise taxes. ObamaCare creates new taxes of $500 billion on businesses and individuals.
  10. Romney vetoed employer penalty which the majority Democrat legislature overrode later. ObamaCare requires and penalizes employers to offer different types of insurance.
  11. Romney supported a policy that covered the basics of cataclysmic illness and hospitalization. ObamaCare creates ‘minimum creditable coverage’ which means contraception is covered, for example.
 
catholictiger said:
many people may be donating to him not because they like them but they hate Obama
Click to expand...
👍

Romney is the absolute last person I would vote for of the nominees that were running.

I simply do not like the guy. I find him a flip-flopper on life issues, and Romneycare has me concerned.

But I also realize Obama is going to take us to socialism as fast as he can.
And Romney, for whatever faults, is not going in that direction.
 
austenbosten said:
Did you write to your congressman…my problem with Conservatives and Republican constituents are that they are fat, lazy, slobs.

It’s not enough to just elect them…you gotta hold an axe in your hands and shout at them to keep reminding them that They represent YOU, and all they got is 2/4/6 years to prove they are representing you before you throw them out with someone new.

The answer is not electing the right people, but making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.
Click to expand...
I’ve stopped writing them since I never recieved responses to the numerous letter I wrote over and over. They know they are not there for me and I know that now too.

I suggest you stop going to the altar or government and participating in the sacrament of voting. You legitimize crooks by doing so.
 
mary_bobo said:
What kind of cookies do you want us to send you while you’re in jail?:)🙂
Click to expand...
That’s really what’s it’s all about isn’t it? Do as the imperial court dictates or have a gun put in your face and be thrown in a cage.

Tony Soprano is much more transparant then this charade taking place in Washington.
 
catholictiger said:
many people may be donating to him not because they like them but they hate Obama
Click to expand...
Or…because they dislike the Affordable Care Act.

I read the decision, and the reasoning was so convoluted, I found it hard to believe it was written by a SCOTUS judge, much less the CJ.

The majority by Roberts admits that the ACA “penalty” (actual term used in the legislation) does not meet any of the allowed taxes, by definition, in the U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1, OR, the Anti-Injunction Act, and then applies an arbitrary “functional approach”, largely based on *who collects *the “penalty” (the IRS) to call it a “tax”.

Had this been a first year law student’s paper, I would have given it a big fat “F” for its convoluted logic, and lack of adherence to any known law or precedent.

My only guess is that Roberts agreed with the dissenters in that it was not valid under the Commerce Clause, but felt that overturning the law wasn’t his role as Chief Justice. (Hey, Obama’s threats against the Court worked!). Charles Krauthammer writes a little on this here:

washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-why-roberts-did-it/2012/06/28/gJQA4X0g9V_story.html

Which is cold comfort, at any cost. The “swing” vote of Kennedy wanted to throw the WHOLE thing out. 😦
 
A reminder from Psalm 118-the verse popped into my head this morning and I wanted to share.
5 In my trouble I called upon the Lord: and the Lord heard me, and enlarged me. 6 The Lord is my helper: I will not fear what man can do unto me. 7 The Lord is my helper: and I will look over my enemies. 8 It is good to confide in the Lord, rather than to have confidence in man. 9 It is good to trust in the Lord, rather than to trust in princes. /QUOTE]
Click to expand...
However you feel about this turn of events, I think we ALL need to remember who is really in charge and who we need to place ALL of our trust in. Not a political party, not a candidate, not a court, not a political system.
Click to expand...
Could it be that THIS is what God is really trying to tell us? That we are too enamored with our politics and are looking to it to save us instead of to Him??
Click to expand...
Let’s all take a DEEP BREATH, lower our blood pressure-and place our trust where it belongs.
Click to expand...
 
_Abyssinia said:
Huge difference between a state health care system, and there are things Romney said he would change about it, than a federal bureaucracy. And if you do not like health care in Massachusetts, you can move to another state. You can not move to another state and escape ObamaTax.
Click to expand...
This makes very little sense. “Obamacare”, and “Romneycare” are two peas in the same pod. So, as “Romneycare” is Romney’s claim to fame. (That and driving across country, with his dog on the roof of his car :rolleyes:) How is he different from Obama on this matter? Assuming he is elected. Do you think he will suddenly see things your way?

Besides, you can always leave the country. I hear Somalia has no healthcare to worry about.

ATB
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Romney can’t repeal a law which Congress enacted…

Jim
Click to expand...
As Scott pointed out, now that it is a “tax” it can be overturned in the Senate by simple majority vote, which no requirement for a filibuster breaking 60 votes.
 
For less than $50 a month you can get health insurance in America.

People without health insurance today pay that for their cell phones.

This is all about government control.
 
_Abyssinia said:
There is no true victory for ObamaCare unless Romney is not made President, because he will repeal it.
Click to expand...
But his phrasing has, and continues to scare me.

“Repeal and replace”. “Replace”…with what? ACA lite? There are provisions regarding pre-existing conditions that can can be in place with out a giant over-reaching law. Perhaps tort reform, with an opening of the insurance market across state lines.

What else is there?! It seems sometimes that people in power are two slightly different sides of the very same coin.

“This law is unjust and over-reaching. I will propose my own unjust and over-reaching version, which won’t be so bad, because I’m making the rules and holding the reins of power.”
 
Mickey_Finn said:
This makes very little sense. “Obamacare”, and “Romneycare” are two peas in the same pod. So, as “Romneycare” is Romney’s claim to fame. (That and driving across country, with his dog on the roof of his car :rolleyes:) How is he different from Obama on this matter? Assuming he is elected. Do you think he will suddenly see things your way?

Besides, you can always leave the country. I hear Somalia has no healthcare to worry about.

ATB
Click to expand...
In a federalist republic, such powers are afforded to the states.

You might be advised to read the US Constitution, particularly the 10th Amendment.

I’ve heard the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has a great universal care system, and actually provides a chicken in every pot!
 
scipio337 said:
Or…because they dislike the Affordable Care Act.

I read the decision, and the reasoning was so convoluted, I found it hard to believe it was written by a SCOTUS judge, much less the CJ.

The majority by Roberts admits that the ACA “penalty” (actual term used in the legislation) does not meet any of the allowed taxes, by definition, in the U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1, OR, the Anti-Injunction Act, and then applies an arbitrary “functional approach”, largely based on *who collects *the “penalty” (the IRS) to call it a “tax”.

Had this been a first year law student’s paper, I would have given it a big fat “F” for its convoluted logic, and lack of adherence to any known law or precedent.

My only guess is that Roberts agreed with the dissenters in that it was not valid under the Commerce Clause, but felt that overturning the law wasn’t his role as Chief Justice. (Hey, Obama’s threats against the Court worked!). Charles Krauthammer writes a little on this here:

washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-why-roberts-did-it/2012/06/28/gJQA4X0g9V_story.html

Which is cold comfort, at any cost. The “swing” vote of Kennedy wanted to throw the WHOLE thing out. 😦
Click to expand...
Krauthammer is the best!👍

I like his point about reining in the commerce clause!
 
scipio337 said:
As Scott pointed out, now that it is a “tax” it can be overturned in the Senate by simple majority vote, which no requirement for a filibuster breaking 60 votes.
Click to expand...
And if I have it right, because it is already signed into law, the Senate can repeal by reconciliation and it doesn’t require executive approval, since it is basically a “tweaking” of an existing budgetary program.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top