Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

[Elizabeth502]

Although for the last few days I have been noncommittal, I just voted No in this poll, after doing a lot of reading (on and off CAF, although I need to do more off, I will admit). My reasons I listed this morning on the Thread “Fix Healthcare” in Social Justice.

I have been very interested in listening to medical professionals, privately (conversations I’m having), on CAF, and on news programs. I notice that they are excited and hopeful, which is one reason I was noncommittal until now: I assumed that the professionals know what they’re talking about, and to some degree, they are indeed the experts. However, I also notice that their language and tone is more about what they assume will happen and wish will happen. One of them told me that there will “definitely” be more community clinics. First, I’m not convinced that they will open in time for 2014, second that there will be the personnel to staff them. More clinics absolutely bring down the cost of healthcare, through efficient service, reduction in hospital ER use, and even in some kinds of preventative care. This has also been shown in other countries which have far more clinics than we have. But I’ll just believe it when I see it here.

 

[meltzerboy]

I do not want health INSURANCE, I want the health care a hospital (which is a Catholic institution) can give those who need it. The insurance industry will profit from this not the needy.

To me, this is the key issue: the for-profit insurance industry’s being too involved in the health-care system. A single-payer solution would get rid of the insurance companies and allow physicians to practice high-quality medicine without having to fulfill insurance “quotas” to get paid, unnecessary tests for patients, and excess paperwork. (The pharmaceutical industry is also a huge problem in this respect.) For all its good points, Obamacare has not addressed this central issue.

 

[estesbob]

If Obamacare goes down it goes down by a vote of the people this fall That is the best way for it to happen -not by judicial fiat.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Although for the last few days I have been noncommittal, I just voted No in this poll, after doing a lot of reading (on and off CAF, although I need to do more off, I will admit). My reasons I listed this morning on the Thread “Fix Healthcare” in Social Justice.

I have been very interested in listening to medical professionals, privately (conversations I’m having), on CAF, and on news programs. I notice that they are excited and hopeful, which is one reason I was noncommittal until now: I assumed that the professionals know what they’re talking about, and to some degree, they are indeed the experts. However, I also notice that their language and tone is more about what they assume will happen and wish will happen. One of them told me that there will “definitely” be more community clinics. First, I’m not convinced that they will open in time for 2014, second that there will be the personnel to staff them. More clinics absolutely bring down the cost of healthcare, through efficient service, reduction in hospital ER use, and even in some kinds of preventative care. This has also been shown in other countries which have far more clinics than we have. But I’ll just believe it when I see it here.

Individual doctors who brought on to TV shows to share their opinions may be supportive of ObamaCare, must most doctors polled are not.

Doctor Patient Medical Association release a survey of about 700 doctors and found 83% consider quitting if ObamaCare is implemented

90% say the medical system is on the wrong track

83% say they are thinking about quitting

61% say the system challenges their ethics

85% say the patient-physician relationship is in a tailspin

65% say government involvement is most to blame for current problems

72% say individual insurance mandate will not result in improved access care

49% say they will stop accepting Medicaid patients

74% say they will stop accepting Medicare patients, or leave Medicare completely

52% say they would rather treat some Medicaid/Medicare patient for free

57% give the AMA a failing grade representing them

1 out of 3 doctors is hesitant to voice their opinion

2 out of 3 say they are just squeaking by or in the red financially

95% say private practice is losing out to corporate medicine

80% say doctors/medical professionals most likely to help solve things

70% say reducing government would be single best fix.

townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2012/06/14/thanks_obamacare_83_of_doctors_surveyed_say_they_may_quit

 

[ProVobis]

Then we will get to a single payer system which I do not think people in this country will like after having the finest healthcare in the world available to them.

Which is what we have under Medicare. I myself will be eligible starting tomorrow but I’ll tell you one thing, it’s not free and it’s not unmandated, at least in regards to all the payroll taxes I (and everyone else) have paid into it. (Where was all the tax talk about Medicare?)

But I also look at the bright side. Medicare Supplement is a boon product for the insurance companies so it’s not a totally socialistic program. It’s not forced but it’s an easy sell, especially when one realizes that even paying 20% on a bypass surgery can bankrupt him.

 

[_Abyssinia]

To me, this is the key issue: the for-profit insurance industry’s being too involved in the health-care system. A single-payer solution would get rid of the insurance companies and allow physicians to practice high-quality medicine without having to fulfill insurance “quotas” to get paid, unnecessary tests for patients, and excess paperwork. (The pharmaceutical industry is also a huge problem in this respect.) For all its good points, Obamacare has not addressed this central issue.

Britain has single payer, NHS. Drugs are being rationed through different health trusts.

Doctors are saying treatment has to be rationed to cope with costs

guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/feb/27/nhs-treatment-rationing-gp-warning

 

[seekerz]

Although for the last few days I have been noncommittal, I just voted No in this poll, after doing a lot of reading (on and off CAF, although I need to do more off, I will admit). My reasons I listed this morning on the Thread “Fix Healthcare” in Social Justice.

I have been very interested in listening to medical professionals, privately (conversations I’m having), on CAF, and on news programs. I notice that they are excited and hopeful, which is one reason I was noncommittal until now: I assumed that the professionals know what they’re talking about, and to some degree, they are indeed the experts. However, I also notice that their language and tone is more about what they assume will happen and wish will happen. One of them told me that there will “definitely” be more community clinics. First, I’m not convinced that they will open in time for 2014, second that there will be the personnel to staff them. More clinics absolutely bring down the cost of healthcare, through efficient service, reduction in hospital ER use, and even in some kinds of preventative care. This has also been shown in other countries which have far more clinics than we have. But I’ll just believe it when I see it here.

Doctors are not necessarily even the best people to predict that will happen because they are only one part of the equation. The health care system is a complex one - because of this, it is sometimes just impossible to predict the exact effect of a measure. So I have no doubt there will be some tweaking necessary here and there. Different things have worked for various countries of the world, so there is not necessarily a single, best solution. The important thing is to realize when something is not working to the common good - and, the fate of the uninsured aside, the status quo is simply not working from a cost perspective.

From my own knowledge of billing processes, particularly of Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement practices, the government (state/federal) is the only entity with negotiating power to keep costs in check across the board (i.e. regardless of provider type) and they in turn set the trend for private companies reimbursement practices. It would be great if this could work as simple supply and demand, but the nature of health care and the lack of transparency built into the present system (try finding out how much you’ll have to pay for, say a drug, without giving personal insurance info, for example) makes that simply impractical, IMO.

 

[wynnejj]

In short, I dislike the idea of taxes targeted at people who aren’t doing something. I can understand a tax on an activity (sales tax, income tax, etc), but a tax on an absence of an activity is, in my view, too much.

IMO, this is what this ruling is ALL about. Whether Obamacare stands or falls on its own merits at the voting booth is not germane to the central precedents set with this ruling. Discussions along the lines of Obamacare’s merits pre-supposes that it is OK for Congress to tax for not engaging in business transactions. The individual mandate was changed from a penalty for non-activity to a tax for non-activity. While purporting to put limits on the commerce clause, it changes the game rules for unlimited authority to tax for not engaging in certain business transactions.

 

[Dawnia]

Plenty of people can afford it, but don’t want to subscribe to it. It’s part of their portion, and now they’ll have to pay it to contribute to the pool.

I used to work for a pediatrician’s office in which 1/3 of the clientele put their children on medicaid or opted to pay an out of pocket discount. Now those people wll have to buy insurance and put back into the pot.

Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but that’s not what they’re doing. They’ve instead mandated insurance coverage, and I agree with it. I’m sure there are many like you and I: some will agree and others won’t. It’s a big world with many different people who each have their own views on this.

What pot are you talking about? Someone who pays their own medical bills isn’t taking from anyone. And the people who are wealthy enough to afford insurance, but don’t get it won’t necessarily get insurance now. They can still opt out. Depending where on the IRS form the new tax is placed, they could still get out of paying anything.

 

[Dawnia]

So when do we start getting taxed for not belonging to a health club?

I think that could be a while…Broccoli is next in line.

 

[meltzerboy]

What pot are you talking about? Someone who pays their own medical bills isn’t taking from anyone. And the people who are wealthy enough to afford insurance, but don’t get it won’t necessarily get insurance now. They can still opt out. Depending where on the IRS form the new tax is placed, they could still get out of paying anything.

From “The Honeymooners”:

Ralph Kramden: “I’m going for my pot of gold.”
Alice Kramden: “Just go for the gold; you’ve already got the pot.”

 

[PTL]

While there are indeed superb physicians and hospitals available in the US, a system that is outrageously expensive, relying largely on “fee for service” which encourages excessive and expensive tests while not paying enough attention to preventive and primary care, is not my idea of “the best health care system.” With life expectancy in the US hovering at about #49 worldwide, there is a lot of work to be done.

There are many problems with Obamacare. One of them is the medical care quality will be pulled down. Every service has a fee. There is no free lunch. When you demand service without paying the provider, the quality will be sacrificed. US is having the best medical care quality in the world. With Obamacare, the quality will be no more. When a physician has to listen to the government what is allowed to be prescribed and what is not allowed, it is a disaster. Not mentioning Obamacare for abortion and HHS mandate… all those threatening problems.

 

[ProVobis]

There are many problems with Obamacare. One of them is the medical care quality will be pulled down. Every service has a fee. There is no free lunch. When you demand service without paying the provider, the quality will be sacrificed. US is having the best medical care quality in the world. With Obamacare, the quality will be no more. When a physician has to listen to the government what is allowed to be prescribed and what is not allowed, it is a disaster. Not mentioning Obamacare for abortion and HHS mandate… all those threatening problems.

The family physician isn’t the only provider of healthcare. Nowadays you have a bunch of researchers at universities and drug companies who are coming out with machines which destroy cancer cells without affecting surrounding cells, machines that do most of the bypass operations, and so forth. Not to mention the many nurses who do the work of doctors and put more hours of study than regular physicians. But they do come at a price. And as long as the insurance companies or private individuals can provide the means to pay for them, we should be okay. Obamacare and Romneycare are all about insurance companies but that seems to be all buried in this debate.

 

[stevegravy]

I vote no only because, if Roberts had been a bit more humble, he would have ruled on the law with the words that were before him. His ruling would not have been on an invented new meaning of mandate or penalty. All the speculation in the world will not clarify his reason for what he did, only he can speak to us about that, and that would require us to believe him.

As others have pointed out, this novel interpretation now allows congress to tax citizens lack of behavior. It is the final nail in the coffin of a once free people and the beginning of our serfdom. I know if you are reading this, you must think me a crank or a paranoid. I am not either, so my shrink tells me. History shows, that successful freemen were never taken over forcibly, and then gave up their rights in a single fell swoop or cout de gras, but a slow erosion over long period of time.

Take the blue pill and stay deluded.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Ka-Ching: Team Romney Rakes in $5.5 Million After ObamaCare Upheld

When people say Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling was a big win for President Obama, the Romney Campaign must shake their heads just a little bit. Since the ruling, Team Romney has raked in $5.5 million. That money isn’t coming from big time donors at fundraisers, but is made up of 55,000 separate donations, with 65 percent of those people donating for the first time.

These numbers come after Romney outraised President Obama in May, spent less and Obama seems to be draining his war chest quickly.

townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/06/30/kaching_team_romney_rakes_in_55_million_after_obamacare_upheld

 

[Dawnia]

Ka-Ching: Team Romney Rakes in $5.5 Million After ObamaCare Upheld

townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/06/30/kaching_team_romney_rakes_in_55_million_after_obamacare_upheld

Wow! This ruling has definitely motivated people. I’m surprised that Obama isn’t out bragging about how much this ruling has brought in. Maybe it’s not as lucrative for the winner?

 

[gilliam]

 

[_Abyssinia]

Wow! This ruling has definitely motivated people. I’m surprised that Obama isn’t out bragging about how much this ruling has brought in. Maybe it’s not as lucrative for the winner?

MSNBC asked why Obama has not revealed donations since the Supreme Court ruling, Obama spokesman gloated that they had raised more than Romney but did not release any numbers. Why not release the numbers? I do not think it is true.

 

[Yerusalyim]

The ruling is completely incoherent. On the one hand the government argued and the court declared the penalty to NOT be a tax in order to make it past the anti-injunction hurdle. The government then argued that it was within the powers of congress to regulate commerce…but if the court didn’t like that argument then it was a tax…and the court declared the penalty a tax. Either the Penalty is a tax or it isn’t a tax…it can’t be a tax for one aspect of the ruling and not for the other. Further, this is a massive expansion of the government’s power to tax. Never before in US history has somone been “taxed” for NOT engaging in an economic activity. We can now be taxed for ANYTHING we don’t do. Buy a gun or pay a tax, buy brocolli or pay a tax, buy artificial contraception or pay a tax. Roberts will go down as one of the most activist judges in US history.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Planned Parenthood, NARAL welcome SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare

In response to Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling that the president’s signature healthcare law is constitutional as a tax, the nation’s abortion industry expressed pleasure at the outcome.

Hailing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka ObamaCare, as “the greatest advance in women’s health in a generation,” Planned Parenthood, self-described as “the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health care provider and advocate,” issued the following statement from its president, Cecile Richards:

…Affordable, quality health care will now be available to millions of women who had no coverage or inadequate coverage before…This is a victory for the American people, and we thank President Obama and the members of Congress who passed the Affordable Care Act for their leadership on this issue…Women who come into Planned Parenthood health centers often struggle to balance paying for birth control and health services with paying for textbooks, groceries, or gas for the car. The Affordable Care Act will make those decisions easier for women across the country.

Planned Parenthood notes that as a result of ObamaCare’s newly declared constitutional status, beginning August 1st, “birth control will be treated like any other preventive prescription under the Affordable Care Act, and will be available without co-pays or deductibles.” The organization here refers to the HHS mandate which forces all employers to provide free contraception, abortion-inducing drugs, and sterilization procedures to employees in their health insurance plans, even those employers whose religion or conscience prohibits them from complying with the law. This mandate is still being challenged in federal courts around the nation.

Planned Parenthood has indeed enjoyed a mutually beneficial, perhaps even symbiotic, relationship with the Obama administration and Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of HHS. Last month alone, Secretary Sebelius dumped $728 million into Planned Parenthood-eligible “community health centers.” An additional $128 million was gifted to the organization last week, just prior to the anticipated Supreme Court ruling.

Similarly, Nancy Keenan, the soon-to-be former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, was clearly pleased with the high court’s decision. “The Affordable Care Act marks the greatest advancement for women’s health in a generation,” she said. “This law will bring 30 million Americans into a health-care system that includes affordable family-planning services, better access to contraception, and maternity care. The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the law is a tremendous victory for American women.”

ObamaCare will effectively utilize federal funds for abortion by allowing insurance companies that participate in the states’ “exchanges” to charge women a $1 surcharge for abortion coverage. The “exchanges” are where those who either can no longer afford their own health care insurance, or whose employers can no longer afford to cover them, will be forced to go for health insurance coverage. They will effectively be the “site” at which the “public option” will be implemented when private health insurance becomes too costly. In just one day in this nation’s history, we have come closer to legitimizing our taxpayer dollars being used to fund and propagate the abortion industry. Yet another important reason to stop the madness in November.

my emphases

breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Planned-Parenthood-NARAL-Welcome-SCOTUS-Ruling-on-ObamaCare

Abortion industry could get nearly $1 billion a year through premiums.