ACA (a.k.a. Obamacare) Upheld

[munkus]

That's what I wanted, but we have this. Now 'This' isn't even what I thought it would be....wtf....

We had to pass the bill to see what was in it.

Seriously, this is why the majority of people on the left and right are opposed to ACA. It goes too far for the right, and not far enough for the left. Plus it increases costs across the board at a time when the economy is in the toilet.

As for me, I'll support a single-payer system when I see a country who has implemented it in an economically sustainable way without compromising the quality or availability of care. Granted, I don't mine Google for stats on this, so I'm open seeing where such a system really works.

 

[Pulsar]

Part of Obamacare requires that doctors are paid based on the quality of care for their patients rather than the number of treatments they use on their patients. There was an article on this as this was a new type of practice that a couple private hospitals had used to great success and Obamacare is modelling off of: they lowered surgeon pay but gave bonuses based on metrics... there were fewer mistakes, fewer procedures, better patient outcomes, and costs went down (and the surgeons made more money).

Conservatives: THE HORROR!

A bunch of other stuff from reddit:

Yeah. What's in the other 1999 pages? Plot twists and love stories?

I mean, of course I trust you to represent this is a non-biased and non-partisian manner in order to make choices using rational logic *COUGHCOUGHCOUGH*. You're not like all those other folks that throw around hateful snipes at people, call them names, and degrade them just because they disagree with you, after all.

 

[Wreckem]

The argument for the mandate, was it would make healthy people get insurance and thus spread the risk amoung a large pool of policy holders, thus keeping the costs down. That was the theory.

But our stupid congress watered down the penalty for non compliance to the point that if the cost of getting insurance exceeds the tax penalty, many will opt for the tax penalty, that because of the way its written in the ACA law, IRS can not collect, because it explicitly says not too (see my earlier post about the penalty and enforcement clauses).

In the end, nobody is 100% happy, except the morons in DC that can go back to their districts and states and claim victory for their side, regardless of what there side is.

Thats because young people are stupid.

They think nothing can happen to them. All it takes is a auto accident to ruin your life financially. You get into an accident that causes injuries to you and the other person just has minimum coverage. Your life is ruined if you don't have insurance.

 

[chucky2]

a tax plan funded by other tax dollars! TOTALLY SUSTAINABLE! lols

Maybe we went over this when ACA was passed (and, I'm sure we did), but somehow, I got it into my head that everyone would be required to get HI, and that if they didn't, they'd be fined. And as I said above, fines are there to deter something, not be meaningless. If the fine is less than the cost of HI, then this whole "Oh, people will buy HI because if they don't, they'll be fined" angle is essentially a misleading lie.

The only way it isn't is if there really is some downside to not purchasing HI and paying the fine, such as you're in a lower coverage tier, and when you need something in a higher tier you pay for it and not the Fed/HI company.

There is simply no way they have it constructed that F'd up. Not even Congress is that dumb.

 

[Ausm]

Part of Obamacare requires that doctors are paid based on the quality of care for their patients rather than the number of treatments they use on their patients. There was an article on this as this was a new type of practice that a couple private hospitals had used to great success and Obamacare is modelling off of: they lowered surgeon pay but gave bonuses based on metrics... there were fewer mistakes, fewer procedures, better patient outcomes, and costs went down (and the surgeons made more money).

Conservatives: THE HORROR!

A bunch of other stuff from reddit:

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[blankslate]

Supposedly there's a provision that if the plan is stalled on the Federal level states will be allowed to receive funds to start their own models that would possibly look like the Massachusetts plan.

The "fine" such as it is won't be applied to people who can't afford it.

• Most individuals will be required to get coverage, or to pay a fine if they don’t. However, there will be healthcare subsidies to help people buy coverage if their income is below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (about $88,000 a year for a family of 4). If affordable coverage is not available to an individual, they will not be penalized.

• Most employers will be required to provide coverage, or pay a fine if they don’t (although there will be exceptions for small businesses with less than 50 employees). This will make employer-sponsored health coverage more widely available.

source for the bullet points quoted above

 

[jstern01]

Fern,

The court only said that the Commerce Clause did not apply in this case, in no way did it limit it, just Congress has to be more creative in the future.

 

[chucky2]

chucky2: There is a glaring grammatical error in your sig.

I know, I keep it there to piss off grammar Nazi's.

 

[Ausm]

LOL Check out this tweet...

Breaking News: Conservatives planning to leave the U.S, but can't find a wealthy western Country without Universal Healthcare!

 

[JockoJohnson]

Part of Obamacare requires that doctors are paid based on the quality of care for their patients rather than the number of treatments they use on their patients. There was an article on this as this was a new type of practice that a couple private hospitals had used to great success and Obamacare is modelling off of: they lowered surgeon pay but gave bonuses based on metrics... there were fewer mistakes, fewer procedures, better patient outcomes, and costs went down (and the surgeons made more money).

Conservatives: THE HORROR!

A bunch of other stuff from reddit:

If all of that is true, that is great and I can't disagree with any of it. If it is true, all of the current journalists need to be fired. Most of that I have not heard of. I'll admit, I haven't researched as much either on my own.

I would love to see some arguments as to why any of those posted items are bad or wrong - or badong (from the awesome movie Kung Pow).

 

[Fern]

My previous post was getting long, so I'm putting this point in a separate one:

Have we seen the end of using the Commerce Clause etc as a means for Congress to orchestrate social changes or programs? Instead are they now being forced to use their power of taxation?

Of course it's too early to know, but if so that would be a huge change.

I seriously question whether Obamacare would have gotten the necessary votes in it were advertised a tax increase instead of a penalty. I think it obvious they labored quite hard in drafting the bill to avoid it being seen as an income tax for that very reason.

Taxes just aren't popular with most voters. Herding Congress in the direction of increasing taxes to achieve social changes many liberals want will likely make them that much harder to enact.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Why do you hate overweight people?

 

[Pneumothorax]

They obviously don't believe that half the people in the US are stupid.

But sadly they are. If, the healthcare insurance exchanges lower the cost of insurance. Why piss away $1250 a year($50k in income) when you can spend a little more and get insurance. Instead of blowing $1250 on a fine and then in the future having medical problems and getting socked with 10s or 100s of thousands in bills.

Unfortunately, like I said people are stupid and would likely pay the fine and the if something happens be stuck with huge amount of debt and probably eventually bankruptcy. Some may call that smart and gaming the system, but life ain't so rosey in that situation.

Uhh, HI is so expensive now that you can spend $1000 per month for a healthy family of 4 where the oldest member is <35. Also, with no pre-existing conditions you can always sign up for HI with no risk of being denied whenever someone in the family gets sick... So let's see, pay $1250 fine or $12,000 per year for insurance. I'll take the fine, thank you...

 

[Gunslinger08]

I suggest that you can be taxed into whatever behavior those in charge want by taxing you on nothing besides their will. When it is your turn I hope you bow as deeply.

I would agree that this is a valid concern. Yes, it is a traditional "slippery slope" fallacy, but I think it's something to actually worry about. I think the ruling that a federal tax can be used as a punishment for not performing some action or purchasing some product will be looked at pretty poorly in the (possibly distant) future. I have no doubt that some lobbyist group will find a way to make this work towards their advantage and we'll all be mandated ("taxed") to purchase something else for the common good.

 

[hal2kilo]

LOL Check out this tweet...

Breaking News: Conservatives planning to leave the U.S, but can't find a wealthy western Country without Universal Healthcare!

lol

 

[IndyColtsFan]

LOL Check out this tweet...

Breaking News: Conservatives planning to leave the U.S, but can't find a wealthy western Country without Universal Healthcare!

Oh look, Ausm cheering on his "side" without discussing any of the merits or lack thereof of the bill. That was TOTALLY unexpected and I NEVER saw that coming.

When costs continue to skyrocket due to the lack of cost containment, what are you going to say then? "But...but...but..Bush?"

 

[jhu]

We had to pass the bill to see what was in it.

Seriously, this is why the majority of people on the left and right are opposed to ACA. It goes too far for the right, and not far enough for the left. Plus it increases costs across the board at a time when the economy is in the toilet.

As for me, I'll support a single-payer system when I see a country who has implemented it in an economically sustainable way without compromising the quality or availability of care. Granted, I don't mine Google for stats on this, so I'm open seeing where such a system really works.

Here you go

Guess which country doesn't have a universal healthcare system?

 

[lopri]

Eskimospy is correct.

Roberts wrote the penalty was a tax for Constitutional purposes, but not a tax for the anti-injunction law. That's counter-intuitive at first blush. Will need to read the part of the opinion that addresses this.

Fern

I've just finished glancing through Roberts' opinion, and it is quite dubious to be frank. () What you're saying is what he is indeed saying, and he isn't making a whole lot of sense with that. It must be tough to be Roberts, who wants to be remembered a great chief justice in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, as for the outcome and the lasting impact, a true conservative/libertarian should breathe a sigh of relief. Liberals worried that conservative justices would swing their magic wand to strike down "just this one law," a la Bush v. Gore for political reasons. Instead, what he wrote is the opposite. His opinion actually attemps to shrink the federal government in the future, while letting "this one law" survive. It is political, and it won't benefit the liberals in the future. I am now about to read Ginsberg's concurrence/dissent, and I suppose she isn't happy with the chief's reasoning.

So if you are truly concerned about federal government's overreach or some other Orwellian scenarios, then you can be assured that this decision will not be a spring of slippery snakes (or slopes). However, as I suspect, if what some of you really wanted was not a health care reform, a limited government, individual liberty, but a political defeat of Obama - then congratulations, you are defeated.

Edit: He also actively provokes people to "vote" if you don't like a certain law. ("I'm not responsible for your stupid president")

 

[Fern]

Although they personally paid in far less than they will get in benefits from it. Were the government to cut benefits so that they just get back their contribution plus interest I think they would be very angry indeed.

No.

That's not much of a point.

Some will receive more in benefits than they paid, others will not. It's widely accepted that 80% of the costs are for 20% of the people. Some will just drop dead and use little in benefits. Others will use a ton.

This is standard in insurance - that some receive more and other less - and Medicare is insurance.

Fern

 

[PokerGuy]

I would agree that this is a valid concern. Yes, it is a traditional "slippery slope" fallacy, but I think it's something to actually worry about. I think the ruling that a federal tax can be used as a punishment for not performing some action or purchasing some product will be looked at pretty poorly in the (possibly distant) future. I have no doubt that some lobbyist group will find a way to make this work towards their advantage and we'll all be mandated ("taxed") to purchase something else for the common good.

Now that we've established that a tax can be used as punishment for not purchasing a product from a private third party, there truly is no limit to how this could be used. Using the logic that the court used (that the penalty is in fact a tax), there is literally no limit to what people can be compelled to do simply by penalizing them with a hefty tax.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Uhh, HI is so expensive now that you can spend $1000 per month for a healthy family of 4 where the oldest member is <35. Also, with no pre-existing conditions you can always sign up for HI with no risk of being denied whenever someone in the family gets sick... So let's see, pay $1250 fine or $12,000 per year for insurance. I'll take the fine, thank you...

Yeah, I don't think some people realize how much insurance actually costs. Yeah, your employer is deducting $50 a paycheck for your individual plan. They're also paying a massive portion of your premium. Add on a spouse or an entire family and the premiums are huge. People balk at the COBRA prices, but you have to understand that even that rate is discounted from personally purchased insurance premiums - COBRA allows you to continue getting the group rate.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

No.

That's not much of a point.

Some will receive more in benefits than they paid, others will not. It's widely accepted that 80% of the costs are for 20% of the people. Some will just drop dead and use little in benefits. Others will use a ton.

This is standard in insurance - that some receive more and other less - and Medicare is insurance.

Fern

This.

My dad died at 63 and took no advantage of his benefits -- the ones he paid for.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

Ummm... you don't know what you're talking about. People with a high-deductible plan and a FSA/HSA do cover themselves. The problem is that FSA/HSA contributions are tax-deductible (so long as they are used for qualified medical expenses) and now that deductibility threshold is lower. More and more people are having to use high-deductible plans, and now it just became more expensive to do so. This is, in effect, another tax increase under the ACA...

It may also work to discourage people from seeking medical care.

It's no secret those with low deducible plans seek out health care more often. Many will think nothing of going to the doctor when they know it's covered by insurance. You'll think twice when it's YOU paying.

Fern

 

[OutHouse]

so explain to me why having my kids on my heath insurance will cause my rates to increase?

 

[ichy]

I know, I keep it there to piss off grammar Nazi's.

It makes you look illiterate.