dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,389
- 33,044
- 136
No I have heard pundits on TV making the same claim but I am still looking up concrete evidence on this.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,389
- 33,044
- 136
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,389
- 33,044
- 136
So pass anything because nothing else is being put on the table! Fuck that's ridiculous logic. We need real reform in more areas than just health care to start fixing issues with our health care. Symptoms all of it of a larger problem. Education needs reform in order to bring down costs, we need ease of access for entrepreneurs to get into the health care industry. Over regulation and bureaucracy has led to incredible inefficiency.
Want to know why health care and no health care legislation in the past 50+ years has been about helping people? Because the Government ceased to be about helping people long before and they're the ones who make all the rules.
Which really means it is pretty silly to ask people if they like individual portions of ObamaCare.
Its like saying you would theoretically like to have a Lexus, but are not willing to pay for it. And so do not want it after all.
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
So, the law has provisions for keeping track of money spent on necessities v. disposable income?
Check this link for what it means as far as the individual mandate penalties.
https://www.bcbsri.com/BCBSRIWeb/pdf/Individual_Mandate_Fact_Sheet.pdf
So if you are not due a refund, nada, nothing, zero impact to you.
Svnla
Lifer
- Nov 10, 2003
- 17,986
- 1,388
- 126
Really? Do you have links for that statement? A poster posted a link of countries with lower health care cost such as Japan, Norway. A link or two of obese problems from those countries would be a good start.
Here is mine (US obese/overweight epidemic) = http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/public/heart/obesity/wecan/healthy-weight-basics/obesity.htm
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-6069163.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/daniell...approach-to-solving-americas-obesity-problem/
So raising questions = repeating talking points? What happens to independence thinking instead of blindly following like sheeps?
To others that support the ACA, I have a few points/questions.
From the newspapers I read today, Southern states such as Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, etc. have at least 1 in 4 (25%) of their population that are not insured due to lack of money and pre-conditions/poor health such as diabete, stroke, high blood pressure, obese, ect.
How are we going to solve the cost equation by adding ten of millions of those poor and in poor health. Last time I check, poor health = much higher demand of health care than good health.
Just look at Medicare and Mediaid. We all know those programs are in deep trouble financially. How the ACA won't become another financial disaster down the road?
To the poster that asked about the penalty of not having health care. From the newspaper I read today, it would be about $800-$900 per single person per year. (Feel free to correct me if the number is not correct)
Last edited:
- Jul 27, 2002
- 13,314
- 690
- 126
A lot of discussions on ACA as a policy matter. I like that because I think that's how it should have been. (Though I admit that I am not an expert on health care/insurance market)
As a legal matter, the decision came out as following:
- Federal "mandate" isn't an acceptable excercise under the Commerce Clause. The vote here is 5-4 along the ideological line, with the liberals protesting viscerally. The conservatives endorse "action/inaction" distinction, and this new Commerce Clause theory can potentially curtail the power of federal government dramatically in the future, setting a new standard of review. However, it is unclear how much it will weigh in the future because Roberts' solo opinion seems to treat it like a dictum, rather than a holding. Libertarian scholars self-congratulate on this line.
- Roberts accepted the government's alternative rationale of federal taxing power. Whether a law calls itself a tax or acts like a tax is a different matter, and the federal government has exercised taxing power (tax.. to pay debts.. and welfare of the United States..) on various legislations. Obamacare can be sustained/understood as a valid exercise of the taxing power granted by the Consitution. (Here, the holding is 5-4 with Roberts joining the liberals)
- Liberals would rather uphold the law under the Commerce Clause, but they have no problem with upholding it under taxing power since it is an easier-to-meet burden. Again, Ginsberg's opinion reads almost like a complete dissent against Roberts' opinion, largely ignoring the joint dissenters.
- The other conservative justices would have invalidated the entire statutes. They endorse the "action/inaction" theory and dispute the taxing power rationale since the law clearly states "mandate" and "penalty," despite involvement of the IRS. What's interesting here is that they probe into legislative history in order to support their position that the law wasn't designed as a tax. (Justice Scalia, being a "textualist," usually despises searching of legislative backgrounds)
- The principal dissent (co-written by the conservatives) is pretty weak. This is my personal opinion but it is objective to an extent. (give it a try!) The opinion is somewhat tedious and very short on citations. That is understandable to a degree knowing that they are advancing a brand-new constitutional theory.
- At the end of the day, there is no controlling/lasting legal precedent except the "action/inaction" distinction that 5 justices seem to endorse. The decision does, however, uphold the Obamacare which looks to have been the bottom line of Roberts. Whether the action/inaction theory will last remains to be seen (Scalia himself disputed it as a meaningless distinction in the past), but as long as this decision has a value of stare decisis there will not be "Broccoli Horribles" in the future.
As a legal matter, the decision came out as following:
- Federal "mandate" isn't an acceptable excercise under the Commerce Clause. The vote here is 5-4 along the ideological line, with the liberals protesting viscerally. The conservatives endorse "action/inaction" distinction, and this new Commerce Clause theory can potentially curtail the power of federal government dramatically in the future, setting a new standard of review. However, it is unclear how much it will weigh in the future because Roberts' solo opinion seems to treat it like a dictum, rather than a holding. Libertarian scholars self-congratulate on this line.
- Roberts accepted the government's alternative rationale of federal taxing power. Whether a law calls itself a tax or acts like a tax is a different matter, and the federal government has exercised taxing power (tax.. to pay debts.. and welfare of the United States..) on various legislations. Obamacare can be sustained/understood as a valid exercise of the taxing power granted by the Consitution. (Here, the holding is 5-4 with Roberts joining the liberals)
- Liberals would rather uphold the law under the Commerce Clause, but they have no problem with upholding it under taxing power since it is an easier-to-meet burden. Again, Ginsberg's opinion reads almost like a complete dissent against Roberts' opinion, largely ignoring the joint dissenters.
- The other conservative justices would have invalidated the entire statutes. They endorse the "action/inaction" theory and dispute the taxing power rationale since the law clearly states "mandate" and "penalty," despite involvement of the IRS. What's interesting here is that they probe into legislative history in order to support their position that the law wasn't designed as a tax. (Justice Scalia, being a "textualist," usually despises searching of legislative backgrounds)
- The principal dissent (co-written by the conservatives) is pretty weak. This is my personal opinion but it is objective to an extent. (give it a try!) The opinion is somewhat tedious and very short on citations. That is understandable to a degree knowing that they are advancing a brand-new constitutional theory.
- At the end of the day, there is no controlling/lasting legal precedent except the "action/inaction" distinction that 5 justices seem to endorse. The decision does, however, uphold the Obamacare which looks to have been the bottom line of Roberts. Whether the action/inaction theory will last remains to be seen (Scalia himself disputed it as a meaningless distinction in the past), but as long as this decision has a value of stare decisis there will not be "Broccoli Horribles" in the future.
Last edited:
Phokus
Lifer
- Nov 20, 1999
- 22,994
- 779
- 126
Those 'alternative medicines' SHOULD be banned (unless they can be shown to be efficacious through clinical studies) . Medical procedures should be based on science, not mysticism/quackery. Steve Jobs took on an alternative medicine diet instead of following his doctors orders to get mainstream treatment on a cancer that was very treatable. Those types of medicines have no place in our society and should be illegal.
It's not an either or proposition. The mistake was giving the AMA the power to license, they are a self interested organization. Instead, it should have been handled by an impartial governing body.
tcG
Golden Member
- Jul 31, 2006
- 1,202
- 18
- 81
The reasoning of the penalty being to discourage people from simply buying insurance at the last minute since the law forces insurance companies to accept everybody - seems fallacious, or at least dishonest, to me.
If preventing people from gaming the system by getting insurance at the last minute from insurance companies forced to accept them is truly the reason for the penalty, then they could have much more painlessly accomplished this by making an exception to the rule that insurance companies must accept people, or by having delayed coverage, whereby the benefits don't start until the person has already had insurance for a certain amount of time.
There are ways to solve the problem without imposing a penalty or forcing people to buy insurance. I suspect the real reason for the penalty is to pay for the expense of the program.
If preventing people from gaming the system by getting insurance at the last minute from insurance companies forced to accept them is truly the reason for the penalty, then they could have much more painlessly accomplished this by making an exception to the rule that insurance companies must accept people, or by having delayed coverage, whereby the benefits don't start until the person has already had insurance for a certain amount of time.
There are ways to solve the problem without imposing a penalty or forcing people to buy insurance. I suspect the real reason for the penalty is to pay for the expense of the program.
Last edited:
sactoking
Diamond Member
- Sep 24, 2007
- 7,648
- 2,925
- 136
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/authorities/patient-protection.pdf
Page 336, Section 1501(g)(2)
That is one of the riskiest part about all this. I don't see how having a guaranteed income stream for the insurance companies will pressure them to reduce costs.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Thanks for link.
I highly doubt that the IRS will not pursue getting their pound of flesh though.
Threats of penalties, interest, and jail...oh my!
Yeah, I don't think anyone should hang their hat on the idea that this will stay (assuming it really is) a toothless measure.
From the newspapers I read today, Southern states such as Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, etc. have at least 1 in 4 (25%) of their population that are not insured due to lack of money and pre-conditions/poor health such as diabete, stroke, high blood pressure, obese, ect.
That is partially correct. Most are not insured because of the crazy requirements that states like Florida have to get qualified and/or the lack of funds. Basically its the states choice (currently) who gets covered and who does not.
How are we going to solve the cost equation by adding ten of millions of those poor and in poor health. Last time I check, poor health = much higher demand of health care than good health.
By providing expanded healthcare to everyone, and pushing like most private insurance does today for preventative healthcare, many of the serious/expensive costs can be reduce on the whole. For the first 3 years the Federal Gov't will fund the expansion 100%, while states get their act to gether
Just look at Medicare and Mediaid. We all know those programs are in deep trouble financially. How the ACA won't become another financial disaster down the road?
That is a big myth. Medicare is funded by a direct tax on employee wages, and has some of the lowest costs and best effiency compared to private insurance.
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2011/09/20/medicare-is-more-efficient-than-private-insurance/
But the majority of people will be enrolled in private insurance plans either with government support (credits) or because the cost should go down.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,389
- 33,044
- 136
Other than the Fed price fixing and requiring HI companies to pay for it and medical offices to accept it, there is no way costs are going to be reduced. If Everyone is covered, that's a sh1t ton more people getting HC now than were previously. No way will the medical community supply of labor increase that quickly to compensate for the increased demand.
Vastly increased demand + same supply = increased costs
Since it appears the Gov is going to be on the hook for covering those increased costs, x millions, this is going to turn into a massive added Gov drain.
If it's truly true that the Gov is going to subsidize lower income folks (however it determines that), and the fines are going to be effectively meaningless, then we're doomed as far as this act goes. Ffffffff***ccccckkkk.......
Congress will not touch it with a 10 foot poll. They like it, the supported it and it keeps the masses happy.
Doc Savage Fan
Lifer
- Nov 30, 2006
- 15,456
- 389
- 121
Thanks.
So let me get this straight...all I have to do is make sure I don't withhold too much and then I don't have to pay the penalty after all. Brilliant!
Dems are so sneaky.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,389
- 33,044
- 136
tcG
Golden Member
- Jul 31, 2006
- 1,202
- 18
- 81
You say that in a country where the consumer protection bureaucracy and mainstream medicine has an absolutely terrible record of keeping people healthy. Some alternative treatments DO work, you just never hear about them because they aren't beneficial to the cartel who administers medical services or aren't given funding by the corrupt governing bodies in bed with the healthcare providers. Do you know how medical research funding is given? The government chooses one treatment to give all their funding to and that's the one that goes, because funding multiple researches is seen by constituents as weak. Everything that ends up in the medical journals is influenced by the same corrupt, moneyed interests. The result is an singular method of treatment that focuses on symptoms rather than cures or prevention.
Besides, people should be able to decide what kind of medical care they want, even if it's inferior or harmful to their health.
...although this is a bit off-topic. My post contained a lot more than just that snippet.
Pretty much. Better you should own a small amount then loan the bastards money interest free for a year.
But it does beg the question when you die, wouldn't that penalty be assessed then?
I'm not sure where people get the idea that it's not possible to lower costs. It is possible to increase the supply of health care. The first step is to take on the AMA and to increase the number of doctors trained in the US. Also, allowing other professionals like nurses to do more would also help. The first thing that needs to happen though is for providers to receive a signal that people aren't willing to pay their prices. That can't happen when income is guaranteed.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter