ForumsWEPRAffordable Care Act Decreed

47 15663
zakyman
offline
zakyman
1,631 posts
Peasant

The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has just been ruled constitutional by the United States Supreme Court. In a 5-4 ruling, the law that would create universal health care for citizens was upheld. How do you think that this ruling will affect elections this November, and do you disagree or agree with the justices rulings?

  • 47 Replies
BRAAINZz
offline
BRAAINZz
787 posts
Nomad

Just looking at the links I realise that I was expecting to much of this bill. I thought that this was going to be something along the lines of public healthcare. All this looks like is forcing/helping people to get healthcare. Don't get me wrong, it seems like a step in the right direction, but it's not enough. It also doesn't seem like everyone is pleased about their tax money going to helping others.

If there is one, how big is the tax increase, and what will it be at in total?

314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

I understand the critiques against Obamacare even less now since I read that almost 90% of American already have some sort of health insurance, through work, purchased individually or other means. If only 10% have to get one now, and I assume a big part of them have the means to do so, I don't think this piece of solidarity is as expensive as many think.


Wait, what? Your saying that most people already health insurance, and the ones who don't can probably afford it, therefore we should socialize it? If what your saying is true, doesn't it make this unnecessary and pointless? Who does it help?


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

When I was going to work, I noticed a sign for an alternative medicine thing. Since this was right after talking about this, what does this law do to "alliterative medicine"? Is it using your and my tax dollars for someone to get rubbed with crystals and magnets?
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

Witch of course they don't offer for because they are near guaranteed to need the money. If health insurance worked like that, you would have to raise the cost of everyone else's do to the fact that they are losing money on that.


That is just greed talking. Putting money head of people. Sure it's what I would expect from a business, but highlights why healthcare shouldn't be treated as such.

Won't this mean that someone else has lower, poorer coverage while they end up paying more?


With the current system the way it it this might happen to some degree. (which shows an actual flaw in this system) However not having people covered still costs us and can cost far more then having them covered.

I would like to see some examples of this.


It's called recession.

http://www.healthcarefees.com/2012/02/medical-insurance-rescission/

"A surprising number of patients have been in the middle of costly treatment for a serious disease only to have their policies canceled, sometimes even retroactively, and found themselves responsible for astronomical bills. It's called rescission.

"It's a secret program that if you have a serious illness ⦠or are on costly medications, when they get the bills, they go through [your file] and look at your application ⦠and get medical records from the last several years. And if they find an inconsistency in your application, even if it's an honest mistake, your policy is rescinded," says Shernoff. "It's a very harsh punishment visited upon a lot of people."

Shernoff represented plaintiffs in a class action suit against Blue Cross in California that resulted in the company being fined $1 million in March 2007 for rescinding 6,000 policies without proving that patients willfully falsified their applications.
"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20186938/ns/health-health_care/t/things-insurers-dont-want-you-know/#.T-4y-5GWyWQ

The next of kin?


No the next of kin is not obligated to pay.

Why not?


It can often over power actually people as we have been seeing as of late since a single corporations can have far more financial pull on the system than any one actual person. It leaves these corporations unregulated and unchecked to run rough shot on everyone.
What need to be done is we need to recognize a difference between this pseudo personhood that corporations have and the natural personhood people have. This gap has been narrowing for decades and is resulting in many of the problem we are seeing to day. Today it seems a corporate personhood and personhood ascribed to a human is nearly interchangeable.
In short the pseudo personhood of the corporations is infringing on the people who have personhood naturally.

"That was a case in which the Southern Pacific Railroad was protesting taxes that had been placed on it by California and by counties in California. And in that case, the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, Morrison Waite, stood up in January of 1886 and said what pretty much everybody in the courthouse thought, which was that corporations were persons for the purposes of the 14th Amendment."

"The 14th Amendment dating from right after the Civil War, the Equal Protection Clause is what we're talking about."

"What Waite was attentive to in 1886 in the Santa Clara County case was that corporations didn't have to be treated the same as natural persons. They were metaphysical persons. And that fact was something that the law could take into account." -John Witt, professor of law and history.

If there is one, how big is the tax increase, and what will it be at in total?


From the link I posted on the first page.

Q: How much is all this going to cost? Will it increase my taxes?

A: The package is estimated to cost $938 billion over a decade. But because of higher taxes and fees and billions of dollars in Medicare payment cuts to providers, the package will narrow the federal budget deficit by $143 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

If you have a high income, you will face higher taxes. Starting in 2013, individuals with earnings over $200,000 and married couples earning more than $250,000 will pay a Medicare payroll tax of 2.35 percent, up from the current 1.45 percent. In addition, high-income taxpayers will face a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income such as dividends and interest over the threshold.

Starting in 2018, the law will also impose a 40 percent excise tax on the portion of most employer-sponsored health coverage (excluding dental and vision) that exceeds $10,200 a year for individuals and $27,500 for families. The tax is often referred to as a "Cadillac" tax.

The law also will raise the threshold for deducting unreimbursed medical expenses from 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income to 10 percent.

The law also will limit the amount of money you can put in a flexible spending account to pay medical expenses to $2,500 starting in 2013. Those using an indoor tanning salon will pay a 10 percent tax starting this year.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

That is just greed talking. Putting money head of people. Sure it's what I would expect from a business, but highlights why healthcare shouldn't be treated as such.


So we should hand it over to the government, witch is much like a business that does not work as well?

It is easy to spend other people's money, why must everyone pay for other people's mistakes and healthcare for the mistakes?

With the current system the way it it this might happen to some degree. (which shows an actual flaw in this system) However not having people covered still costs us and can cost far more then having them covered.


So why don't we just not cover them at all then?

http://www.healthcarefees.com/2012/02/m ⦠escission/


That link shows less than I would expect from a reader's digest article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20186938/ns ⦠-4y-5GWyWQ


List based articles are for entertainment purposes only. I have never seen a list based article that I can take seriously.

No the next of kin is not obligated to pay.


Then I assume they would have to pay for it themselves? I forgot where this started.

It can often over power actually people as we have been seeing as of late since a single corporations can have far more financial pull on the system than any one actual person. It leaves these corporations unregulated and unchecked to run rough shot on everyone.


Then wouldn't it be better to eliminate the financial pull on the government rather than destroy the corporations rights? It would sound a lot more sound.

What need to be done is we need to recognize a difference between this pseudo personhood that corporations have and the natural personhood people have. This gap has been narrowing for decades and is resulting in many of the problem we are seeing to day. Today it seems a corporate personhood and personhood ascribed to a human is nearly interchangeable.


Is that a bad thing? The corporations get all the responsibilities and obligations of a person, so they should be expected to receive fair treatment as a person would.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

So we should hand it over to the government, witch is much like a business that does not work as well?


Seeing as the government's business should be to see to the needs of the people under it yeah.
At any rate PPACA doesn't hand health care over to the government.

It is easy to spend other people's money, why must everyone pay for other people's mistakes and healthcare for the mistakes?


Not clear as to what you're saying here.

So why don't we just not cover them at all then?


Mean like how things are without these changes?

Anyway another thing to keep in mind with everyone having insurance they can more easily get treatment at earlier stages of what ever illness they have. This results in overall lower medical bills. So everyone having insurance could actually have an opposite effect and lower costs to everybody.

List based articles are for entertainment purposes only. I have never seen a list based article that I can take seriously.


That's why I included the second more reliable link that backs up what this one was saying. Since you're complaining that the second one was to short is this one better?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/02/think-youve-got-health-insurance-better-double-check-and-be/

I would like to innodate you with links but I need to limit my browsing as of right now.

Then I assume they would have to pay for it themselves? I forgot where this started.


They couldn't, they would be dead. Someone without insurance get's treatment and racks up a large medical bill they can't pay for. As time goes on they make attempts to pay but eventually fail to pay it in full by the time they pass away. Or during their stay the die due to poor treatment because they couldn't get the needed treatment due to lack of insurance.

Then wouldn't it be better to eliminate the financial pull on the government rather than destroy the corporations rights? It would sound a lot more sound.


Would that not be eliminating some of those corporate rights by doing this?

Some of the rights those corporations are being granted undermine the rights of the people due to the pull they can have.

Is that a bad thing? The corporations get all the responsibilities and obligations of a person, so they should be expected to receive fair treatment as a person would.


Yes it is a bad thing. It's like saying a television is equal to a babysitter.

I'm not advocating that a corporation shouldn't be given legal room to operate. I'm saying the legal standing of the people should take presidence. You don't get that if the corporation is being treated as the people. What you get is something with more pull than the people with no conscious to control it's actions.
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

Seeing as the government's business should be to see to the needs of the people under it yeah


When has the government ever provided the needs of the people? It does not even provide the three basic needs, food, water, and shelter. It provides protection, I suppose, but not really much else.

At any rate PPACA doesn't hand health care over to the government.


I know, it forces people to buy it from the companies that you hate so much, right?

Not clear as to what you're saying here.


I can't remember, to be honest.

Mean like how things are without these changes?


I thought you said we where currently paying for them if they don't have healthcare? Well it was implied.

Anyway another thing to keep in mind with everyone having insurance they can more easily get treatment at earlier stages of what ever illness they have. This results in overall lower medical bills. So everyone having insurance could actually have an opposite effect and lower costs to everybody.


You do use a lot of "Could" and "Mights", don't you? A recession is hardly the time to gamble with new laws.

While you can more easily get health care while in the early stage, according to you, you also have to put in the charges to actually find the diseases. When health care is covering check ups, witch must have to happen frequently if you want to have any hope of catching something early, the price goes up significantly.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/09/02/ ⦠ck-and-be/


Sounds to me like it was her own fault - she apparently had something that she thought was big enough to go to a doctor about (How would they know otherwise?) but not big enough to tell the people paying for your medical expenses.

This could easily be a case of false reasoning, they had seen her get kicked out of the insurance and assumed it was some guy who wanted money. Any lawyer would likely tell you to know your contract - if your contract says that you may have your insurance taken away if you had per-existing conditions that you had not marked, then you should have marked them.

They couldn't, they would be dead. Someone without insurance get's treatment and racks up a large medical bill they can't pay for. As time goes on they make attempts to pay but eventually fail to pay it in full by the time they pass away. Or during their stay the die due to poor treatment because they couldn't get the needed treatment due to lack of insurance.


I would assume that their assets are seized? Or in the case they die of poor treatment, not much, since poor treatment is cheap.

Would that not be eliminating some of those corporate rights by doing this?

Some of the rights those corporations are being granted undermine the rights of the people due to the pull they can have.


What rights would that be, exactly? The right to "bribe" officials with lobbying money?

Then why not make corporations the equivalent to people? With no more and no less sway than everyone else?

Yes it is a bad thing. It's like saying a television is equal to a babysitter.


My last baby sitter stole the money in the coin jar to by smokes, took my two youngest siblings out of the house with her friends, and was that cousin I mentioned earlier. My parents just left me with the TV after that. Some times TVs can be better babysitters then humans.

Has the metaphor broken down yet?

I'm not advocating that a corporation shouldn't be given legal room to operate. I'm saying the legal standing of the people should take presidence. You don't get that if the corporation is being treated as the people. What you get is something with more pull than the people with no conscious to control it's actions.


Why? Corporations being treated as people does not give them any more sway then treating them like anything else would.

If a corporation, a person, had more sway than another person, who is a person, then that isn't a problem with their status as persons. It is a problem with what is giving them more sway. If it is lobby money that is giving them more sway, then why not change the lobbying laws? It makes more since to fix the problems that just to ignore problems to maybe not get more problems. Did that make any since? Wow it is getting late.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

So, let the rich go bankrupt so that the poor can pay their medical bills? Those things actually do cost money, but while I agree that medical bills can be insane, they shouldn't have to rely on the government to ask for money. They should ask people to help them. Sure, the money still goes from one pocket to another (maybe a little longer in the going, but it still ends up there), but you can help out people you want without the government accidentally making you bankrupt while helping people.


This is all a ruse to push socialism, and while I agree with the underlying notion, it does not really make daisies with the real world. If everybody worked and earned what they needed and actually cared for everyone else, this wouldn't be a problem. (Actually, you wouldn't need socialism if everyone automatically supported anyone else anyways, and you wouldn't need government.) So really, all a socialist government is doing is making the rich go bankrupt, encouraging people to go lazy because they get support, and putting money were people probably don't want it to go. It's more of a leech than social support.


Yes, let the rich pay, they already pay much less than other nations in terms of taxes. I would certainly help the 99% instead of the 1% who are so rich that paying a little more tax won't dent their vast coffers. A 10% tax increment on 200,000 is knocking off 20 grand, you still have 180,000 left. Unless you're telling me, you're going to hope for such rich people to be able to afford that extra golf club instead of saving a poor man's life.

All this Republican, ''Can-Do'' attitude is utterly moronic. If a person has not been able to find a job for two years, they can't, and they can't ''help themselves''. It's not like they don't want to work, Americans have been protesting for ages for jobs. So no, money does not ''end up in everyone's pockets'', it stays in the rich, and the luxury goods sellers who sell the goods to the rich, without touching the pocket's of the poor.

Again no, social justice is needed. What the Republicans seemingly ignore in their attitude that self reliance is the best panacea is that people can't help themselves if their stuck in a nightmare of morgage, growing children, bank interests, and basic necessities without proper jobs. So no, in times like this, it's not a leech, the government is merely doing its job which it promised its electorate; to help the people.

All sunshine and daisies, right?


Mage hit the nail on the head.

The ones we have during recessions? If you want to experiment with the welfare and money of the people, you should probably do it when people have money.


All fiscal, supply side and monetary policies are experiments; they all have long gestation periods, by which the crisis conditions could have changed or ended. If you introduce vast expenditure in an expansionary fiscal policy, but the crisis has ended, you're going to end up pushing up inflation. So yes, all policies are in their own rights, risky experiments.



Isn't that their own fault?


Not when insurance companies jack prices up so the poor can't afford it.

So logically, we should forcibly take money from everyone else to pay for them?


Yes of course. We should take it back from the insurance companies who jack the prices up. We should also wean the rich off some of their riches, and give back to society. This is not Hollande's insane 75% tax increment, this is ensuring that everyone can at least enjoy a decent standard of living.

Great! So more money has to come from somewhere else!


Taxes from the rich and the insurance companies. Have you actually been following the news, or are you being an ignoramus? Just look at the list of where funding will come from, it's all on the internet.

And the law of equivalent exchange says that someone has to lose the money for them to make money. So isn't this just "helping" people at the expense of other people?


The rich lose out. They can afford it, and that's how social justice works, unless you want an America with an increasing inequity standard, leading to more unrest in the future, just like China.

Ah yes! I forgot that insurance companies and rich people where not people. Silly me, thinking that they where people?


Your taking money unwillingly from people, regardless if they are "Rich" or not, and giving it to other people. Last I checked, that is called "stealing".


The government has the right to tax, and the government has a duty to all its people, to make life as fair and as decent as possible. If it means harming the minority slightly for the sake of the vast majority, yes, that's the way to go. It's not like the government will outright shake all the gold out of the rich and turn them into paupers.

I also completely forget that you like to argue for arguments' sake, and just bash at both sides of the coin.

So logically next we should use other peoples money for other things we need. You know what we need more then health care? Food! Millions go without food in America. Probably. So logically we should go to some random rich persons house, take all their food, and give it to random poor people! Everyone knows that rich guys are not people! And of course people need transportation, so lets take their car and give it away! Yay!


You're being absurdly silly. People who are starving are already receiving Federal help in the form of food stamps, soup kitchens and the right.

Also, slippery slope.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

When has the government ever provided the needs of the people? It does not even provide the three basic needs, food, water, and shelter. It provides protection, I suppose, but not really much else.


Just off the top of my head. It helps put standards on food and water to attempt to reduce the odds of people getting sick from consuming it. It provides public schooling so everyone can stand a chance of getting at least a basic level of education. Publicly funded roads creating a infrastructure of traveling.

I know, it forces people to buy it from the companies that you hate so much, right?


Yes that is an issue with this system. I would much prefer an actual universal health care system that provides at least basic coverage for everyone. insurance companies could still exist providing further coverage.

I thought you said we where currently paying for them if they don't have healthcare? Well it was implied.


Yes, at least with PPACA people have a better chance of getting the help they need instead of being left sick and getting worse.

You do use a lot of "Could" and "Mights", don't you?


of course I do. It's a good way to avoid making erroneous absolute statements.

A recession is hardly the time to gamble with new laws.


Any change come with some gamble, but staying the course isn't going to do a thing to help matters.

When health care is covering check ups, witch must have to happen frequently if you want to have any hope of catching something early, the price goes up significantly.


the cost of regular check ups wouldn't out weight the cost of dealing with problems that have been left untreated, requiring expensive medical treatments to cure or control.

I would assume that their assets are seized? Or in the case they die of poor treatment, not much, since poor treatment is cheap.


Often the assets don't cover the costs and even just a stay at a hospital can easily run nearly $20,000 or more.

Has the metaphor broken down yet?


No it hasn't. Just because there are actual people who are criminals doesn't mean a thing.

Why? Corporations being treated as people does not give them any more sway then treating them like anything else would.


Yes it does.

It is a problem with what is giving them more sway.


They wouldn't have that sway if they weren't being treated as persons. It's what is giving them the room to take that power.

Anyway this is a case of arguing for the sake of arguing I would like to end it here. Not that I mind, just I want to save the use of my computer.
Krill11
offline
Krill11
98 posts
Peasant

OK, so I think that the supreme court did a good job, at their job! The Supreme court's job is to define whether something is constitutional, though, with 1000 (more or less) pages, there is bound to be a ton of loopholes, as well as who knows what.

Something constitutional, is not necessarily something wise.

Krill11
offline
Krill11
98 posts
Peasant

oh, and luckily the supreme court made it, unlike the law, that the states could opt out with no penalty's. Which is unlike what The act declared, which was that it would be an all or nothing with the medicare; accept the new funding, or be cut off from all funding for the states current medicare.

Just something things I Want you to think about (These are rhetorical question's, but feel free to comment)

- What is free for one person, is a cost to another, AKA, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

- What will now happen to insurance company's and their employees? when something is that cheep (and yes, the insurance companies are doing well, but they are still struggling, just like everyone else.) production will decrease and employees will be sacked... less jobs not more as promised

- How many of Obama's promises, thought and before his presidency, have been unfulfilled due to his lack of interest?

(none is not the right answer...)

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,045 posts
Shepherd

Well, I used to think if someone was unhealthy due to their own bad habits, it wouldn't concern me. I felt that I could do what I wanted to do without concerning anyone else. Now, since our taxes are paying for our health rather than ourselves, it seems the way we treat ourselves effects everyone around us. I'm not a fan of that at all.

I hate being strapped to things I don't consent to. I don't want any part of the affordable care act. I feel like there are many ways we could have improved healthcare without resorting to a coercive bill.

We should try to figure out ways to solve problems without sacrificing our freedoms. Obamacare should have been last resort. It wasn't. We didn't try to figure out ways to help people without forcing everyone into a socialized care. We just grabbed the first tit that came close and latched onto it. That's right, we're metaphorically sucking on Obama's tit. Sorry, that was inappropriate. I just feel that we should help people voluntarily, not through coercion.

NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,045 posts
Shepherd

That is just greed talking. Putting money head of people. Sure it's what I would expect from a business, but highlights why healthcare shouldn't be treated as such.


Businesses don't put money before customers. They put customers before anything as a means of making money. This means they do whatever they can to provide the best products for the cheapest prices. At least, that's what a business does in a free market. That's ALL the more reason to treat healthcare like a business!

We provide food through the market, homes through the market, entertainment through the market, etc. etc. Why is it that when you have a good or service in the market that's exceptional good, somehow the market helped. But if it's something such as healthcare, the market doesn't help? It seems like we have this idea that anything we need, the market makes worse, and anything we want, the market makes it better. This is just not true.

Now, keep in mind that the current healthcare system in America is definitely flawed, and Obamacare probably will be better than what we have now, but just because Obamacare is better doesn't mean we should go for it. There are better alternatives. There are many other ways we can reduce healthcare prices. Obamacare should have been last resort, but it wasn't. There was no attempt at lowering healthcare costs without the use of some form of coercion.

We didn't revamp the way the FDA tests drugs so it's cheaper, faster, and more efficient. We never protected doctors from frivolous lawsuits which raises healthcare costs. There's a lot of stuff we can do to make healthcare more affordable. Now that we'll be covered by Obamacare, there will be almost no incentive to fix these problems.
SSTG
offline
SSTG
13,055 posts
Treasurer

We didn't revamp the way the FDA tests drugs so it's cheaper, faster, and more efficient. We never protected doctors from frivolous lawsuits which raises healthcare costs. There's a lot of stuff we can do to make healthcare more affordable. Now that we'll be covered by Obamacare, there will be almost no incentive to fix these problems.

It's a little late for that.
The Republicans always whine about the government initiatives but they never propose anything better and when they are in power, they do whatever they want but never help the people.
At least Obama tried to do something.
The drug companies have done nothing to help, they just paid a corrupted weasel (senator) to introduce a garbage bill that allowed them to hike the price of medications by 500% which had for effect to raise the insurance cost insanely. So tell me who did something constructive so far besides the current president?
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,981 posts
Grand Duke

Businesses don't put money before customers. They put customers before anything as a means of making money. This means they do whatever they can to provide the best products for the cheapest prices. At least, that's what a business does in a free market. That's ALL the more reason to treat healthcare like a business!


The free market is flawed, because it only distinguishes very well based on wants; but not needs. It is allocatively efficient, because it allocates resources to does who can best pay for it. Unfortunately, this means the rich, and not the poor. Hence government intervention is needed.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

Businesses don't put money before customers.


No they don't. They going to provide the cheapest product at the highest markup they can while still making good sales. If product quality and customer satisfaction was really #1 on that list we would see a very different product from the automotive industry and television, just to point to a couple of examples.
Showing 16-30 of 47