View Full Version : Obamacare
As I see it, the news will be released as early as tomorrow that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Obama's down to 43 percent (even) in Gallup polling, and IMO the drag from the decision will put him down in the 30's in a few days.
"Everything is proceeding precisely as I have foreseen it." - The Emperor ;)
dadof18x'er
06-24-2012, 08:52
As I see it, the news will be released as early as tomorrow that the individual mandate is unconstitutional.
Obama's down to 43 percent (even) in Gallup polling, and IMO the drag from the decision will put him down in the 30's in a few days.
"Everything is proceeding precisely as I have foreseen it." - The Emperor ;)
I hope your're right but they could pull a Bagdad Bob and declare it to be a glorious victory:eek:
I hope you're right Dusty.
I hope your're right but they could pull a Bagdad Bob and declare it to be a glorious victory:eek:
I imagine there will be strife from the moment the SCOTUS announces the decision until after Romneyfication.
The chihuahas will be yipping and yapping very excitedly. :D
I wonder how long it will be before the SCOTUS is accused of legislating from the bench.....
I wonder how long it will be before the SCOTUS is accused of legislating from the bench.....
lol That's prolly exactly the way it's being briefed as we type; "OK, if it gets turned down, holler "legislate!" like a pit bull's got your bollocks!". :D
Badger52
06-24-2012, 11:46
I wonder how long it will be before the SCOTUS is accused of legislating from the bench.....His disrespectful previous State of the Union remarks made big friends with many of the Justices. They will play that specific 1st Amendment issue again along with this as they endeavor to seek & destroy individual donors to the general conservative marketing campaigns going on now. So they're gonna come loaded for bear with every divisive class-warfare item in the playbook.
There is no way ANY means this mandate is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. Especially given the input of top health care professionals.
There is no way ANY means this mandate is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
Same with most Obamacrap.
Badger52
06-25-2012, 08:02
There is no way ANY means this mandate is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. Especially given the input of top health care professionals.Argument was about individuals being made to purchase a product, the justification for said mandated purchase being avoiding the overall societal costs.
So can they make you buy a motorcycle helmet?
Rhod7520
06-25-2012, 12:20
I wonder how long it will be before the SCOTUS is accused of legislating from the bench.....
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/21/michael-tomasky-on-america-s-robed-radicals-on-the-supreme-court.html
Oh, they already have been accused of exactly that. I've read plenty of commentary similar to the above link. I like to keep an eye on what the other side is thinking so I spend as much time reading opinion bits from Newsweek columnists and the like as I do browsing the Cato Institute blog and Reason.tv.
And this one by the same author gave me a chuckle:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/24/michael-tomasky-democrats-should-come-out-swinging-against-the-court.html
How dare the SCOTUS get in Obama's way! Don't they know that the system of checks and balances is merely symbolic? Their job isn't to preserve the integrity of the Constitution, but to 'interpret' it in order to justify whatever federal intrusion is necessary for the 'good of the Nation'. <--Ok, that bit of sarcasm could be funny, if it weren't true... :(
Argument was about individuals being made to purchase a product, the justification for said mandated purchase being avoiding the overall societal costs.
So can they make you buy a motorcycle helmet?
Don't they make you purchase auto insurance?
Don't they make you purchase auto insurance?
The difference is that you don't have to purchase auto insurance just because you are alive. You only have to purchase auto insurance if you drive a vehicle. And what if you are in a state that does not have a mandatory helmet law?
Stargazer
06-25-2012, 13:31
Is it federally mandated? I don't think so... I believe it is by state and can vary with their requirements.
The difference is that you don't have to purchase auto insurance just because you are alive. You only have to purchase auto insurance if you drive a vehicle. And what if you are in a state that does not have a mandatory helmet law?
In most of the USA, if you don't drive, odds are you aren't going to find and keep a job. Public transportation in the good ole USA is sorely lacking.
IMO, if you don't wear a helmet, then you should be limited in the ability to sue for head related injuries.
Is it federally mandated? I don't think so... I believe it is by state and can vary with their requirements.
Federal, state, county, or city.... It's still government mandated!
In most of the USA, if you don't drive, odds are you aren't going to find and keep a job. Public transportation in the good ole USA is sorely lacking. IMO, if you don't wear a helmet, then you should be limited in the ability to sue for head related injuries.
Not sure how that relates to the argument. You don't drive, you don't buy insurance. Lots of people in New York City, or in most major metropolitan areas don't have cars, yet seem to find their way to work every day.
Federal, state, county, or city.... It's still government mandated!
The difference is who is doing the mandating, the state or the feds.
Stargazer
06-25-2012, 14:03
Federal, state, county, or city.... It's still government mandated!
The minimum requirements vary greatly and is only necessary if you have a licensed vehicle on the road.
The healthcare law requires everyone carry healthcare benefits, otherwise individuals / employers will be penalized...
Badger52
06-25-2012, 14:29
Don't they make you purchase auto insurance?
The short answer is that, IF I drive, in some states I have the option to not purchase and, on my own, post a bond or Cert of Deposit up front to cover basic liability minimums the state determines. Requirements as to what the mandating state consider as being able to make someone "whole" range from outrageous to laughable.
Actually the helmet question should've been in pink font because I know many places already do that. Besides, numbers (including those published by the DoT, that was an eye-opener) are all over the place as to the actual efficacy of helmet laws in creating helmeted people who still die in large percentages of single-bike fatal accidents. (Car v. bike is like 95% your goose is cooked, helmet or not, helmet law or not.)
Both of the above I don't have to do if I don't do those things.
dadof18x'er
06-25-2012, 14:58
I hope your're right but they could pull a Bagdad Bob and declare it to be a glorious victory:eek:
I told ya so...... here's Bagdad Bobette..http://www.mrc.org/biasalerts/cbss-odonnell-court-striking-down-obamacare-might-be-better-president..
Not sure how that relates to the argument. You don't drive, you don't buy insurance. Lots of people in New York City, or in most major metropolitan areas don't have cars, yet seem to find their way to work every day.
If you aren't working, under Obamacare mandate will you have to buy health insurance?
What percentage of the licensed drivers in the USA don't drive cars or trucks?
I'd say that many people that work in NYC own cars, whether or not they drive them to work is another matter. I worked in NYC for a 5 years, lived in the suburbs, and drove to work 5 days a week...Based on the traffic that was on the road with me...I'd say a hell of a lot of people own cars. On the weekends the parking lots at beaches on Long Island were filled with cars registered to people living in NYC.
I worked in NYC for a 5 years...
lol That explains a lot. :D
Badger52
06-25-2012, 15:27
I told ya so...... here's Bagdad Bobette.."politically, it might be better for the President, because then he can put the onus back on the Republicans."
WOPR: "The only winning move is not to play."
The difference is who is doing the mandating, the state or the feds.
Slice it, dice it, anyway you want, they are still a government mandates.
lol That explains a lot. :D
It's a great place to (work and live), and it sure beats the Ozarks!!!
In most of the USA, if you don't drive, odds are you aren't going to find and keep a job. Public transportation in the good ole USA is sorely lacking.
IMO, if you don't wear a helmet, then you should be limited in the ability to sue for head related injuries.
I agree.
And if we were ever to adopt a socialized medicine system.........
One could argue the same aspect of Tobacco users (yes, I am one) having to pay out of pocket for medical conditions that directly tie to the use of Tobacco.
Then that slippery slope, then it goes towards obese Americans as well (which is a whole other issue) that would have to buck up for conditions that are related to an unhealthy lifestyle.
Then we mandate what type of food is eaten, issue ration cards for unhealthy food and keep records of who eats what, once again taking away the personal freedoms of Americans.
This all ties back to something that many of our citizens have forgotten.............."responsibility a prerequisite for freedom"
I agree.
And if we were ever to adopt a socialized medicine system.........
One could argue the same aspect of Tobacco users (yes, I am one) having to pay out of pocket for medical conditions that directly tie to the use of Tobacco.
Then that slippery slope, then it goes towards obese Americans as well (which is a whole other issue) that would have to buck up for conditions that are related to an unhealthy lifestyle.
Then we mandate what type of food is eaten, issue ration cards for unhealthy food and keep records of who eats what, once again taking away the personal freedoms of Americans.
This all ties back to something that many of our citizens have forgotten.............."responsibility a prerequisite for freedom"
State (and Fed) run health care insurance plans (for employes) don't cut benefits for tobacco users, or obese people, so why would a US plan.
I fail to see how what I said about non helmeted bikers being limited in suing for head injuries relates to your health care examples. Let the bikers who choose to ride helmetless buy their own insurance (that will pay for head injuries).
It's a great place to (work and live), and it sure beats the Ozarks!!!
lol Yeah, to a lib. :rolleyes:
State (and Fed) run health care insurance plans (for employes) don't cut benefits for tobacco users, or obese people, so why would a US plan.
I fail to see how what I said about non helmeted bikers being limited in suing for head injuries relates to your health care examples. Let the bikers who choose to ride helmetless buy their own insurance (that will pay for head injuries).
Just thinking worst case.
Since we are in the business of giving handouts, in an attempt to make the weak strong, and the strong weak.
Don't they make you purchase auto insurance?
I don't think you are required to have automobile insurance if you don't drive on public roads. Now, your neighbors might get pissed off driving thur their front yards...but at least you won't get ticketed for "uninsured motorist". I wonder if that would hold water for a DUI charge? :D
lol Yeah, to a lib. :rolleyes:
I will have to admit, that the Ozarks are far better for hillbillies. Thankfully most of them remain there! :D
I will have to admit, that the Ozarks are far better for hillbillies. Thankfully most of them remain there! :D
No reason to leave. Shucks.
I don't think you are required to have automobile insurance if you don't drive on public roads. Now, your neighbors might get pissed off driving thur their front yards...but at least you won't get ticketed for "uninsured motorist". I wonder if that would hold water for a DUI charge? :D
I knew a guy who was ticketed for "DUI on a bicycle"...and the court suspended his driver's license, which caused him to lose his job. He was an auto parts truck driver and the company's insurer wouldn't insure him because of it.
In most of the USA, if you don't drive, odds are you aren't going to find and keep a job. Public transportation in the good ole USA is sorely lacking. MOO, the current president could have gotten more bipartisan support had he addressed transportation issues in an incremental fashion rather than focusing on mandated health care in the manner he chose.
But he didn't ask me.
I knew a guy who was ticketed for "DUI on a bicycle"...and the court suspended his driver's license, which caused him to lose his job because of it. He was an auto parts truck driver and the company's insurer wouldn't insure him because of it.
Was he on a public road? If he was driving in circles in his neighbors front yard, probably would have only been tagged with public intoxication. Kinda weird when you consider roadways as a means of government control...
Was he on a public road? If he was driving in circles in his neighbors front yard, probably would have only been tagged with public intoxication. Kinda weird when you consider roadways as a means of government control...
I believe he was riding on the shoulder of a public road, and someone swerved into him. In the end it was the best thing for him. At the time he was living in a cardboard box behind a bagel shop....after he lost his license, he drove to California with a friend, and wound up owning a bagel shop!
I believe he was riding on the shoulder of a public road, and someone swerved into him. In the end it was the best thing for him. At the time he was living in a cardboard box behind a bagel shop....after he lost his license, he drove to California with a friend, and wound up owning a bagel shop!
Now, see how mean old Government tyrrany makes good things happen sometimes. :D
I believe he was riding on the shoulder of a public road, and someone swerved into him. In the end it was the best thing for him. At the time he was living in a cardboard box behind a bagel shop....after he lost his license, he drove to California with a friend, and wound up owning a bagel shop!
Livin' in a box to big-time businessman, and all he had to do was get the hell out of New York.
Livin' in a box to big-time businessman, and all he had to do was get the hell out of New York.
I believe he was from Michigan, but was living in box Florida despite being gainfully employed. From what I know, he was a hard working, very dependable employee, who came from a wealthy family, and was extremely bright. He left Michigan, because he wanted nothing to do with his father's wealth or advice. I believe he spent the weekend in jail, and used a public defender, rather than call his dad and ask for help when he was arrested.
While a bagel shop owner maybe considered a "big-time businessman" in Ozarks, he certainly wouldn't be in California, or New Yawk City!
I
While a bagel shop owner maybe considered a "big-time businessman" in Ozarks, he certainly wouldn't be in California, or New Yawk City!
Puhleez, Bro. Thar ain't a bagel one in these hyar hills.
Stargazer
06-25-2012, 18:22
If you aren't working, under Obamacare mandate will you have to buy health insurance?
If you are not covered under an insurance plan (employer, medicare or qualify for medicaid), you are required to purchase your own insurance (unless for religious beliefs or financial hardship --which you will have to prove). Health Insurance Exchanges have been set up for each state to allow you to shop various plans. If you don't comply, Uncle Sam is going to charge you a penalty.
Here is the exchange for the state I reside in: http://www.healthinsurance.org/indiana-state-health-insurance-exchange
Airbornelawyer
06-25-2012, 22:50
Automobile licensing requirements, including insurance, are a matter of state law. States have a great deal of discretion in what they can do. They have the general police power to make and enforce laws for public health and safety.
The Federal government, however, is a government of enumerated powers. It has only the specific powers set forth in the Constitution. Except in certain limited areas, such as in DC or on military bases, it does not have the general police power. To justify federalizing matters which normally should be the prerogative of states, Congress has tried to twist specific grants of power in the Constitution into what is effectively a police power. In this case, they have taken the power to regulate interstate commerce and turned it into a power to regulate anything that could be said to affect interstate commerce. That's what is at issue with the individual mandate. Another Congressional favorite is to condition Federal aid to states on the states changing their laws to a Federal standard, such as the conditioning of highway funds on raising the drinking age to 21.
In comparing health insurance to auto insurance, then, there is actually no argument that the states couldn't mandate buying health insurance just like they do auto insurance, under their police power. And as with other state laws you might not like, if you don't like it, you can move to a state with laws you prefer. The resulting competition among states is one of the benefits of federalism.
When you Federalize an issue, you lose this competition and force a one-size-fits-all solution on the entire country. And if your solution is wrong or has unintended consequences, it is much harder to fix. And of course there's that pesky Constitution.
Stargazer
06-26-2012, 07:45
I hope this bill falls flat on it's face for multiple reasons -- mandate being unconstitutional (IMHO) and being a proponent of less government not more. Aside from these important reasons, I have fundamental issues with the whole PPACA solving the problems. I was a Benefits Specialist for a PEO (professional employer organization) for several years. We handled employee benefits for small / medium size businesses. I had the opportunity to work with multiple type of insurance plans / companies, along with, the administrative side of healthcare providers. The problems that drive healthcare costs would not be solved by that monstrous legislation. It was a political grab on the back of hardships that most Americans could relate to, with little real change resulting in the solutions touted by the administration.
His disrespectful previous State of the Union remarks made big friends with many of the Justices.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012802893.html
President Obama called out the Supreme Court. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. winced at the accusation and muttered, "Not true." And then official Washington and the legal community went to the tape, and examined it frame by frame.
What they saw -- either a president gratuitously criticizing the silent black-robed justices sitting in front of him or a conservative jurist injudiciously reacting to a man who had voted against his confirmation -- depended on from where they started.
"Rude," Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said of the president. "Inappropriate" was the verdict on Alito from Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.).
And legal experts said they had never seen anything quite like it, a rare and unvarnished showdown between two political branches during what is usually the careful choreography of the State of the Union address.
"I can't ever recall a president taking a swipe at the Supreme Court like that," said Lucas A. Powe Jr., a Supreme Court expert at the University of Texas law school. The closest precedent most could find was President Franklin D. Roosevelt's criticism of the court in his 1937 address to Congress.
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said.
"I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems."
Democratic lawmakers and Obama Cabinet members, surrounding the six of nine justices who turned out for the event, stood and applauded.
The justices, in the front and second rows of the House chamber, sat motionless and expressionless. Except for Alito.
"Not true, not true," he appeared to say (other lip readers think he said, "That's not true") as he shook his head and furrowed his brow. It is unclear what part of Obama's statement he was objecting to, although he started shaking his head after the president said "special interests."
SCOTUS 5-4 supports health care plan under govt's right to tax, not under the commerce clause.
The fight over all this is only getting started. Stand by.
Since there were no SEALs involved, I doubt if the administration will be very vocal about it all. :rolleyes:
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Chief Justice John Roberts sides with the majority.
Oh, old Barry is probably clucking around the Oval Office right now, as proud as a peacock. :mad:
Supreme Court upholds Obamacare individual mandate as a tax
In a victory for President Obama, the Supreme Court decided to uphold his signature health care law's individual mandate in a split decision, upending speculation after hostile-seeming oral arguments in March that the justices would overturn the law. The mandate has been upheld as a tax, according to SCOTUSblog, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal wing of the court. Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog says Roberts' vote "saved' the Affordable Care Act.
Twenty six states sued over the law, arguing that the individual mandate, which requires people to buy health insurance or face a fine starting in 2014, was unconstitutional. Opponents cast the individual mandate as the government forcing Americans to enter a market and buy a product against their will, while the government countered that the law was actually only regulating a market that everyone is already in, since almost everyone will seek health care at some point in his or her life.
Before oral arguments in March, polls of Supreme Court experts and scholars showed that most believed the mandate would be upheld as an exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But after justices seemed deeply skeptical of the mandate in oral arguments in March, the consensus flipped, with most experts guessing the court would strike down the law.
House Republicans have vowed to repeal the entire law, though it's unlikely the Democratic-controlled Senate would let that happen.
Though the sweeping, 1,000-page plus law passed more than two years ago, much of it will not go into effect until 2014. That's when states will have to set up their own health insurance exchanges, Medicaid will be expanded by 16 million low-income people, and Americans will have to buy health insurance (for many, with a government subsidy) or pay a penalty of 1 percent of their income to the IRS. Employers who have more than 50 employees and don't offer insurance will also begin to face a penalty. Insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with preexisting conditions, or charge people higher premiums based on their gender or health.
Only about 6 percent of the population will actually be required to buy health insurance or face a tax under the mandate, since most people already have coverage or will get it through Medicare, according to the Urban Institute.
Many of the more popular provisions of the law have already gone into effect, including a regulation saying insurers have to let children stay on their parents' plans until they are 26 years old, which 2.5 million Americans have already taken advantage of. Insurers can also no longer turn away children with preexisting conditions, and sick uninsured people can buy coverage in high-risk pools set up by the government.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-issue-obamacare-decision-135554880.html
Paragrouper
06-28-2012, 08:42
Oh, old Barry is probably clucking around the Oval Office right now, as proud as a peacock. :mad:
as a "tax" huh?:mad:
thats such crap
And strikes down the Stolen Valor Act.
Just damn!
as a "tax" huh?:mad:
thats such crap
Obama: Mandate is Not a Tax (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/09/obama-mandate-is-not-a-tax/)
Although many of us do not agree with this ruling, can I make a suggestion?
For the past few days all we have heard from the Liberal side of the aisle is that if Obamacare is voted down, it just goes to prove we have activist judges who are too political for their own good. I have even heard the suggestion that they need term limits.
This is democracy people. We may not like it, but it is better than anything else out there. I do not want to be like the liberal side of the aisle that has castigated the SCOTUS in the media the last few days. They made their decision, with the Chief Justice casting the deciding vote.
All I can say, is it more important than ever that the Conservatives get out the vote. If we can take it all back in November, then we can repeal the law. That is what the Founding Father's would have wanted.
Democracy is what we are living folks. We may not like the ruling, but we damn well better respect it, and the SCOTUS. If we don't we are no better than those asshats out there that scream and kick their feet like children when they don't get their way. Democracy says that we won't always get our way, but at least both sides have a chance to voice their opinion and be heard.
This is not the end of the United States as we know it. We just need to start fighting harder!!
Although many of us do not agree with this ruling, can I make a suggestion?
For the past few days all we have heard from the Liberal side of the aisle is that if Obamacare is voted down, it just goes to prove we have activist judges who are too political for their own good. I have even heard the suggestion that they need term limits.
This is democracy people. We may not like it, but it is better than anything else out there. I do not want to be like the liberal side of the aisle that has castigated the SCOTUS in the media the last few days. They made their decision, with the Chief Justice casting the deciding vote.
All I can say, is it more important than ever that the Conservatives get out the vote. If we can take it all back in November, then we can repeal the law. That is what the Founding Father's would have wanted.
Democracy is what we are living folks. We may not like the ruling, but we damn well better respect it, and the SCOTUS. If we don't we are no better than those asshats out there that scream and kick their feet like children when they don't get their way. Democracy says that we won't always get our way, but at least both sides have a chance to voice their opinion and be heard.
This is not the end of the United States as we know it. We just need to start fighting harder!!
Bravo, [applause]
Addendum: Of course everyone here knows we're in a democratically elected Constitutional Republic and honest people know the difference between a small d and a large D.
That was nothing more than a punt. Unconstitutional via the commerce clause...which is what was argued the whole time, but constitutional as a tax. Punt back to the politicians to work it out. I agree with Richard that this was just the beginning, but it doesnt bode well for the conservative side of the house. There is a shit-ton riding on the upcoming elections...a possible supreme court nominee, healthcare, and this damn lingering recession. BTW...the dow jones just tanked 150 points. Bad news on the doorstep...
Americans for Tax Reform posted a list of some of those taxes yesterday.
On the eve of the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare, taxpayers are reminded that the President’s healthcare law is one of the largest tax increases in American history.
Obamacare contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses. On Thursday, Americans for Tax Reform will do a full analysis of the tax implications of the Court’s decision.
Arranged by their respective effective dates, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, where to find them in the bill, and how much your taxes are scheduled to go up as of today:
Link (http://atr.org/tax-hikes-obamacare-scotus-rule-a6996)
The 'because we said so' clause:
2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113
That was nothing more than a punt. Unconstitutional via the commerce clause...which is what was argued the whole time, but constitutional as a tax. Punt back to the politicians to work it out. I agree with Richard that this was just the beginning, but it doesnt bode well for the conservative side of the house. There is a shit-ton riding on the upcoming elections...a possible supreme court nominee, healthcare, and this damn lingering recession. BTW...the dow jones just tanked 150 points. Bad news on the doorstep...
Well said.
Purely a rhetorical question, but as a tax...what are the actual limits imposed on Congress passing laws and denoting the IRS as enforcement agents?
This is but the beginning of a long political and legal slug-fest.
Commerce thrives when there is a reasonable measure of certainty - uncertainty often acts as a huge anchor on potential business growth. Precisely what we do not need in this tepid economy.
Badger52
06-28-2012, 10:08
And strikes down the Stolen Valor Act.Here's the cite on that. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf)
Obamacare: Richard's right, just the beginning. Things will get "western" too before it's over.
afchic is right, better make sure everything get's taken in November; since tax vice commerce there's a mechanism to castrate it if the blade wielder has the huevos.
As to being vocal or not, I don't know about ST6 but it will be interesting to see in a few minutes if POTUS will be spiking the ball. He wouldn't do that would he?
Patrick Gaspard, the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee, tweeted this about the SCOTUS decision:
it's constitutional. Bitches.
—
Patrick Gaspard (@patrickgaspard) June 28, 2012
Link (http://twitchy.com/2012/06/28/classy-dnc-director-new-media-outreach-director-react-to-obamacare-decision-constitutional-bitches-take-that-mothers/)
Patrick Gaspard, the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee, tweeted this about the SCOTUS decision:
Yeah and Greg Green, who is the Media OUtreach Director of the DNC saying "Take that MotherF*&^s"
Like I said before, time to put on our big girl panties and bring it on!:lifter
ZonieDiver
06-28-2012, 10:28
Weren't these some of the people crying for "civility" in political discourse after the Gabby Giffords massacre?
Weren't these some of the people crying for "civility" in political discourse after the Gabby Giffords massacre?That was different.
2015
Is that the April 16th where all those young folks with no insurance send off their tax forms expecting a refund and instead get a bill from the IRS?
2015 is a long way off politics wish and many will forget just who passed the "new" law.
The president and Ms. Pelosi have offered remarks that re-frame the debate over the ruling in terms of the everyday lives of "most" Americans. The law will work and people will be better off for having health insurance.
IMO, the GOP should pause before replying to this elegant argument because it contains at least two traps. The GOP needs to go beyond being the party of "No." Instead of saying just saying, "this is wrong and it won't work," it needs to provide viable alternatives that will work.
My $0.02.
That was nothing more than a punt. Unconstitutional via the commerce clause...which is what was argued the whole time, but constitutional as a tax. Punt back to the politicians to work it out. I agree with Richard that this was just the beginning, but it doesnt bode well for the conservative side of the house. There is a shit-ton riding on the upcoming elections...a possible supreme court nominee, healthcare, and this damn lingering recession. BTW...the dow jones just tanked 150 points. Bad news on the doorstep...
beg to differ,, I thinking this may be a godsend to the GOP and the elections.
The GOP now has a rather large mallet to hammer barry's tax agenda and rally the troops.
If barry-care had been thrown out, the left would try to dissolve SCOTUS as a bastard step-child of the wall street bazillionares.. barry was already bad mouthing SCOTUS and their audacity to attempt to challenge his supreme authority.
Add into the mix the stolen valor act & Arizona immigration law failure,,
The GOP now has some very powerful talking points,, not to mention the economy..
PS: Don't watch the TV tonight,, I am sure barry will be spiking the ball again..
My $00.0002 :munchin
beg to differ,, I thinking this may be a godsend to the GOP and the elections.
The GOP now has a rather large mallet to hammer barry's tax agenda and rally the troops.
If barry-care had been thrown out, the left would try to dissolve SCOTUS as a bastard step-child of the wall street bazillionares.. barry was already bad mouthing SCOTUS and their audacity to attempt to challenge his supreme authority.
Add into the mix the stolen valor act & Arizona immigration law failure,,
The GOP now has some very powerful talking points,, not to mention the economy..
PS: Don't watch the TV tonight,, I am sure barry will be spiking the ball again..
My $00.0002 :munchin
Agree 100%. I also agree with Sig that the GOP needs to come up with something better than repeal. They need to state what they are going to replace it with.
I know this is really bad of me to say, but I hope stocks take a huge tumble.
Stargazer
06-28-2012, 11:19
This ruling ontop of the economical pressures, social changes, questions of state soverneignty and immigration issues(where the rights of unauthorized immigrants supercedes those of citizens) -- does not bode well for the future of the republic. It is an affirmation that the foundation of our birth, has been lost to the very moral and political corruption the framers warned of...
IMO, it seems both sides won inadverdently.
Which is a very good way of looking at it, but it still doesnt make me feel much better right now.
I think even if Obama is re-elected, that the Republicans in the Congress would be able to stop the nomination of any far left-wing justice that would literally change the balance of the Court. But all the more important to vote Romney!
Well, "far" left...maybe. Just a regular old lefty... nope...they'd get another lib i n there. There's no way the Republicans can filibuster for 4 years. The Dems sure as hell would not pick a conservative minded individual, that much is for sure.
Well, it's definitely polarizing. In a good way, though-like "Remember the Alamo." ;)
They need to state what they are going to replace it with.Concurrently, the GOP might embrace aspects of the Healthcare law that allow the party to advance other policy preferences. For example, it might say, "To make this law work, the federal government needs to cut down on red tape so that the private sector can put into place the mechanisms for compliance."
This ruling ontop of the economical pressures, social changes, questions of state sovereignty and immigration issues(where the rights of unauthorized immigrants supersedes those of citizens) -- does not bode well for the future of the republic. It is an affirmation that the foundation of our birth, has been lost to the very moral and political corruption the framers warned of...We've been through much worse.
Conservatives framing contemporaneous issues in terms of "all or nothing/the end is at hand" is more a construct of political discourse during the 1850s. Many of Hamilton's contributions to the Federalist provide eloquent counterpoints to this trajectory of argument.
YMMV.
Stargazer
06-28-2012, 11:45
IMO, it seems both sides won
I have a different view ... perhaps the lawyers won but Americans lost. Obamacare / PPACA is another power grab of our liberties with little return. If they can do anything for our 'common' good through tax or tax penalties...
Government gaining more control of my life through taxation is not a personal victory.
When I read through the argument recaps on the SCOTUSblog, it was clear the government argument was right to tax... very little about commerce... they used SS history, civil rights act... etc...
Stargazer
06-28-2012, 11:53
Conservatives framing contemporaneous issues in terms of "all or nothing/the end is at hand" is more a construct of political discourse during the 1850s. Many of Hamilton's contributions to the Federalist provide eloquent counterpoints to this trajectory of argument.
YMMV.
That is a differing opinion, Sir. I have read a lot of Hamilton, and it is his specific warning in the Federalist Paper No. 1 that runs through my mind. I am looking at the undertones and not caught up in the specifics. What in the 1850s do you deem so much deeper than the struggles everyday Americans deal with today? If the midwest continues to dry up and this country has a major crop failure adding to the economical downturn... I live on the ground and observe and listen to those around me.... everyday people are becoming frustrated with the situation... and none of them give 2 shakes about the 1850s
My father who is in his 80s doesn't feel pride in this country anymore... as the character of American's is very different. He comes from a generation that takes care of their own and worked to make the country better not ask what it owes me. So, tell me, what makes the 1850s darker times...
If all else fails in November, just change your religion. There are many out there that for one reason or another do not believe in western medicine, and prefer to leave that type of work to God, or Tree Elve Spirit, and so on.
Oh, you can still go to the church of your choice, and possibly the hospitals / doctors in the longrun, but on paper, to save 1200-9000 over the next 3-4 years, makes a lot of sense to consider change right now.
Stargazer
06-28-2012, 12:00
Former Attorney General Michael Tomasky was saying that this ruling will limit Congress's ability to regulate Americans via the Commerce Clause, as they have been using the CC to regulate so much for so many years now. He said it also raises questions about what can be taxed.
It is a power grab, but the Court argued they weren't going into whether it was a good or bad policy, just whether or not it was ultimately Constitutional.
Thanks for your explanation. I have not had time to read all the rulings. You have more faith in congress to rule itself than I do... Again, thanks. I need to read more and voice less.. :o
That is a differing opinion, Sir. I have read a lot of Hamilton, and it is his specific warning in the Federalist Paper No. 1 that runs through my mind. I am looking at the undertones and not caught up in the specifics. What in the 1850s do you deem so much deeper than the struggles everyday Americans deal with today? If the midwest continues to dry up and this country has a major crop failure adding to the economical downturn... I live on the ground and observe and listen to those around me.... everyday people are becoming frustrated with the situation... and none of them give 2 shakes about the 1850s
My father who is in his 80s doesn't feel pride in this country anymore... as the character of American's is very different. He comes a generation that takes care of their own and worked to make the country better not ask what it owes me. So, tell me, what makes the 1850s darker times...Stargazer--
You have misread my post. I also believe that you have misread Hamilton. In regards to the former, I made two arguments-- (1) that we've been through worse and (2) that your line of argument is reflective of political discourse of the 1850s, not the 1780s. I did not provide any specific examples to illustrate my first point--although the 1850s is a good example--as are the 1830s, 1870s, 1890s, the 1910s, the 1930s, the 1960s, and the 1970s.
In regards to your reading of Hamilton, in the Federalist, no 1, he specifically--and repeatedly--warned us of the perils of impassioned debate centered around claims of high principle. He pointed out that people are motivated by a combination of principle and self-interest and that for America to be successful, we would have to guard against the temptation of positioning ourselves as guardians of the former and flogging the opposition with accusations of the latter.
Change of topic. IMO, you are using history selectively. On the one hand, you want to turn our attention to the history of the early Republic as well as to your father's life history, yet you give "[two] shakes about the 1850s." This approach falls in line with your POV that "undertones" matter more than "specifics." However, this line of thought raises two questions. First: Why is it all right to say "history matters" when it is convenient and then to say "history does not matter" when it is not? Second: Do biography and autobiography trump history? You use your father's life-story, as well as the perceptions and concerns of those around you, to argue that America is in decline. In 2008, the current FLOTUS, and millions others, pointed to her husband's candidacy to argue that America is on the rise. How does one square this circle?
And as for your comparison of the political crises of the 1850s to what is happening today, I think you forgot to use the pink font.
beg to differ,, I thinking this may be a godsend to the GOP and the elections.
The GOP now has a rather large mallet to hammer barry's tax agenda and rally the troops.
If barry-care had been thrown out, the left would try to dissolve SCOTUS as a bastard step-child of the wall street bazillionares.. barry was already bad mouthing SCOTUS and their audacity to attempt to challenge his supreme authority.
Add into the mix the stolen valor act & Arizona immigration law failure,,
The GOP now has some very powerful talking points,, not to mention the economy..
PS: Don't watch the TV tonight,, I am sure barry will be spiking the ball again..
My $00.0002 :munchin
FWIW, I agree. Roberts handed the GOP lemonade, pre-sweetened :D It is now Obama-Care-Tax, and looking at the breakdown here (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/with-court-ruling-1-7-trillion-obamacare-tax-now-violates-obamas-2008-tax-pledge/), most of middle American are going to be paying the same rate as the so called 1%. If that doesn't energize people, I don't know what will...
My .002(ETA: Actually .0015 after taxes)
craigepo
06-28-2012, 13:15
Personally, I don't like Obamacare, and am a little miffed that Chief Justice Roberts wrote this opinion upholding this law as a permissible tax.
However,
A majority of the justices holding that this would not be allowable under Congress' Interstate Commerce Clause powers is a really big deal. A long time ago, the Supreme Court ruled, in a case entitled Wickard v. Filburn, that Congress could pass a law preventing a guy from planting wheat, because whether the wheat sold or was consumed, it had an effect upon interstate commerce. Thus, planting wheat on one's land fell under Congress' power to regulate. Obviously, that case empowered Congress to pass laws on just about everything. That the Court found the present act impermissible under the Interstate Commerce Clause really reins-in Congress' power.
Sorry to be optimistic. And I agree that Obamacare sucks. However, if this case results in limiting Congress' power, that is good and long overdue. Additionally, now that this has been ruled a "tax", any conservative candidate in the world should run on the fact that the liberals have passed one of the largest taxes in the history of our nation.
Again, sorry to be blissfully optimistic.
Lots of love,
the glass 1/2-full guy.
FWIW, I agree. Roberts handed the GOP lemonade, pre-sweetened :D It is now Obama-Care-Tax, and looking at the breakdown here (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/with-court-ruling-1-7-trillion-obamacare-tax-now-violates-obamas-2008-tax-pledge/), most of middle American are going to be paying the same rate as the so called 1%. If that doesn't energize people, I don't know what will...
My .002(ETA: Actually .0015 after taxes)Could this point be turned on its head? To my knowledge, the president's frequent calls for the rich to pay their "fair share" have not included specific statements as to what constitutes a "fair share." If the Democrats can present the rich's 25% as roughly equivalent to what the middle will pay, will supporters of the health care legislation go "Yeah, that's fair" or will they say "Wait, this isn't what we signed up for"?
And even then, given the way the president places the legislation in the context of our everyday lives, will people accept the lumps to advance their perception of the public good?
Interesting point of view from the UK
"As for the British system.
The NHS has had its spending doubled in 13 years, yet productivity has not increased - i.e. they have employed more people on their lazy fat cat pension plans, but these people are sitting in the canteen eating donuts all day.
Real world statistics show:
1) We have rubbish cancer survival rates (OECD, CONCORD)
2) We have 40% higher mortality rates for emergency general surgery than USA (RCS publication)
3) Our ICU bed/population is about THREE, versus USA - TWENTY, Canada and Germany - TEN and TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO - TWO (Canadian publication)
Amongst others.
The pro-NHS stats tend to be contrived and false (as well as the typical government tractor production ones).
The Swiss have minimal welfare provision for anything and don't have people dying of poverty/lack of healthcare - so the left need to stop their hysterical screaming and comparisons to USA which HAS had lots of welfare."
Could this point be turned on its head? To my knowledge, the president's frequent calls for the rich to pay their "fair share" have not included specific statements as to what constitutes a "fair share." If the Democrats can present the rich's 25% as roughly equivalent to what the middle will pay, will supporters of the health care legislation go "Yeah, that's fair" or will they say "Wait, this isn't what we signed up for"?
And even then, given the way the president places the legislation in the context of our everyday lives, will people accept the lumps to advance their perception of the public good?
Sigaba,
You raise a good point. MOO: I believe the simplistic understanding of "fair share" in the minds of many is that "the more you make, the more you pay", while forgetting that %25 of 60,000 is not equivalent to 25% of 160,000; people tend to look at the percentage, while forgetting the proportion of money taken based on the percentage of n amount of money.
My .002
Badger52
06-28-2012, 13:58
...the simplistic understanding of "fair share" in the minds of many is that "the more you make, the more you pay me"Just having a bit of fun with your snippet. :D
Seriously, agree with craigepo. As I alluded to before, as it came down judged as a tax (vs. dependent on interstate commerce) a clear-thinking congress has plenty of maneuver room, IF they have the stones.
"A Republic, if you can keep it...."
Now it's can you get it back.
USANick7
06-28-2012, 14:31
Former Attorney General Michael Tomasky was saying that this ruling will limit Congress's ability to regulate Americans via the Commerce Clause, as they have been using the CC to regulate so much for so many years now. He said it also raises questions about what can be taxed.
It is a power grab, but the Court argued they weren't going into whether it was a good or bad policy, just whether or not it was ultimately Constitutional.
The constitutional argument presented by Roberts was pretty lame...I don't see how even the 16th amendment would give them the authority to do this....and besides, the government argued that this wasn't a tax, so why is the court e writing the law to make it more "constitutional", that is NOT the courts role. Roberts has really proven to be a disappointment on this...
V/R
USANick7
06-28-2012, 14:34
Here is the relevant text in the Roberts opinion:
***
Even if the taxing power enables Congress to impose a tax on not obtaining health insurance, any tax must still comply with other requirements in the Constitution. Plaintiffs argue that the shared responsibility payment does not do so, citing Article I, §9, clause 4. That clause provides: “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” This requirement means that any “direct Tax” must be apportioned so that each State pays in proportion to its population. According to the plaintiffs, if the individual mandate imposes a tax, it is a direct tax, and it is unconstitutional because Congress made no effort to apportion it among the States.
Even when the Direct Tax Clause was written it was unclear what else, other than a capitation (also known as a “head tax” or a “poll tax”), might be a direct tax. See Springer v. United States, 102 U. S. 586, 596–598 (1881).Soon after the framing, Congress passed a tax on ownership of carriages, over James Madison’s objection that it was an unapportioned direct tax. Id., at 597. This Court upheld the tax, in part reasoning that apportioning such a tax would make little sense, because it would have required taxing carriage owners at dramatically different rates depending on how many carriages were in their home State. See Hylton v. United States, 3 Dall. 171, 174 (1796) (opinion of Chase, J.). The Court was unanimous, and those Justices who wrote opinions either directly asserted or strongly suggested that only two forms of taxation were direct: capitations and land taxes. See id., at 175; id., at 177 (opinion of Paterson, J.); id., at 183 (opinion of Iredell, J.).
That narrow view of what a direct tax might be persisted for a century. In 1880, for example, we explained that “direct taxes, within the meaning of the Constitution, are only capitation taxes, as expressed in that instrument, and taxes on real estate.” Springer, supra, at 602. In 1895, we expanded our interpretation to include taxes on personal property and income from personal property, in the course of striking down aspects of the federal income tax. Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601, 618 (1895). That result was overturned by the Sixteenth Amendment, although we continued to consider taxes on personal property to be direct taxes. See Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U. S. 189, 218–219 (1920).
A tax on going without health insurance does not fall within any recognized category of direct tax. It is not a capitation. Capitations are taxes paid by every person, “without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance.” Hylton, supra, at 175 (opinion of Chase, J.) (emphasis altered). The whole point of the shared responsibility payment is that it is triggered by specific circumstances—earning a certain amount of income but not obtaining health insurance. The payment is also plainly not a tax on the ownership of land or personal property. The shared responsibility payment is thus not a direct tax that must be apportioned among the several States.
I want to examine one section, here:
“Soon after the framing, Congress passed a tax on ownership of carriages, over James Madison’s objection that it was an unapportioned direct tax. Id., at 597. This Court upheld the tax, in part reasoning that apportioning such a tax would make little sense, because it would have required taxing carriage owners at dramatically different rates depending on how many carriages were in their home State.”
Apportionment of such a tax would indeed make little sense….making that tax stupid AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
Sorry to be optimistic. And I agree that Obamacare sucks. However, if this case results in limiting Congress' power, that is good and long overdue. Additionally, now that this has been ruled a "tax", any conservative candidate in the world should run on the fact that the liberals have passed one of the largest taxes in the history of our nation.
Again, sorry to be blissfully optimistic.
Lots of love,
the glass 1/2-full guy.
Good point, actually.
I read this opinion piece by RedState. I agree with the bolded (by me) sentence toward the end of the piece.
Dear RedState Reader,
As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld Obamacare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4 decision. Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out, but John Roberts saved it.
Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.
First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.
Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.
Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.
Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.
Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.
Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.
60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.
It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.
*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now.
Read my full thoughts here. http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/im-not-down-on-john-roberts/
Sincerely yours,
Erick Erickson
Editor,RedState.com
Personally, I don't like Obamacare, and am a little miffed that Chief Justice Roberts wrote this opinion upholding this law as a permissible tax.
However,
A majority of the justices holding that this would not be allowable under Congress' Interstate Commerce Clause powers is a really big deal. A long time ago, the Supreme Court ruled, in a case entitled Wickard v. Filburn, that Congress could pass a law preventing a guy from planting wheat, because whether the wheat sold or was consumed, it had an effect upon interstate commerce. Thus, planting wheat on one's land fell under Congress' power to regulate. Obviously, that case empowered Congress to pass laws on just about everything. That the Court found the present act impermissible under the Interstate Commerce Clause really reins-in Congress' power.
Sorry to be optimistic. And I agree that Obamacare sucks. However, if this case results in limiting Congress' power, that is good and long overdue. Additionally, now that this has been ruled a "tax", any conservative candidate in the world should run on the fact that the liberals have passed one of the largest taxes in the history of our nation.
Again, sorry to be blissfully optimistic.
Lots of love,
the glass 1/2-full guy.
How about this for optimism...how about congress passing a tax on individuals that exercise their right to free speech by lying about their service? We found out today they can tax anything. Turnabout is fair play.
ETA: oh, I forgot the smiley...:) there it is.
I just re-read my last post. It's supposed to be humorous not sarcastic.
I just re-read my last post. It's supposed to be humorous not sarcastic.
I thought it was good. :D
I just didn't want craigiepoo to think I was hammering on him. :D
Roguish Lawyer
06-28-2012, 15:58
A majority of the justices holding that this would not be allowable under Congress' Interstate Commerce Clause powers is a really big deal.
Agreed. This would be why you get to make the rulings, Your Honor. ;)
The irony of the individual mandate is that it will motivate employers to discontinue health insurance as an employee benefit, thus more and more people will find it necessary to jump on the BiG Brother Health Plan.
Insurance companies will find they have fewer and fewer to sell their products too and for profit hospitals will have to tow the government line if they wish to stay in business. And those on 24/365 call will find the BiG Gov intrusion not worth the effort.
And who will end up pulling in all the loot, BiG Government. Do you think they can handle a Healthcare Slush Fund any better than they have handled Social Security? And BiG Gov is going to control cost......just like they have with $500 hammers and $600 toilet seats. I am betting the paper work gets 100 times worse once Big Gov gets their claws fully imbedded into it.
What's next auto, homeowners and liability insurance?
At present rate, in another year or so I will be able to sit on my ass at home because the Government will provide everything I need in life......Protection, Food, Water, Shelter, Insurance, the entire gambit of life's necessities.
The irony of the individual mandate is that it will motivate employers to discontinue health insurance as an employee benefit, thus more and more people will find it necessary to jump on the BiG Brother Health Plan.
Insurance companies will find they have fewer and fewer to sell their products too and for profit hospitals will have to tow the government line if they wish to stay in business. Or the individual mandate and clarified rules of the game could motivate insurance companies to bring to market a wider range of affordable products and services that will benefit customers and that will turn a profit. (IIRC, this is the logic of "wellness programs" that predate the current legislation.)
Or insurance companies could buy other insurance companies to increase market share and to cut costs.
That is, Americans can either make the decision to say "it cannot be done" and go into a funk, or they can draw on a long standing tradition of entrepreneurial innovation to find new ways to make money under a new set of rules while simultaneously using the mechanisms of politics to change the rules.
That is, Americans can either make the decision to say "it cannot be done" and go into a funk, or they can draw on a long standing tradition of entrepreneurial innovation to find new ways to make money under a new set of rules while simultaneously using the mechanisms of politics to change the rules.
That's what will happen. Hopefully we will also simultaneously learn the abject lesson to keep these f.cking liberal asshats out of office.
Or the individual mandate and clarified rules of the game could motivate insurance companies to bring to market a wider range of affordable products and services that will benefit customers and that will turn a profit. (IIRC, this is the logic of "wellness programs" that predate the current legislation.)
you can't outspend, or undercut big brother.
Agreed. This would be why you get to make the rulings, Your Honor. ;)
And that is a big deal. But after the big old "price is right tuba fail"...it's hardly a consolation prize for us near sighted folk. If they had just slapped it down on the interstate commerce clause, and shut the heck up, life would be good. We could have our cake and eat it too. Instead we have what appears to be expanded taxation power. I'm sure we all needed that. Thanks for the Ginsu Knives.
I am no expert, but I do not see how the 16th Amendment presents the government from being able to tax for whatever they want. The 16th Amendment says,
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
How does that present them from being abl to levy a tax on anything, even if to try and modify behavior?
That's what just happened.
The Reaper
06-28-2012, 17:35
I believe that Chief Justice Roberts has just ignited the fire under the Republican base.
Herman Cain said that Romney's campaign told him that they had raised more than $1,500,000 already today after the announcement.
Maybe they have awakened the sleeping giant.
TR
you can't outspend, or undercut big brother.But you can out-think and co-opt him.
A rough analogy may illustrate my point. .GOV pretty much mandates the ownership of cars by subsidizing highways and roads, which, in turn leads to "sprawl" which, in turn, leads to a range of environmental and economic consequences. To ameliorate those consequences, .GOV mandates standards for the automobile and other industries.
Some car companies have thrived in this dynamic, others not so much. Other companies, in a variety of industries, are trying to make a buck by developing alternatives for a car-centric society.
Meanwhile, political haggling at the municipal, county, state, and federal levels sees an incremental process in which the rules are tweaked. These changes provide more opportunities to make money.
The outcome of this dynamic remains to be seen, but, IMO, the presence of that dynamic demonstrates that .GOV isn't the only chef in the kitchen.
My $0.02.
Or the individual mandate and clarified rules of the game could motivate insurance companies to bring to market a wider range of affordable products and services that will benefit customers and that will turn a profit. (IIRC, this is the logic of "wellness programs" that predate the current legislation.)
Or insurance companies could buy other insurance companies to increase market share and to cut costs.
That is, Americans can either make the decision to say "it cannot be done" and go into a funk, or they can draw on a long standing tradition of entrepreneurial innovation to find new ways to make money under a new set of rules while simultaneously using the mechanisms of politics to change the rules.
There is much truth in your words, however insurance companies buying out competitors would also stifle competition and create monopolies....which is what we have in place now considering insurance companies are not allowed to sell outside of state lines. Examples of fostering competition would be allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines and allowing the purchase of drugs through places like Canada.
To a degree I believe we have been for sometime paying for others health needs. Examples would be State run health centers, abortion clinics and providing healthcare for illegal immigrants. Obama Care just magnifies it by 1000x.
And this is a can of worms in the making......for anyone not aware Obama Care will be a TAX starting in 2013. At that time the amount your employer contributes will be considered taxable income.
So if their contributing 80% of $1000 per month to your plan you are going pay taxes on a extra $800 per month whether you use your insurance or not.
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/health-care-law-and-w-2-forms/
Stargazer
06-28-2012, 18:21
Stargazer--
You have misread my post. I also believe that you have misread Hamilton. In regards to the former, I made two arguments-- (1) that we've been through worse and (2) that your line of argument is reflective of political discourse of the 1850s, not the 1780s. I did not provide any specific examples to illustrate my first point--although the 1850s is a good example--as are the 1830s, 1870s, 1890s, the 1910s, the 1930s, the 1960s, and the 1970s.
In regards to your reading of Hamilton, in the Federalist, no 1, he specifically--and repeatedly--warned us of the perils of impassioned debate centered around claims of high principle. He pointed out that people are motivated by a combination of principle and self-interest and that for America to be successful, we would have to guard against the temptation of positioning ourselves as guardians of the former and flogging the opposition with accusations of the latter.
Change of topic. IMO, you are using history selectively. On the one hand, you want to turn our attention to the history of the early Republic as well as to your father's life history, yet you give "[two] shakes about the 1850s." This approach falls in line with your POV that "undertones" matter more than "specifics." However, this line of thought raises two questions. First: Why is it all right to say "history matters" when it is convenient and then to say "history does not matter" when it is not? Second: Do biography and autobiography trump history? You use your father's life-story, as well as the perceptions and concerns of those around you, to argue that America is in decline. In 2008, the current FLOTUS, and millions others, pointed to her husband's candidacy to argue that America is on the rise. How does one square this circle?
And as for your comparison of the political crises of the 1850s to what is happening today, I think you forgot to use the pink font.
First. I did not misread your post, nor do I disagree with the your summary. He specifically pointed out politics masked under the 'rights of the people'. His words say it best An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government. History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.
That's all I am going into on this thread. If you want to debate Hamilton, send me a PM.
You misread me, as my statement was not in line with either the 1780s or 1850s but a general statement about what I believe the founding principles to be... I believe that another layer of individual liberties were eroded today. Further my stating that everyday Americans don't think in terms of the 1850s (two shakes) in no way means I don't give two shakes about that time. Matter of fact, those who know me personally would laugh at that statement. The point is people going about their daily lives and dealing with todays challenges don't go, "well in 1850 we.... (historians maybe, but not everyday Americans taking care of their families, working to make ends meet). But, you are right, there are parallels to the 1850s... and that in itself would be an interesting discussion but not on this thread.
Your third paragraph.... huh? I share my observations and a comment made by my father and you equate it to autobiography and biography. It's wasn't that deep, Sigaba. It was an opinion using system 1, as Daniel Kahneman would term it.
Do I think my experiences and observations trump history? Simply, no.
Badger52
06-28-2012, 19:16
How does that present them from being abl to levy a tax on anything, even if to try and modify behavior?From Roberts' position, as he cites Wickard:
Applying the Government’s logic to the familiar case of Wickard v. Filburn shows how far that logic would carry us from the notion of a government of limited powers. In Wickard, the Court famously upheld a federal penalty imposed on a farmer for growing wheat for consumption on his own farm. 317 U. S., at 114–115, 128–129. That amount of wheat caused the farmer to exceed his quota under a program designed to support the price of wheat by limiting supply. The Court rejected the farmer’s argument that growing wheat for home consumption was beyond the reach of the commerce power. It did so on the ground that the farmer’s decision to grow wheat for his own use allowed him to avoid purchasing wheat in the market. That decision, when considered in the aggregate along with similar decisions of others, would have had a substantial effect on the interstate market for wheat. Id., at 127–129.
Wickard has long been regarded as “perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate activity,” Lopez, 514 U. S., at 560, but the Government’s theory in this case would go much further. Under Wickard it is within Congress’s power to regulate the market for wheat by supporting its price. But price can be supported by increasing demand as well as by decreasing supply. The aggregated decisions of some consumers not to purchase wheat have a substantial effect on the price of wheat, just as decisions not to purchase health insurance have on the price of insurance. Congress can therefore command that those not buying wheat do so, just as it argues here that it may command that those not buying health insurance do so. The farmer in Wickard was at least actively engaged in the production of wheat, and the Government could regulate that activity because of its effect on commerce. The Government’s theory here would effectively override that limitation, by establishing that individuals may be regulated under the Commerce Clause whenever enough of them are not doing something the Government would have them do.
While I still believe that 'losing' the case while defined as a tax is better than over-reaching Wickard, that Roberts could even author the above and then reach the decision he did is vomitous. The only thing that ever gets them off the hook is that they always put in their disclaimer [paraphrased] "only addressing whether Congress can do 'x', not considering whether 'x' was patently stupid."
I'd wonder how he'll feel under the cameras at the next SOTU, but frankly couldn't give a rip.
Stargazer--
While we do agree that Hamilton offered a warning that is still timely, our different takes on this warning reflect different interpretations of that document in relation to Hamilton's other contributions to the Federalist (http://www.constitution.org/fed/), and his broader vision for the future of America.
Although Hamilton is remembered as a founding father who supported the Constitution, and, therefore, lumped together with men like Madison in our national memory, he held markedly different views on the proper role of government and the future of America.
Historians of the early Republic have long held that Hamilton's vision for America was cosmopolitan in nature socially and culturally, a political culture centered around nationalism, and internationalist in regards to its foreign policy. He also believed that commercial activity in the Atlantic world would be the foundation of the economy.
His advocacy for a strong central government reflected the belief that a centralized government could more efficiently advance the nation's economic interests and better protect the republic from the vagaries of local politicians (i.e. at the state level). In sum, Hamilton was an elitist who feared that politicians at the state level would use the lever of popular politics and the fulcrum of political parties to upend his vision of a nationalist America in which the federal government activities centered around commerce.
Against this backdrop, Hamilton, in the passage you quoted, as well as the rest of his essay, as well as his other contributions to the Federalist, he is warning us against those who would advance their own interests in the name of the rights of the people and high principle and at the expense of his nationalist vision.
He is decrying those who would stand against a stronger central government because they have ulterior motives. That is, those who opposed ratification of the Constitution and advocate maintaining mechanisms of power as delineated by the Articles of Confederation did so because they did not want to give up their power. They are the ones wearing a "specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people[.]"
In contrast, those taking a politically incorrect position ("the forbidden appearance") in favor of "the firmness and efficiency of government" are the ones whom Klio will vindicate. "History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter[.]" Why? Because as he states earlier, "the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty."
Hamilton elaborates on what he sees as a major threat to liberty in Federalist no. 6 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa06.htm). In contrast to John Jay's discussion of foreign threats to America in the previous three essays, Hamilton tells us "I shall now proceed to delineate dangers of a different and, perhaps, still more alarming kind -- those which will in all probability flow from dissensions between the States themselves, and from domestic factions and convulsions. These have been already in some instances slightly anticipated; but they deserve a more particular and more full investigation."
While it is anybody's guess what Hamilton would say about the health care legislation or about the current size and power of the federal government, I think the evidence supports the interpretation that Hamilton was more concerned with the impact of what he called "domestic faction" in Federalist, no. 10, and that the source of such factions was not the federal government but those who would propose to limit its "vigor" in the name of principle.
My $0.02.
But, you are right, there are parallels to the 1850s... and that in itself would be an interesting discussion but not on this thread. Please show me where I used the word "parallels"? :confused: My previous two posts mention intervals during which we've been through more trying times, not as trying.
I fear the worst in this instance, and beyond veterans the country as a whole is adversly affected by todays ruling, but my question is this: Barring a repeal, will veterans also be required to pay this tax (technically we already have healthcare)? If so, then do we really need a VA system, and continued health care for veterans as a benifit upon completion of EAOS?
And if this is the case, then many of the VA Hospitals could easily be transitioned into government operated civilian hospitals, a cheap way out for the government on many levels IMO.
And if this is the case, then many of the VA Hospitals could easily be transitioned into government operated civilian hospitals, a cheap way out for the government on many levels IMO.
BINGO!
ddoering
06-29-2012, 06:09
All I can say, is it more important than ever that the Conservatives get out the vote. If we can take it all back in November, then we can repeal the law. That is what the Founding Father's would have wanted.
I think they might have utilized one of their other rights first.
Stargazer
06-29-2012, 07:09
Stargazer-- Please show me where I used the word "parallels"? :confused: My previous two posts mention intervals during which we've been through more trying times, not as trying.
You did not use the word, parallels -- I did in response to this comment:
your line of argument is reflective of political discourse of the 1850s, not the 1780s. I did not provide any specific examples to illustrate my first point--although the 1850s is a good example--as are the 1830s, 1870s, 1890s, the 1910s, the 1930s, the 1960s, and the 1970s.
If that is not what was implied, you've corrected the record.
I believe that Chief Justice Roberts has just ignited the fire under the Republican base.
Herman Cain said that Romney's campaign told him that they had raised more than $1,500,000 already today after the announcement.
Maybe they have awakened the sleeping giant.
TR
The over all total for yesterday was $4.2M
If it's a "tax" - the current administration now has to deal with the voting public over the issue of just having raised taxes, in spite of their claims that it wasn't a tax and contrary to their position to only increase taxes on the 'wealthy'...and it is an election year. ;)
This thing is only getting started, and personally, I think the Chief Justice is a sly olde fox who has just demonstrated to the POTUS that 'payback can be a mutha' for those who try to play 'political gotcha'* with the SCOTUS. :D
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
* 2010 State of the Union Address
personally, I think the Chief Justice is a sly olde fox who has just demonstrated to the POTUS that 'payback can be a mutha' for those who try to play 'political gotcha'* with the SCOTUS. :D
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
* 2010 State of the Union Address
U's gots dat right...
Streck-Fu
06-29-2012, 08:45
If it's a "tax" - the current administration now has to deal with the voting public over the issue of just having raised taxes, in spite of their claims that it wasn't a tax and contrary to their position to only increase taxes on the 'wealthy'...and it is an election year. ;)
This thing is only getting started, and personally, I think the Chief Justice is a sly olde fox who has just demonstrated to the POTUS that 'payback can be a mutha' for those who try to play 'political gotcha'* with the SCOTUS. :D
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
* 2010 State of the Union Address
Unfortunatley for the American public the law still stands.... with no assurance of it being overturned even if Romney wins.
This is political posturing at the expense of the People.
The decision should have been limitied to the scope of the argument as presented by the government and overturned forcing demorats to pass it as a tax.
Some interesting commentary from Professor Jonathan Adler on the SCOTUS blog.
For those who opposed the individual mandate and hoped to see the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act struck down, today’s Supreme Court decision is a disappointment. *Yet for those who hoped the Court would reaffirm that the Constitution creates a federal government of limited and enumerated powers and that it is the responsibility of the Court to enforce such limits, there is much to like in today’s decision. *While the Court upheld the PPACA, it reaffirmed the foundational principles of the nation’s constitutional structure and confirmed that the federalism decisions of the Rehnquist Court were not aberrations. *In a very real sense, proponents of federalism may have lost the battle, but won the war.
The opening of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion for the Court is a clear and forceful restatement of the notion that the enumeration of powers in Article I is meant to limit the federal government. *This limitation, Roberts notes for the Court, is no less important for the preservation of individual liberty than the Bill of Rights. *This opening section effectively repudiates the notion, briefly embraced by the Court in Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, that the primary safeguards against federal overreach are political. *It has been quite some time since these principles attracted such broad agreement on the Court. *Though the Chief Justice upholds the individual mandate as an exercise of the taxing power, this provides insulation against the exercise of such powers in the future. Never again will Congress be able to pretend that a penalty of this sort is anything but a tax. *As a consequence, such measures will only be adopted when they are truly supported by the people.
It would be tempting to read the Chief Justice’s discussions of the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses as mere dicta. *It would also be wrong, as these analyses form an essential predicate to his ultimate conclusion that the mandate could be upheld as a tax. *As the entire Court accepts, the most natural reading of the minimum coverage provision is as an economic mandate adopted pursuant to the Commerce Clause. *It is only after rejecting the possibility that the mandate could be justified in this manner that the Chief returns to the text to see if it is susceptible to an alternative construction. *Thus, the only reason the Chief Justice even considers whether the mandate could be considered a tax, the statutory text notwithstanding, is because of his prior conclusion on the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses. *Thus this decision provides five firm votes for meaningful limits on the most expansive of Congress’ powers.
The Chief Justice’s opinion also confirms that he is a judicial minimalist – and more so than any other member of the Court. His decision to adopt a narrowed, if strained, interpretation of the minimum coverage opinion so as to preserve the statute’s constitutionality is of a piece with what he has done before, in cases like NAMUDNO v. Holder, and FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (and, according to Jeffrey Toobin’s reporting, was prepared to do in Citizens United). *When possible, the Chief Justice prefers to decide less, leave precedents undisturbed and, as in this case, avoid overturning a federal statute – even if it means stretching statutory text or adopting stingy interpretations of prior opinions. *Whether or not one likes this approach to judicial decision-making, it is what we have come to expect. *It is thus no surprise that, as a 2010 NYT analysis found, the Roberts Court overturns precedents and invalidates federal statutes far less often than did the Rehnquist, Burger, and Warren Courts.
While commentators largely focused on the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses, the Court’s treatment of the Spending Power is likely to have the greatest practical effect. *For years the Court has insisted that Congress’ power to impose conditions on the receipt of federal funds is limited without ever finding a limit it would enforce. The criteria outlined in South Dakota v. Dole made for a nice test, but it was a test that nearly every statute passed. *Today, however, seven Justices concluded that Congress could not condition the receipt of existing Medicaid funds on state acceptance of a Medicaid expansion, putting teeth into Dole’s admonition that Congress could not use the promise of federal funds to “coerce” state obedience.
The Court’s decision on the Medicaid expansion dramatically reduces the pressure for states to accept this part of the PPACA. *It will also limit the federal government’s ability to direct state implementation in other areas by threatening the withdrawal of federal funds. *Given the frequency with which Congress uses the power of the purse to induce state cooperation, new rounds of litigation on the spending clause are sure to follow. *Dole upheld a threat to withhold five percent of federal highway funds if states refused to adopt a 21-years-old drinking age. *But will courts uphold a threat from the Environmental Protection Agency to shut off the lion’s share of highway funds should states not adopt sufficiently stringent pollution controls on local businesses? *Perhaps not. *(For more on this point, see J. Adler, Judicial Federalism and the Future of Federal Environmental Regulation, 90 Iowa Law Review 377, 433-52 (2005)).
NFIB v. Sebelius does not end the legal wrangling over the PPACA. Rather this case is only the beginning. *Barring action by Congress, the Court will see this statute again. *Several additional PPACA lawsuits are already pending in federal court. *These suits challenge everything from the structure of the Independent Payment Advisory Board to the mandate that employers provide contraception coverage as part of employees’ health insurance plans, and more are on the way.
The Court decided this case, but it did not resolve the legal or political debate over health care reform. *It did, however, decide this case in a way that reaffirmed foundational federalist principles, thus ensuring that federalist arguments will continue to receive a fair hearing from the judiciary. *If mandate opponents had to lose this case, this was the way to lose it.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/lose-the-battle-win-the-war/
Badger52
06-29-2012, 10:35
The decision should have been limitied to the scope of the argument as presented by the government and overturned forcing demorats to pass it as a tax.I happen to agree with that. "The Roberts Gift" was a consolation prize. Forget "the Government" as a general term. The Act was as presented from Congress and he laid the groundwork, under whatever criteria you can pick, to show the over-reach. I understand what he's done & what options that leaves open. His approach, however well-intentioned or not, has a dependency that worries me. Do those in a position to do so have the stones to pickup the ammo he's handed them and do something with it? I'm not sure they do because they're too busy keeping score in a game.
I would be delighted to be proven wrong.
Do those in a position to do so have the stones to pickup the ammo he's handed them and do something with it? I'm not sure they do because they're too busy keeping score in a game.
I would be delighted to be proven wrong.
Agree - having the stones and having the best interest of the country are the keys.
MOO, the West's, Rubio's and Ryan's, et al, of that world do - but, they had better rally the troops as time is getting short.
Stargazer
07-09-2012, 13:24
Anthem's parent company announced plans to acquire Amerigroup, one of the nation's leading corporations focused on meeting the health care needs of financially vulnerable Americans. Upon completion, Anthem's parent company, with its affiliated health plans, will serve more than 4.5 million Medicaid members.
Received this notification today via Anthem Employer news....
Badger52
07-09-2012, 14:27
Received this notification today via Anthem Employer news....From a 2010 article (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/12/business/la-fi-anthem12-2010feb12) below, it's interesting to further follow the adventures of a company who, for all its travails, seems to be able to raise capital... their bread crumbs 2010-2012 make interesting reading if you're into that kind of thing.
In a letter to the administration, health insurance giant WellPoint Inc. of Indianapolis said that increases of as much as 39%, set to take effect March 1, reflect soaring medical costs and an exodus of healthy consumers from its ranks.President Obama also has singled out Anthem, citing its premium increases as a reason for Congress to pass healthcare reform.He said the weak economy prompted many customers to switch to lower-cost options and led healthier consumers to go without insurance, leaving a smaller pool of ailing customers to share the cost of coverage.Well, your customers are about to be returned to you.
:rolleyes:
Oh, and...
INDIANAPOLIS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 8th 2012
Anthem's Parent Company to Acquire 1-800 CONTACTS (https://ga.beerepurves.com/bp_news/anthems-parent-company-to-acquire-1-800-contacts-375186.html)
Stargazer
07-10-2012, 07:19
... their bread crumbs 2010-2012 make interesting reading if you're into that kind of thing.
Well, your customers are about to be returned to you.
I am sure the path is quite interesting... I have not looked at the states that Amerigroup handles medicaid for ... lots of research to do in my spare time.. LOL! There is going to be lots of big fish buying smaller fish as they jockey for the future (IMO).
PPACA/ACA/Obamacare... has already had impact to the health care industry, among global pressures. If you look at pharmaceuticals -- small pipelines, drug shortages, strategic changes, major job losses in the U.S. Between 2009 - 2010 the U.S. experienced 115K job losses. In the pharma world tremendous amount of money is dropped in patent litigation. The medical products industry cut 28,000 jobs in 2009 and changed compensation plans. My brother is in the device business with a large company -- his company started responding to this law shortly after introduced. Roche Pharmaceuticals recently announced they're closing operations in Nutley and moving to Basel.. Pharma/biotechs invest over 50% in U.S. medical research v. government's 33%. As their dollars shrink and continue to shift towards the EU pipelines...
... lots of plates in motion............. :)
Staggering Health Insurance Primiums Right Around the Corner, Predicts Premera Vice President.
http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/staggering-health-insurance-premiums-right-around-the-corner-predicts-premera-vice-president/
"OLYMPIA, July 12.—If you think the cost of health insurance is going to go down under health care reform, think again, says the CEO of Washington state’s largest individual-insurance health plan. Many purchasers of individual insurance plans may see premiums rise 50 to 70 percent....................."
I think he lays it out there pretty good. Notice near the end where he mentions all the % in taxes and fees.
Worries grow as healthcare firms send jobs overseas
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-healthcare-offshore-20120725,0,5854713,full.story
Let's see - add thousands of pages of new regs - some which mandate care - some more mandate new records keeping - limit payment and require a certain % go to care not overhead - what would you think could happen?
"..........Outsourcing such tasks goes beyond earlier steps by healthcare firms to farm out reading of X-rays and other diagnostic tests to health professionals overseas. Those previous efforts were often done out of necessity, to meet overnight demands, for instance.
But the latest outsourcing, which have contributed to the loss of hundreds of domestic health jobs, is done for financial reasons. And the outsourcing of nursing functions, in particular, may be the most novel — and possibly the most risky — of the jobs being shifted.........................."
Democrats seek delay in one Obamacare tax increase
http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/11/15846903-democrats-seek-delay-in-one-obamacare-tax-increase?lite
"..........The delicate balance of tax increases and spending increases in Obamacare will work only if Congress allows the tax increases to take effect, so they can offset the cost of substantial new insurance subsidies and other Obamacare outlays.
But some Senate Democrats are trying to delay at least for one year the tax on medical device manufacturers, which will raise nearly $2 billion in new revenue in 2013 and $20 billion over the next seven years.................."
Maybe they should have understood it before they passed it.
XngZeRubicon
12-16-2012, 10:42
Worries grow as healthcare firms send jobs overseas
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-healthcare-offshore-20120725,0,5854713,full.story
Let's see - add thousands of pages of new regs - some which mandate care - some more mandate new records keeping - limit payment and require a certain % go to care not overhead - what would you think could happen?
"..........Outsourcing such tasks goes beyond earlier steps by healthcare firms to farm out reading of X-rays and other diagnostic tests to health professionals overseas. Those previous efforts were often done out of necessity, to meet overnight demands, for instance.
But the latest outsourcing, which have contributed to the loss of hundreds of domestic health jobs, is done for financial reasons. And the outsourcing of nursing functions, in particular, may be the most novel — and possibly the most risky — of the jobs being shifted.........................."
It's called the law of unintended consequences.
Badger52
01-09-2013, 11:20
Maybe they should have understood it before they passed it.As Richard said awhile back, it ain't even gotten started. Impact to the 2-legged medical "tax" paying devices.... (http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/Fast-Food-Worker-Hours-Cut---185827392.html)
A fast-food chain is slashing employee hours so franchise owners don't have to pay health benefits. Around 100 local Wendy’s workers have learned their hours are being cut. A spokesperson says a new health care law is to blame
Stargazer
01-10-2013, 11:15
As Richard said awhile back, it ain't even gotten started.
Understatement... our company had a zero loss ratio in 2012 so renewal rates were only 5%. Of course, when talking to the broker we all couldn't help but discuss impact to companies when PPACA is fully implemented. For a healthy group such as ours... our broker advised us that rates are expected to jump 35%. THAT is what companies that CURRENTLY offer benefits will have to weigh.
Stargazer
01-14-2013, 16:08
Here is an article that talks about the premiums that our broker was discussing with us. Hope all those who wanted this wonderful piece of legislation and believed all the diatribe from the trustworthy folks on the hill like what's a coming....
Health-insurance premiums have been rising—and consumers will experience another series of price shocks later this year when some see their premiums skyrocket thanks to the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare.....
....The reason: The congressional Democrats who crafted the legislation ignored virtually every actuarial principle governing rational insurance pricing. Premiums will soon reflect that disregard—indeed, premiums are already reflecting it.....
...Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming and Virginia will likely see the largest increases—somewhere between 65% and 100%. Another 18 states, including Texas and Michigan, could see their rates rise between 35% and 65%.... Insurers know that the Obama administration will denounce the premium increases as the result of greedy health insurers, greedy doctors, greedy somebody. The Department of Health and Human Services will likely begin to threaten, arm-twist or investigate health insurers in an effort to force them into keeping their premiums more in line with Democratic promises—just as HHS bureaucrats have already started doing when insurers want premium increases larger than 10%.
And that may work for a while. It certainly has in Massachusetts, where politicians, including then-Gov. Mitt Romney, made all the same cost-lowering promises about the state's 2006 prequel to ObamaCare that have yet to come true.
But unlike the federal government, health insurers can't run perpetual deficits. Something will have to give, which will likely open the door to making health insurance a public utility completely regulated by the government, or the left's real goal: a single-payer system.
I have always believed this was the goal (single payer)...
http://professional.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323936804578227890968100984.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj#printMode
Badger52
01-14-2013, 16:41
Good find, thanks.
Stargazer
01-16-2013, 14:08
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/16/southwestern-pa-hospital-to-stop-baby-deliveries/?test=latestnews
Hospital officials say the population of women of child-bearing age is dropping and that the number of births the hospital would be called upon to perform isn't enough for it to provide the service in the face of lower reimbursements under the federal Affordable Care Act.
Officials aren't sure how many jobs will be lost.
I haven't quite figured out what is AFFORDABLE under the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" :rolleyes:
Universities Bludgeon Adjuncts With Obamacare Loophole
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/01/20/universities-bludgeon-adjuncts-with-obamacare-loophole/
This story is hilarious.
'When the Affordable Care Act passed in early 2010, many in academia—faculty and students alike—cheered on. But now that its provisions are going into effect, some of these same people are learning firsthand that Obamacare has some nasty side effects.
A new piece in the Wall Street Journal reports that many colleges are cutting back on the number of hours worked by adjunct professors, in order to avoid new requirements that they provide healthcare to anyone working over 30 hours per week. This is terrible news for a lot of people; 70 percent of professors work as adjuncts and many will now have to cope with a major pay cut just as requirements that they buy their own health insurance go into effect............."
haaa, what's that old saying "be careul what you wish for...you just may get it"......:p
Ahhh, the high cost of affordable care...
Ret10Echo
01-22-2013, 11:45
Health services WERE provided as part of overall tuition.
Thanks to the "Affordable Care Act" (I spit on the ground as I say that) the school is no longer providing Health Services as part of the tuition and must now charge for those services in order to be compliant.
:mad:
Stargazer
01-22-2013, 12:22
It is my belief that these type of reports will continue as companies/organizations start weighing the impact of PPACA in 2014. I suppose the silver-lining in it all, is it will be unsustainable forcing real cost /payment reforms. Until that time, costs will continue to rise, jobs/pay reduced and quality of care flat-lined.
Streck-Fu
01-22-2013, 12:23
The more I learn about the impacts of this law, I can no longer believe that it is the result of incompetence. There are far too many elements that cause rates to actually rise while there are easy motivators for employers to cut jobs and hours, and the fact that the penalty is less than the cost of the premium leads to no other conclusion that this was intended.
Streck-Fu
01-22-2013, 12:32
Health services WERE provided as part of overall tuition.
Thanks to the "Affordable Care Act" (I spit on the ground as I say that) the school is no longer providing Health Services as part of the tuition and must now charge for those services in order to be compliant.
:mad:
Is this for students or staff?
Badger52
01-22-2013, 12:33
Universities Bludgeon Adjuncts With Obamacare LoopholeBeer & cheese for you when you're in the area. I need a ROFLandPoundingTheFloor smiley because, of course, evil business owners can handle such a sea-change.
:D
They're comin' home to roost.
Ret10Echo
01-22-2013, 18:23
Is this for students or staff?
Students... Proof of private insurance or payment for previously "free" on-campus care is now required.
Stiletto11
01-23-2013, 19:11
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
Stargazer
01-27-2013, 23:15
:D Isn't this fun!! I wonder what else will be found...
WASHINGTON (AP) — Millions of smokers could be priced out of health insurance because of tobacco penalties in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), according to experts who are just now teasing out the potential impact of a little-noted provision in the massive legislation.
PPACA — "Obamacare" to its detractors — allows health insurers to charge smokers buying individual policies up to 50 percent higher premiums starting next Jan. 1.
For a 55-year-old smoker, the penalty could reach nearly $4,250 a year. A 60-year-old could wind up paying nearly $5,100 on top of premiums.
http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2013/01/25/ppaca-could-price-smokers-out-of-health-insurance
PedOncoDoc
01-28-2013, 04:31
:D Isn't this fun!! I wonder what else will be found...
http://www.lifehealthpro.com/2013/01/25/ppaca-could-price-smokers-out-of-health-insurance
How is this any different than car insurance charging increased rates to someone with a DUI, or increased home insurance premiums for those living in flood zones?
If you make choices that put you at higher risk of needing expensive assistance, should you not put more into the pot?
IMHO, this is another example of choices have consequences, and is independent of whether or not one should be required to purchase heath insurance.
Stargazer
01-28-2013, 05:33
How is this any different than car insurance charging increased rates to someone with a DUI, or increased home insurance premiums for those living in flood zones?
I don't disagree with the point you're making at all. I shared the article for a couple of reasons:
One. Individuals have to enroll in a healthcare program or will be charged a penalty. You don't have to drive or buy a home in a flood zone if you cannot afford to pay the insurance.
Two. To highlight a piece of the legislation that I am fairly confident few were aware of. According to CDC's 2010 data, 20% of the adult population smokes. Would those who wanted the legislation feel differently, if they were aware of these type of the changes?
Three. PP"Affordable"CA, appears a bit disingeniune.
How is this any different than car insurance charging increased rates to someone with a DUI, or increased home insurance premiums for those living in flood zones?
It's not, Doc.
It's also probably similar to what they'll come up with for "assault"-type weapons, high cap mags and ammo, once they find out the People won't sit still for a 2A ban. An exorbitant tax could partially achieve Holder's objective to make the dangerous gun owners "cower" in the corner with the smokers.
Whatever. Long as it's something that can be repealed by a Conservative-owned Congress in 2014...
PedOncoDoc
01-28-2013, 06:57
It's not, Doc.
It's also probably similar to what they'll come up with for "assault"-type weapons, high cap mags and ammo, once they find out the People won't sit still for a 2A ban. An exorbitant tax could partially achieve Holder's objective to make the dangerous gun owners "cower" in the corner with the smokers.
Whatever. Long as it's something that can be repealed by a Conservative-owned Congress in 2014...
Forgive me, Dusty - I don't see the parallel between someone choosing (I'm all about choice and free will) to join a health care insurance pool that is likely to cost more to a collective investment being forced paying more in, and someone choosing to protect him/herself being taxed for standing up for personal accountability and thus decreasing his/her likelihood of being a victim.
The former has an exponentially higher likelihood of costing more to the pooled funds while the other (provided of sound heart and mind and maintaining proficiency) is a benefit to society.
Forgive me, Dusty - I don't see the parallel between someone choosing (I'm all about choice and free will) to join a health care insurance pool that is likely to cost more to a collective investment being forced paying more in, and someone choosing to protect him/herself being taxed for standing up for personal accountability and thus decreasing his/her likelihood of being a victim.
The former has an exponentially higher likelihood of costing more to the pooled funds while the other (provided of sound heart and mind and maintaining proficiency) is a benefit to society.
Can't argue with that.
ZonieDiver
01-28-2013, 13:40
Can't argue with that.
I don't know about that, Dusty. I think you are a bit like me in that regard, and my mama told me that I'd "argue with a signpost!":D
I don't know about that, Dusty. I think you are a bit like me in that regard, and my mama told me that I'd "argue with a signpost!":D
No, I'm not. :D
Pool them separately based on HRA(Health Risk Assessment) results. To draw a parallel, I believe many auto insurers do this, i.e. their high risk drivers are in one pool, and their low risk in another. Geico for example has Geico Indemnity, which is their high risk drivers, and Geico Insurance which is their lower risk. IIRC, once I hit 25, Geico switched me from Geico Indemnity to Geico Insurance.
My .02
How is this any different than car insurance charging increased rates to someone with a DUI, or increased home insurance premiums for those living in flood zones?
If you make choices that put you at higher risk of needing expensive assistance, should you not put more into the pot?
IMHO, this is another example of choices have consequences, and is independent of whether or not one should be required to purchase heath insurance.
I am all for this as long as all smokers have to contribute more to the pot, my question is how will the government squeeze more for the pot out of all the smokers who are currently on public assistance and are receiving govt. subsidized health care? Are these people not a drain on society too because of the choices they make, after all let's be fair about this?
BTW I had my last cigarette 2 years and 1 week ago, I smoked for 36 years. I do not miss it but not a night goes by that I do not have a smoke in my dreams.
Badger52
01-29-2013, 18:20
How many pools, who decides what's a "choice" and what choices are a risk to the pool?
And when you're done at that counter, step on over & I'll ask you if you have any guns.
Lets add pot smokers to the "Pot".
TXGringo
01-29-2013, 20:00
.... and fast-food junkies.
How many pools, who decides what's a "choice" and what choices are a risk to the pool?
And when you're done at that counter, step on over & I'll ask you if you have any guns.
I think we know who gets to make the choices and we need to remember that they are made for the collective good.
Stargazer
01-31-2013, 12:54
I know that most on this BB expressed concern regarding this legislation from the start. It is not my intent to "beat a dead horse" but rather inform others about the implications that are rolling out. The impact of this mammoth legislation IMO, is just starting.
Glitch may be an understatement, but that’s what industry analysts have by and large termed a Wednesday failure of the Internal Revenue Service to properly address an Obamacare funding issue — and now families may be outpriced from health plans.
Employer-sponsored health care plans are on the rise, and costs that are passed along to workers may leave some scrambling for more moderately priced plans. Such families were supposed to get financial assistance from the government to help pay for plans outside their places of employment — but according to The Associated Press, Congress didn’t include text for that financial assistance program in the final Obamacare law. So, Obamacare supporters were expecting the IRS to fix this problem — but the agency did not.
Its newly issued regulations failed to provide for that particular scenario and instead, these families will face the same fines imposed on those who don’t carry health insurance at all — the same fines as those who violate the mandate portion of Obamacare, according to the AP.
The main issue: What’s defined as affordable?
The White House, according to the AP, has blamed Congress.
“This is a very significant problem, and we have urged that it be fixed,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, told the AP.
An immediate fix is unlikely. At least one advocacy group, First Focus, is estimating 500,000 children could be left uninsured due to the glitch, the media report continued.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/31/obamacare-glitch-could-leave-thousands-uninsured/
On another front:
Aurora CEO cites Obamacare as partial cause of job cutbacks
RACINE COUNTY — Partly in response to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare — as well as other forces — Aurora Health Care expects $13 million less in government reimbursements this year and has begun cutting some positions.
Turkal said there are several causes of the projected $13 million or more decline in reimbursements. He cited the economy, cost reductions dictated by the Affordable Care Act and the congressional “fiscal cliff” agreement.
But she confirmed both occupied and vacant positions will be cut.
Aurora’s situation could become much more dire, Turkal wrote. He said one proposal under consideration but not yet decided is a 27 percent cut in physician payments for Medicare services. That would cost Aurora roughly $78 million a year.
In his summary paragraph, he wrote, “I am as frustrated by this as anyone. While most of these changes were brought on by external forces, it remains our responsibility to figure out how to continue to provide the very best care for our patients and to help them live well.”
http://journaltimes.com/news/local/article_2a607054-6742-11e2-b5bb-001a4bcf887a.html#.UQpZTwQQ2hA.twitter
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/31/union-leaders-epiphany-leaves-them-scrambling-wait-obamacare-is-going-to-drive-up-our-costs/
ooopsy, what's good for the goose......as they say, be careful of what you ask for...
Union Leaders’ Epiphany Leaves Them Scrambling: Wait, Obamacare Is Going to Drive up Our Costs?
Imagine the following scene:
A handful of union bosses crowd around an old card table, punching numbers into their calculators. They’ve been up all night. Someone puts on another pot of coffee and a few of the older bosses are starting to fall asleep. Those who are still alert and active scratch their heads and re-enter their calculations.
“Oh, my gosh!” one of them shouts, concluding the all-night exercise. “‘Obamacare’ is going to cost us!”
Yes, according to a recent report from the Wall Street Journal, union leaders (i.e. the same people who campaigned tirelessly in favor of universal healthcare) are trying to figure out a way to avoid paying for the costs associated with “Obamacare.”
Stargazer
02-01-2013, 14:33
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/irs-cheapest-obamacare-plan-will-be-20000-family
In a final regulation issued Wednesday, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) assumed that under Obamacare the cheapest health insurance plan available in 2016 for a family will cost $20,000 for the year.
Under Obamacare, Americans will be required to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.
The IRS's assumption that the cheapest plan for a family will cost $20,000 per year is found in examples the IRS gives to help people understand how to calculate the penalty they will need to pay the government if they do not buy a mandated health plan.
The examples point to families of four and families of five, both of which the IRS expects in its assumptions to pay a minimum of $20,000 per year for a bronze plan.
“The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000,” the regulation says.
Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under Obamacare--after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or $2,085.00 per family in 2016.
In the new final rules published Wednesday, IRS set in law the rules for implementing the penalty Americans must pay if they fail to obey Obamacare's mandate to buy insurance.
To help illustrate these rules, the IRS presented examples of different situations families might find themselves in.
In the examples, the IRS assumes that families of five who are uninsured would need to pay an average of $20,000 per year to purchase a Bronze plan in 2016.
Using the conditions laid out in the regulations, the IRS calculates that a family earning $120,000 per year that did not buy insurance would need to pay a "penalty" (a word the IRS still uses despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is in fact a "tax") of $2,400 in 2016.
For those wondering how clear the IRS's clarifications of this new "penalty" rule are, here is one of the actual examples the IRS gives:
“Example 3. Family without minimum essential coverage.
"(i) In 2016, Taxpayers H and J are married and file a joint return. H and J have three children: K, age 21, L, age 15, and M, age 10. No member of the family has minimum essential coverage for any month in 2016. H and J’s household income is $120,000. H and J’s applicable filing threshold is $24,000. The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000.
"(ii) For each month in 2016, under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the applicable dollar amount is $2,780 (($695 x 3 adults) + (($695/2) x 2 children)). Under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, the flat dollar amount is $2,085 (the lesser of $2,780 and $2,085 ($695 x 3)). Under paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the excess income amount is $2,400 (($120,000 - $24,000) x 0.025). Therefore, under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the monthly penalty amount is $200 (the greater of $173.75 ($2,085/12) or $200 ($2,400/12)).
"(iii) The sum of the monthly penalty amounts is $2,400 ($200 x 12). The sum of the monthly national average bronze plan premiums is $20,000 ($20,000/12 x 12). Therefore, under paragraph (a) of this section, the shared responsibility payment imposed on H and J for 2016 is $2,400 (the lesser of $2,400 or $20,000).”
I am searching for details of the various plans. For comparison, our company offers a generous plan (100% employer paid) that costs $18K/yr for a family of 6. So to read that a family plan for 5 at the bronze level will cost $20K in 2016 doesn't seem extreme. I am interested to see the plan details such as prescription plan, deductible/copays, etc...
The Reaper
02-01-2013, 18:14
Wow!
Who knew that would happen? :rolleyes:
Good thing we couldn't read it till it was passed. Thanks, Nancy!
TR
Why your boss is dumping your wife
Companies are dropping health coverage for spouses to cut costs
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-your-boss-is-dumping-your-wife-2013-02-22
And the shoes continue to drop.
"Companies have a new solution to rising health-insurance costs: Break up their employees’ marriages.
By denying coverage to spouses, employers not only save the annual premiums, but also the new fees that went into effect as part of the Affordable Care Act. This year, companies have to pay $1 or $2 “per life” covered on its plans, a sum that jumps to $65 in 2014. And health law guidelines proposed recently mandate coverage of employees’ dependent children (up to age 26), but husbands and wives are optional. “The question about whether it’s obligatory to cover the family of the employee is being thought through more than ever before,” says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health......................"
Just think how much the military could save if they did that.
frostfire
02-27-2013, 01:43
Why your boss is dumping your wife
Companies are dropping health coverage for spouses to cut costs
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-your-boss-is-dumping-your-wife-2013-02-22
And the shoes continue to drop.
"Companies have a new solution to rising health-insurance costs: Break up their employees’ marriages.
By denying coverage to spouses, employers not only save the annual premiums, but also the new fees that went into effect as part of the Affordable Care Act. This year, companies have to pay $1 or $2 “per life” covered on its plans, a sum that jumps to $65 in 2014. And health law guidelines proposed recently mandate coverage of employees’ dependent children (up to age 26), but husbands and wives are optional. “The question about whether it’s obligatory to cover the family of the employee is being thought through more than ever before,” says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health......................"
Just think how much the military could save if they did that.
I wouldn't necessarily use pink font for that statement. In my humble observation, most folks who misuse the ER, who's getting cosmetic surgery, bariatric :mad: surgery, psych placement, etc. have social that starts with 30, 31, 32.... Some continue to use military healthcare long after they are separated from their military spouse. TANJ!
GratefulCitizen
03-09-2013, 23:45
Logan's Run is coming...
How "death panels" will be implemented.
http://youtu.be/nSre3tbeegc
Listen to what he says from about 1:55 to 2:25
http://youtu.be/H9u2Lf0DdzA
Lawsuit over health care tax could kill ‘Obamacare’ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/obamacare-lawsuit-over-health-care-tax-will-test-c/)
“Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.
A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.
The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation’s attorneys had their “aha” moment.
“The court there quite explicitly says, ‘This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,’” foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the health care act. “Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/18/top-dem-sen-baucus-warns-train-wreck-for-obama-health-law/
A senior Democratic senator who helped write President Obama's health care law stunned administration officials Wednesday, saying openly he thinks it's headed for a "train wreck."
"I just see a huge train wreck coming down," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., told Obama's health care chief during a routine budget hearing that suddenly turned tense.
Baucus is the first top Democrat to publicly voice fears about the rollout of the new health care law, designed to bring coverage to some 30 million uninsured Americans through a mix of government programs and tax credits for private insurance that start next year.
Snip
Isn't Sen. Baucus up for re-election in 2014?
Read this article carefully, Sen. Baucus is not against Obamacare - he's concerned that the HHS is not informing the people sufficiently about how great Obamacare is.
Stargazer
04-18-2013, 10:43
You would think a Senator who sits on a finance committee could see beyond his nose pertaining to the impact on consumers/businesses...
Regal Entertainment Group is another employer recently announcing that they are cutting employee hours. The decision is driven by increased benefit costs related to 'Obamacare' and they notified their employees accordingly.
The good news is the latest immigration reform makes it clear that they will not be eligible for 'Obamacare'. Wonder how that marries with the PPACA -- healthcare for everyone (lawful immigrants/aiiens are eligible -- non-citizens can get medicaid too)... The folks on the hill are so busy writing legislation, they are tripping over themselves...
Read this article carefully, Sen. Baucus is not against Obamacare - he's concerned that the HHS is not informing the people sufficiently about how great Obamacare is.
That stands to reason, since he had so much input into the creation.
Trapper John
04-18-2013, 10:52
Lawsuit over health care tax could kill ‘Obamacare’ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/31/obamacare-lawsuit-over-health-care-tax-will-test-c/)
“Obamacare” looks increasingly inevitable, but one lawsuit making its way through the court system could pull the plug on the sweeping federal health care law.
A challenge filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation contends that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the bill originated in the Senate, not the House. Under the Origination Clause of the Constitution, all bills raising revenue must begin in the House.
The Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the act in June, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. took pains in the majority opinion to define Obamacare as a federal tax, not a mandate. That was when the Sacramento, Calif.-based foundation’s attorneys had their “aha” moment.
“The court there quite explicitly says, ‘This is not a law passed under the Commerce Clause; this is just a tax,’” foundation attorney Timothy Sandefur said at a Cato Institute forum on legal challenges to the health care act. “Well, then the Origination Clause ought to apply. The courts should not be out there carving in new exceptions to the Origination Clause.”
This was exactly what I thought after the SCOTUS ruling. If it's a tax as ruled by the SCOTUS, then it is a revenue bill and all bills proposing new revenue must originate in the HoR. Ergo, by definition Obama Care is unconstitutional. When the ruling came down, I said to the XO - Thank you Justice Roberts. Case closed!
You may ask why didn't Roberts rule that way? Simple- that was not the matter before the Court. Now it appears that it will be. This bears watching closely IMO.
Thanks for the post, Bro :lifter
Badger52
04-18-2013, 11:01
Read this article carefully, Sen. Baucus is not against Obamacare - he's concerned that the HHS is not informing the people sufficiently about how great Obamacare is.My take exactly. HHS hasn't stroked enough in the medical Rx and device community to do the Andy Griffith-type spots; ya know, "mmmmm, good things a'comin'" so call now to see how the new health care coverage helps every American live a fuller life, and we will never bill you direct. (We'll bill a bunch of other taxpayers, but not you.)
[need pukin' smilie]
Stargazer
04-23-2013, 11:34
Read this article carefully, Sen. Baucus is not against Obamacare - he's concerned that the HHS is not informing the people sufficiently about how great Obamacare is.
Sen. Baucus can ease his concerns... nothing that a little advertising campaign that costs us taxpayers 3.1 million... can't remedy.
HHS paying PR firm $3.1 million to sell ObamaCare to the uninsured
Americans hate ObamaCare. The Department of Health and Human Services has already blown through its implementation budget and is coming back to Congress for more. The "high-risk" pools are under-enrolled and over budget. And now the Obama Administration is fretting that the 48 million Americans who were supposedly desperate for health insurance won't bother to enroll in the program.
So what do you do when your signature health care program is shaping up to be a disaster in every way? Hire a PR firm! And pay it a fortune, too.
http://www.caintv.com/hhs-paying-pr-firm-3.1-million
http://charlotte.cbslocal.com/2013/05/03/sc-house-approves-bill-criminalizing-enforcement-of-obamacare/
COLUMBIA, S.C. (CBS Charlotte/AP) — The South Carolina House approved a bill Wednesday criminalizing the implementation of President Obama’s health care law in the state.
The Republican-controlled House voted 65-39 on the Freedom of Health Care Protection Act.
The act renders “null and void certain unconstitutional laws enacted by the Congress of the United States taking control over the health insurance industry and mandating that individuals purchase health insurance under threat of penalty.”
“This kind of victory occurs when the grassroots across the State come together and coalesce,” Chris Lawton, spokesman for the Greenville Tea Party, told The Greenville Post. “I could not be prouder.”
The bill declares “Obamacare” unconstitutional – despite the Supreme Court ruling last year that the Affordable Health Care Act was constitutional — and that there will be criminal penalties for enforcing the law.
Snip
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/10/south-carolina-following-madisons-advice-to-nullify-obamacare/
That should be a huge green light for Obamacare opponents to support South Carolina H3101 and replicate it in their own states.
WHAT YOU GET PASSING THE BILL
– Exchange: Banned
– Keep Your Money: Kill the Mandate
– Increases executive power to “interpose”
– Political Mechanism for future actions
(determining future provisions unconstitutional and unenforceable)
What you get if H3101 Dies
– Pay that mandate penalty. It’s coming
– Expect an SC exchange further helping Obamacare nationally
– No mechanism to do anything in the future
James Madison advised exactly what South Carolina is doing with H3101. In Federalist #46, he wrote:
“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State;
the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious pediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.” (Emphasis added)
I could only pray this type of legislation go forward in Maryland.
Obamacare is another program stuffed down Americans' throats against their will, as he is (or was) attempting to do with gun control.
Hopefully the MSM will jump on Benghazi as well as the IRS mess since now that they're all indignant over the phone taps, and we can start untangling this BS sooner than later. Maybe they'll even throw Fast and Furious and some other stuff in there, too.
Trapper John
05-14-2013, 13:28
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/05/10/south-carolina-following-madisons-advice-to-nullify-obamacare/
I could only pray this type of legislation go forward in Maryland.
Don't bet on it!
This is a very, interesting approach and will certainly result in another Constitutional challenge to ObamaCare. I wasn't aware of this, so thanks to you and Dusty for bringing this to all of our attention.
By April of 2014, if Obamacare makes it that far and is allowed to kick in, even the useful idiots will catch a snap.
GratefulCitizen
05-18-2013, 12:21
Certainly some selective editing, but the point is still pretty clear...
-You aren't free, shut up and accept being ruled.
http://youtu.be/fAtkIwgiaRA
(1VB)compforce
07-02-2013, 16:44
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/02/administration-delays-key-obamacare-insurance-mandate/
"What do you mean the employer mandate is going into effect during the 2014 mid term campaign?! Let's push it back until the off year!" - President Obama
Right after the mid-term elections! Wouldn't want those peasants to realize they were scammed 11 months before the polls open! They're gonna wait until after the mid term elections and then pull out the Vaseline. Bend over peasants!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/02/obamacare-employer-mandate_n_3536695.html
How will Hillary ever get elected if the mandates are enforced in 2015? Better back up enforcement until 2017, hey wait how will dems get reelected in 2018 if they start to enforce the mandate in 2017? Looks like there is no good time for enforcement, a reprieve for the peasants perhaps ? Please hold the Vaseline.
Stargazer
08-22-2013, 11:45
Both the University of Virginia and UPS told their employees recently they are no longer offering spousal coverage to those able to obtain insurance elsewhere; meaning thousands of Americans will no longer be able to choose the benefits they prefer.
UVA said Wednesday this is only one of many “major changes” coming to their health plans as a result of ObamaCare. The university says the changes are necessary because the law is projected to add $7.3 million to the cost of the university’s health plan in 2014 alone.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/21/employers-dropping-coverage-for-thousands-spouses-over-obamacare-costs/#ixzz2ciektVfA
I had a recent experience where the quality of care is also beginning to drop due to changes... The RN in charge at a local ER apologized for the wait .. said due to 'Obamacare' (his words not mine), they have had 80 FT positions permanently cut. He also mentioned their main hospital had over 200. Think that is isolated?... Additional patterns of uncertainty are revealed by several of my daughters friends that graduated from nursing school in 2013 that haven't found fulltime positions in our area. I guess the good news is according to a local university advertisement, by 2020 there will be a nursing shortage... :rolleyes:
swatsurgeon
08-22-2013, 18:05
Be prepared for civil unrest when it comes to the availability of adequate care. I'm guessing pharmacy break-ins and hospital thefts are going to skyrocket in the coming months and there will be even more shortages than there are now.
We have has non-stop medication shortages for the last 1-1.5 years and I think the public will see other resources being in short supply and with increased demand of "FREE HEALTH CARE THAT EVERYONE WAS PROMISED"by our POTUS, chaos will ensue.
Be aware, be prepared. You thought ammo was an issues........just wait.
I hope I'm wrong but I have a feeling.
ss
Streck-Fu
08-22-2013, 18:15
^^^^^ Thank you FDA....
The Reaper
08-22-2013, 18:28
The good news is, almost all meds, if properly stored, are potent may years after their expiration dates.
TR
PedOncoDoc
08-23-2013, 03:55
The good news is, almost all meds, if properly stored, are potent may years after their expiration dates.
TR
In pill form, true. I'm more concerned about the stability and sterility of injectables - especially when in multi-use vials (insulin, some blood thinners, etc.).
Does anyone know the shelf life of many of the inhalers that are prescribed for chronic asthmatics? I've been able to stockpile some the inhalers prescribed to me thru the VA. I've been able to acquire the following brands: Advair, Proventil, Flovent, Combivent, ProAir, Serevent and Symbicort. In the back of my mind I've always feared someday these items would become scarce.
frostfire
08-26-2013, 17:07
Be prepared for civil unrest when it comes to the availability of adequate care. I'm guessing pharmacy break-ins and hospital thefts are going to skyrocket in the coming months and there will be even more shortages than there are now.
We have has non-stop medication shortages for the last 1-1.5 years and I think the public will see other resources being in short supply and with increased demand of "FREE HEALTH CARE THAT EVERYONE WAS PROMISED"by our POTUS, chaos will ensue.
Be aware, be prepared. You thought ammo was an issues........just wait.
I hope I'm wrong but I have a feeling.
ss
Now that's scary....just walk to any MTF ER and see the demand and entitlement for 100% free healthcare. You know, when spouses and soldiers would rather wait 5 hours+ than go to walgreens and spend $5 on tylenol, ibuprofen, etc.
well, there's always Pb and Cu based "tablets" for PRN and/or STAT use to the pons with titrate-to-effect dosing: 168gr, 175gr, 178gr..
Creative Destruction
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/creative-destruction_751425.html
And the hits just keep coming...
Nancy Pelosi waxed rhapsodic in 2010 as she imagined the benefits of Obamacare: “Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.”
Well, that was the economy we used to have. But as Obamacare begins to kick in, artists, photographers, writers, and other members of the “creative class” who have access to health insurance programs through numerous professional organizations will lose that coverage..............."
Creative Destruction
Nancy Pelosi waxed rhapsodic in 2010 as she imagined the benefits of Obamacare: “Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.”
Well, that was the economy we used to have. But as Obamacare begins to kick in, artists, photographers, writers, and other members of the “creative class” who have access to health insurance programs through numerous professional organizations will lose that coverage..............."
It will take at least a year before the "artisans" come out of their pot induced haze and realize Cheetos and other munchies are no longer covered by barry-care.. :D
ddoering
09-08-2013, 09:18
How long will it be before DoD dumps the retirees from Tricare and onto Obamacare?
How long will it be before DoD dumps the retirees from Tricare and onto Obamacare?
That happened years ago for retirees that qualify for Medicare Part B; they MUST enroll in Medicare and use it as primary insurance to be allowed to enroll in Tricare Prime/Tricare For Life, which becomes supplemental insurance.
I had a recent experience where the quality of care is also beginning to drop due to changes... The RN in charge at a local ER apologized for the wait .. said due to 'Obamacare' (his words not mine), they have had 80 FT positions permanently cut. He also mentioned their main hospital had over 200. Think that is isolated?... Additional patterns of uncertainty are revealed by several of my daughters friends that graduated from nursing school in 2013 that haven't found fulltime positions in our area. I guess the good news is according to a local university advertisement, by 2020 there will be a nursing shortage... :rolleyes:
My recent experience on a Friday evening at my local ER (chest pain) was exactly the opposite from yours. Zero wait time, or shortage of personnel. After evaluation, I was transported to the hospital, where I wound up having a triple bypass surgery a few days later. I didn't experience any shortage of nursing or other care (one of my RNs was former 1/75th medic) even over the weekend during my 7 1/2 day stay.
My recent experience on a Friday evening at my local ER (chest pain) was exactly the opposite from yours. Zero wait time, or shortage of personnel. After evaluation, I was transported to the hospital, where I wound up having a triple bypass surgery a few days later. I didn't experience any shortage of nursing or other care (one of my RNs was former 1/75th medic) even over the weekend during my 7 1/2 day stay.
You OK?
I had a recent experience where the quality of care is also beginning to drop due to changes... The RN in charge at a local ER apologized for the wait .. said due to 'Obamacare' (his words not mine), they have had 80 FT positions permanently cut. He also mentioned their main hospital had over 200. Think that is isolated?... Additional patterns of uncertainty are revealed by several of my daughters friends that graduated from nursing school in 2013 that haven't found fulltime positions in our area. I guess the good news is according to a local university advertisement, by 2020 there will be a nursing shortage... :rolleyes:
My recent experience on a Friday evening at my local ER (chest pain) was exactly the opposite from yours. Zero wait time, or shortage of personnel. After evaluation, I was transported to the hospital, where I wound up having a triple bypass surgery a few days later. I didn't experience any shortage of nursing or other care (one of my RNs was former 1/75th medic) even over the weekend during my 7 1/2 day stay.
My recent experience on a Friday evening at my local ER (chest pain) was exactly the opposite from yours. Zero wait time, or shortage of personnel. After evaluation, I was transported to the hospital, where I wound up having a triple bypass surgery a few days later. I didn't experience any shortage of nursing or other care (one of my RNs was former 1/75th medic) even over the weekend during my 7 1/2 day stay.
So, it makes you repeat quotes? I never knew a bypass had that effect...:D
You OK?
I'm doing great, thanks. :lifter
I'm doing great, thanks. :lifter
Cool. Hang in there, Bro...
Stargazer
09-09-2013, 15:02
My recent experience on a Friday evening at my local ER (chest pain) was exactly the opposite from yours. Zero wait time, or shortage of personnel. After evaluation, I was transported to the hospital, where I wound up having a triple bypass surgery a few days later. I didn't experience any shortage of nursing or other care (one of my RNs was former 1/75th medic) even over the weekend during my 7 1/2 day stay.
I am grateful that your experience was different!
It was my father who suffered from a stroke. The caregivers were great -- like I said, the ER RN asked us to be honest about our experience. It was also his reference that staff shortages were due to Obamacare. As you could imagine, at that point we didn't give two shakes about any policy. Our thoughts and concerns were with our father.
Stargazer
09-09-2013, 15:06
Your friendly public service announcement. If this applies, be sure to notify your employees. I am certain your brokers and insurance providers have also provided notification.
Earlier this summer, the employer mandate, which states that every business with at least 50 or more full-time employees must offer workers acceptable coverage or face a $2,000 penalty per-worker, per-year, was pushed back until 2015. But the Oct. 1 employee-notification deadline stands. Keith McMurdy, partner at FOX Rothschild LLP, says the $100 per-day fine has been “unfortunately overlooked” by many small businesses, and the dollar amount on the penalty comes from the general per-day penalty under the ACA
Read more: http://smallbusiness.foxbusiness.com/legal-hr/2013/09/06/new-obamacare-penalty-that-biz-may-not-know-about/#ixzz2eQpcJVvG
I am grateful that your experience was different!
It was my father who suffered from a stroke. The caregivers were great -- like I said, the ER RN asked us to be honest about our experience. It was also his reference that staff shortages were due to Obamacare. As you could imagine, at that point we didn't give two shakes about any policy. Our thoughts and concerns were with our father.
I hope your dad is doing ok.
Stargazer
09-09-2013, 19:28
I hope your dad is doing ok.
His stroke was in the pons area of the brain stem. Lucky considering the location and so thankful he is still with us. Thank you for asking.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/10/Document-confirms-Eric-Cantor-s-faulty-Obamacare-defunding-ploy
A document House Majority Leader Eric Cantor distributed to all House Republicans on Tuesday, obtained by Breitbart News, confirms that he is planning to make it appear as though the House is voting to defund Obamacare while using a legislative procedural trick which would allow the Democrat-controlled Senate to strip defunding language from the Continuing Resolution.
Snip
NurseTim
09-10-2013, 20:53
They all need to go, ALL of them. Turn it into the draft, compulsory duty as congressman or senators. I term and you're good.
Better yet, a shock collar on the reps. Voters vote on each piece of legislation and if the congress critter goes his own way, he/she rides the lightning.
Trader Joe's To Drop Health Coverage For Part-Time Workers Under Obamacare: Memo
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/11/trader-joes-obamacare_n_3902341.html
And another one finds out it makes business sense to drop benefits for part time workers and let the government pick up the tab.
Stargazer
09-12-2013, 13:47
So, is the President going to make another 'exception' to the law.... :rolleyes:
At a convention in Los Angeles on Wednesday, the labor organization the AFL-CIO passed a resolution declaring that the Affordable Care Act will drive up costs of union-sponsored health plans to the point that workers and employers are forced to abandon them.
While the resolution is strongly worded -- it calls implementation of Obamacare "highly disruptive" to union health care plans -- some unions wanted to take the resolution even further. A draft originally offered by Sean McGarvey, head of the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department, said the AFL-CIO could no longer support the health care law and called for its repeal unless changes were made to protect union multi-employer plans.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57602611/afl-cio-obamacare-implementation-highly-disruptive/
9.13.2013 - update
State-level unions demand ObamaCare fix, as Obama meets labor leaders
But while labor leaders hear out the White House, state-level union bosses are on their way back from the national conference of the AFL-CIO, and they've got a message for state lawmakers and Congress: "We want changes to Obamacare."
I haven't heard from anyone who thinks this is moving smoothly," said Jon Hendry, president of the New Mexico Federation of Labor/AFL-CIO. "We support the ACA but it has to be fixed.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/13/state-level-unions-line-up-behind-afl-cio-to-oppose-parts-obamacare/#ixzz2enH38b7t
On a separate but related note -- local hospital group IU Health, just announced they will be cutting 800 jobs.
That’s one factor pushing down hospitalizations nationwide. In addition, persistently high unemployment and the increasing prevalence of high-deductible health insurance plans have left more patients exposed to the high cost of a hospital visit.
What really has IU Health scared, however, is that the federal Medicare program has been reducing payments to hospitals—and private insurers are likely to follow suit. Whereas hospitals for years have claimed that Medicare payments ran about 20 percent below their costs, hospitals now are desperately trying to cut costs to make money on Medicare.
(1VB)compforce
09-13-2013, 04:08
Your friendly public service announcement. If this applies, be sure to notify your employees. I am certain your brokers and insurance providers have also provided notification.
Thanks for that, I had missed that requirement and would have been subject to the fines.
Stargazer
09-13-2013, 10:12
Thanks for that, I had missed that requirement and would have been subject to the fines.
Perhaps this will be of assistance to you as well. DOL has some templates:
http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/healthreform/
Go to section titled, Affordable Care Act Regulations and Guidance
Notice to Employees of Coverage Options
Stargazer
09-20-2013, 10:09
http://www.forbes.com/sites/thesba/2013/09/20/countdown-to-obamacare-special-report/
However, as Small Business owners know, expecting only one unlikely outcome is no way to run a business. Thus, with barely three months left until the law is in effect, Newtek, the Small Business Authority, a health insurance broker for small businesses, recognizes there is an urgency for both employers and employees to understand what to expect and what to do.
Beginning Monday, we will be posting five blogs here to help you understand the key elements of the bill that are going to take effect.
The first blog, “Understanding the Exchanges” will cover the newest, and perhaps most critical element of the Affordable Care Act — the online marketplace created by the government to shop for health insurance plan.
The second blog, “ Understanding the Exchange Plans” explains the five different coverage options available on the Exchange.
The third blog, “ Understanding The Private Market Options” addresses the changes many health care plans will be making as ObamaCare takes effect.
The fourth blog, “ The Five Things Small Businesses Need To Know” will identify what is required of employers and employees.
The fifth blog, “ The Three Q’s of ObamaCare: Quality, Quantity, and Quitting” will cover the impact ObamaCare may have on you and your family’s healthcare.
Stargazer
09-20-2013, 10:23
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/09/aetna_pulls_out_of_obamacare_health_exchange.html
Aetna announced today that it no longer plans to offer health insurance on the new health care exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act.
On a Separate note:
CLEVELAND -- The Cleveland Clinic has told workers they will be laying off an unspecified number of employees as part of an overall, sweeping cost-reduction plan.
Clinic CEO Dr. Toby Cosgrove discussed the looming cuts and changes in a Wednesday morning all-employee meeting.
Clinic spokeswoman Eileen Sheil denied circulating rumors that employees were told there would be 3,000 jobs cut.
She said any layoffs will be part of a multi-year plan to cut $330 million from the Clinic's budget.
http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/314788/33/Cleveland-Clinic-layoffs-coming-as-part-of-cost-reductions
Home Depot Moving Part-Time Workers to Obamacare Exchanges
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/09/20/Home-Depot-Moving-Part-Time-Workers-to-Obamacare-Exchanges
And another 20,000 workers are going to get kicked off their company health care plan.
"..On Thursday, Home Depot became yet another company that announced it would shift part-time workers to the government-run healthcare exchanges. In addition, a company spokesperson conceded that full-time employees, though they will still get health benefits, would pay more due to an increase in costs next year. ...."
Badger52
09-23-2013, 21:43
Lots of money out there...
New health insurance co-op going door-to-door
On a recent weeknight, more than two dozen people at St. Mark's Episcopal Church, sitting at folding tables and chairs in a large room just off the kitchen, planned the launch of a new business.
The setting was as unusual as the venture itself: a new health insurance company that will compete against some of the largest health insurers in the country.
But then, little is ordinary about the Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative, and that may be its best hope for success.
The cooperative — a nonprofit (uh, that means AFTER expenses, like salaries, right?) health insurance company started with federal loans potentially totaling $56.4 million from the Affordable Care Act — is an outgrowth of an affiliate of a group founded by Saul Alinsky, a famed leftist community organizer best known for his book "Rules for Radicals."
Make no mistake: This is not a venture run by naïve idealists or, for that matter, radicals. Its management includes experienced executives. Its board includes small-business owners. And it has drawn on the expertise of top consultants and lawyers.
But what it is setting out to do — and how it plans to go about it — may be a bit radical.
Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative plans to draw on the tactics of community organizing to compete against the likes of UnitedHealthcare, Humana and Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield in Wisconsin.
The cooperative is one of 24 nationallythat received almost $2 billion in federal funding through the Affordable Care Act to start nonprofit companies to sell health insurance to individuals and small businesses.
Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative is one of four health insurers that will sell health plans to individuals and one of two that will sell plans for small employers in the Milwaukee area on the exchanges, the marketplace set up under the health care law, scheduled to start on Oct. 1.
On that day, volunteers will canvass the Third Ward, dropping off fliers to small businesses. The night before, it hopes to draw 300 volunteers to a kickoff event at Mount Mary College.
The event planned for the Third Ward will be just the first. In the months ahead, volunteers will visit neighborhoods in the Milwaukee area and other cities throughout eastern Wisconsin.
"How many people do you know that are going door-to-door telling their neighbors about health insurance?" said Bob Connolly, chairman of the cooperative, at the meeting this month.
That could be one of Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative's few competitive advantages.
"There's a lot of energy here," said Harry Moseley, one of the people attending the meeting at St. Mark's.
This isn't to underestimate the challenges ahead, and skeptics give Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative and its counterparts in other states little chance of success.
Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative is starting an insurance company from scratch. It won't have the marketing budget or economies of scale of its competitors. It has no competitive advantage when negotiating contracts with health care providers.
Its health plans won't even have the lowest prices — and the cooperative doesn't want to have the lowest prices.
"We are selling more than price — we are selling trust," said Bob De Vita, chief executive officer.
The cooperative hopes to stand out in a competitive market by being a nonprofit insurance company run by its members.
"The difference is who we are, what we represent and what we stand for," Connolly said.
Rest of article here. (http://www.jsonline.com/business/new-health-insurance-co-op-going-door-to-door-b99102012z1-224797002.html)
And Media Tracker's take here. (http://mediatrackers.org/wisconsin/2013/09/23/subsidized-healthcare-co-op-drawing-scrutiny-ahead-wisconsin-exchange-launch)
Common Ground Healthcare is drawing scrutiny from more than just Media Trackers. After Media Trackers reviewed the healthcare cooperative’s ties to liberal groups and ObamaCare advocates, two newspapers in Wisconsin wrote about non-profit’s entrance into the health insurance market using federal funds to underwrite its untested operation.
Experts quoted in one of those stories expressed some skepticism about the rookie health insurance company’s ability to compete and provide services expected of health insurance firms. “Common Ground is a co-op with no history of insuring anybody for anything,” Mike Farrell, president of the Wisconsin Employee Benefits Advisors Association, told the Racine Journal Times in a Monday story.
“I don’t know what they’re bringing to the table,” Alison Barnes, a professor at Marquette University Law School, told the Journal Times about Common Ground Healthcare.
Stories in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the Herald Times Reporter in Manitowoc revealed that the cooperative’s efforts could be about ideology, not just providing insurance. While ObamaCare impacts every company providing health insurance in Wisconsin, Common Ground Healthcare exists solely because of the federal legislation. That critical point might be why the cooperative ardently praises the legislation and plans to use get-out-the-vote style tactics to recruit customers.
After receiving $56.4 million in taxpayer money to start their non-profit enterprise, Common Ground Healthcare’s leadership says they aren’t about being the most competitive health insurance provider in the state. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
Common Ground Healthcare Cooperative is starting an insurance company from scratch. It won’t have the marketing budget or economies of scale of its competitors. It has no competitive advantage when negotiating contracts with health care providers.
Its health plans won’t even have the lowest prices — and the cooperative doesn’t want to have the lowest prices.
A niche bubble market? And, if so, who's left holding the bag?
Was just reading this article this morning...
HARRY REID’S OFFICE LEAKS BOEHNER OFFICE EMAILS—AND IT COULD RUIN ANY FAITH YOU HAVE IN WASHINGTON
http://http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/02/harry-reids-office-leaks-boehner-office-emails-and-it-could-ruin-any-faith-you-have-in-washington/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/02/harry-reids-office-leaks-boehner-office-emails-and-it-could-ruin-any-faith-you-have-in-washington/)
Stargazer
10-03-2013, 09:51
Was just reading this article this morning...
HARRY REID’S OFFICE LEAKS BOEHNER OFFICE EMAILS—AND IT COULD RUIN ANY FAITH YOU HAVE IN WASHINGTON
http://http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/02/harry-reids-office-leaks-boehner-office-emails-and-it-could-ruin-any-faith-you-have-in-washington/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/02/harry-reids-office-leaks-boehner-office-emails-and-it-could-ruin-any-faith-you-have-in-washington/)
I make a concerted effort not to put much faith in empty buckets. There may be a few individuals I am holding out for but not many. Doesn't even cause a ripple for me...
Barbarian
10-03-2013, 10:15
Assuming the article is accurate, it's just another day at the office, for the RINO's. If there were more than one or two Rep. party members who actually held to the core conservative values of the party, we would not be as far down this path of ruination, IMHO, but perhaps that is obvious.
The wife brought home a insurance questionnaire instead of the usual happy/friendly benefits folder. The nurses and the administration at KUMC are feuding.
Anyone with a lick of sense knew nothing is FREE, but Jesus this one is turning into a tsunami of shit.
Do you want a roof over your head or health insurance?
This looks to be Zeros best snow job yet. I come in PEACE LMAO!
Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
Today, White House spokesman Jay Carney was asked about the president’s promise that consumers would be able to keep their health care. “What the president said and what everybody said all along is that there are going to be changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act to create minimum standards of coverage, minimum services that every insurance plan has to provide,” Carney said. “So it's true that there are existing healthcare plans on the individual market that don't meet those minimum standards and therefore do not qualify for the Affordable Care Act.”
In other words, nobody is kicked out of their existing plan... they just can't keep it. Teleprompted semantics at its absolute best, or worst.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-10-29/obama-knew-most-americans-would-not-be-able-keep-their-existing-insurance-under-obam
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/29/21222195-obama-administration-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite
Was just reading this article this morning...
HARRY REID’S OFFICE LEAKS BOEHNER OFFICE EMAILS—AND IT COULD RUIN ANY FAITH YOU HAVE IN WASHINGTON
http://http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/02/harry-reids-office-leaks-boehner-office-emails-and-it-could-ruin-any-faith-you-have-in-washington/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/02/harry-reids-office-leaks-boehner-office-emails-and-it-could-ruin-any-faith-you-have-in-washington/)
One of the funniest fucking printed comments I have ever read in a political context comes just three sentences into this report...
"The leaks, which are a major taboo in Washington..."
Otherwise, congressional aides are no more that what they were described as in the article...
...low-rent, self-dealing bagmen
Every good gangster needs a bagman to make his deliveries so he can keep his OWN hands clean, and we have some of the best gangsters money can buy.
Lets have a quick show of hands: who is surprised as this little bit of beltway politics?
(1VB)compforce
10-29-2013, 09:59
So....way back when, the current administration held up the UK's NHS as a shining example of the value of socialized....errr, I mean Government run... medicine. Well, guess what:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-pulls-the-plug-on-its-11bn-it-system-2330906.html
To be clear, this is not the signup site, this is the centralized patient record database. One of the key components of Obamacare is the requirement that all patient records be digitized and submitted to a central database by 2014. My question is, "If the UK couldn't do it in 9 years and USD$17.6B, what in the world makes us think we can do it in 4 years?" You can't say that the reason is because we are better at IT, the UK project was using US companies as the prime contractors, namely Accenture and CSC (after Accenture walked away).
I actually agree with the idea of patient records being shared among health care institutions. I definitely don't think it should be rushed even if the government does it. Security professionals and Privacy advocates are having a heart attack over this one.
I not sure if the question of travel has come up yet, but I have Canadian friends who own a house here in AZ, but, because of their healthcare system, cannot stay away from Ontario for more than 180 days. Each province has it's own restrictions; one (probably Quebec) is 120 days. As my friend explained it, that's out of the province...not Canada. Can anyone confirm this?
Pat
...so Candian health care effectively restricts your travel outside of any specific province?
Is there a penalty if a law abiding loyal Canadian citizen stays gone for 181 days?
...so Candian health care effectively restricts your travel outside of any specific province?
Is there a penalty if a law abiding loyal Canadian citizen stays gone for 181 days?
This is what I found:
Being out of your Province in excess of the stipulated time generally means your coverage will be either denied or substantially reduced.
No mention about whether it's permanently denied or just for the excess time one is out of the province. Also, the six months is considered 183 days and the restriction is "6 months less one day" meaning 182 days. BC allows 7 months less one day and 12 months, less one day, once every 5 years.
Pat
Ret10Echo
10-29-2013, 14:25
...so Candian health care effectively restricts your travel outside of any specific province?
Hmmm....
Sorta like Stalin and the Chinese Communist population movement controls?
If a person must be tethered to their registered living quarters or risk denial of "universal" health care then clearly, "universal" care means different things to different people. I'm sure the US would never consider limiting the availability of such a well designed "tax" (its not mandatory health care, its a tax - the SCOTUS said so) program like the ACA.
Sounds harmless enough.
If a person must be tethered to their registered living quarters or risk denial of "universal" health care then clearly, "universal" care means different things to different people. I'm sure the US would never consider limiting the availability of such a well designed "tax" (its not mandatory health care, its a tax - the SCOTUS said so) program like the ACA.
Sounds harmless enough.
And, that little black box idea comes in handy yet again.
Statist bastards...
:mad:
GratefulCitizen
10-31-2013, 21:34
Big inflation coming in health care.
Gonna hit the baby boomers hard.
Add to that the coming retirement crisis.
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/blog/morning-edition/2013/10/retirement-crisis-coming-as-boomers.html
Social security COLAs won't be keeping pace.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101155087
This will be ugly.
Logan's Run has arrived.
Big inflation coming in health care.
Gonna hit the baby boomers hard.
Add to that the coming retirement crisis.
http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/blog/morning-edition/2013/10/retirement-crisis-coming-as-boomers.html
Social security COLAs won't be keeping pace.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101155087
This will be ugly.
Logan's Run has arrived.
Obamacare might be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back. The pols need to pick a date in the not to distant future and tell people that as of a certain date, you will only get back what you put in. After another date beyond that, sorry, but your not going to get anything back. Another date, SSC is closed, but yay, you don't have to contribute anymore.
As a society, we are going to be forced to revert back to taking care of our own families as a unit, not living beyond our means, and making due with less. And most likely, people will be working until they are 80. We are going to implode if we don't.
The Reaper
11-01-2013, 07:21
Unfortunately, people working till they are 80 keep people in their 20s from being able to find jobs.
TR
I hear you TR. I think a number of things will have to occur to help us prevent that for happening.
First, there shouldn't be any jobs Americans are unwilling to do. Second, there are projections that the industries that children in the 3rd grade now will be involved in upon graduating high school haven't even been invented yet, which should open up new opportunities for the next generation. Third, people may have to relocate to other countries to where the employment for their skill sets are needed. Fourth,families may need to consolidate again.
Changes in our entitlements structure needs to happen and it needs to happen now if we are going to remain viable.
GratefulCitizen
11-01-2013, 09:03
Doesn't matter how unhappy people are with their health care.
Their votes can easily be countered.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/30/Election-Integrity-Activists-Obamacare-Biggest-Voter-Registration-Fraud-Scheme-in-History
ACA = So-called Affordable Con Act
Surf n Turf
11-01-2013, 14:11
there are projections that the industries that children in the 3rd grade now will be involved in upon graduating high school haven't even been invented yet, which should open up new opportunities for the next generation.
With all the uncertainty, lack of stability, plus the punitive view government has of business, why, in the current climate (tax obligations, healthcare requirements, EPA, utility costs, fuel costs, etc. ) is an entrepreneur going to put capital at risk to start any new venture (esp. one "not invented yet").
Changes in our entitlements structure needs to happen and it needs to happen now if we are going to remain viable.
Check the news in the next week for the reduction in EBT benefits, the "low" COLA for social security, the continued decrease in "workplace participation" rates, and you will get a glimpse as to why no changes will be coming. :(
SnT
With all the uncertainty, lack of stability, plus the punitive view government has of business, why, in the current climate (tax obligations, healthcare requirements, EPA, utility costs, fuel costs, etc. ) is an entrepreneur going to put capital at risk to start any new venture (esp. one "not invented yet").
Check the news in the next week for the reduction in EBT benefits, the "low" COLA for social security, the continued decrease in "workplace participation" rates, and you will get a glimpse as to why no changes will be coming. :(
SnT
The new industries may very well not be in this country but others. The world will continue on even if we have our issues, outside of a worldwide economic collapse.
And the likelihood of changes occurring are at zero, I agree, as the politicians that might propose wholesale change would never get elected. But it doesn't change the fact that if changes aren't made, we will be in a world of hurt and our situation very well could lead to a worldwide depression.
With all the uncertainty, lack of stability, plus the punitive view government has of business, why, in the current climate (tax obligations, healthcare requirements, EPA, utility costs, fuel costs, etc. ) is an entrepreneur going to put capital at risk to start any new venture (esp. one "not invented yet
Because that's what entrepreneurs do!!!
Ho'Bamacare:
Just when you thought you've seen everything, along comes what's called a "Healthy Ho's Party."
As reported by CNN Money, this is what a "sex worker" in San Francisco called her effort to register others in her "profession" in ObamaCare.
Organized by "Siouxsie Q," a Bay Area sex worker, the event was meant to encourage other sex workers to enroll in the new insurance exchanges. It was a rousing success: Nearly 40 men and women attended and almost all of them filed enrollment paperwork.
In the all-cash, off-the-books sex industry, workers can be particularly high risk and insurance is often out of reach. Many sex workers -- a broad term that can refer to a number of services, including sexual massage, prostitution, and escort and dominatrix work -- consider themselves self-employed entrepreneurs who can't afford to purchase healthcare. But that could all change with the Affordable Care Act. [...]
Volunteers from Siouxsie's weekly podcast, The WhoreCast, staffed the event. "Jolene," another sex worker who had already enrolled through the California exchange, was also on hand to talk users through the process. A key detail for the crowd: Enrollment doesn't require users to report their employment.
Before you just chuckle at the absurdity, consider that these folks are going to be getting subsidies for their policies because of their income:
Individuals making less than $46,000 are eligible for a tax credit to offset their monthly costs. Many of the sex workers at the event file W-2s for their legal work, whether it be a part-time job or sex work that falls within the law. Sex workers interviewed by CNNMoney estimated this income to be less than $45,000 a year.
One of the sex workers interviewed said she'd be receiving a credit of $211 a month.
So healthy young people beyond subsidizing unhealthy older people will also be helping to get prostitutes cheap health insurance.
Is that what Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) meant when she said we'd have to enact ObamaCare to find out what's in it?
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/11/01/healthy-hos-party-obamacare-registration-drive-prostitutes#ixzz2jR23PU5a
The comments are fun!
Pat
Anyone recall the Comcast commercials that featured the slow web speed glorifying tortoises?
Sounds fitting for the ACA Relaunch...
GratefulCitizen
11-02-2013, 10:57
Unfortunately, people working till they are 80 keep people in their 20s from being able to find jobs.
TR
Younger people don't spend their money in the same way as older people.
In marketplace spending, younger tend to compete with younger, older compete with older.
Less money in the hands of the young results in lower prices where they spend money.
More money in the hands of the old results in higher prices where they spend money (healthcare...).
Eventually, higher prices draw in more goods and services.
It takes quite some time both to replace retiring health care professionals and to expand that workforce to meet increased demand.
The ACA is just an attempt transfer wealth from young to old using money.
Even if the ACA "worked", this scheme wouldn't be effective.
Money isn't real.
Goods and services are real.
The laws of supply and demand cannot be repealed.
Inverted demographics put older people at a supply/demand disadvantage.
This has all been a long time coming, and has been obscured by a financial game of musical chairs.
Few chairs remain.
Anyone recall the Comcast commercials that featured the slow web speed glorifying tortoises?
Sounds fitting for the ACA Relaunch...
Kathleen Sebelius hired the Slowskys !
GratefulCitizen
11-02-2013, 22:30
Mulling over the individual mandate (tax).
Not sure all the details are correct, but this is what I've inferred.
If the average "bronze" premium in the state exchanges exceeds 8% of household income, then you're exempt from the tax.
If your income is above this level, it shouldn't be too difficult to lower tax withholding to a point where you won't get a refund.
There exists no mechanism to enforce collection of the tax other than decreasing a tax refund.
There is no penalty for not paying the tax.
People below the threshold are exempt.
People above the threshold can easily avoid it.
The individual mandate is unenforceable.
:D
GratefulCitizen
11-04-2013, 17:37
Krauthammer from last week.
http://youtu.be/tQqLeN0-SeU
Bet big, you might lose big.
Anyone else indulging in some schadenfreude?
:D
The Left is fixin' to start the drum beat of...
"We need to do something!"
"Just a few more laws with fix it."
"The Republicans are standing in the way of helping children."
"Come - come - come - hurry - hurry - we have to do it now!"
It will not stop until single payer - the government - is in place.
Beyond the technical problems with the web site and enrolling, and whether healthy Americans should be subsidizing unhealthy ones, etc etc, there is the basic issue of business practice. Is Obamacare good for American business?
The high cost would indicate a tough sell for the percentage of the population that will be paying. It has been for me, as I've seen my insurance costs on my current plan go up 130%, and I'll be losing it this month anyway. So I can just shop around, right? Well, no actually. My county has one choice on the Obamacare exchanges.
If you're in Arizona or Colorado, well I guess you're a lucky dog as you'll have more companies to choose from.
Obama’s Promise of “Competition” in Obamacare: Also False
LINK (http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/12/obamas-promise-of-competition-in-obamacare-also-false/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Demint)
Amy Payne
November 12, 2013 at 6:30 am
Here’s what the President said in 2009:
"My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. That’s how the market works. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75 percent of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90 percent is controlled by just one company. And without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down."
Heritage expert Alyene Senger has bad news for President Obama: Obamacare did absolutely nothing to fix that.
“In the vast majority of states, the number of insurers competing in the state’s exchange is actually less than the number of carriers that previously sold individual market policies in the state,” Senger reveals in a new report (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/11/obamacare-insurance-exchanges-and-the-lack-of-competition).
That’s right—unsurprisingly, Obamacare made another problem worse.
In Alabama—the state the President mentioned with concern in 2009—about 96 percent of that state’s counties will have only one insurer offering coverage in the exchange. This means the residents in those counties will have no choice of insurer in the exchange.
State exchange plans are offered—and priced—on a local basis. So Senger dug down to the county level to find out what Americans are facing.
The result: In more than half of the counties in the U.S., people have only one or two insurance carriers offering coverage on their exchanges.
So not only are Americans facing higher premiums on the Obamacare exchanges, but they also face very limited choice in terms of their insurers.
Sure, one carrier could offer multiple plans, but as Senger explains:
"While each participating insurer may offer multiple plans, the number of plans offered has little significance, because most are variations on the same basic design. Since Obamacare requires all exchange plans to offer a standardized minimum level of benefits, the differences between the plans is found mostly in variations on cost-sharing levels."
The bottom line: “The standardization of benefits combined with a lack of insurer competition means consumers in Obamacare’s exchanges will have very little choice.”
What would real competition look like in health insurance? Check out the conservative alternative to Obamacare (http://blog.heritage.org/2013/11/01/the-conservative-alternative-to-obamacare/).
Attached image from the above link "new report".
Snaquebite
11-13-2013, 14:30
Obamacare Ads....:eek:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/12/obamacare-ads-colorado_n_4261448.html
mojaveman
11-13-2013, 14:44
Multiple carriers in the region where I live but my payment would still go up about $100.00 per month. My employer, who because of the recession is trying everything he can to keep his doors open has already told me he will do everything he can not to get involved with this program. Ditto for many other business owners in California.
...as a parent, if you send your young child out unsupervised to carve a pumpkin with a machete, more is missing from your life than just insurance.
But hey, who better to worry about your kids than the government
...spend your money on booze and condoms; let the government worry about your health and welfare
Somehow i think these ads are a perfect illustration of the 'new normal'
mojaveman
11-13-2013, 15:42
Obamacare Ads
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/12/obamacare-ads-colorado_n_4261448.html
I wonder who the hell made those up. They were flat stupid.
Badger52
11-13-2013, 17:03
featured by Stossel's usual editorial page.
Why Obamacare is a Fantastic Success (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/21/why-obamacare-is-fantastic-success/). It's their win, if they can drag it out long enough.
The GOP needs to stop calling ObamaCare a “trainwreck.” That means it’s a mistake, or accident. That means it’s a gigantic flop, or failure. It’s NOT.
Issa conducts hearings & calls witnesses stupid. The 'stupid' witnesses are not; they are happy campers, remorse not necessary unless going for an Oscar.
(1VB)compforce
11-13-2013, 21:09
featured by Stossel's usual editorial page.
Why Obamacare is a Fantastic Success (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/21/why-obamacare-is-fantastic-success/). It's their win, if they can drag it out long enough.
Issa conducts hearings & calls witnesses stupid. The 'stupid' witnesses are not; they are happy campers, remorse not necessary unless going for an Oscar.
I agree with his basic premise, but Wayne Allen Root is all over the place with his allegations in an attempt to get people to buy his book. Here's another example:
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/what-obama-and-i-learned-at-columbia-how-to-destroy-america-from-within/
I'm not saying he's wrong, just that he's using his articles to plug his book and he'll say whatever it takes to get articles out that contain the ads.
Businesses cut full-time workers to meet Obamacare mandate, study says
http://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/r14/USA/Politics/2013/1113/Businesses-cut-full-time-workers-to-meet-Obamacare-mandate-study-says
"Washington — First, President Obama had to backtrack from his promise that if you like your health insurance plan, under Obamacare "you can keep it." Now, a new study is suggesting that, under Obamacare, "If you like your workweek, you can’t necessarily keep it, either."
About 30 percent of small franchises and 12 percent of other small businesses say they are cutting work hours – or swapping full-time for part-time workers – because of the law, according to a poll sponsored by business groups......."
Surprise, surprise, surprise - what took you so long.
While this thread has been running a long time there were a couple more started right around the time the ACA was getting kicked around.
When the 30 hours & 50 workers portion of the bill were revealed way back when everybody on this board knew all this was going to happen. A year ago the company my wife works for went from 55 to 49 employees just to get under the 50 worker cap.
Hey MSM, if you'd stop beating the Obama drum so loud for a bit you might hear the rest of the music.
And fixing it? Some talking head made the point that the bill itself is so large and intertwined that a "fix" here causes ripples all the way through the matrix.
Surely the POTUS can fix all of this by just talking it out with the insurance companies...
Obama care probably started out as a nobel cause. But in the end it was written under the direction of lobbyist. All the loopholes are benificial to big bussiness, AKA big doners. It has morphed into just another way to collect Tax revenue off the middle class. Most of the politicians who are speaking out against it now are the ones who voted for it.
Oldrotorhead
11-14-2013, 13:41
Maybe if the President cut his vacation time, golf rounds, card games and hoops in half he might find time to do his god damn job. Oh wait he "works hard"! ........................Nevermind.:eek:
If it were up to me every non-citizen in the country should be made to pay cash for everything from emergency care to food.................or die I don't care which they get the choice. :munchin
Obama care probably started out as a nobel cause...
I dont believe in altruistic government. The governed are left to their own devices unless there is something in it for the politician.
...they dont look for streets that need speed bumps to protect children. They hold fundraisers until someone asks "why" they havn't enacted "speed bump legislation"
...then they talk to their buddies in the DMV to find a contractor that can lay down a few speed bumps according to the photo-op schedule.
Politicians aren't interested in health care... they already have health care
for life
for free
for only serving one term
They only care about health care for the masses when a voter pushes out grandma' in her wheelchair to crash the fundraiser to ask why grandma cant get insurance.
...even though grandma may have been a drug addicted stripper that used all her money for drugs and fast food when she was young.
THAT is when the politicians get concerned...
...but not until you parade grandma out in her wheelchair.
Just my opinion based on 'trends'
Oldrotorhead
11-14-2013, 15:01
Obama care probably started out as a nobel cause. But in the end it was written under the direction of lobbyist. All the loopholes are benificial to big bussiness, AKA big doners. It has morphed into just another way to collect Tax revenue off the middle class. Most of the politicians who are speaking out against it now are the ones who voted for it.
It MIGHT be a noble cause IF these clowns did it with their own money. When they force people to contribute at the point of a gun it isn't noble it is socialism bordering on National Socialism.
I think the whole thing is a bald attempt to buy the votes of the lazy and mentally lame.
Tangling with bureaucrats is often unpleasant, costly and time consuming.
One of the unintended consequences of Obamacare might be the hundreds and thousands of daily personal experiences with BIG Government incompetence - by those Americans who may not have previously enjoyed that pleasure - up close and personal.
An interesting premise and a couple of interesting observations contained in the article.
None Dare Call It Fascism
John C. Goodman | Nov 16, 2013
Townhall.com
Here is something that is odd.
For the past six years President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have waged a relentless attack on the health insurance industry. In the most recent iteration, the president assures us he is not responsible for the wave of health insurance policy cancellations. The insurance companies are.
Okay, so where is the other side?
When is the last time you saw an insurance industry executive interviewed on a TV talk show, presenting the industry's answer to all these attacks? You can't remember seeing that? I can't either.
Well what about the health insurance industry trade groups, the folks who are supposed to explain to Congress and the general public the industry's position? When is the last time you saw one of those representatives on TV? Can't remember? Nor can I.
Okay, let's try one more option. When is the last time you saw someone from a university or independent think tank giving the health insurance industry side of all the complaints that are being slung their way? Don't bother responding. We both know that answer as well.
I submit that this is not a small matter.
A free society requires the free flow of information. In any public policy dispute, if only one side is heard from, we are likely to get further and further away from the truth. The attackers will find there is no penalty for getting minor facts wrong or shading the truth. That will embolden them to make more serious errors, eventually resorting to downright lying. If the only entity providing any push back is the Washington Post fact checker, we are in real trouble. Roughly 99.99% of the population doesn't read the Washington Post.
But what threatens the foundations of a free society most of all is when it is the government (and its allies in the private sector) who are doing the attacking, and when the reason there is no response is that the victims of the attacks have been threatened and bullied into silence.
I believe that is where we are today - not just with respect to health insurance, but with respect to health care generally. I'm afraid other industries are not far behind.
During the debate leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, I talked to a number of CEOs of large health insurance companies. I frequently heard such comments as, "Don't tell anyone I told you this" or, "If you use this information, don't mention my name" and even, "Don't tell anyone that we ever had this conversation."
As far as I can tell, things have gotten worse. In fact I don't know any employee of any health insurance company that is willing to go on the record with any statement that is critical of the Affordable Care Act.
Now it's possible that my experience is unique. And I know that there are many readers of this blog who also interact with folks in the industry. So if I'm wrong about this, please correct me in the comments.
The result is unanswered charges that are getting more and more reckless. Within the past two weeks, for example, we have had the president himself, David Axelrod, Zeke Emanuel and others all asserting…
[BTW, have you ever noticed how Republicans in public tend to speak their own mind and as a result all seem to say something different? That doesn't happen to Democrats. When they go on TV they are the epitome of the disciplined message. They all say the same thing, even using the very same words. Have those words been tested before focus groups prior to the Democrats even appearing before the cameras? I would bet so.]
Anyway, back to the most recent charge, which is that under the pre-Obama system insurers cancelled policies after people got sick. Really? So says the president. And Axelrod. And Emanuel.
Hmmm. I remember when one insurer got hit with one of the biggest judgments ever because the insurer would not approve a bone marrow transplant to treat breast cancer (a procedure we all now know doesn't work). Are we supposed to believe that these same companies routinely cancel policies and refuse to pay medical bills just because someone gets sick?
Please, give us an example. I don't believe you.
In the early 1980s (while there was still a Berlin Wall), I went through Check Point Charlie from West Berlin to East Berlin. On either side of the wall, there were the same people with the same culture, same genes, etc. The only difference was a difference of political systems, and because of that difference East Berlin was of course poorer.
After about an hour of touring, though, I sensed that there was some other difference and it took me a while to pin point it. In East Berlin, no one smiled. No one laughed. No one joked. People looked at us and at each other with hesitation and even apprehension. Were we really tourists? Or might we be posing as tourists to report on their behavior?
If I could summarize everything in one word, it would be "fear." The East Germans were afraid. You could see it in their eyes. And that was something you never saw in the West.
So why am I telling you about a 30-year-old experience? Because I sense that same feeling again ? ...right here, in the United States.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2013/11/16/none-dare-call-it-fascism-n1747247/page/full
GratefulCitizen
11-18-2013, 08:28
Oops!
:D
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/11/one_weird_trick_to_circumvent_the_obamacare_nightm are.html
If you're a "young invincible", just go with short-term insurance (exempt from the law, cheap, but doesn't cover pre-existing).
If you later need something addressed which isn't covered, go get a policy from an exchange.
Outrunning the intent of the law by using collective intelligence to find loopholes.
This is a consequence of modern information technology, and will be the downfall of big government.
http://news.yahoo.com/obamacare-%e2%80%98success-story--says-she-can-t-afford-new-health-plan-225839697.html
So, in summary, she was okay with Obamacare when she thought the taxpayers were going to pay for it but not okay with it now that she will have to pay for it. These idiots vote. Perfect reason to have some criteria in order to vote like a certain level of income ($50k?:)), property owner, etc)
(...just playing Devil's Advocate).
The Devil, you say:
Another face of Obamacare, this little guy is only seven. Do any of our politicians really care?
A Gainesville, Texas family is fighting for their cancer-stricken child's life after he was removed from his insurance plan
Ron and Krista Alford’s seven-year-old boy Hunter is in need of another round of chemotherapy costing $50,000
He has lost his insurance after an administrative blunder caused by Obamacare
They face a desperate battle to get him back on his plan as he battle his life-threatening illness
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2515122/Hunter-Alford-7-born-cancer-loses-insurance-Obamacare.html