Obamacare is Constitutional
Contracts have fine print about pre-existing conditions. If you want to start a new thread about how ObamaKenyanCommieWilliamAyersHUSSEINHUSSEINNation contract law is meaningless and maybe cite an example or two, feel free otherwise you're a crazy cat lady.Quote: QuadDeucesThey can't cancel it now. It's a contract.
Oh, that's right, in the ObamaNation contract law is meaningless too.
Quote: QuadDeucesThey can't cancel it now. It's a contract.
Of course they can. Just like your auto insurance can drop you after multiple moving violations, your homeowners insurance can drop you after many claims, etc.
Quote: QuadDeuces
Nice Argumentum ad Populum.
If you want European democratic socialism so badly, move to a European democratic country.
This is a pretty nice argument too.
What European democratic country do you know that will allow me to immigrate there?
Quote: s2dbakerYou may self-deport yourself if this country isn't free enough for you.
It'd be hard to self-deport anyone else... (Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
Quote: UWPeteOSo I guess every other first world democracy has it wrong, and America has the right system? Surely the ACA is not the perfect bill, but it's a step in the right direction. Clearly we're missing something:
Healthcare Expenditure Per Capita
Healthcare Spending vs. GDP
Practically any first-year sociology students could point up the flaws in these reports in a matter of minutes. Not just the makeup and practices of the population cohort, but also important elements like the environment, including temperature, humidity, natural disasters and so on, hazards like dangerous flora and fauna, as well as genetic history, general public health customs and practices along with a host of other factors affect the mortality and morbidity rates.
The FIRST patient is examined within the hour, is x-rayed the same day and has a time booked for surgery the following week.
The SECOND sees his family doctor after waiting 3 weeks for an appointment, then waits 8 weeks to see a specialist, then gets an x-ray, which isn't reviewed for another week and finally has his surgery scheduled for 6 months from then pending the review board’s decision on his age and remaining value to society.
Why the different treatment for the two patients?
The FIRST is a Golden Retriever taken to a vet.
The SECOND is a Senior Citizen on ObamaCare.
Quote: weaselmanWhat European democratic country do you know that will allow me to immigrate there?
That stringently enforced law is definitely a fly in the ointment. Unless you are wealthy or spectacularly talented.
When we get gov't healthcare, it will be how about Oct 14th? My wife had to
have an MRI last month. The told her on Tue and she had it on Friday. My
brother in law in Canada needed one last year and he waited 7 months. He needed
a hip replaced and waited 2 years. This is what we have to look forward to
unless Obamacare is repealed.
I really think this is going to blow up in Obama's face. Give it months for this to come out. The majority of people already did not want it, and those people are even more pissed off now.
He should have went to Kingston General Hospital. Their wait times are above average for Canada but far shorter than two years!Quote: EvenBobI made a doctors appointment yesterday. They said how about next Tuesday?
When we get gov't healthcare, it will be how about Oct 14th? My wife had to
have an MRI last month. The told her on Tue and she had it on Friday. My
brother in law in Canada needed one last year and he waited 7 months. He needed
a hip replaced and waited 2 years. This is what we have to look forward to
unless Obamacare is repealed.
Quote: SanchoPanzaThat stringently enforced law is definitely a fly in the ointment. Unless you are wealthy or spectacularly talented.
If I was either of those things, I would not have to care what country I live in in the first place.
It will be with us the rest of our lives.
I know that I will be paying higher premiums and will get poorer healthcare as the years go by.
Just look at public education and you will see what the federal government can do to a once great institution; American kids are ranked at the 3rd world education level now.
Citizens always get what they deserve.............
Quote: EvenBobI made a doctors appointment yesterday. They said how about next Tuesday?
When we get gov't healthcare, it will be how about Oct 14th? My wife had to
have an MRI last month. The told her on Tue and she had it on Friday. My
brother in law in Canada needed one last year and he waited 7 months. He needed
a hip replaced and waited 2 years. This is what we have to look forward to
unless Obamacare is repealed.
Why do you think that'll change? Will the number of MRI machines go down? Will Doctors become less responsible and order more tests for everyone? I don't see either of those things happening as a result of this law, and they seem to be the only variables here.
Quote: rdw4potusWhy do you think that'll change? Will the number of MRI machines go down?
What you read in every article about Obamacare is that
when it goes into effect, doctors will be swamped with
appointments from people wanting their 'free' healthcare.
They know this because it happens in other countries.
The strain on existing infrastructure will be enormous.
There will be a shortage of doctors and equipment, that
will get worse as time goes on. It has to happen, its inevitable.
But at least everybody will be equally miserable, thats
whats so fair about it.
Quote: EvenBobWhat you read in every article about Obamacare is that
when it goes into effect, doctors will be swamped with
appointments from people wanting their 'free' healthcare.
They know this because it happens in other countries.
The strain on existing infrastructure will be enormous.
There will be a shortage of doctors and equipment, that
will get worse as time goes on. It has to happen, its inevitable.
But at least everybody will be equally miserable, thats
whats so fair about it.
It seems to me that the right can either whine about the penalty/tax, or complain about lines of people wanting "free" health care. I'm having a hard time seeing how the GOP can possibly advance both arguments. Also, general practitioners set their own client limits and have no obligation to see more people. i don't believe the li(n)e that there will be a shortage of doctors, but if there were a doctor shortage it wouldn't affect you - you already have one. And MRIs are major machines for serious conditions. People who need an MRI or similar test are almost certainly already getting them, and taxpayers are already footing that bill since uninsured folks get MRIs through ER admittances every day.
Single medical premiums generally run $250-600 a month currently, depending on the benefit plan and location. That's $3,000-7,200/year. It will definitely be economically feasible for some people to just pay the 'tax' rather than participate, if they choose not to.
Quote: QuadDeucesSomalia might be an improvement.
Actually I thought it over and there has to be a warm island somwhere looking for someome to work at their online sportsbook and poker room.
Quote: rxwineIn that case, we should have the option of paying a tax penalty or buying car insurance if such a system is more economical.
As long as your car is not financed you are not forced by anybody to purchase auto insurance.
To drive you need to have LIABILITY insurance.
Though Obama is not smart enough to notice the difference based on using this example, please understand this board is smart enough to know the difference.
Quote: aceofspadesThe underwriters are loving this - the government forcing citizens to purchase their product (if only I could get the government to force people to use my services).
No, actually we aren't! I'm an underwriter in the Small Group Department for a Fortune 100 insurance company. Obamacare is hurting us because it is removing our ability to weed out the bad risk individuals. Universal acceptance means we can no longer reject the employee who's dependent child has a congenital blood disease that costs $400,000 a year in medication.
Or the employee who is 56 years old, 5'4" tall, weighing 315 lbs, smokes, is on half a dozen different medications, and has a cholesterol level of 350. Not only do we have to take them on, we can't even rate them higher than the employee who has a BMI of 12 with 8% body fat and works out 6 days a week.
By putting the bad eggs in with the good, you are effectively increasing the overall risk of the whole basket and therefore increasing the average cost per person.
Quote: rdw4potusWhy do you think that'll change? Will the number of MRI machines go down?
If the return on investment goes down, yes.
Quote:Will Doctors become less responsible and order more tests for everyone?
That or they'll order less, even if they're necessary, because there will be penalties for ordering "too many." Just look at what MDs have to deal with because of pain medication and the war on drugs.
Quote:I don't see either of those things happening as a result of this law, and they seem to be the only variables here.
Good for you.
Anyways, this link made me laugh...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare
My favourite is : "I'm moving to Canada, the United States is entirely too socialist.".
Quote: Toes14Universal acceptance means we can no longer reject the employee who's dependent child has a congenital blood disease that costs $400,000 a year in medication. .
Again, taxpayers are probably paying this anyway. Everyone can pretend these things will get paid magically if Obamacare isn't there, but it falls on our heads anyway
.
Quote: Gabes22I just think the way we do health insurance is this country is so backwards. The way insurance works is they group you into a risk pool and in that risk pool you are likely to have X amount of claims in a given year and then charge you premiums to make a profit on that. If I can pay my $200 for my annual checkup or for a routine visit if I have been sick for a few days, knowing full well that over the course of a year my insurance company is going to charge me more in premiums than it costs for the visit in the first place. I should be able to get a health plan that allows me to pay for the stuff I can afford to out of pocket. I NEED insurance if something happens to me and I need to spend the night in the hospital, if I need an expensive test or procedure. I really feel that if people paid for the basics, or routine maintenence out of pocket, that many companies could still afford to foot the entire bill for our health care coverage we actually need. I also find it criminal that to see my physician I NEED insurance. If I can write him a check or pay cash on the spot, why do I need insurance. It seems like a waste of money to me. I know this hasn't been written very eloquently, but to me having insurance for something you can afford to pay is throwing money down the toilet, it would be like if our auto insurance covered filling the tank, changing the oil and getting new tires, those are expenses that you need to cover for owning a car, just like you need to perform basic maintenence on your body.
I am by no means an insurance expert, but I was once in a situation where I had just quit my job and had no health insurance. Like you, I wanted to have coverage for a catastrophic event; basically anything that would put me in the hospital. I can count on one hand the number of times I've gone to the doctor in the past 6 years (ages 21-27, basically since I finished college), so I had no desire to pay out of pocket for a full health insurance plan.
I discussed this with a guy who was a recently retired independent insurance salesman, and he said for a person of my age and health, such a plan was doable. He estimated the premium would be something like $40/month, although we didn't get into deductibles and coverages. No preventative care, no doctor visits for getting sick, etc.; but if I broke my leg playing Ultimate and had to go to the ER, it would cover me for the thousands I would be on the hook for. This was back in 2010 or early 2011, so before ACA was passed.
Anyway, I never pursued said plan and did not regret it at that point in time. I'm in the same situation now, so I should look into it again. I have no idea if such a thing would be possible under the future regulations.
Quote: rdw4potusbut if there were a doctor shortage it wouldn't affect you - you already have one.
My doctor told me in 2009 that if Obummercare goes
into effect in 2014, he's retiring about 5 years early,
with about half his profession. He refuses to deal with
the gov't paperwork and working for pennies on the
dollar. He already does that with Medicare.
Quote: EvenBobMy doctor told me in 2009 that if Obummercare goes
into effect in 2014, he's retiring about 5 years early,
with about half his profession. He refuses to deal with
the gov't paperwork and working for pennies on the
dollar. He already does that with Medicare.
The doctor must be racist, not wanting to deal with a plan just because Obama's name has become attached to it.
Here is the thing, the healthcare system in this country is broken, and this is an attempt to fix it. If it doesn't work, and people are dying on the streets left and right (which of course is not going to happen anyway), then a different plan will come along and correct that problem.
So how about we see how it goes?
Quote: FinsRuleI doubt that everyone here who is being negative knows all the details of the plan that was upheld.
Here is the thing, the healthcare system in this country is broken, and this is an attempt to fix it. If it doesn't work, and people are dying on the streets left and right (which of course is not going to happen anyway), then a different plan will come along and correct that problem.
So how about we see how it goes?
The ruling was near 300 pages. After some time to digest it appears it has all the chance to be one of those rulings where the details will matter quitea bit in ways we do not yet know. It is going to be days to weeks before the legal community can really get a good read, even literal read. This stuff is compelx.
The first thing is that the "mandate" was not upheld, it was recast as a tax. No practical difference right now, it is still buy the approved policy or go to prison. But the concept that congress can compel commerce was shot down. Using some imagination one can see how this might be a defense for when they try to mke us buy electric cars or solar pannels for our homes. The former has already been tried in CA, the later is easy to imagine.
Time will tell. For now what has happened is the Tea Party has been set to a boil. Limbaugh said it right yesterday, boil tea and it gets stronger.
Biggest winner? Eric Holder--did the news even cover his historic contempt vote?
I think it's more likely that the doctor is a figment of his imagination since most Doctors support the law.Quote: AZDuffmanThe doctor must be racist, not wanting to deal with a plan just because Obama's name has become attached to it.
I'll have a full report on what should be a pretty unbiased look at what will be changing for most people.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe first thing is that the "mandate" was not upheld, it was recast as a tax. No practical difference right now, it is still buy the approved policy or go to prison.
Actually the penalty-recast-as-a-tax was upheld because it is NOT a criminal offense not to buy insurance, but rather your taxes will be higher by a certain amount if you don't get insurance. Thus no one will go to prison unless they fail to pay said tax.
Quote: AZDuffmanTime will tell. For now what has happened is the Tea Party has been set to a boil. Limbaugh said it right yesterday, boil tea and it gets stronger.
Boiling tea is an affront to my British Sensibilities. Boil tea and it gets nasty, astringent and not worth drinking. You should never boil tea. You should let it steep good and long, in very hot water, but the boiling water should only be applied to the tea at the start (and only with black tea - green, brown and white tea should be water off the boil).
I am sure you can run with that revised metaphor... :)
Quote: FinsRuleI doubt that everyone here who is being negative knows all the details of the plan that was upheld.
Here is the thing, the healthcare system in this country is broken,
I agree with that
Quote:and this is an attempt to fix it. If it doesn't work, and people are dying on the streets left and right (which of course is not going to happen anyway), then a different plan will come along and correct that problem.
So how about we see how it goes?
But I think the 'fix' mixes in more of the government and private into a blend that only exacerbates the current problem. It's not socialized medicine, and it's not a private play. It's somewhere in between, which is not friction-less, and therefor would appear to be even more inefficient than the current system.
Quote: thecesspitBoiling tea is an affront to my British Sensibilities. Boil tea and it gets nasty, astringent and not worth drinking. You should never boil tea. You should let it steep good and long, in very hot water, but the boiling water should only be applied to the tea at the start (and only with black tea - green, brown and white tea should be water off the boil).
I am sure you can run with that revised metaphor... :)
I probably can but need to work on it a little. Willing to do so because proper brit would never talk about "tea-bagging" even as a slur because I believe tea bags are anathema to a proper brit?
Quote: KellynbnfActually the penalty-recast-as-a-tax was upheld because it is NOT a criminal offense not to buy insurance, but rather your taxes will be higher by a certain amount if you don't get insurance. Thus no one will go to prison unless they fail to pay said tax.
Stop paying your taxes and see where they eventually send you. You might room with Mr Snipes.
Quote: AZDuffmanI probably can but need to work on it a little. Willing to do so because proper brit would never talk about "tea-bagging" even as a slur because I believe tea bags are anathema to a proper brit?
Nah, I use tea bags for my daily morning brew-up. The upper-middle classes might pretend they are "cheap", but they do the trick.
I am awaiting a resupply of them right now, actually (the ones here aren't as good). Loose leaf tea is better, but for a good strong cuppa, couple of tea bags in the teapot and let stand for a while. Perfect.
Ahem, yeah. I actually look forward to the 'Tea Party' vs. 'Big state' debate. If it can be civil (yeah, I know). The US needs to resolve it one way or another. Pork barrel politics is ruining the place.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe doctor must be racist, not wanting to deal with a plan just because Obama's name has become attached to it.
A racist no ... an idiot - definitely.
Quote: QuadDeuces
Nice Argumentum ad Populum.
Those aren't opinion polls, those are facts about the higher relative costs of healthcare in the US. So no, it's not a fallacy.
Quote: weaselmanA racist no ... an idiot - definitely.
Actually the doctor is behaving rationally. Lower somebody's income and they will eventually choose another form of enrichment. Doctors are smart people and more than one has gotten tired of medicine and done somehting else. A big decision given the sunk time and cost in their training, but they do it.
Quote: UWPeteOThose aren't opinion polls, those are facts about the higher relative costs of healthcare in the US. So no, it's not a fallacy.
All the best socialist countries are doing it.
Many people pay for excellent and get basic. There is too much truth in the saying " Doctor's get to bury their mistakes "
Quote: AZDuffmanActually the doctor is behaving rationally.
Rationally? You find it rational to base business decisions on a desire to make a political point?
Oh well ...
Quote:Lower somebody's income and they will eventually choose another form of enrichment.
Nobody has lowered his income. Not yet anyway, but he is already talking about quitting because Obama is pushing for some stupid plan.
Quote:Doctors are smart people and more than one has gotten tired of medicine and done somehting else.
Yeah ... but, if they really are smart, they don't base that decision on who is the current President.
FWIW, as far as I know, there has not been any reduction in the availability of medical professionals in Massachusetts after the plan similar to Obamacare was adopted there.
Quote: FinsRuleI'll be attending (is that the right word?) a webinar today at noon from Wells Fargo on healthcare reform and what it will mean to employer sponsored health insurances.
I'll have a full report on what should be a pretty unbiased look at what will be changing for most people.
Why I hate work/meetings - As of 12:21, all we have gone over is how the justices voted on the various rulings. Nothing yet about what it actually means for employers...
Of course, if they didn't read the bill they sure as hell won't read the decision.
Quote: weaselmanRationally? You find it rational to base business decisions on a desire to make a political point?
Oh well ...
Nobody has lowered his income. Not yet anyway, but he is already talking about quitting because Obama is pushing for some stupid plan.
No, it is rational to quit if you see your income being reduced. You are usig the same flawed logic I hear from the left all the time that "the regulation/loss of income/etc hasn't happened yet so nobody will have quit!"
Smart businesspeople plan further out than tomorrow. Changing careers takes time. Closing medical practice will take some time unless you decide to "just leave." You will want to wind it down in an orderly maner, do final billings, even just complete your office lease. So when a doctor looks at his practice, sees his revenue capped, and senses it is time to get out then he or she will start getting out. At first it might be no new patients. Then shorter hours and enjoy life more. Then one day you close the doors.
Behavior changes based on conditions. It is called "dynamic scoring." Liberals think you can change the rules of the game and people will keep playing same as before. Not the case.
Quote: AZDuffmanNo, it is rational to quit if you see your income being reduced.
He does not see his income being reduced.
In any event, you said "he is a racist because he wants to quit because Obama's name is attached for the plan".
I replied that if he really wants to quit for that reason, he is not a racist, but an idiot. Nothing here about income.
Quote:You are usig the same flawed logic I hear from the left all the time that "the regulation/loss of income/etc hasn't happened yet so nobody will have quit!"
Nobody will have to that's for sure.
What I am saying is that if his reason for quitting is reduced income, that may (or may not) be rational. If it is panic over income maybe going down in the future, when doctors stop coming from India, or if it is just rejection of Obama's stupidity, then it is not rational, but rather asinine.
Quote:Behavior changes based on conditions. It is called "dynamic scoring." Liberals think you can change the rules of the game and people will keep playing same as before. Not the case.
I don't know what liberals think. But regarding this particular issue, as I told you earlier, an enaction of a very similar plan in Massachusetts does not seem to have caused a disaster you are promising ... in fact, it hardly made any difference at all. There are some small business owners bitching about having to buy insurance for their employees now, and it is a little bit easier to get individual insurance than it used to be, but that's about all the impact that can be seen.
Quote: weaselman... in fact, it hardly made any difference at all. There are some small business owners bitching about having to buy insurance for their employees now.......but that's about all the impact that can be seen.
Small Business.....those capitalistic selfish pigs.....who cares what they think?
But wait, don't small businesses create like 2 out of 3 private sector jobs? But I am sure that having them "bitching about having to buy insurance for their employees" will have no impact on their plans for the number of employees to have on the payroll come 2014.
But who needs a job anyway, there will be some program out there to support those at the margin that don't get hired or get laid off because the cost of having them around just went up.
Quote: ParadigmSmall Business.....those capitalistic selfish pigs.....who cares what they think?
Don't get me wrong, I am no supporter of Obamacare or its Massachusetts equivalent.
Just saying that the outcome does not nearly resemble the apocalyptic picture some are trying to paint.
The small business owners - I feel their pain, and I am sorry they ended up having to pay for stupidity, ineptness and greed of the majority of American population.
But that's a topic for a different discussion. My point was simply that there is no noticeable shortage of doctors caused by the "Romneycare" nor is there any noticeable drop in their income.
For the sake of accuracy though:
Quote: ParadigmBut wait, don't small businesses create like 2 out of 3 private sector jobs?
No, it's actually about half (1 out of 2) of all private sector jobs. But the percentage of those who do not want to provide their employees with health insurance, and need to be "forced" to do that is even smaller than that. I seem to remember seeing statistics, that about 20% of working adults were uninsured before the reform, making your number at most like 1 out of 5 - and that is assuming that all working uninsured work for small business, which is definitely not true. Just look at Walmart. So, the real number is, probably, at most 1 out of 10 ... talk about exaggeration ...
Quote: s2dbakerI think it's more likely that the doctor is a figment of his imagination since most Doctors support the law.
I do not know of a single practicing physician who supports the law. Perhaps some ivory tower guys who dont actually take care of patients will see value for THEM in it. Any doctor who has dealt with Medicare/Medicaid wants government OUT of the health care business!
Quote: weaselmanFor the sake of accuracy though:
No, it's actually about half (1 out of 2) of all private sector jobs.
For the sake of accuracy......I said "create jobs".....so the number is 65% per the SBA (over the last 17 years, small businesses have created 65% of new jobs in the private sector)
We need more new jobs now........anything legislation that so broadly affects the economic decision of every small business to hire one more employee is apocayptic!
