Obamacare is Constitutional
Quote: ParadigmFor 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)
Well, still ... if all those new employees were uninsured, we'd be in even bigger trouble than we are now ...
Quote:We need more new jobs now....
Sure, we do. But hopefully not at the expense of the health of our children ...
Quote:anything legislation that so broadly affects the economic decision of every small business to hire one more employee is apocayptic!
But it doesn't. Most small businesses already provide health insurance to the employees regulation or not anyway, so those are not affected in any way. Those that don't will face a small (yes, small) tax penalty. It sucks, I agree, but apocalyptic? Please ...
How many people do you sign the front of a paycheck for currently? It is the end of the month today.....did you run payroll for anyone besides yourself?
If the answer is zero, please quit commenting on small business for which you have no current experience.
Quote: ParadigmIf the answer is zero, please quit commenting on small business for which you have no current experience.
Hmmm ... does that mean you should quit commenting on laws unless you a member of the bar? Or, perhaps, on medical insurance issues unless you own an insurance company? Or on the economy in general? Or on the state of the health care.
I don't think so.
BTW, I was not commenting on how these costs affect small business. I was commenting on how they affect the economy as a whole. From what I can see, the effect is negligible, if any at all. As for small businesses, that don't want to buy insurance for their employees (most do) ...
Like I said before, I kinda feel their pain, and I am sorry, that they end up being the ones to pay for the brain washed public's stupidity and ineptness (even though, the owners being part of the public are also to blame, at least in part, they brought it upon themselves). Tough life. But it's no apocalypse by any measure.
I didn't think so.Quote: SOOPOOI do not know of a single practicing physician
Quote: rxwineQuote: 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.
No, the $400K was being paid by other people buying health insurance, not taxpayers. After yesterday's decision, it will now be paid for by the people who previously would not have bought health insurance.
Quote: s2dbakerI didn't think so.
Hey baker- if you are going to qoute me , then QUOTE ME. I work every day with practicing physicians. None are in favor of Obamacare.
Quote: EnvyBonusNo, the $400K was being paid by other people buying health insurance, not taxpayers.
No, if insurers rejected coverage, taxpayers would have to pick up the bill. Now it will be paid by other people buying the insurance. But, given that it is really the same group ... I say "six", you say "half dozen".
Quote:After yesterday's decision, it will now be paid for by the people who previously would not have bought health insurance.
... and would have to be taken care of by the taxpayers if their health took a turn to the worse.
Quote: SOOPOOI 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!
An actual practising doctor speaks up on the subject
and everybody is silent. My doctor said the same thing,
every doctor he knows in 100% against it and will
be leaving the profession in droves if it goes thru. He
had a dozen reasons, and they all added up to 'its
just not worth the hassle'.
Whenever sombody says name just one gov't run agency
thats not a total cluster flock, they'll say the highway system,
roads are great! Name one gov't owned road building
company. There aren't any. All roads in this country are
built by private contractors. The private sector.
The gov't will screw up heath care just like they absolutely
screw up everything else. My son is a major in the AF and
he says the waste he see's on a daily basis makes him crazy,
so he doesn't think about it. Health care won't be any different.
Quote: EvenBobAn actual practising doctor speaks up on the subject
and everybody is silent. My doctor said the same thing,
every doctor he knows in 100% against it and will
be leaving the profession in droves if it goes thru.
With all due respect to SOOPOO and other doctors, that does not mean very much. If somebody told me that my income was going to go down, I would not like it either. But just because you say so, and I don't like it, it does not make it true.
Also, if you tell me today, that my income will go down in two years, I will not like it, and, maybe, even start looking into possibilities of changing my occupation. But just because I think about something, does not mean I am going to do it. For that to actually happen, two things need to fall into place: my income would really have to go down significantly, and I need to be able to find some other occupation where I could make more money with at most as much effort, and without hating it too much. While I believe that the first condition is extremely unlikely (it is possible, but I see no rational reason for it to happen - when demand grows - and it will grow, incomes rise, not fall), the second one seems just completely impossible. A few doctors may decide to retire ... but beyond that ... I don't think so.
Again, look at Massachusetts as an indicator. Is there a shortage of doctors, or a huge wave of new computer programmers who used to be surgeons? Nope.
So, stop panicking. Obamacare does suck. But the reason it sucks is because it will make no difference whatsoever on the large scale. And God knows we need something that will make that difference at last.
Quote: weaselmanWith all due respect to SOOPOO and other doctors, that does not mean very much.
Whatever you say, you're the expert on every subject
that comes up.
that comes up."
UH, oh. Have I lost my job here ?
Quote:The American Medical Association has long supported health insurance coverage for all, and we are pleased that this decision means millions of Americans can look forward to the coverage they need to get healthy and stay healthy.
“The AMA remains committed to working on behalf of America's physicians and patients to ensure the law continues to be implemented in ways that support and incentivize better health outcomes and improve the nation's health care system.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2012-06-28-supreme-court-health-care-reform-decision.page
Quote: rxwineQuote:The American Medical Association has long supported health insurance coverage for all, and we are pleased that this decision means millions of Americans can look forward to the coverage they need to get healthy and stay healthy.
“The AMA remains committed to working on behalf of America's physicians and patients to ensure the law continues to be implemented in ways that support and incentivize better health outcomes and improve the nation's health care system.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2012-06-28-supreme-court-health-care-reform-decision.page
Meaningless. The AMA is not your individual doctor. This is no different than a labor union endorsing a lib candidate even when the rank and file do not support them.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: rxwineQuote:The American Medical Association has long supported health insurance coverage for all, and we are pleased that this decision means millions of Americans can look forward to the coverage they need to get healthy and stay healthy.
“The AMA remains committed to working on behalf of America's physicians and patients to ensure the law continues to be implemented in ways that support and incentivize better health outcomes and improve the nation's health care system.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/news/news/2012-06-28-supreme-court-health-care-reform-decision.page
Meaningless. The AMA is not your individual doctor. This is no different than a labor union endorsing a lib candidate even when the rank and file do not support them.
Even if 100% of doctors are against it, you still need a viable alternative to offer instead. One that is not a complete fantasy.
Quote: rxwine
Even if 100% of doctors are against it, you still need a viable alternative to offer instead. One that is not a complete fantasy.
Here is the alternative--deregulate as much as possible of what we have. Why on earth is there some requirement that the government "do something." For crying out loud, just let the market work for once.
Quote: AZDuffmanHere is the alternative--deregulate as much as possible of what we have. Why on earth is there some requirement that the government "do something." For crying out loud, just let the market work for once.
The logical fallacy in the entire healthcare debate is that if an indigent, homeless guy develops a heart condition, he is somehow entitled to $1,500,000.00 worth of medical care. Why not toss in a condo on the beach and a Lexus too?
Quote: AZDuffmanHere is the alternative--deregulate as much as possible of what we have.
Just do two things. Cap how much lawyers can go
after for pain and suffering in lawsuits. And allow
insurance companies to compete over state lines.
Let me buy insurance from a company in DE if I want.
Is that so hard?
Quote: QuadDeucesThe logical fallacy in the entire healthcare debate is that if an indigent, homeless guy develops a heart condition, he is somehow entitled to $1,500,000.00 worth of medical care. Why not toss in a condo on the beach and a Lexus too?
There's probably people here who think that homeless guy could be less of a burden to society than George Soros. Wealth doesn't necessarily make you deserving of anything.
Quote: rxwineThere's probably people here who think that homeless guy could be less of a burden to society than George Soros. Wealth doesn't necessarily make you deserving of anything.
But wealth does give you the ability to purchase what you want, not demand it from society for free.
Quote: AZDuffmanBut wealth does give you the ability to purchase what you want, not demand it from society for free.
Well, when old people run out of savings, the government provides medical care. They don't deserve it right. Once they run out of money?
No reason to make an exception there.
If a janitor works hard and can't afford health care, that's okay? Right? Old people who run out of money, who worked hard, but didn't have enough money should not get health care too, 'cause it's going to be free at that point, right?
Quote: rxwineThere's probably people here who think that homeless guy could be less of a burden to society than George Soros. Wealth doesn't necessarily make you deserving of anything.
BS. Wealth means you can buy 1,500,000.00 worth of medical care.
Quote: QuadDeucesBS. Wealth means you can buy 1,500,000.00 worth of medical care.
It means you buy 1,500,000 worth of explosives and kill innocent people too. It means a lot of things, but it doesn't necessarly make a person deserving of anything more than a poor person.
Quote: rxwineIt means you buy 1,500,000 worth of explosives and kill innocent people too. It means a lot of things, but it doesn't necessarly make a person deserving of anything more than a poor person.
Completely preposterous argument.
Hell, give everyone a villa in the south of France, too.
And a ranch full of thoroughbreds north of Santa Barbara.
Quote: QuadDeucesCompletely preposterous argument.
Hell, give everyone a villa in the south of France, too.
And a ranch full of thoroughbreds north of Santa Barbara.
You can assign a specific value of someone's life through ability to pay, but it makes as much sense as saying Kadaffi or Saddam were valuable for their net worth.
You don't know what harm or good someone is using their wealth for. They could be hiding the fact that their multimillion dollar factory is making a toxic waste dump in someone's neigbhorhood. Right now, the bum on the street could be the guy that just got his last unemployment check (which could be true in this economy) and next year could be back as a supervisor at some thriving company.
We just provide health care as needed, and we all pay into it. Some will need more; some will need less.
All who think they need elective stuff--now they can pay their own way for that.
Quote: EvenBobJust do two things. Cap how much lawyers can go
after for pain and suffering in lawsuits. And allow
insurance companies to compete over state lines.
Let me buy insurance from a company in DE if I want.
Is that so hard?
Thank you for finally proposing a sound alternative.
Quote: QuadDeucesThe logical fallacy in the entire healthcare debate is that if an indigent, homeless guy develops a heart condition, he is somehow entitled to $1,500,000.00 worth of medical care. Why not toss in a condo on the beach and a Lexus too?
Good point! Just let the schmuck die in pain. Maybe it was his own fault, and nobody cares about him anyway! But wait ... what if he gets cholera or anthrax instead of a heard condition? That might get dangerous ...
Why not just collect all those guys in one place as a preventive measure, and just gas them to death. It'd be more humane then letting them die slowly of a heart failure anyway, and safer for us, the normal folks too.
In case you really don't get the difference. He will not die without a condo or a Lexus. I am kinda sorry for you if these things really need to be explained.
Quote: rxwineIt means you buy 1,500,000 worth of explosives and kill innocent people too. It means a lot of things, but it doesn't necessarly make a person deserving of anything more than a poor person.
Here is the flaw--making the jugment on who "deserves" something.
Quote: QuadDeucesThe logical fallacy in the entire healthcare debate is that if an indigent, homeless guy develops a heart condition, he is somehow entitled to $1,500,000.00 worth of medical care. Why not toss in a condo on the beach and a Lexus too?
Out of curiosity, which logical fallacy do you think that is?
Here is my favorite part:
"In fact, Congress made things even easier. The only consequence for failing to pay the tax was that your income tax refund would be reduced by a bit. And if you didn't have a tax refund that year, there were no consequences at all!"
So, all someone has to do to avoid this tax is to change their withholding to make sure that they have no refund to apply the tax to? That should be the goal of every citiizen already - nobody wants to give a 0% interest loan to the government!
Quote: rdw4potusOut of curiosity, which logical fallacy do you think that is?
Slippery slope :)
limit the amount doctors can earn, limit the choices of testing
that they can do, and limit the drugs and other therapies that
doctors would normally be able to utilize. It means the best and
brightest will stay out of medicine and the quality of care for all
of us will constantly go down, as prices inevitably rise. We'll be
going backwards instead of forward. Only the rich will be able
to afford the best care. By that I mean only the rich will be able
to afford the care you're getting now.
Quote: buzzpaffBob. look on the bright side. You and I will be dead before this happens.
My kids and grandkids won't be.
Proving once again " Only the GOOD die young" LOL
Now you're just lying.Quote: SOOPOOHey baker- if you are going to qoute me , then QUOTE ME. I work every day with practicing physicians. None are in favor of Obamacare.
Quote: s2dbakerNow you're just lying.
You think SooPoo is lying? You really believe doctors love Obamacare?
List their reasons.
How about having to treat fewer uninsured people for free, and getting paid for their work for a change?Quote: EvenBob
List their reasons.
Quote: rxwineI don't know the specifics but the ACA _“-simplifies administrative burdens, including streamlining insurance claims, so physicians and their staff can spend more time with patients and less time on paperwork."
Bwahahahaha. This is the federal government we're talking about. You can't really believe that...
Quote: QuadDeucesBwahahahaha. This is the federal government we're talking about. You can't really believe that...
Exactly. A huge portion of the doctors patients
will be Medicaid when the law takes effect. Look
at the calculator I posted. If you're below a
certain income level, you automatically get
Medicaid. Much of Medicaid comes from the
state you're in and the Court just said
a state doesn't have to participate if they
don't want to. So many states are almost broke
now, they will all opt out. So the poor will be
in the same boat they're in now, no health
insurance. Obamacare is the biggest cluster
frick of all time.
Quote: EvenBobSo the poor will be
in the same boat they're in now, no health
insurance.
So, nothing changes then? Where's the apocalypse?
Quote: weaselmanSo, nothing changes then? Where's the apocalypse?
Its in black and white right in front of you.
If you fall below the income requirements,
you get Medicaid. The gov't said the states
have to cough up part of the money.
The Court on Thursday said they don't. Uh oh...
Most states with Repub governors are already
saying they will ignore Obamacare and there's
nothing the gov't can do to them. Its all over
the news.
Quote: weaselmanHow about having to treat fewer uninsured people for free, and getting paid for their work for a change?
Which doctors (other than residents, interns and the like) "have to treat" uninsured patients without pay?
Quote: rxwineI don't know the specifics but the ACA _“-simplifies administrative burdens, including streamlining insurance claims, so physicians and their staff can spend more time with patients and less time on paperwork."
The US Government invented paperwork. Anyone who believes the government running something will make it administratively simpler thinks 6:5 is better than 3:2 because 6>3.
Seriously--has anyone ever seen even the "streamlined" listings for governmnet jobs? They are all listed in one place, but the paperwork to even apply made me say, "screw this" as if it is that hard to even apply I cannot imagine the daily work you need to to. You probably can't even go to the bathroom without the right approvals.
"Simplifies administrative burdens." Are they serious? Are they serious??
Quote: SanchoPanzaWhich doctors (other than residents, interns and the like) "have to treat" uninsured patients without pay?
Every doctor at every public hospital in America.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe US Government invented paperwork. Anyone who believes the government running something will make it administratively simpler thinks 6:5 is better than 3:2 because 6>3.
Seriously--has anyone ever seen even the "streamlined" listings for governmnet jobs? They are all listed in one place, but the paperwork to even apply made me say, "screw this" as if it is that hard to even apply I cannot imagine the daily work you need to to. You probably can't even go to the bathroom without the right approvals.
"Simplifies administrative burdens." Are they serious? Are they serious??
Doesn't this pretty much just replace one government process with another? The paperwork for treating an uninsured person is replaced with the paperwork for getting insurance. There's no additional paperwork for already-insured persons (there's also very little incremental governmental involvement with those persons).
Quote: SanchoPanzaWhich doctors (other than residents, interns and the like) "have to treat" uninsured patients without pay?
Any physician that works in any ER. You must treat the patient regardless of their ability to pay. If you are a surgeon on call at that hospital you are likely to do the surgery for free. My group will send the patient a bill, but often times the 'gentleman' who was stabbed while stiffing another 'gentleman' during a drug deal will often somehow forget to send us a check. By the way, doctors consider Medicaid patients as uninsured. The laughably low reimbursements do not even cover the cost of providing care. Obamacare greatly increases the Medicaid rolls, which is perhaps the main reason practicing physicians are against Obamacare. If Blue Cross will pay me $100 for procedure X, Medicaid pays me $13.
Quote: SOOPOOObamacare greatly increases the Medicaid rolls, which is perhaps the main reason practicing physicians are against Obamacare. .
I'll say it again, in case some of you weren't paying
attention.
The 'free' healthcare that all the people who don't
have healthcare now will get, will be Medicaid. Thats right,
good old, piss poor, rife with fraud Medicaid. That
doesn't pay doctors shit for their services.
Will it be a new and improved Medicaid? Noooooo.
Its the same old, always broke, always slow to
reimburse crappy product we've had forever. This is
the centerpiece of Obamacare. Isn't that special?
