| 0 |
Subject: SCOTUS Obamacare watch
Posted by: Perm Dude
- [3210201915] Wed, Jun 27, 2012, 18:01
Tomorrow SCOTUS is scheduled to release its decision on Obamacare. With such a divisive and close court, it would be foolish for me to predict what they will say but I'm curious what others think if SCOTUS, for instance, upholds Obamacare but knocks out the individual mandate? Or what do you think will happen if they knock the whole thing out--what will be the GOP response to the ending of a number of parts of Obamacare which have proven to be extremely popular.
Thoughts? |
Only the 50 most recent replies are currently shown. Click on this text to display hidden posts as well.
[Lengthy or complex threads may require a slight delay before updating.] |
| 156 | bibA
ID: 48854410
Mon, Sep 16, 2013, 20:19
|
I am seeing my family doctor and my dermatologist both within the next couple weeks. Am curious to see if this information is accurate.
|
| 157 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221
Mon, Sep 16, 2013, 21:16
|
OPINION page nonsense more than likely. Partisan hype, like the so called proviso that allows the govt to conduct forced home inspections. (A gross misrepresentation of the allowances for home health care for the late stages of a terminal illness.)
misrepresentation
the truth
|
| 158 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221
Mon, Sep 16, 2013, 21:41
|
oh, and as to the writer of your link B?
Betsy McCaughey, inventor of "death panels"
|
| 159 | Tree
ID: 317371816
Mon, Sep 16, 2013, 22:28
|
i see something like 155, and it makes me wonder if some people are born without a common sense switch - why is it some people see something that is instantly laughable, but others see it as the truth?
|
| 160 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923
Mon, Sep 16, 2013, 23:41
|
Wonkette spells it out, for those without critical thinking skills.
The Right loves Betsy McCaughey because she lied during the Clinton Administration to take down Hilarycare. But we really aren't so stupid as to believe her lies again, right? Right?
|
| 161 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221
Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 01:48
|
(post 160---see 158 lol)
|
| 162 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221
Tue, Sep 17, 2013, 01:50
|
The irony of course of McCaugheys taking down of Hillarycare, is that was what spurred the Heritage Foundation to come up with, and the GOP to introduce into the House (3 times), what we now know as "Obamacare".
|
| 163 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221
Thu, Sep 19, 2013, 17:59
|
Politifact says the claims in post 155, are "pants on fire" false
|
| 164 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923
Fri, Sep 20, 2013, 15:03
|
Email from Tom Corbett today includes the line: "President Barack Obama's so-called Affordable Care Act..."
It is "so-called" because that is its name.
What's next--"So-called Governor Tom Corbett?"
|
| 165 | Nuclear Gophers
ID: 598232015
Fri, Sep 20, 2013, 16:24
|
Because its going to be unaffordable duh
|
| 166 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221
Fri, Sep 20, 2013, 16:27
|
simply...un-true.
|
| 167 | Perm Dude
ID: 417342923
Fri, Sep 20, 2013, 16:57
|
Whether it is or not misses the point, and makes the point rather weak sauce. "So-called" is just petty, and from a guy who is at 17% approval territory I guess he's hoping people will think it is 2010 again and he can just run against Obamacare instead of on his actual record.
PA residents aren't stupid, however, and leaving billions of federal dollars on the table for Medicare in a state with its own budget problems is not something they will soon forget. Nor should they--it isn't the act of a fiscally responsible individual.
|
| 168 | biliruben
ID: 7751279
Mon, Sep 23, 2013, 09:41
|
Insurers create narrow networks.
What it sounds like to me is that they are avoiding doctors groups that have been bought by big hospitals.
I think that is an interesting tack, and a way to combat a real problem that has recently emerged. I have noticed, because I have an HSA and pay my own bills, that my seeing my boy's doctor can as much as triple if I see her in one clinic, owned by the Children's hospital here, compared to her home clinic.
Hospitals are buying the clinics, then passing on the costs of overhead of the hospitals to the clinic hospitals, even for a routine office visit.
It sounds like the insurers are fighting back at this tactic by redlining around these hospitals and physician groups.
Good on them.
|
| 169 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221
Mon, Sep 23, 2013, 12:30
|
Texas inadvertantly, runs headlong into the truth re "Obamacare"
This letter from a Texas agency is the best justification for Obamacare. This Texas government agency placed the wellbeing of Texans over politics.
|
| 170 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221
Wed, Sep 25, 2013, 13:05
|
This was posted on FB this morning, and I think it raises an interesting point. Defund Obamacare. It wouldn't matter. It would still be law and a lawsuit away form being court ordered into implementation; funded or not. Right?
Let's leave aside for a moment that every reason stated to oppose Obamacare is a lie, every single one.
Let's also not speak of how taking health insurance away from 30 million people is a horrible thing to aspire to accomplish.
Let's not think about Obamacare being the law of the land, passing the House, passing the Senate with a 60-vote super majority, being signed by a President, who has since been re-elected, and approved by the Supreme Court.
Let's not even consider the "doomed to fail" aspect of this exercise in windmill-tilting. We won't even mention that the right's desperation to kill this law is based on their knowledge that the law's success is their demise as a political party and the ideology of any sane person, all their lies and hate being exposed by those nasty, liberal facts.
Let's not waste time speaking of Ted Cruz's hypocrisy in thinking 41 Senators can undo what it took 60 Senators to do.
Let's definitely not talk about how just last year we had a Presidential election that right said was a referendum on Obamacare, that is until they lost, now they deny it vehemently, of course.
No, let's talk about this: de-funding Obamacare is inherently illegal and can't stand legal scrutiny even if it were to somehow succeed. This is why: if the law is simply not funded, it will still be on the books. It will still be the un-repealed law of the land. People will sue the federal government for not implementing it, they will win in court, and the government will be forced to fund the law.
This type of thing happens all the time, people suing the government to make them enforce the law, and when the plaintiffs are correct, they often win. People involved with environmentalism or forestry know this very well. Almost every environmental protection ever passed into law has been enforced by the courts, with the government having to be dragged kicking and screaming into compliance. The Forest Service has been dragged into court too many times to count, and only then have they actually done what environmental laws have required.
You see, a court can mandate that government do what it is supposed to, and tough luck if you don't have the money. They will be forced to come up with the money out of other budgets or programs, then those will have to be funded by Congress. When the funding for Obamacare occurs by court order, and the President takes it out of (perhaps) the military budget, then the Republicans will have to replace that money or let the military do without.
So, in our time of tight budgets, and a country in need of living-wage jobs more than any other single thing in my opinion, isn't it good to know that one of our two political parties is wasting everyone's time and money, and ignoring other important business, with their doomed attempts to sabotage the law of the land?
|
| 171 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221
Fri, Sep 27, 2013, 00:42
|
NOW, I understand why the GOP hates Obamacare SOOOOOOO much, and it has nothing at all to do with healthcare reform.
The 1993 Voters Rights Act, stipulates that anytime you apply for health insurance, you can also register to vote. The very LAST thing the GOP wants, is another 10,000,000 people showing up to vote. (Figure roughly 48,000,000 uninsured, some of whom are minors. If roughly 1/2 register and then half of those vote; that would be around 10 million more voters.)
link
|
| 172 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221
Sun, Sep 29, 2013, 13:45
|
Congress unanimous in agreement to repeal Obamacare, after T Cruz threatens to recite entire Twilight saga
|
| 173 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221
Mon, Sep 30, 2013, 00:01
|
THE best argument yet, in favor of true Universal healthcare:
"If we have a real flu pandemic in this country the 50 million Americans who don’t have insurance will be the primary vector . . . the way YOUR kids will catch the disease.
Universal health care is a national security issue. Period. Failure to provide it is dereliction of duty by members of Congress and should be treated accordingly.
— Seattle Dad"
a comment to this 2009 article:
45,000 deaths year, from lack of insurance
|
| 174 | sarge33rd
ID: 3871221
Mon, Sep 30, 2013, 00:27
|
The only GOP Presidential candidate who was never the frontrunner in 2012, is also the only GOP candidate from 2012, that had any chance at all in a national election. Turns out, he is still the most reasonable of the GOP, on the national scene.
|
| 175 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Wed, Apr 02, 2014, 11:04
|
Not Obamacare, but SCOTUS, as the Roberts Court finalizes the sale of the American republic to Fascism;
McCutcheon v. FEC: Supreme Court Strikes Down Overall Limits On Campaign Contributions
|
| 176 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Wed, Apr 02, 2014, 13:59
|
Once the idea of "campaign contributions = speech" entered into the equation, this was inevitable.
|
| 177 | Boldwin
ID: 4337818
Tue, Apr 08, 2014, 19:38
|
ObamaCare’s Net Impact: Roughly 3.6 million more uninsured since Bush administration.
And the existing system destroyed. BTW try getting a doctor these days. None of them accept medicaide either.
|
| 178 | weykool
ID: 474402717
Tue, Apr 08, 2014, 21:11
|
Lets not forget the millions of jobs put on hold.
Without a doubt the single largest jobs killing bill in the history of the US.
|
| 179 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 09:42
|
Since when is the number of uninsured subject to a poll? What's next: Gallup brings you the violent crime rates?
More than 9 million people got insurance for the first time as a result of Obamacare. This has long-term positive impact for our country.
The impact of the ACA on jobs is, right now, quite minimal. There are far greater things affecting the inability of the job market (principally, that companies are taking on less expansion risk, and are not offering raises by and large).
Anyone who believes this is a "jobs killing bill" felt that way before it was even passed. The actual facts on the ground aren't going to matter here.
|
| 180 | khahan
ID: 5332910
Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 11:04
|
More than 9 million people got insurance for the first time as a result of Obamacare
No, more than 9mil people have signed up but many of those were already insured. In fact as of early Nov 2013 4.2million Americans lost their plan due to the ACA. Now some were truly lost. Some were replaced etc. But the fact is you have to take into account the # of people who had insurance (sometimes better plans sometimes worse) when you look at the 9million enrolled number.
Its not 9million newly insured Americans. Its probably closer to 5. Now out of that 5, how many millions or even hundreds of thousands voluntarily switched without being accounted for in the 4.2mil that lost?
How many were 'kids' who just left their parents plan and got insurance for the first time but would have gotten it regardless of the ACA? How many were immigrants who only just qualified for the first time? How many were people who never had it before but just got the means and would have regardless of the aca? Maybe these last 3 categories aren't all that big.
Again, the point is that people are way over overstating the ACA. Its done some good. There are people who are using the credit vouchers to get insurance. But even that is questionable on how many people its helped from my discussions with an associate who is selling plans.
I'd say its done more harm than good so far. And it still doesn't address the fact that the government is telling citizens in a free country, "buy this product or else!!!" Something that on principle is a non-starter for me. I will never get past that sticking point.
|
| 191 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 15:58
|
According to a study by the Rand Corporation, more than 9 million people obtained health care insurance for the first time because of the ACA.
This is a net figure.
|
| 192 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Wed, Apr 09, 2014, 16:06
|
Meant to make one more point regarding the Gallup poll, and link: With so many people still getting their insurance through their employment, we would expect to see a jump in the uninsured rate when recession hits (as, of course, it did, near the end of the Bush term and then really slamming the country in early 2008).
This seems to have, oddly, been unmentioned in that link. Weird.
|
| 193 | biliruben
ID: 332321819
Thu, Apr 10, 2014, 13:59
|
The absurdity of ignoring the effect of the recession in the analysis just made me giggle. No serious rebuttle necessary for unserious number twisting.
|
| 194 | Boldwin
ID: 53342110
Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 01:54
|
RAND Comes Clean: Obamacare's Exchanges Enrolled Only 1.4 Million Previously Uninsured Individualsthe 1.4 million figure has a margin of error of 700,000, meaning that there is a 95 percent probability that the actual number is between 700,000 and 2.1 million previously uninsured enrollees.
|
| 195 | Khahan
ID: 59358119
Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 11:02
|
PD - From that same study you reference in 191:
"First, a significant amount of this increase comes from Medicaid enrollments, not private insurance. Almost six million people enrolled in Medicaid, and earlier studies showed that a relatively small number of those came from the expansion built into the ACA; most of these would have been Medicaid-eligible prior to the reform.
Another 8.2 million more people enrolled in employer-provided health care, as 7.1 million left the “other” category and another 1.6 million left the individual insurance markets. Only 3.9 million actually enrolled in insurance plans through state or federal exchanges – not 7.1 million as claimed by Obama. That number falls far short of even the lowered expectations issued by HHS and the White House earlier this year."
link for above paragraphs.
|
| 196 | Boldwin
ID: 53342110
Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 11:35
|
So we destroyed the American healthcare system to possibly only insure 700,000 people. I've heard the CBO's listed [and surely underestimated] cost of Obamacare works out to @75,000 per newly signed up and paying 'client'.
Some large corporations were forced to give insurance to less than 8 million people while tens of millions were never hired because the jobs weren't created, had their job opportunities dropped to @26 hours instead of fulltime, or gave up and joined the entirely government dependent class.
And virtually everyone lost the insurance they actually liked and saw an increase in premiums.
Meanwhile the people on this board and Obama who promised reduced insurance costs have not and probably never will apologize for misleading us.
|
| 197 | Bean
ID: 5292191
Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 12:11
|
How much wealth is too much? How much poverty is too much?
Which is more important, public healthcare or public education? How much of each is appropriate? Can we afford to do both at extremely high levels? What are the ramifications of trying and failing to do so?
Which is more valuable, public service or private job creation? How much of each is appropriate? Can these two things live in harmony, or is there a more basic issue of competition vs cooperation that makes their coexistence impossible?
You will never get any two people to agree on everything unless they decide to compromise, or learn to accept voting as a solution, even when they dont agree with the majority.
Is accepting the rule of the majority a virtue or a vice? I dont know the answer to that, and I know you dont either. It is, however, a basic tenant of our type of government that we accept the rule of the majority opinion. It is also a basic tenant of our form of government that we accept the authority of government officials when executing the results of that vote. As the commercial suggests "anything less would be uncivilized".
Honestly, everything that separates the right from the left in any culture really comes down to lessons we learned in early childhood. Sharing, standing up for yourself, and responsibility drive many of our social decisions. All but sociopaths agree the need for these things in equal balance. The problem we all have is that we dont trust the other's motivation when we dont agree with their idea of balance.
It's great to watch intelligent people debate these things to a conclusion. It is far less enjoyable to watch them perpetually debate the same things with no resolution.
|
| 198 | Boldwin
ID: 53342110
Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 14:55
|
For that you would have to find two intelligent sides.
When one side reflexively chooses proven failed ideas from long dead tyrants...
...even after the USSR recognized their own failure and chose crony capitalism over marxism...
...even after the 'Great Society' proved to be a giant counterproductive failure that immeasurably increased poverty, moral squalor and hopeless dependency...
...when one side concludes in the face of the evidence...'Yeah, gimme more of that marxism and force it down his throat too'...
There is no fun intelligent debate to be had.
|
| 199 | biliruben
ID: 332321819
Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 15:28
|
I believe in the general goodness and quality of the human race. So yeah.
|
| 200 | Boldwin
ID: 53342110
Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 15:43
|
Which explains why you reflexively choose ideas which are proven failures how?
|
| 201 | biliruben
ID: 332321819
Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 15:59
|
Now your just trolli.g. poorly.
|
| 202 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Fri, Apr 11, 2014, 18:03
|
Key word "immeasurably" I believe.
:)
|
| 203 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 00:47
|
B...steadfastly ignoring historic truths.
The US GDP, has grown more under Dem admins, than under GOP ones, since 1920.
Corporate profits, have been higher under Dem Admins, than under GOP ones, since 1920.
Personal incomes are higher under Dem than GOP,
Unemployment is lower under Dems, than GOP,
Deficits are lower under Dems, than under GOP,
Stock performance is superior under Dem, than under GOP,
ALL are and have been true, for nearly 100 years. Yet B calls those consistent, mind blowing successes "failures". Actually, typical of a political ideology, bent on selling a lie.
|
| 204 | Boldwin
ID: 13361217
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 19:35
|
The only fiscal successes in my lifetime were the Reagan Boom and Newt's congress.
|
| 205 | Tree
ID: 438482411
Sat, Apr 12, 2014, 20:18
|
lol. i like how you give credit to the president in one (republican, even if he'd be kicked out of the party today), and the leader of congress in the other (republican, morally bankrupt), but not any Dems. lmao.
|
| 206 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sat, Sep 06, 2014, 20:02
|
Under Obamacare the number of uninsured has dropped and spending on health care has slowed.
Not long ago, premiums were up 10% or more each year. Not, health care spending overall has slowed, a lot. And out-of-pocket health care costs are actually slightly in decline.
|
| 207 | sarge33rd
ID: 118491316
Sat, Sep 13, 2014, 18:08
|
Our resident RWNJ was ballistic for MONTHS, re Terri Schiavo. Strangem he is silent about people like Ms Horrocks.
Utah’s Republicans May Not Let Sherilyn Horrocks Die (or they may. Depends on how quickly they accept the PPACA)
Sherilyn Horrocks is a 62-year-old woman who has the same autoimmune disease that killed her brother when he was 36. Despite her constant medical problems, Sherilyn Horrocks hasn’t had health insurance since her husband’s employer dropped spousal coverage in 2000. Sherilyn Horrocks’ condition is incurable.
“But there are medicines and procedures that would prolong my life if I could afford them,” Sherilyn Horrocks told the Salt Lake Tribune in September of 2013[ii]. “I have a feeling I’m going to be one of those who falls through the cracks.”
Sherilyn Horrocks would already have health insurance — if Republicans in Utah had accepted the expanded Medicaid coverage being offered to 57,000 of its residents under the Affordable Care Act.
This is not a patient comatose, in a degenerative and vegetative state. This is simply a patient with a serious health issue.
|
| 208 | Khahan
ID: 16341313
Sat, Sep 13, 2014, 18:30
|
This is the problem with the ACA sarge. Her medical costs dont change just because she's on health insurance. Not drastically. They are still outrageous, still costly, still burdensome. Her deductibles alone would probably bankrupt her (though she WOULD be getting the care she needs, I'm not ignoring that - its just a different discussion from the cost discussion and one I think we all agree is a good thing).
The ACA did nothing to address the cost of medical care. It did nothing to address insurance companies making health decisions instead of doctors.
|
| 209 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sat, Sep 13, 2014, 22:05
|
Khahan.....so, because it wouldnt be free, it is of no consequence? Thank-you Sound argument then for true Universal health-Care.
|
| 210 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Sep 14, 2014, 00:05
|
I'm not sure of what your argument is her, Khahan--is it that the cost of her care wouldn't change so Utah shouldn't expand Medicaid? Given that Utah won't expand unless the private insurers who would run it make more money from the program, this isn't the case here, I don't believe. Utah's plan would make Medicaid more expensive overall.
And, of course, we're talking about Medicaid, not regular insurance. She would have no deductibles to speak of.
The fact that ACA does not directly address medical costs is exactly right (though, aside from doing a Canadian or British takeover of the system I'm not sure how that could happen). This doesn't mean that the ACA has no effect on costs--the information in #206 is still very true. Health care costs are growing at about half the rate it was growing for almost two decades before the ACA was implemented.
|
| 211 | Khahan
ID: 16341313
Sun, Sep 14, 2014, 01:47
|
Sarge, where in the world did I ever say it should be free? I'm just pointing out the innate failure of the ACA.
And PD, that article is not very informative. Take this line for instance:
Health spending growth for 2013 is projected to remain slow at 3.6 percent
Who's spending and why? Is it overall spending on healthcare by all sources? Is it spending by insurance companies? Is it spending by consumers?
And why is it slowing? If its spending by insurance companies, its pretty obviously down because of the stupidly high deductibles they are slapping on everybody. If its down overall is there any correlation to it being down vs the amount of health care services being sought?
All the ACA has accomplished is to force people into a broken system. Perhaps if it actually attempted to fix health care costs I could get past the forced purchase mandate (my thoughts on this part of it are well known). But it doesn't. The ACA is the biggest sham we've ever had foisted upon us. And I'll take any and every chance to point out its obvious short comings.
Health care reform was needed years ago and its still needed. The ACA is NOT healthcare reform by any stretch of the imagination. Reform would have addressed these base issues and found ways to reduce costs of health care services so that health care is actually affordable.
|
| 212 | Mith
ID: 21130811
Sun, Sep 14, 2014, 07:01
|
The ACA as proposed did attempt to control costs through a robust public option. But that was a necessary sacrifice in order to get the rest of the thing passed.
Increasing the previously shrinking number of people with coverage was still better than doing nothing at all, even if the political opposition refused to let the full proposal manifest.
I agree it's not enough. But it was everything that could have been done in that political climate.
|
| 213 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Sep 14, 2014, 09:56
|
I agree.
Khahan: There are a number of places through which you can drill down on those numbers. The CDC, for instance, has a department which does nothing but collect health care statistics (lots to dig through, I know).
Kaiser is also a good source for information. Here's a recent piece from their daily news brief.
|
| 214 | Perm Dude
ID: 431013412
Sun, Sep 14, 2014, 09:59
|
Just to be clear: With premiums rising far above inflation for decades, people literally dying for the lack of health care, and small businesses unable to compete with large ones in providing coverage for their employees, we might say that it is better to have taken some steps (like the ACA) to get some of these out-of-control problems back in control first, before trying to tackle all health care problems.
Yes, the ACA doesn't fix all health care problems. And some problems it hopes to fix were secondary. But by and large it is doing what it said it would, despite the artificial barriers being put up by Republicans intent upon its defeat.
|
| 215 | sarge33rd
ID: 390471112
Sun, Sep 14, 2014, 14:07
|
re 211;
Her medical costs dont change just because she's on health insurance.
They are still outrageous, still costly, still burdensome.
Her deductibles alone would probably bankrupt her
The ACA did nothing to address the cost of medical care.
Right there.
|
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com |
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: SCOTUS Obamacare watch
|