Supreme Court upholds ACA

[skcin]

Wow - over an hour has gone by & still no thread? Gone are the good old days of The Ledge when you could come here for breaking news. :distress:

Anyway, I'm sure there are differing opinions here. Discuss.

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/28/12457822-supreme-court-upholds-health-care-law?lite

[jannieC]

As an Obama supporter, I am pleased about this decision. However, I honestly am not knowledgable enough on the ramifications to defend my opinions yet. I hate being dumb about some things.

[skcin]

Well, from what I understand (and maybe some of the legal professionals here can clarify) the Court basically decided that the government has the right to tax you if you decide NOT to buy health insurance. LIke, they're technically giving you a choice/option: a) get health insurance OR b) don't get insurance & pay an annual tax.

So you're not forced to get insurance - you won't go to jail or anything like that if you don't get it. In refusing to buy insurance, you're opting to pay the tax.


From MSN.com:
For individuals who choose to not comply with the individual insurance mandate, Congress deliberately chose to make the penalty fairly weak: only $95 for 2014; $325 for 2015; and $695 in 2016.

After 2016, that $695 amount is indexed to the consumer price index.

Congress specifically did not allow the use of liens and seizures of property as methods of enforcing the penalty.

Non-compliance with the mandate is also not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Tax Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay the penalty in a timely manner, according to the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation.


Now. I will admit that there is a tiny (TINY) piece of me (as a daughter of an immigrant from a formerly communist country) that says "whoa, wait a minute, should the government be telling people what they should do?" I see both sides of the argument, even the right-wing Republican's side. I get people's fears & concerns. But let's stick with reality - we are a democracy. Our president is NOT a communist.

I am also a health care worker. The main point of the ACA is to help people get access to affordable healthcare so they buy it & use it. And NOT just say "well, f*ck it, I don't feel like spending my money on insurance" then show up in an ER with no way to pay. Because that's how it is now, and those of us who DO opt to pay for insurance see costs & premiums & copays go up to offset the costs incurred by those other people. This should work in theory. Time will tell if it actually does!

[HejiraNYC]

Okay, I get the notion that the president''s health insurance mandate is supposed to enlargen the pool of healthy individuals in the insurance pool. And there will be a mandate to buy insurance or pay a penalty. But what isn't clear to me is what this will mean to the individuals who are not currently covered and are just initiating private coverage to comply with the mandate. Today, a barebones individual health insurance plan is around $5K/year (with a huge deductable). Under the mandate, do these insurance premiums decrease by law, or do private insurance companies get to charge whatever they like (as they do currently). Yes, the ultimate objective is to make healthcare more affordable for everyone, but so far I am not hearing about the concessions that insurance and healthcare companies are making to truly expand access to coverage. If people could not afford coverage before, how are they expected to afford it after it's mandated if everything else remains the same?

[skcin]

^ I am not totally clear on that either. I believe I had heard at one point that there would be discounted/affordable plans offered to those with income limitations; however, I can't recall if these would be through private companies or government-sponsored.

[KarmaContestant]

Okay, I get the notion that the president''s health insurance mandate is supposed to enlargen the pool of healthy individuals in the insurance pool. And there will be a mandate to buy insurance or pay a penalty. But what isn't clear to me is what this will mean to the individuals who are not currently covered and are just initiating private coverage to comply with the mandate. Today, a barebones individual health insurance plan is around $5K/year (with a huge deductable). Under the mandate, do these insurance premiums decrease by law, or do private insurance companies get to charge whatever they like (as they do currently). Yes, the ultimate objective is to make healthcare more affordable for everyone, but so far I am not hearing about the concessions that insurance and healthcare companies are making to truly expand access to coverage. If people could not afford coverage before, how are they expected to afford it after it's mandated if everything else remains the same?

I'm no expert on the details, but the information is out there if you look. If you cannot afford insurance (which is determined by income - not lifestyle) then you can get a subsidy to help pay for it. It will not cover 100% of the cost. The example I read yesterday said that a family with an income of 60K could expect about 5K in assistance for insurance premiums, but the balance falls on their shoulders.

The poorest of poor, up to 1.3 times the Federal poverty level are able to enroll in Medicare. This alone will provide coverage to about 30 million of the 57 million uninsured.

There is no legal requiremnt to lower the cost of premiums, because we are a free-enterprise capitalist economy, and price controls are considered a no-no; so yes, the insurance companies will continue to determine the rate of premiums.

As far as this: "I am not hearing about the concessions that insurance and healthcare companies are making to truly expand access to coverage":.

No denial for pre-existing conditions
No dropped coverage when you get sick
No price gouging based on health, age, smoker, etc...
Children can stay on parental insurance plans until age 26.

Granted, these aren't concessions, but legal requirements of the Affordable Health Care Act. One cannot expect a for-profit industry that makes billions in profits by price gouging and denying coverage to make concessions, but the idea is that the pool of funds will be greater when more peope are covered, and the cost of services could drop. How? If premiums are to decrease, Americans will really need to get serious about preventative care. Going to the doctor every six months for regular checkups and physicals. Getting off their fat asses and engaging in physical activites. Putting down the starchy carbs and eating fruit and vegetables. It's time to move away from treating (and extending) illnesses with expensive therapies and begin preventing illnesses with affordable lifestyle changes.

This can be argued, but I believe the prices of premiums will be determined by the free-market (as in, you and I). Be healthy and reduce the costs of care so that the costs of premiums can decrease as well. Or - continue to engage in unhealthy lifestyle choices and watch the fat-cats laugh their way to the bank as premiums continue to increase at the same rate as greed and laziness.

Personally, I support the Affordable Health Care Act, but prefer a socialized health care system where 100% of services (or close to 100%) are covered for 100% of the population, and all paid for with taxes. Denmark, Sweden, France - all are great models for what we should have here.

[KarmaContestant]

A friend of a friend posted this on Facebook and it has some very useful information.

The government could require you to participate in a number of programs and has done so for decades. The mandate was necessary.

Republicans were right when they supported the mandate back in the '90s under "Dole-Care," they were right when they supported it in the '00s as "Romney-care" (at the same time Obama was wrong when he opposed it), the president was convinced, correctly, that it was a necessary part of reform to eliminate free riders (who play a significant role in elevating costs). The only thing that changed was that the negotiations worked and the president was convinced that the Republicans were right. The unfortunate thing in 21st century politics is that as soon as the president agreed with something it became "bad" and had to be opposed at all costs as an attack on "freedom." That's why you have Romney in this bizarre situation where one of his most significant successes as governor cannot be spoken about because it is too similar to what has become one of the most hated things about Obama. It’s nonsense, pure partisanship and tribalism.

The need and legitimacy of the mandate are well established legal precedent, whether it was the insurance required for those in the merchant marine back in the 1790s, participation in social security, Medicare, unemployment contributions, etc., or state requirements for auto insurance.

So called "Obamacare" is a rather weak, incomplete, reform of healthcare which was desperately needed. We're the only modern industrialized country that doesn't have either full-fledged socialized medicine (Medicare for all), or at least a hybrid system. It's no surprise that we are also last amongst the modern industrialized countries in quality of health care, last in almost every health category, but, fortunately for us, we pay the highest percentage of our GDP for the worst care... YEAH!

I really don't care who comes up with the system, I care about what works. Our system doesn't work. 10% of the population receives 66% of the healthcare for a price that is nearly 1/5 of our entire GDP. That is a fatally broken system. Innovation and breakthroughs are moving to China because they're willing to directly intervene in their system. Europeans have far better qualities of life because they utilize hybrid/socialized systems. Singapore is #1 using a public option. The arguments that it can't work, doesn't work, etc., are patently false

[KarmaContestant]

AND - if you want to read something really hilarious.....

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

Riiiight... Conservative Americans are going to go to Canada to escape the "socialist" Obama healthcare bill?

CANADA.

Where they have socialized healthcare.

And gay marriage.

And essentially, legal weed.

:lol:

[Macfanforever]

I don't like it and I don't buy it.Why the gov dictate and force americans to get health insurance .and get fined and go to jail if you don't comply.

We got forced to buy new TV's in 2009 due to the gov decided to cut the analog TV broadcasts to crappy digital TV.Which its useless and got to be on top of the transmitter to receive the station.Any they dished out those $40 coupons which probably added up to milions of dollars in which they could used it for more inportant things.

I see the gov should control what the doctors office and the hospitals charge for the treatments.

I hope there will be some changes in Washington in november .Also I think there should be term limits on all elected officals for office.

[nailatixela]

Thanks to those who have posted information here...like others I am still learning a lot about this. I knew republicans used to be all for this idea - their idea - I think it is ridiculous that they are against it now.

And Macfanforever - yes there will be a tax, but no, no one will go to jail for not purchasing insurance. And of course, we have some term limits on our elected officials...hence the changes you hope for in November.

[Macfanforever]

AND - if you want to read something really hilarious.....

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

Riiiight... Conservative Americans are going to go to Canada to escape the "socialist" Obama healthcare bill?

CANADA.

Where they have socialized healthcare.

And gay marriage.

And essentially, legal weed.

:lol:

Yes it looks like everybody will be moving to canada according to the comment section.

[LB Freakazoid]

And this tax penalty is different from paying into Social Security and Medicare - how?
People got their panties in a bunch when those items were automatically taken from their paychecks in the beginning... Same thing now...
Why isn't anyone upset at the amount of utility tax (power), communication tax (cell phone, internet, land line, etc), cable or satellite tax, etc. that's paid every month?
That averages out to approx. $1800 a year...

[skcin]

I'm no expert on the details, but the information is out there if you look. If you cannot afford insurance (which is determined by income - not lifestyle) then you can get a subsidy to help pay for it. It will not cover 100% of the cost. The example I read yesterday said that a family with an income of 60K could expect about 5K in assistance for insurance premiums, but the balance falls on their shoulders.

The poorest of poor, up to 1.3 times the Federal poverty level are able to enroll in Medicare. This alone will provide coverage to about 30 million of the 57 million uninsured.

There is no legal requiremnt to lower the cost of premiums, because we are a free-enterprise capitalist economy, and price controls are considered a no-no; so yes, the insurance companies will continue to determine the rate of premiums.

As far as this: "I am not hearing about the concessions that insurance and healthcare companies are making to truly expand access to coverage":.

No denial for pre-existing conditions
No dropped coverage when you get sick
No price gouging based on health, age, smoker, etc...
Children can stay on parental insurance plans until age 26.

Granted, these aren't concessions, but legal requirements of the Affordable Health Care Act. One cannot expect a for-profit industry that makes billions in profits by price gouging and denying coverage to make concessions, but the idea is that the pool of funds will be greater when more peope are covered, and the cost of services could drop. How? If premiums are to decrease, Americans will really need to get serious about preventative care. Going to the doctor every six months for regular checkups and physicals. Getting off their fat asses and engaging in physical activites. Putting down the starchy carbs and eating fruit and vegetables. It's time to move away from treating (and extending) illnesses with expensive therapies and begin preventing illnesses with affordable lifestyle changes.

This can be argued, but I believe the prices of premiums will be determined by the free-market (as in, you and I). Be healthy and reduce the costs of care so that the costs of premiums can decrease as well. Or - continue to engage in unhealthy lifestyle choices and watch the fat-cats laugh their way to the bank as premiums continue to increase at the same rate as greed and laziness.

Personally, I support the Affordable Health Care Act, but prefer a socialized health care system where 100% of services (or close to 100%) are covered for 100% of the population, and all paid for with taxes. Denmark, Sweden, France - all are great models for what we should have here.

Well yes, but people don't want the government telling them what to do. Remember when they tried to put a small tax on soft drinks? :rolleyes:


AND - if you want to read something really hilarious.....

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obamacare

Riiiight... Conservative Americans are going to go to Canada to escape the "socialist" Obama healthcare bill?

CANADA.

Where they have socialized healthcare.

And gay marriage.

And essentially, legal weed.

:lol:

That? Is hilarious. :thumbsup:

I don't like it and I don't buy it.Why the gov dictate and force americans to get health insurance .and get fined and go to jail if you don't comply.

We got forced to buy new TV's in 2009 due to the gov decided to cut the analog TV broadcasts to crappy digital TV.Which its useless and got to be on top of the transmitter to receive the station.Any they dished out those $40 coupons which probably added up to milions of dollars in which they could used it for more inportant things.

I see the gov should control what the doctors office and the hospitals charge for the treatments.

I hope there will be some changes in Washington in november .Also I think there should be term limits on all elected officals for office.

1) You're not being forced. :shrug: You have an option. You may not like the option, but it's there.
2) I didn't buy a new TV. :shrug: I got a free converter box with one of those coupons.
3) The doctor's offices & hospitals have to charge more to cover care for the MORONS WHO REFUSE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.

JMO, of course. ;)

[louielouie2000]

Wow - over an hour has gone by & still no thread? Gone are the good old days of The Ledge when you could come here for breaking news. :distress:

This was my initial reaction, too. I almost started a thread, but decided against it. I guess I'm just burnt out on discussing political issues. Everyone's just so permanently polarized... civil debating is just nonexistent these days.

Regarding the Supreme Court ruling... I have to say it greatly surprised me. Especially that John Roberts was the one who broke the tie. In the end, I feel it was the right decision for the country. And while the healthcare overhaul (as it stands) is pretty weak, it's a step in the right direction. I have no doubt in time that Americans fear of the program will evaporate, and they will come to regard it more highly.

[HejiraNYC]

There is no legal requiremnt to lower the cost of premiums, because we are a free-enterprise capitalist economy, and price controls are considered a no-no; so yes, the insurance companies will continue to determine the rate of premiums.

This is where this program falls apart. If insurance companies are making a windfall of new revenue due to all of the new younger/healthier people who are now paying insurance premiums, they should be required to somehow reduce insurance costs for consumers across the board. Current insurance premiums are based on the calculated risk of disease based on demographics. When the demographics are changed so drastically, insurance companies must adjust the premiums accordingly, and more than likely the adjustment should be downward.


As far as this: "I am not hearing about the concessions that insurance and healthcare companies are making to truly expand access to coverage":.

No denial for pre-existing conditions
No dropped coverage when you get sick
No price gouging based on health, age, smoker, etc...
Children can stay on parental insurance plans until age 26.

Granted, these aren't concessions, but legal requirements of the Affordable Health Care Act. One cannot expect a for-profit industry that makes billions in profits by price gouging and denying coverage to make concessions, but the idea is that the pool of funds will be greater when more peope are covered, and the cost of services could drop. How? If premiums are to decrease, Americans will really need to get serious about preventative care. Going to the doctor every six months for regular checkups and physicals. Getting off their fat asses and engaging in physical activites. Putting down the starchy carbs and eating fruit and vegetables. It's time to move away from treating (and extending) illnesses with expensive therapies and begin preventing illnesses with affordable lifestyle changes.

I am not understanding your logic. For one thing, why do you assume that the cost of services will drop? If anything, expanded coverage = expanded healthcare utilization. But what does that mean regarding major medical endpoints? The system could be flooded with people looking to get the latest and greatest diagnostic/screening tests and who are enabled by all-too-willing physicians and laboratories who receive generous fees for these services. Recent evidence already suggests that some mammograms are unnecessary. Early PSA screening has also been found to be unnecessary, if not downright detrimental to health outcomes. It seems not improbable that people will demand these tests... just because they can.

I also don't understand your premise that people will suddenly become more willing to engage in lifestyle modification to prevent major medical illness due to Obamacare. Yes, people need to stress the importance of prevention; however, it would seem that people would be less willing to take care of their health when the safety of healthcare coverage to save them in their time of need. I have known quite a number of people whose philosophy about life is basically "there's a pill for that." Why eat salads and oatmeal when there are pills (almost free under insurance) that will reduce blood pressure, reduce LDL cholesterol and prevent fat absorption? Pass the steak! :rolleyes: Although the current insurance system is not perfect, at least there were financial consequences for smoking, being overweight, etc. Without any element of personal responsibility under Obamacare, it seems that there will be less incentive for people to eat well, exercise and stay away from tobacco.


This can be argued, but I believe the prices of premiums will be determined by the free-market (as in, you and I). Be healthy and reduce the costs of care so that the costs of premiums can decrease as well. Or - continue to engage in unhealthy lifestyle choices and watch the fat-cats laugh their way to the bank as premiums continue to increase at the same rate as greed and laziness.

Just like the current American energy cartel, and it truly is a cartel in every sense of the word, insurance is similarly a cartel. Insurance companies will band together to prevent any significant reduction in premiums- that's the American way. Of course any Republican will tell you that the free market will establish the most rational market... but we all see how well those "free market" principles fared after the great recession. No, it should not be socialized or subject to price controls per se... but they definitely need to be regulated closely. As we have seen already, big business and big money can never be trusted to regulate themselves.


Personally, I support the Affordable Health Care Act, but prefer a socialized health care system where 100% of services (or close to 100%) are covered for 100% of the population, and all paid for with taxes. Denmark, Sweden, France - all are great models for what we should have here.

I am a bit conflicted regarding a single-payer system, such as you are describing. Yes, these are systems that seem to be working fairly well in many other western countries. But the problem with a single payer, making medical and formulary decisions for everyone, is that it has the potential to stifle innovation. Where are most drugs developed/researched? Where are the greatest advancements in medicine discovered? Who is essentially subsidizing (indirectly) the healthcare of people around the world? Yes- the United States. And it's only possible thanks to the absence of price controls, tax breaks and a free market. No, drug companies are not saints... but it is a vital segment of the economy that actually improves quality (and quantity) of life for the public at large. Sadly the U.S. consumer ultimately ends up subsidizing the patient in France who enjoys 10 Euro top tier prescription drugs.

[KarmaContestant]

I see the gov should control what the doctors office and the hospitals charge for the treatments.

I hope there will be some changes in Washington in november .Also I think there should be term limits on all elected officals for office.

Your first statement: I agree, but it is my understanding that we can't do that in America because of our free-market economy. Consumers must dictate the prices they are willing to pay. This reminds me a scene in Sicko with a lady who has respiratory problems from her work as a first responder after the 911 attacks; she needs two inhalers a month, that cost her something like $120 dollars each. She can't work anymore, and lives off of SS benefits and has children - it's tough - she can barely survive, let alone cover her medical costs. The same exact inhaler, from the same manufacturer, can be bought in Cuba for 5 cents. FIVE CENTS. Five cents because Cuba has government price controls limiting the profit that can be made on pharmaceauticals.

I want term limits too, for all members of Congress. One term per office, in your whole life, with no benefits extending past your term (no life-long salary, for example). Hell, sometimes I'm certain that random selection (like jury duty) would better serve the country.


Everyone's just so permanently polarized... civil debating is just nonexistent these days.


:nod:

[KarmaContestant]

I also don't understand your premise that people will suddenly become more willing to engage in lifestyle modification to prevent major medical illness due to Obamacare.

I never said they would - I implied that they should.

This is more in line with a point you made later, but European medical costs are not just low because of American innovation - they're low because the medical industy there is largely run like a non-profit and the focus is on preventative care - the complete opposite of our system which encourages extending illness for the purpose of making profit on pharmaceauticals that would otherwise be totally unnecessary. Just like you said "There's a pill for that!" but only because people will buy it!


I am a bit conflicted regarding a single-payer system, such as you are describing. Yes, these are systems that seem to be working fairly well in many other western countries. But the problem with a single payer, making medical and formulary decisions for everyone, is that it has the potential to stifle innovation. Where are most drugs developed/researched? Where are the greatest advancements in medicine discovered? Who is essentially subsidizing (indirectly) the healthcare of people around the world? Yes- the United States. And it's only possible thanks to the absence of price controls, tax breaks and a free market. No, drug companies are not saints... but it is a vital segment of the economy that actually improves quality (and quantity) of life for the public at large. Sadly the U.S. consumer ultimately ends up subsidizing the patient in France who enjoys 10 Euro top tier prescription drugs.

Yeah....we hear this a lot from the medical/pharma industry. I don't believe it anyore than I believe Monsanto telling me that GMO labeling will make food unaffordable. Despite more than 90% of Americans supporting GMO labeling, our Senators just last Thursday voted down a bill that would have allowed states to require GMO labeling. Why? Hailed and celebrated as a bi-partisan defeat by the GMO industry! Because we allow it by not dissenting, by not protesting, by not marching - who even calls or writes to their Senators anymore? I do. I'll tell you who else does - Conservatives. Those who do dissent or protest are told to "get a job" and let our States pass bills preventing assembly on public property for "security" reasons. Perhaps it's (my opinion, being the armchair therapist I am) because so many Americans secretly feel guilty for quietly allowing all of the things they allow because life is too busy trying to keep up with the Jones'. "I'd love to go and protest but I gotta go to work!"

We let Washington dictate our lives - and the SCOTUS tell us what is constitutional - and even when we don't agree, as a majority like on the GMO issue or corporate campaign contributions, we do nothing. We say "OK, sure Corporations MUST be people. :rolleyes:

Americans have battered-wife syndrome, politically. We keep going back. "Maybe he'll change. He loves me. He didn't mean it. He's just a bought and sold Republican/Democrat and can't help all the lies and abuse. I know he can change." :rolleyes:

On topic, I'd say that profit margins of 3-5% are totally acceptable - there is no need for the average margin of 16% enjoyed by pharmaceauticals, or the 10% enjoyed by oil and gas companies. Greed is the reason goods and services cost so much in America. We allow it.

A fundamental change needs to occur in the way we think about success. Does succcess equate to the amount of money you earn, or does success equate to your accomplishments as a human being - the things you do that help and improve the lives of others? If you measure success by how much profit you can squeeze out while reducing the quality of goods and services and outsourcing of jobs...well...it's clear to me that you're not even really human, but a cold and calculated machine that runs on blood and processed food-products.

Just like the current American energy cartel, and it truly is a cartel in every sense of the word, insurance is similarly a cartel. Insurance companies will band together to prevent any significant reduction in premiums- that's the American way.

Yep - exactly! Because we allow it. Prices are high because we, through our elected representatives, allow it.

Why has it taken so long for electric and hybrid cars to break into the market when the technology has been around for decades? Greed. It's estimated that there's trillions of dollars of oil in the ground still, and every drop will be sucked dry for profit. That's why.

I'm gonna go play a video game.

[iamnotafraid]

Just what the GOP needed.
See you in November.

[jannieC]

This is what I'll be perusing over the next few days:
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/

[Macfanforever]

Well yes, but people don't want the government telling them what to do. Remember when they tried to put a small tax on soft drinks? :rolleyes:




That? Is hilarious. :thumbsup:



1) You're not being forced. :shrug: You have an option. You may not like the option, but it's there.
2) I didn't buy a new TV. :shrug: I got a free converter box with one of those coupons.
3) The doctor's offices & hospitals have to charge more to cover care for the MORONS WHO REFUSE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE.

JMO, of course. ;)


Yes NYC is or going to banned big gulp soda's .Heres another nanny law.


1} Yes I understand .Ok what happens if the person is out of work and zero income.or a crap pay job with no or crap insurance package.

2}Ok I got two $40 boxes and they work like crap.I went from 6 clean analog channels to zero.

3}Yes the looser drunks and druggies that litter the hospitals.I agree.



Your first statement: I agree, but it is my understanding that we can't do that in America because of our free-market economy. Consumers must dictate the prices they are willing to pay. This reminds me a scene in Sicko with a lady who has respiratory problems from her work as a first responder after the 911 attacks; she needs two inhalers a month, that cost her something like $120 dollars each. She can't work anymore, and lives off of SS benefits and has children - it's tough - she can barely survive, let alone cover her medical costs. The same exact inhaler, from the same manufacturer, can be bought in Cuba for 5 cents. FIVE CENTS. Five cents because Cuba has government price controls limiting the profit that can be made on pharmaceauticals.

I want term limits too, for all members of Congress. One term per office, in your whole life, with no benefits extending past your term (no life-long salary, for example). Hell, sometimes I'm certain that random selection (like jury duty) would better serve the country.




:nod:

Yes you are right free trade.But price gouging got to stop.

Two terms and thats it.We got towns here with mayors in office for 30 years.


Just what the GOP needed.
See you in November.

Will I'm not to keen about REP dept. But its looking good for them and
which their donations skyrocketed after the hearing.

I dont hear much news on the Independents that are running.

[KarmaContestant]

1} Yes I understand .Ok what happens if the person is out of work and zero income.or a crap pay job with no or crap insurance package.


Then you will qualify for the new expanded Medicare (the medical plan that supporters of universal health care wanted in the first place - that has been in Congress' hands for years and years as the Expanded Medicare For All Act, but that has never been voted on) unless you're income is too high, in which case you'll get assistance paying for private insurance. I'm not sure yet what the income threshhold is.

[Macfanforever]

Then you will qualify for the new expanded Medicare (the medical plan that supporters of universal health care wanted in the first place - that has been in Congress' hands for years and years as the Expanded Medicare For All Act, but that has never been voted on) unless you're income is too high, in which case you'll get assistance paying for private insurance. I'm not sure yet what the income threshhold is.

Yes I'm so confused over this package like a million other americans.I hope they iron out the bugs and hope for the best.

[tilthefirefades]

Granted I don't know all about this whole thing, and I'm still learning. But a new tax for healthcare, that benefits millions? Oh yes how putrid. The modern day Americans are lacking so much empathy they can't understand that to truly receive you must give. And I rarely complain about the taxes on Social Security and Medicare I give considering the fact I watch my Grandma struggle every day to make it. Maybe I'm a dying breed, but I don't mind giving a little to receive something. Even if that something isn't physical, the mental satisfaction of knowing someone somewhere is safe and healthy is enough for me.

[HejiraNYC]

I never said they would - I implied that they should.

This is more in line with a point you made later, but European medical costs are not just low because of American innovation - they're low because the medical industy there is largely run like a non-profit and the focus is on preventative care - the complete opposite of our system which encourages extending illness for the purpose of making profit on pharmaceauticals that would otherwise be totally unnecessary. Just like you said "There's a pill for that!" but only because people will buy it!

Healthcare costs in Europe are lower primarily because of price controls, electronic medical records and much lower salaries for healthcare practitioners. And of course a single payer means that administrative costs are much lower. Yes, this is good for their bottom line, but what are the consequences? Price controls and national formularies basically extinguish innovation; it is no accident that just about every pharmaceutical/biotechnology company has headquarters or a large operation in the U.S. Controls on salaries for physicians result in a brain drain to places that will pay them well, i.e., the U.S. Yes, for the public at large, access to good healthcare in the U.S. is relatively poor. But for individuals with good coverage, one can find the most pre-eminent specialists in the world.

Yeah....we hear this a lot from the medical/pharma industry. I don't believe it anyore than I believe Monsanto telling me that GMO labeling will make food unaffordable. Despite more than 90% of Americans supporting GMO labeling, our Senators just last Thursday voted down a bill that would have allowed states to require GMO labeling. Why? Hailed and celebrated as a bi-partisan defeat by the GMO industry! Because we allow it by not dissenting, by not protesting, by not marching - who even calls or writes to their Senators anymore? I do. I'll tell you who else does - Conservatives. Those who do dissent or protest are told to "get a job" and let our States pass bills preventing assembly on public property for "security" reasons. Perhaps it's (my opinion, being the armchair therapist I am) because so many Americans secretly feel guilty for quietly allowing all of the things they allow because life is too busy trying to keep up with the Jones'. "I'd love to go and protest but I gotta go to work!"

I'm not sure how this has morphed into a rant against GMO. :lol: In my opinion, when it comes to innovation, specifically science and technology, I think companies need to be given financial/regualtory incentives to grow and prosper; this is why I bristle at the notion of price controls in this area. On the other hand, other segments of the economy that do not provide innovation or merely exist to make money, e.g., finance, big oil, insurance, should be regulated/taxed/curbed. Just think... would the iPhone exist if every country in the world decided that a smart phone was only worth $10 and decided that $10 smart phones were a fundamental right? Why should drugs be any different?

Regarding GMO and the business of organic food, I think there is a lot of fearmongering and pseudo science clouding the issue. Is genetically engineered food necessarily a bad thing? Sure it sounds scary, but it has not been proven to be unsafe or correlated with long-term health implications. The sad reality is that the world is going to be a much different place in 20 years- a much more populated, more polluted place with more mouths to feed than arable land. Reliance on GMO due to its higher crop yields and resistance to pests is basically inevitable. As such, I think before people start assailing it with inflammatory names like "Frankenstein food" and "soylent green," I think people really need to look past the names and evaluate the science of it. GMO, just like drugs, are highly regulated and must be proven to be safe before they can be used for food.


We let Washington dictate our lives - and the SCOTUS tell us what is constitutional - and even when we don't agree, as a majority like on the GMO issue or corporate campaign contributions, we do nothing. We say "OK, sure Corporations MUST be people. :rolleyes:

I think this cuts both ways. Yes, the U.S. is a constitutional republic, but at least that helps to ensure fundamental protections of rights despite the will of the majority. If every single issue was decided upon purely based on popular vote, this country would be an utter banana republic idiocracy in which the lowest common denominator prevails in every instance.


Americans have battered-wife syndrome, politically. We keep going back. "Maybe he'll change. He loves me. He didn't mean it. He's just a bought and sold Republican/Democrat and can't help all the lies and abuse. I know he can change." :rolleyes:

I think it's more like Republicans have battered wife syndrome. Or Stockholm syndrome? Of course it's logical that the super-wealthy tend to be Republicans; I don't blame them since that is what is best for their own self-interests. However, it's the rest of the 99% that I just cannot understand. Time after time they vote for Republican officials that are actively working against their own best interests. To their credit, Republicans do an excellent job of appealing to the least educated/enlightened segments of the population using broad-sweeping characterizations, e.g., taxes are too high, Obama is a socialist, gays are bad, etc. On NPR I heard about a study in which they found that a vast majority of Republicans were against ACA, which is really no surprise at all. However, when asked if they agreed with the major planks of the ACA, without calling it ACA, most of them agreed! :lol: With the Republicans it's all about messaging and dumbing things down on Faux News so that Joe Six Pack won't have a coronary trying to think critically about the things that really affect him. It's so sad.


On topic, I'd say that profit margins of 3-5% are totally acceptable - there is no need for the average margin of 16% enjoyed by pharmaceauticals, or the 10% enjoyed by oil and gas companies. Greed is the reason goods and services cost so much in America. We allow it.

As I mentioned before, I think price controls are a dangerous thing, especially if the U.S. wants to continue to be a world leader in innovation. Yes, China is becoming a major economic powerhouse. However, despite their ability to produce lots of goods very, very cheaply (via artifically devaluing their currency, violating the rights of workers, low wages, ridiculously large wealth gaps, corrupt government, etc.) they have simply perfected the concept of "me too" rather than truly innovating in the area of technology. Again, I think the biggest harm we can inflict on ourselves is to meddle too much in the way of technology. It's the non-productive, non-innovative cartels that have to be reined in, namely finance/banking and Big Oil.[/quote]


A fundamental change needs to occur in the way we think about success. Does succcess equate to the amount of money you earn, or does success equate to your accomplishments as a human being - the things you do that help and improve the lives of others? If you measure success by how much profit you can squeeze out while reducing the quality of goods and services and outsourcing of jobs...well...it's clear to me that you're not even really human, but a cold and calculated machine that runs on blood and processed food-products.

Well... that's a question that people have struggled with for ages. While the outsourcing of U.S. jobs is bad for the average U.S. worker, there are probably many people working in a high tech call center in New Delhi thanking their lucky stars that they are making good middle class livings in a country known for its economic extremes. So overall on the scale of humanity... it's kind of a wash. :shrug: And please don't tell me that everything in your closet was manufactured in the U.S.- you would be walking around practically naked. :lol: The fact of the matter is that despite all of the corporate greed, the quality of life of the upper, middle and lower middle class is strikingly similar. It's no longer really possible to discern ones wealth or status simply by the clothes they wear or the shoes on their feet. Or even the cars they drive. As anyone who has seen a jam-packed Wal Mart parking lot can attest, the American dream is as simple as loading up the cart with mass produced goods imported from China. Yes, it sucks that American jobs in the manufacturing sector are evaporating like rubbing alcohol, but the average American consumer is complicit by shopping for price rather than quality.


Why has it taken so long for electric and hybrid cars to break into the market when the technology has been around for decades? Greed. It's estimated that there's trillions of dollars of oil in the ground still, and every drop will be sucked dry for profit. That's why.

I think the sudden disappearance of EV1 will never be explained. Perhaps there was a safety/mechanical defect that forced its recall? Or perhaps it was as cynical as pure greed? Who knows? :shrug: I think until we have all the facts (which will probably never happen), it would be unwise to assign blame hastily.

Regarding hybrid and electric cars, I think the largest barrier to entry has been the ability to manufacture these drive trains affordably, the limitations of current battery technology, and the lack of an electrical infrastructure to support all electric vehicles. Yes, hybrids have taken a much larger market share of new car sales in recent years; however, there is still a price premium that can only be justified when fuel prices are high. Accordingly, it's safe to assume that hybrid/electric sales will drop off as gas prices go back under $3 per gallon this autumn, as some experts are predicting.

[HejiraNYC]

Granted I don't know all about this whole thing, and I'm still learning. But a new tax for healthcare, that benefits millions? Oh yes how putrid. The modern day Americans are lacking so much empathy they can't understand that to truly receive you must give. And I rarely complain about the taxes on Social Security and Medicare I give considering the fact I watch my Grandma struggle every day to make it. Maybe I'm a dying breed, but I don't mind giving a little to receive something. Even if that something isn't physical, the mental satisfaction of knowing someone somewhere is safe and healthy is enough for me.

I think the ugly truth about Americans in general is this so-called American Exceptionalism. This mindset breeds the notion that they must somehow be special/superior, which explains why people buy flashy cars and clothes they can't afford. This need to be superior also applies to "morality" and the tendency for people to believe they are more deserving to go to heaven than others (and therefore more deserving of fundamental civil rights). Regarding healthcare reform, it's the people who already have healthcare coverage who are protesting the loudest. In other words, "I've got mine, who cares about anyone else." And you would think that the political party that appeals most fundamental Christians would be in support of healthcare for all? Oh, the irony...

[David]

As an Obama supporter, I am pleased about this decision. However, I honestly am not knowledgable enough on the ramifications to defend my opinions yet. I hate being dumb about some things.One aspect of the new law that has everyone excited is that an insurance company cannot refuse to cover you because you have a pre-existing condition.

But do people realize the drawback here? If you, for example, lose your job and need to buy your own policy, an insurance company will charge you an arm and a leg if you have a pre-existing condition—probably so much that it will make opting in with COBRA (your other alternative) seem like a financial breeze.

One potential advantage of this law: It might unclog the nation's emergency rooms of all the currently uninsured. But will that include "residents"—which is code for "undocumented immigrants"? What will their responsibility be under the new law? Anyone know?

[skcin]

Everyone's just so permanently polarized... civil debating is just nonexistent these days.

And while the healthcare overhaul (as it stands) is pretty weak, it's a step in the right direction. I have no doubt in time that Americans fear of the program will evaporate, and they will come to regard it more highly.

Well, I think this debate is going swimmingly. So far. ;)

And I hope you're right.


I want term limits too, for all members of Congress. One term per office, in your whole life, with no benefits extending past your term (no life-long salary, for example).

ITA. Now, how do we get that done. :shrug:

Just what the GOP needed.
See you in November.

I hate to agree, but you're probably right. Mitt's previous support of programs just like this one will be hidden/swept under the rug. He will lead the bandwagon of conspiracy theorists & uneducated right-wing followers who are against this law; he's already vowing to repeal it if he's elected. Let's hope that the Dems can point out his flip-flopping & get people to see that he's just taking advantage of their fears. Let's hope we have enough time to give the ACA a real chance & see if it will truly help or not before people react hastily.

Yes I'm so confused over this package like a million other americans.I hope they iron out the bugs and hope for the best.

Yes. Me too.

Granted I don't know all about this whole thing, and I'm still learning. But a new tax for healthcare, that benefits millions? Oh yes how putrid. The modern day Americans are lacking so much empathy they can't understand that to truly receive you must give. And I rarely complain about the taxes on Social Security and Medicare I give considering the fact I watch my Grandma struggle every day to make it. Maybe I'm a dying breed, but I don't mind giving a little to receive something. Even if that something isn't physical, the mental satisfaction of knowing someone somewhere is safe and healthy is enough for me.

You're not alone. I am with you. :angel:



I think it's more like Republicans have battered wife syndrome. Or Stockholm syndrome? Of course it's logical that the super-wealthy tend to be Republicans; I don't blame them since that is what is best for their own self-interests. However, it's the rest of the 99% that I just cannot understand. Time after time they vote for Republican officials that are actively working against their own best interests. To their credit, Republicans do an excellent job of appealing to the least educated/enlightened segments of the population using broad-sweeping characterizations, e.g., taxes are too high, Obama is a socialist, gays are bad, etc. On NPR I heard about a study in which they found that a vast majority of Republicans were against ACA, which is really no surprise at all. However, when asked if they agreed with the major planks of the ACA, without calling it ACA, most of them agreed! :lol: With the Republicans it's all about messaging and dumbing things down on Faux News so that Joe Six Pack won't have a coronary trying to think critically about the things that really affect him. It's so sad.
.

I know what you mean. I don't get it either.


I think the ugly truth about Americans in general is this so-called American Exceptionalism. This mindset breeds the notion that they must somehow be special/superior, which explains why people buy flashy cars and clothes they can't afford. This need to be superior also applies to "morality" and the tendency for people to believe they are more deserving to go to heaven than others (and therefore more deserving of fundamental civil rights). Regarding healthcare reform, it's the people who already have healthcare coverage who are protesting the loudest. In other words, "I've got mine, who cares about anyone else." And you would think that the political party that appeals most fundamental Christians would be in support of healthcare for all? Oh, the irony...

You got it, dude.

[holidayroad]

I have a couple of questions. Maybe someone knows the answer. The requirements seem to be that employers that have more than 50 full time workers have to provide insurance. Where my husband works, it is a company that has small groups of workers at a workplace, but overall, across the US, employees more than 50 full time workers. Will the government go by how many people are at each smaller workplace or by how many this company employees all across the US?

More than a year ago, my husband's employer dropped his hours per week to 31 hours so they wouldn't have to keep insurance on him. According to the reading of the Health Care Act, an employee who works 30 hours or more is considered a 'full time' worker.

‘‘(4) FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—øAs revised by section 10106(f)(1)¿
The term ‘full-time employee’ means, with respect to any
month, an employee who is employed on average at least
30 hours of service per week.

I am hoping he/we will get some sort of coverage with all of these changes.

[iamnotafraid]

And you would think that the political party that appeals most fundamental Christians would be in support of healthcare for all? Oh, the irony...


HejiraNYC,
Why don't you just come out and say you hate Christians?
Every time there's a political discussion you make sure to
let everyone know through your cleverly written thoughts
just how much you hate and are disgusted by us uneducated
poor souls.

I could sum up your thoughts in a much more concise explanation
of them on all political, social and moral issues. But you're the
educated one, the one who sits way upon his high horse. I'll let
you give it another try. Just a brief sentence or two on who and
what you hate. And the same for what you love.

Just remember many of those Christians which you bash repeatedly,
take care of the poor and needy.

The thing I hate most of all about this ruling is that once again we
are being forced by our government to comply with what they think
is best for us. It doesn't matter what we think. Our President and the
Supreme Court makes the decisions for us. Where is liberty?

I agree with Louielouie on civil debating is just none existent these days.
These type threads prove that over and over on The Ledge.

[vivfox]

over and over on The Ledge.


The first 2 songs on Tusk.

[HomerMcvie]

Can't we all just get it on?

[Johnny Stew]

The thing I hate most of all about this ruling is that once again we
are being forced by our government to comply with what they think
is best for us. It doesn't matter what we think. Our President and the
Supreme Court makes the decisions for us. Where is liberty?

I've noticed that people don't usually take exception to the government deciding what's best for us, until it regards a decision that goes against their beliefs or opinions.

[jannieC]

I've noticed that people don't usually take exception to the government deciding what's best for us, until it regards a decision that goes against their beliefs or opinions.

May I steal this?

[iamnotafraid]

I've noticed that people don't usually take exception to the government deciding what's best for us, until it regards a decision that goes against their beliefs or opinions.

I've noticed how people like to assume a great many things.

If I were able I'd strike down many laws. Even some that I
consider good for us.

[TrueFaith77]

But let's stick with reality - we are a democracy. Our president is NOT a communist.


I agree. He is NOT a communist. This bill is about redistribution of wealth from the tax payers to the Insurance Companies, who in turn will line the Democrats' coffers.

I am not an expert on these subjects, but it seems to me the only way to do Universal health insurance is for it to be non-profit. :shrug:


The thing I hate most of all about this ruling is that once again we
are being forced by our government to comply with what they think
is best for us. It doesn't matter what we think. Our President and the
Supreme Court makes the decisions for us. Where is liberty?


Well, I think Judge Roberts' opinion made the point that WE the people did make this decision. There is nothing in this law that wasn't guaranteed during the election--and the majority of Americans voted for the representatives who passed and signed the Bill (this is how a republic, a representational government, represents the will of the people). If this really isn't what the majority of Americans wanted, then they should have voted accordingly during the 2008 election or paid better attention. For a democratic republic to work, the electorate must be always mindful and involved. That's why I'm a monarchist.

[WildHearted]

We're a republic, not a democracy.

[TrueFaith77]

We're a republic, not a democracy.

I know. That's why I spoke of representational government... (i.e., a republic).

[Macfanforever]

One thing I'm glad to see is with this new law is the insurers cant dump you or refuse pre-existing health conditions.

[Johnny Stew]

May I steal this?

I'd be flattered if you did! :xoxo:

[jannieC]

I'd be flattered if you did! :xoxo:
Are you on FB- I will need to credit you. :)

[skcin]

I've noticed that people don't usually take exception to the government deciding what's best for us, until it regards a decision that goes against their beliefs or opinions.

Well said.

[estranged4life]

I am a member of the Cherokee Nation and I am guaranteed medical coverage as such (Which helped out with the recent episode of cellulitis - Not ALOT of fun having my skin on the left foot scraped off) because this whole medical insurance THANG became an annoyance to me a LONG time ago.