Supreme Court upholds ACA

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by Macfanforever

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.

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

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

[KarmaContestant]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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!

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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.

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."

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.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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]

Originally Posted by skcin

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?




That? Is hilarious.



1) You're not being forced. You have an option. You may not like the option, but it's there.
2) I didn't buy a new TV. 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.

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

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.

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.

Originally Posted by iamnotafraid

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]

Originally Posted by Macfanforever

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]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

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]

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

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. 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.

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."

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! 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. And please don't tell me that everything in your closet was manufactured in the U.S.- you would be walking around practically naked. 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? 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by louielouie2000

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.

Originally Posted by KarmaContestant

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.

Originally Posted by iamnotafraid

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.

Originally Posted by Macfanforever

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

You're not alone. I am with you.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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! 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.

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

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]

Originally Posted by iamnotafraid

over and over on The Ledge.

The first 2 songs on Tusk.