Politics Obamacare

I can't decide if this is a good thing or a bad thing. Liberal media outlets are all puppies and sunshine, the Conservative ones are all Sauron and the advancing Orc horde.

Oh how I long for the days of unbiased reporting....

 

Better start working on that time machine.
--- merged: Jun 28, 2012 at 9:12 PM ---
In other news-

Sarah Palin thinks the ruling is good, even thanks God for it.

Sarah Palin thanks God and Supreme Court for healthcare ruling - latimes.com

I may have to reconsider my opinion now.

 

Not just pre-existing conditions. The law also prohibits rescissions or dropping someone after they come down with a costly illness.

Hell, the big three insurers went before Congress before the law was enacted and said they would continue to rescind or cancel coverage at their discretion.

The new Patients Bill of Rights in the Act protects against such flagrant and callous actions by the insurance companies.

 

I talked with some friend here yesterday. Most ex-pats I know vote. Many stated that the GOP could try all they want to repeal but they'd need to win the White House, maintain the House and get enough seats in the Senate to have 60 votes. I don't think that's true but we had a lively debate. I say because the Scotus ruled the mandate is a "tax" the senate could vote using the "budget reconciliation" method which only needs 50 votes in the Senate. Anyone know if that's correct?
--- merged: Jun 29, 2012 10:30 AM ---

Seriously this woman knows no shame.

 

Man I've been there. Trying to sue an insurance company is like titling at windmills. I had insurance and crushed my foot and leg the number of procedures and Dr. visits they rejected for BS reasons was amazing. "We will not paid this claim because it coded as in hospital while it's am office visit." My Dr. office was in a hospital. "This procedure was not "pre-approved" and therefore we will not be paying this claim." They approved via phone but not in writing. Over a three year period I ended up ponying up nearly 35K and I had insurance through my employer and my wife's. I couldn't find an attorney that would seriously consider taking this on and I worked with and personally knew a lot of attorneys. Most of those were criminal law, but they checked it out and asked other law firms. I was told I would need a law firm that specialized in medical insurance, would have to pay them a huge retainer and the odds of winning weren't even 50/50. I was repeatedly told the decks stacked in their favor and paying the 35K might be cheaper and a whole lot less hassle.

Turns out insurance companies have lobbyist working for them and patients basically don't.

 

The Republicans could certainly go this route if they have the WH along with the House and Senate, but....

By my understanding of the process, they could only use the reconciliation process to repeal the tax (mandate) portion of the law, NOT the entire law. So they would be left with all of the he new requirements in the law and no way to pay for it.

But they have also demonstrated little regard for the rules of the Senate when they dont like those rules and a Republican parliamentarian could interpret the rules any way he/she wanted.

 

Did they fund No Child Left Behind? How about the wars? Were they funded?

 

If I recall, NCLB was funded, just not at the fully authorized levels. The wars were funded off-budget in emergency supplemental bills so it never showed up as contributing to Bush's annual budget deficits.

If the Republicans cant fully repeal it (my opinion) but dont fully fund it, the push-back from insurance companies would be massive.

These companies would be required to implement all the new provisions -- no more pre-existing condition exclusions, no more rescission, no more annual/lifetime limits, new 80/20 loss ration, etc -- but no greater "pool" of potential new customers w/o the Insurance Exchanges. It all comes down to the insurance companies needing these new, young, health, currently uninsured folks to make it work, and that would require fully funding the program.

 

The Chairman of the Mississippi Tea Party is calling for armed insurrection or as he puts it "patriotic resistance to invasion."

Hallelujah and power to the armed defenders of truth, justice and the American way!
--- merged: Jun 29, 2012 at 5:03 PM ---
Oh wait! John Brown was convicted of treason in 1859 and executed for attempting to organize armed resistance to slavery.

Hmmm. Who is really on the verge of treason here? Obama and Supreme Court or the Mississippi Tea Party?

 

I think it's the legitimacy of process that leads me to believe the law should stand, as is. It's also curious how a lot of gun-rights advocates are now calling the Supreme Court "Activist." I didn't hear this from them when the SCOTUS put forth the Heller decision. And not striking down a law is the very act of judicial restraint.

Still not quite sure how I feel about the law, personally. Ran some numbers through a calculator, and it looks like it's a $25,000 tax per year if you're over a certain bracket of income. That's $2,000 a month. And a serious tax. But maybe i'm interpreting it wrong?

 

Correct, FBI and ATF though local officials can act too.
--- merged: Jun 29, 2012 at 5:45 PM ---

Face it some gun folks are just as stupid as the rest of the population.

I'm always amazed at people who cheer when the court rules in their favor and scream "revolt, to arms, to arms!" every time they lose a case. Morons.

 

You're calculations may be close, but the tax would only apply to those w/o health insurance and with income above the poverty threshold or about 2 percent of taxpayers who chose not to purchase insurance.

Starting in 2014, the tax is $95/adult and $48/child OR 1% of family income (the higher of the two) and with incremental increases each year. So if you make $2 million/year and dont have health insurance (highly unlikely), you would pay 1% of income or $20,000.

It is hardly the biggest middle class tax increase in history as Republicans are claiming (given the percentage of middle class taxpayers who currently have insurance).

The other tax is the medicare payroll tax increase of 0.9% on income over $200k.

 

I am 52 and I pay far to much for health insurance. I have no serious issues with a high deductible plan and an HSA - with a son who is 15 and I guess I can insure him up to 26. Before partisan politics I care most about my family and my pocket book. I think some people will have to pay more. Who? I suspect it will be young healthy people who pay more. I suspect those without coverage will be forced to pay one way or another. I suspect those with "Cadillac plans" will pay more. I suspect employers who employ 50 or more who decide not to provide employer coverage will pay more and those costs will impact employment, wages, and prices. Then I suspect it won't be enough, and everyone will pay more and get less care. I don't see any real cost savings in the legislation.
--- merged: Jun 29, 2012 at 6:47 PM ---

What about the subsidies. How do those apply? For example, will a family of 4 with income of $80,000 currently paying about $5,000 per year for health insurance get a subsidy off-setting some of their costs? Will they be able to go into the exchanges to save money? Do the subsidies apply to the exchanges? Where is the money for the subsidies coming from?

 

Ace, honestly, I have tried to explain it as I understand it on several occasions in the past and you wont accept it as factual.

Further, you keep insisting that free market/increased competition is the solution, yet as I pointed out more than once, the health insurance market is a closed market in much of the country, with 2-3 providers controlling 90% of the market. Increased competition will come about through the Exchanges.

Others can try to answers your other questions. For me, it is a waste of time. Just being honest with you.

 

The one thing about this I seem to be having trouble figuring out (and that could very well be because I am a moron) is that the government is now saying everyone has to have health insurance. No ifs and or buts. Now the people I see cheering this the most are, of course, those without. However, it seems that those without are the ones that can't afford insurance in the first place.

How does this help them?
Where is the money going to come from to get these people insurance?
Is the government going to step up and give them the money?
Does this legislation do anything to curb the insane costs of pharmaceuticals?

I am all for regulating the hell out of the insurance industry and forcing them to play fair. There is just something I can't quite put my finger on that I don't like about this particular piece of legislation.