ACA Supreme Court Tuesday

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, it's different. it's a bad attempt at fixing a bad problem.

single payer. that's what's needed. not that it would ultimately end up a great system-but then everyone would be covered and it wouldn't be a convoluted crazy mess.

What's different other than a mandate forcing you to buy unbelievably expensive insurance you can't afford? The insurance companies are already there. I have caddilac insurance and still pay well over 5 thousand dollars out of pocket every single year for my family with co pays, deductibles etc. Granted, I have a pre-existing condition etc, so I will pay more. But even with a superb plan, it's breaking me...the costs.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

What's different other than a mandate forcing you to buy unbelievably expensive insurance you can't afford? The insurance companies are already there. I have caddilac insurance and still pay well over 5 thousand dollars out of pocket every single year for my family with co pays, deductibles etc. Granted, I have a pre-existing condition etc, so I will pay more. But even with a superb plan, it's breaking me...the costs.

what's different is that those of us paying will continue to pay more and more...both in higher premiums and in higher taxes, since the way they're attempting to force people to buy coverage who can't afford to pay is by subsidizing their premiums- and their stop losses. essentially the govt has passed something that keeps insurance companies in business, assures them of a buying public, but does absolutely nothing to handle rising costs which is caused by a variety of factors. you've got a govt telling ins. cos they must add fringe benefits, take on all comers regardless of health-of course that will make those of us paying premiums see the prices explode.
ACA supposedly doesn't take effect til '14, but certain things are already occuring-including supposedly having the feds set aside money now for the bills that will start coming due in a couple years. yeah, cause they're so good at budgeting money.
the reason they won't even attempt single payer is because it would put a lot of folks out of work-there would be no bcbs anymore, or humana, united healthcare, etc. there wouldn't be a need for health ins. companies anymore. problem is, back when they should have done this, they didn't. now, you're trying to change this humongous mess which would have a lot of negative consequences...so they're trying to take what we have, and make it fit. it's not going to work. and what it all boils down to-how does the fed have the right to tell someone they must purchase a product-one that is really an intangible at that. you buy a car, you have a car. you see it, it's there, you can use it. when's the last time you washed your insurance policy? took it for a drive? read it even? it's there if you need it. because it's a different type of product, a promise of a service if there's a need, all the rules are different. the mindset is different.
would everyone be better off with coverage? yes. but how do you force it? there's only one way to actually, legally, constitutionally guarantee medical coverage for everyone. until it gets to where more need/want it than don't, there won't be a push.
but right now, most of the country is covered in some form or fashin. whether thru medicare, medicaid, buying on their own, or thru a group. but obama and congress are attempting to create this monstrosity that will essentially add coverage for some, while making changes that affect many-and for many affected, the change is negative.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

What's different other than a mandate forcing you to buy unbelievably expensive insurance you can't afford? The insurance companies are already there. I have caddilac insurance and still pay well over 5 thousand dollars out of pocket every single year for my family with co pays, deductibles etc. Granted, I have a pre-existing condition etc, so I will pay more. But even with a superb plan, it's breaking me...the costs.

About $1,000 of your annual premium cost is paying for uninsured people.

The mandate, which will affect less than 7% of adults, helps lower that cost for you. In 2014, you'll be able to shop the exchanges for less expensive insurance (including that offered by non-profits), with zero concern about your pre-existing condition. You'll pay the same with a new policy as someone without your condition.

If you cannot afford insurance, there are tax credits that will help you afford it.

In addition, and luckily for you, the ACA has now made it illegal for an insurance company to drop you for claims on your existing conditions.

Yes, single payer would have been far more efficient, and cost alot less, but the GOP was stalling, so a GOP plan was chosen to get something passed. Hopefully, within 10 years, we'll have single payer. Either as a result of this country coming to it's senses about our excessive healthcare costs; or, in the rare situation the ACA is overturned, and Medicare being immediately extended to 40-50 million currently uninsured Americans.

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Danzig

what's different is that those of us paying will continue to pay more and more...both in higher premiums and in higher taxes,

This has been happening for years and years without the ACA (paying more and more and more in premiums as well as co pays and deductables). I suppose you could argue the ACA will increase payments even more, but I think it's moot, it's already been happening pre-passage. And the bolded part is laughable...that ain't ever gonna happen again (there's them jobs to be created and all...can't ever raise them again!!). In essence it's simply what America is right now...choose evil or evil. That's what a national election is and that is what is the ACA or pre-ACA is. The high comedy of all this is that we have an economic neo-liberal right wing ultra-conservative president right now, and we have to try to out-conservative him in the republican primaries...it is extreme hilarity of the highest order. Right now Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan would be way, way too liberal to win a democratic primary. That is where we stand. Obama has taken what the Bush admin has done to the infinite order to where a sitting president has the right to execute any American they wish with no repurcussion whatsoever. None. Obama cut his deals with the health insurance companies and pharmacutical companies long before he was even elected. Single payer was not an option and never was and never will be, that this plan is defined by the "other side" as socialism is beyond laughable. People still can't understand that the two political parties are in complete synch with each other and 100 percent in collusion, it is all a complete act the "gridlock", there is no disagreement about anything....look at the votes on the military spending bills and NDAA, they go about 90-10 in Senate. They make up stuff for the reality television type entertainment as the contraception fight....really, and the fight over this health care reform which is nothing really, the system stays as is and has been forever. It's a pretty straight forward conservative solution, insurance mandates, from the 90s. So what one side wanted is now "socialism", and at the time what the other side wouldn't do now unanimously votes for it. That we have 24 hour news channels covering it just makes it simply circus clown stuff. Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and whomever else has a big time stake in maintaining this fake "left and right" supreme divide as denoted by the "R and D" tribal gatherings. That does not exist at all any more and hasn't for quite some time. Some are starting to figure it out, but it will take a long, long time and by then it will likely be too late. We're suckers of the highest order.

Look at the NDAA votes. Look at the number of Goldman-Sachs stooges on Obama's staff, look at the military decisions of Obama, and compare them to Bush. There is zero divide people....zero. None. It's simply a game show. A president Santorum or President Romney, or President Bush, or President Clinton or President Obama. Same as it ever was.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

This has been happening for years and years without the ACA (paying more and more and more in premiums as well as co pays and deductables). I suppose you could argue the ACA will increase payments even more, but I think it's moot, it's already been happening pre-passage. And the bolded part is laughable...that ain't ever gonna happen again (there's them jobs to be created and all...can't ever raise them again!!). In essence it's simply what America is right now...choose evil or evil. That's what a national election is and that is what is the ACA or pre-ACA is. The high comedy of all this is that we have an economic neo-liberal right wing ultra-conservative president right now, and we have to try to out-conservative him in the republican primaries...it is extreme hilarity of the highest order. Right now Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan would be way, way too liberal to win a democratic primary. That is where we stand. Obama has taken what the Bush admin has done to the infinite order to where a sitting president has the right to execute any American they wish with no repurcussion whatsoever. None. Obama cut his deals with the health insurance companies and pharmacutical companies long before he was even elected. Single payer was not an option and never was and never will be, that this plan is defined by the "other side" as socialism is beyond laughable. People still can't understand that the two political parties are in complete synch with each other and 100 percent in collusion, it is all a complete act the "gridlock", there is no disagreement about anything....look at the votes on the military spending bills and NDAA, they go about 90-10 in Senate. They make up stuff for the reality television type entertainment as the contraception fight....really, and the fight over this health care reform which is nothing really, the system stays as is and has been forever. It's a pretty straight forward conservative solution, insurance mandates, from the 90s. So what one side wanted is now "socialism", and at the time what the other side wouldn't do now unanimously votes for it. That we have 24 hour news channels covering it just makes it simply circus clown stuff. Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and whomever else has a big time stake in maintaining this fake "left and right" supreme divide as denoted by the "R and D" tribal gatherings. That does not exist at all any more and hasn't for quite some time. Some are starting to figure it out, but it will take a long, long time and by then it will likely be too late. We're suckers of the highest order.

Look at the NDAA votes. Look at the number of Goldman-Sachs stooges on Obama's staff, look at the military decisions of Obama, and compare them to Bush. There is zero divide people....zero. None. It's simply a game show. A president Santorum or President Romney, or President Bush, or President Clinton or President Obama. Same as it ever was.

can't argue with any of that. luckily here in arkansas you don't have to register with any party-i'm not registered as belonging to any of them, nor as an independent. neither party is a good one in total. both have some good ideas, both have a lot of bad ideas. they all work for one thing only, keeping their seats. and yes, on ndaa etc, dems have tried to portray themselves as being for liberties, as being against things like the patriot act. they saw the patriot act and then raised!

and back to what i said earlier about obama and the individual mandate:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Oba...3/29/id/434199



'The Supreme Court seems poised to declare Obamacare unconstitutional, based partly on an argument that President Barack Obama used to attack former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s healthcare plan in 2008, according to Daily Mail Washington correspondent Toby Harnden.'

[Danzig]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-court-defeat/


not sure if anyone saw obama's comments directed at the scotus the other day regarding the upcoming ppuca ruling. i thought they were ill-advised, and he was overstepping historical boundaries...now i've read this:

'With his comments this week, Obama became the first president to weigh in on a major Supreme Court case after oral arguments wrapped up but before a decision was actually issued, according to University of Texas Supreme Court historian Lucas Powe.'

eric holder has had to put together a three page response per a fed'l judges orders. now, if only someone would the AG write a term paper on why he feels it's hunky dory to avoid due process for u.s. citizens.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ents-persists/


and this, on his comments that an overturning would be unprecedented (he's incorrect on that score)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ted/54004040/1


i know there have been references to how intelligent obama is supposed to be, but i'm beginning to wonder...or maybe he slept all thru civics and u.s. history classes?

[Riot]

Oh, please: the Republican party has been talking directly about specific Supreme Court cases and threatening/discussing "activist judges" for years.

Except, of course, when those judges rule to stop vote counting in Bush v. Gore, and decide a presidential race opposite to the popular vote result.

What Obama said is nothing new, even for a president. It's simply the timing.

The conservative (non-Thomas) Supreme Court judges were, on the bench, talking about political considerations of overturning the ACA. Political!

That shocked long-time Supreme Court watchers. I didn't see much outrage over that departure from convention in the media, any comments on those judges behaviour.

Good grief - two extremely conservative "movement leader" appellate court federal judges have already ruled the entirely of the ACA constitutional. The Supremes, of course, will do what they wish.

I cannot believe the double standard and absolutely ridiculous attacks this president has been subjected to by his political enemies. That is what is unprecedented.

Especially a nonsensical lower-court judge requiring "three pages single spaced" from Eric Holder. God save this country.

[Riot]

I laughed:

Well, earlier today, the panel—really, Republican judicial ppointee Jerry Smith—got the letter it wanted (PDF). And speaking as a lawyer, it's a painfully embarrassing read. As I expected, it's simply a recitation of the most basic tenets of constitutional law that get taught in the first year of law school. It's like explaining band-aids to doctors.

Smith, a notorious partisan hack, pretty much asked the Department of Justice to scrawl "Marbury v. Madison" 50 times on the blackboard, and that's exactly what they did.

But the last word will go to Attorney General Eric Holder, who did the menschy thing and signed the letter himself, rather than making the DoJ line attorney who was the target of Smith's ire take any more incoming fire. Holder's final paragraph reads, in its entirety:

Whether you agree with that or not, it doesn't matter. There's just nothing Smith can do. He can sputter all he likes, he can go to bed every night convinced Eric Holder is mocking him, and he can even continue to make life miserable for the Dept. of Justice lawyers who are appearing before him. But if he was trying to show up the president, he failed—badly.

[Danzig]

http://news.yahoo.com/illinois-gover...184232040.html



and obamacare looks to add tens of millions more to medicaid rolls. then what will rein in spending that is already too high?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://news.yahoo.com/illinois-gover...184232040.html



and obamacare looks to add tens of millions more to medicaid rolls. then what will rein in spending that is already too high?

Two ways to rein in spending on the poor, sick and needy:

1) Don't do it
2) Reform the system

I'll stick with Option 2, thanks. We are not a country of monsters, no matter how many politicians are publicly taking that stand.