teamosil
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2009
- Messages
- 6,623
- Reaction score
- 2,226
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Charging more not based on better care/coverage or higher risk but simply because it is "fair" is nonsense, nothing more than income redistribution, using the GUISE of the "private" market to "level the field". Obamacare is simply a tax on the young/healthy to pay for care of the old/obese/sick, and nothing more.
The mandate means NOTHING if I may by the cheapest possible policy (or pay the fine, if it is less), then AFTER I get sick/injured "upgrade" it to the BEST possible plan (no pre-existing condidtion can be considered), paying very high monthly premiums, ONLY until treatment is completed and then reverting back to the cheapest available plan.
I don't know all the details, but probably not. It's sort of a subspecies of the freeloader problem. People get those kinds of plans and then skimp on preventative care and it ends up creating most costs in the long run.
We do not know this as a certainty. The CBO has to rescore the bill under its current guidelines as handed down by SCOTUS. No medicare increases and Ive got to assume no exemptions will be allowed as federal taxes are not able to be exempted without direct legislative action.
On a year to year basis its going to run a deficit because of the 2 year funding gimmick.
Its also expected to run $700billion more than projected.
The Supreme Court just affirmed that you are free to go without health insurance if you like; that's completely fine. You just have to pay an irresponsibility tax, to cover the costs for when you end up in the emergency room and stick the public with the bill.
Thats not neccessarily true. McDonalds has more comprehensive plans for their employees but the majority of their workers are very young--college/high school age, they just want emergency medical, if they need to go for something routine, they pay out of pocket. Younger people dont tend to need comprehensive medical normally unless they have something already in their background.
Socialized system? Uh... What?
Debating you is a wonderful, but laborious process. Fortunately, I'm retired and have plenty of time on my hands. The CBO scores legislation based on the assumptions it is given. The CBO does not look to any info other than the assumptions it is given. There is no independent review. Before passage President Obama sent the bill to the CBO with a set of assumptions that demonstrated it would be revenue neutral.
Because of that fact the Budget Reconciliation process was used illegitimately, and what you refer to as tweaks should have been subjected to unlimited debate as the filibuster rules would otherwise require. But there wouldn't have been sixty votes to allow those tweaks. So why bother tweaking as you assert?
The Supreme Court just affirmed that you are free to go without health insurance if you like; that's completely fine. You just have to pay an irresponsibility tax, to cover the costs for when you end up in the emergency room and stick the public with the bill.
Are there states that are governed by people with such fanatical hatred for Obama that they'd be willing to turn down a lot of free money just to stick it to him? .
I mean that they hate the health care reform. Obviously.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid were all enacted on a bipartisan basis. That ensured political peace. Obamacare wasn't enacted on a bipartisan basis. Instead, President Obama put Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of getting the legislation enacted. They are probably the two most partisan people on earth.
The biggest problem with the US's health care system cost wise is that we don't get enough preventative care. It is way, way, cheaper to prevent loads of kinds of problems than to treat them after they arise. For example, many men between say 18 and 40 will only go to the doctor once every 5 or even 10 years when something goes wrong. That is a huge problem because they can develop all kinds of conditions and whatnot during that time and not realize it. High cholesterol, high blood pressure, that kind of stuff. Women on the other hand generally go once a year or more their whole lives and that is part of why women's lifespans are so much longer. In most first world countries they have much more of a focus on preventative care, which is why they often have longer lifespans and it is a big part of why they have so much lower medical costs overall. The goal with the minimums is largely to eliminate barriers to getting preventative care to try to get us back on course in that regard.
Where does one find this "free" money?
They did indeed reach out to conservatives. They jettisoned the public option and adopted the individual mandate to get a compromise, precisely because Republicans like Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch were telling them that they could find a broad consensus around an individual mandate as late as the summer of 2009. So the Democrats tried it...and the entire Republican Party did an about-face, gave them the finger, burnt down 20 years of intellectual groundwork they themselves had laid for the individual mandate, pissed on the ashes, and salted the earth so nothing could ever grow their again.
Under those circumstances, what possible bipartisan agreement do you imagine was possible? As far as I can tell, the GOP doesn't even *have* a health care platform anymore, because their previous platform is now the law of the land in the form of PPACA.
Were the death panels ruled constitutional? :lol:
Obamacare's purpose is to convert our current HC System to a Socialized and Centrally Controlled Institution like they currently have in Europe.
Your employer is going to drop you from their HC coverage. Premiums are already going up and will continue to rise as people actually start paying for "Free HC for all" and "Free contraception for women" ect. A new system develops, people learn the system. People game the system. If you think there's waste and fraud in Medicare and Medicaid now just waste. Anything the Government is involved in where they hand out free stuff at taxpayer expense always attracts people who will game the system.
They did indeed reach out to conservatives. They jettisoned the public option and adopted the individual mandate to get a compromise, precisely because Republicans like Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch were telling them that they could find a broad consensus around an individual mandate as late as the summer of 2009. So the Democrats tried it...and the entire Republican Party did an about-face, gave them the finger, burnt down 20 years of intellectual groundwork they themselves had laid for the individual mandate, pissed on the ashes, and salted the earth so nothing could ever grow their again.
Under those circumstances, what possible bipartisan agreement do you imagine was possible? As far as I can tell, the GOP doesn't even *have* a health care platform anymore, because their previous platform is now the law of the land in the form of PPACA.
All talk of tort reform, allowing world free market access to drugs and allowing HSA/catstrophic coverage were rejected in similar fashion by the demorats.
From 2014 to 2016, the federal government will pay 100% of the cost of the Medicaid expansion for the states that opt in. This share will gradually decline, until the federal government pays 90% of the cost in 2020. Any state government that turns down a 10-to-1 matching Medicaid grant is motivated solely by fanaticism. I'm sure there are a few of them, but there won't be many and they won't hold out for long.
It now appears that the dissent of the conservative Justices was at one time the majority opinion, and that Roberts changed his vote based on intimidation. He was intimidated by threats to delegitimize the Supreme Court if Obamacare wasn't validated. It may be that Chief Justice put his fears about the institution of the Supreme Court over his duty to interpret the Constitution. If this is true, Chief Justice Roberts breached his duty to the Constitution.
If that were true
Orrin Hatch and Chuck Grassley would have voted for Obamacare.
You know there are going to be glitches and problems in the administration of Obamacare over the next decade. That's in the nature of all major legislation. Some of those problems will require legislative resolution.
How will the Democrats be able to fix those problems unless they control the Senate with sixty votes, the House of Representatives and the Presidency?
The supreme court long ago gave away its legitimacy...how can it be possible you have 4 justices ALWAYS vote one way and 4 justices ALWAYS vote the opposite of the other 4...with one swinger that swings back and forth...its nonesense has been for years.
They did indeed reach out to conservatives. They jettisoned the public option and adopted the individual mandate to get a compromise, precisely because Republicans like Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch were telling them that they could find a broad consensus around an individual mandate as late as the summer of 2009. So the Democrats tried it...and the entire Republican Party did an about-face, gave them the finger, burnt down 20 years of intellectual groundwork they themselves had laid for the individual mandate, pissed on the ashes, and salted the earth so nothing could ever grow their again.
Under those circumstances, what possible bipartisan agreement do you imagine was possible? As far as I can tell, the GOP doesn't even *have* a health care platform anymore, because their previous platform is now the law of the land in the form of PPACA.
The supreme court long ago gave away its legitimacy...how can it be possible you have 4 justices ALWAYS vote one way and 4 justices ALWAYS vote the opposite of the other 4...with one swinger that swings back and forth...its nonesense has been for years.
3. Perhaps the Democrats will indeed get a commanding majority in the Senate, the House, and the White House.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?