Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

ObamacareFail said:

You are arguing against yourself. On one hand you claim the subsidies are not paid by the other insured while on the otherhand you in effect admit that it's not working as well as it should because not enough of the young and healthy are signing up. And how can any human being be proud of making a young and healthy person pay higher rates to subsidize the old and sick many of whom are sick do to unhealthy eating habits, lack of excercise, drug, or alcohol abuse?

Click to expand...

That is how all insurance pools work not just the ACA's. Young and "healthy" people get sick and injured all the time yet they game the system knowing they can't be turned away if the unthinkable happens. That's why we have the mandate. Ending pre-existing conditions requires that everyone be insured too.

ObamacareFail said:

Agreed. Even if not outright repealed, Obamacare will eventually wither and die under it's own weight. At some point, after numerous future rate increases for those not on subsidies, Americans will revolt and say: "Enough is enough."

Click to expand...

Am I mistaken or do not the more series levies etc. kick in after Obama leaves?

You see, can kicking governments forget the negative legacy may backfire, in this case as the dues, as they say, come due, there will be pressure for change. This is the first chance since "You can keep your plan" for Americans to make their wishes known to a presidential candidate. If Obamacare does NOT become a major issue in this run, the Republicans do not deserve to be a political party.

In the meantime, were I a GOP candidate I would be talking about "reforming" it in "fairness" from the core out, as opposed to repealing it, as "the way it was has now become unacceptable". They will have to have a well defined and well thought out alternative.

Fearandloathing said:

Am I mistaken or do not the more series levies etc. kick in after Obama leaves?

Click to expand...

Yeah, the tax on the Cadillac plans kicks in in 2018. But, it is not likely to have a major impact on anything. It is a tax paid by insurers on plans that cost over $10k a year and the tax only applies to the amount over $10k. Only 17% of employers even offer a plan that costs more than $10k a year and only a small fraction of their employees pick one of those plans. Even for those who do, it usually isn't far over $10k/year, so the tax amount would be pretty small. The only people who would pay a significant amount are people who have plans of the sort that are not generally available to consumers. Custom plans that cover outlandish life extension treatments or cosmetic surgery and whatnot.

The reality is that we're past all the triggers for the Republican nightmare predictions about the ACA and none of them, not a single one, turned out to be accurate. Meanwhile, pretty much everything the Democrats predicted has come to pass or, in some cases, exceeded those expectations dramatically. At this point, the best strategy for the GOP is just to try to move on to other issues and hopefully do it in a more sensible way so they can rebuild some of the credibility they lost with all those wild and reckless ACA predictions.

ObamacareFail said:

Actually I think within the next few years, obamacare will become a very hot potato that even the majority of democrats want to get rid of. Even some of them now accept that it is a 900 lb gorilla on their backs. The American middle class that does not qualify for the subsidies are not going to accept too many more 34 to 70% rate hikes. Despite the insane Supreme Court ruling....I think obamacare's days are numbered.

Click to expand...

I agree it will continue to be a hot potato, but rather than have the ACA rescinded and going back, it will be replaced or parts amended so that you move closer, not further away, to a single payer system. Your Supreme Court, in its two political rulings that ignored the constitution, has set in stone that you will not go back. And if a Republican wins the White House in 2016, which I hope happens, Republicans will own the problem.

JasperL said:

Actually, no.

Click to expand...

Actually yes. The congress passes unconstitutional laws, the President takes unconstitutional actions. The supreme court rules against the constitution.

Fearandloathing said:

You are the first American in 20 years who has shown a true understanding of what it is. Kudos to you, you have done some homework. I would say any figure between 25 and 30% would be accurate in terms of initial outright savings. However, thew next step is to reduce the profit aspect in the delivery end, community owned, not for profit hospitals.

Having said that, we have a giant problem there with the type of funding, but its a side issue.

Now, you combine all the programs, bam, bye bye a whole lot of unnecessary bureaucracy.

What I have never understood is that the US more or less invented the public school system, community owned schools on a universal not for profit footing. But, you refuse to see the same benefits for something as important as health care.

As strange as this may sound, I believe Canada's "nice" reputation is in part due to our health care, our lower crime rate, indeed our community oriented culture our growing unity as a nation, all have been bolstered by health care.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the compliment.

But in all fairness, I must admit my paternal grandfather emigrated from Calgary, I have relatives from Hull to Vancouver, and I spent chunks of my youth visiting them & ski-bumming across the country. If I were to retire expat, I'd very much consider Montreal or Quebec City (I love both).

The profit side of healthcare (incl insurance companies) speaks directly to the need for cost containment. And this then brings-up the much larger issue of how do we perceive healthcare on the spectrum from 'basic human right' to 'profiteering commodity' . There's a lot of lee-way between those two polar opposites, and unfortunately those that profit from healthcare have the most influence over those that regulate it and make those decisions for us as a society.

I particularly see the GOP attempting to roll-back government & institutions that bring us together or provide safety for us in the name of individualism & free-market capitalism, with the opposition to universal healthcare reflective of this. I believe they represent monied and corporate interests that are often at odds with our societal good.

In your last paragraph you speak of the more cooperative benevolent nature of Canadians, and attribute this in-part to universal healthcare, and I believe you are correct - though I believe the cause-effect axis is bilateral in this case. I see your universal healthcare & our respective lack of it as a societal/political result of the current political system and it's flaws. Worse yet, I see downward forces exerted from the political parties & their politician members to the citizenry, spreading disinformation and stoking the flames of anger & hatred - this is how we end-up with significant segments of our citizenry believing universal healthcare requires 'death panels', and 'Canadians are fleeing their country for American healthcare'. Indeed, 1/3 of the citizens that identify as Republicans believe President Obama was not born here, is not a citizen, and therefore is illegitimate - I find it hard to believe all these citizens came up with this idea independently. There is good reason why Canadian broadcast regulations allow 'Fox Entertainment' but not 'Fox News', and there is also good reason why Canadians have maintained their version of the 'Fairness Doctrine', rather than embrace the American 'right to lie' provision. This special interest/political party induced disinformation is (IMO) further dividing the citizenry, turning Americans against each other. And it works to the advantage of those that profit from an incohesive society.

In short, we have money at the top influencing our legislators where they thereby provide disinformation through a cooperative media in order to satisfy the special interests that finance their campaigns for them to remain monied & in power. It is the dark-side of the otherwise excellent system of free-market capitalism, and could be easily prevented with some basic financial regulation (Britain has excellent political regs, IMO) - unfortunately those that benefit from the lack-of regulation are the one's entrusted to provide them.

And this is how the most affluent country in the free-world fails to provide healthcare commensurate with her peer nations! (or even some of those below peer!)

Worse Than the Supremes: Obamacare Economics - Larry Kudlow, IBD

The judicial decision to uphold all of the president's health care subsidies may be very disappointing, but the economics of Obamacare are far worse than whatever constitutional mistakes have been committed by the Supreme Court.
The economics of Obamacare are very bad. The law is inflicting broad damage on job creation and new business formation. It ruins job incentives by making it pay more not to work, thereby intensifying a labor shortage that is holding back growth and in turn lowering incomes and spending.
And across-the-board Obamacare tax increases are inflicting heavy punishment on investment -- right when the U.S. economy desperately needs more capital as a way of solving a steep productivity decline.
Because of Obamacare, there's an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on salaries and self-employment income, a 3.8 percent tax increase on capital gains and dividends, a cap on health care flexible spending accounts, a higher threshold for itemized medical expense deductions, and a stiff penalty on employer reimbursements for individual employee health policy premiums.
Each of these tax hikes is anti-growth and anti-job. . . .

ludin said:

no one for this has shown me where the SCOTUS has the authority or the IRS for that matter to re-write the law.
which is what they did. that is unconstitutional. they do not have the ability to re-write a law or change the wording of a law yet they did it anyway.

there is a political will we are just going to have to wait till 2016 when Obama is gone in order to do it.

Click to expand...

The SC decides final interpretation ludin, and they evaluate legislation in legal terms, not linguistic.

There's more to law, than specific phrases - there's context.

With all respects, and no specific prejudice to yourself, I'll trust the legal judgement of the Justices of the Court, before that an individual on the internet - though I'm happy for the discussion. But if we don't respect the Court, who do we respect?

I do agree the legislation can be re-written (within constitutional authority) if the political will is there (specifically, a GOP President & 60 count filibuster-proof Senate).

mmi said:

You shouldn't be surprised. Some of these people got their legal education from the Jerry Springer Show.

Click to expand...

You're right--I shouldn't be surprised. Maybe I'm too much an optimist at heart, but I'm still often surprised by the sheer lack of depth from posters on these boards. It's not just the conservative posters, and some conservative posters do post with some depth. But...just, damn. It's disheartening.

jonny5 said:

Actually yes. The congress passes unconstitutional laws, the President takes unconstitutional actions. The supreme court rules against the constitution.

Click to expand...

It's amusing that a government formed as the result of essentially a tax revolt has three branches that bend over backwards to increase/defend taxation (via mandated subsidies or otherwise) by the most convoluted/Alice-in-Wonderland reasoning. This latest decision by SCOTUS is just part of the pattern, where the actual literal wording of the law passed was ignored to effect the new agenda: states aren't bending to federal incentives to set up their own exchanges, so the trigger built in to get buy-in backfired and hence needs to be judicially changed to make the "intention" of the law "work" rather than the law itself.

The individual mandate decision three years ago was another example of this: it's not a tax otherwise SCOTUS couldn't rule on it (since it hadn't affected anyone yet) but it was a tax hence congress had authority to implement it.

I really think this country is no longer a nation of laws, but rather policies. For instance, it is still technically illegal to enter the US illegally, but the policy is not to enforce this law. Marijuana is still technically illegal federally but the policy is not to enforce this law in states that have decriminalized it despite the clear applicabilty of the supremcy clause. For instance, if a state made NFA firearms explicitedly legal and subject to the same laws governing non-NFA weapons, I suspect the policy would be to invoke the supremacy clause in short order along with aggressive ATF enforcement.

Citizen.Seven said:

It's amusing that a government formed as the result of essentially a tax revolt has three branches that bend over backwards to increase/defend taxation (via mandated subsidies or otherwise) by the most convoluted/Alice-in-Wonderland reasoning. This latest decision by SCOTUS is just part of the pattern, where the actual literal wording of the law passed was ignored to effect the new agenda: states aren't bending to federal incentives to set up their own exchanges, so the trigger built in to get buy-in backfired and hence needs to be judicially changed to make the "intention" of the law "work" rather than the law itself.

The individual mandate decision three years ago was another example of this: it's not a tax otherwise SCOTUS couldn't rule on it (since it hadn't affected anyone yet) but it was a tax hence congress had authority to implement it.

I really think this country is no longer a nation of laws, but rather policies. For instance, it is still technically illegal to enter the US illegally, but the policy is not to enforce this law. Marijuana is still technically illegal federally but the policy is not to enforce this law in states that have decriminalized it despite the clear applicabilty of the supremcy clause. For instance, if a state made NFA firearms explicitedly legal and subject to the same laws governing non-NFA weapons, I suspect the policy would be to invoke the supremacy clause in short order along with aggressive ATF enforcement.

Click to expand...

A lot of history ignorance and modern news ignorance.

I seem to remember that it wasn't so much a "tax revolt" but more of a complaint about self-governance. The Boston Tea Party saw a group put together by local merchants who didn't care for the fact that the tea being brought in was cheaper than the prices they had levied before the monarchy took control of the tea trade.

Error #1: "the policy is not to enforce this law" During the Obama years, more border crossers have been arrested, more detainees have been returned to their home countries and the Border Patrol has doubled in numbers.

Error #2: "Marijuana is still technically illegal federally but the policy is not to enforce this law in states that have decriminalized it despite the clear applicabilty of the supremcy clause." DEA Raids 2 Los Angeles Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
DEA raids four Denver marijuana sites related to VIP Cannabis - The Denver Post
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...sicians-say/PHsP0zRlaxXwnDazsohIOL/story.html

Jack Hays said:

Worse Than the Supremes: Obamacare Economics - Larry Kudlow, IBD

The judicial decision to uphold all of the president's health care subsidies may be very disappointing, but the economics of Obamacare are far worse than whatever constitutional mistakes have been committed by the Supreme Court.
The economics of Obamacare are very bad. The law is inflicting broad damage on job creation and new business formation. It ruins job incentives by making it pay more not to work, thereby intensifying a labor shortage that is holding back growth and in turn lowering incomes and spending.
And across-the-board Obamacare tax increases are inflicting heavy punishment on investment -- right when the U.S. economy desperately needs more capital as a way of solving a steep productivity decline.
Because of Obamacare, there's an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on salaries and self-employment income, a 3.8 percent tax increase on capital gains and dividends, a cap on health care flexible spending accounts, a higher threshold for itemized medical expense deductions, and a stiff penalty on employer reimbursements for individual employee health policy premiums.
Each of these tax hikes is anti-growth and anti-job. . . .

Click to expand...

and your thoughts?

Citizen.Seven said:

It's amusing that a government formed as the result of essentially a tax revolt has three branches that bend over backwards to increase/defend taxation (via mandated subsidies or otherwise) by the most convoluted/Alice-in-Wonderland reasoning. This latest decision by SCOTUS is just part of the pattern, where the actual literal wording of the law passed was ignored to effect the new agenda: states aren't bending to federal incentives to set up their own exchanges, so the trigger built in to get buy-in backfired and hence needs to be judicially changed to make the "intention" of the law "work" rather than the law itself.

The individual mandate decision three years ago was another example of this: it's not a tax otherwise SCOTUS couldn't rule on it (since it hadn't affected anyone yet) but it was a tax hence congress had authority to implement it.

I really think this country is no longer a nation of laws, but rather policies. For instance, it is still technically illegal to enter the US illegally, but the policy is not to enforce this law. Marijuana is still technically illegal federally but the policy is not to enforce this law in states that have decriminalized it despite the clear applicabilty of the supremcy clause. For instance, if a state made NFA firearms explicitedly legal and subject to the same laws governing non-NFA weapons, I suspect the policy would be to invoke the supremacy clause in short order along with aggressive ATF enforcement.

Click to expand...

per the literal wording of the law, we can't have the Air Force, for example.
slippery slope, and a real dangerous way of being stuck in 18th century technology (2A, etc).

Greenbeard said:

So you've never shopped for a lower priced service. Yet complain about the price of services. Hmm! What on earth could be the problem here?

To the guy questioning the value of deductibles to price sensitivity and market dynamics: see utter lack of both above. And misdirected consumer angst that results from lack thereof.

Click to expand...

It's funny. This used to be the hardcore Conservative position on healthcare.

Now it's the 'Conservatives' whining about things like high deductibles and being forced to pay high prices for things they want (but don't necessarily need).

Thanks for the reply.

CanadaJohn said:

My comments were looking mainly at the politics of the issue. From what I can see, there isn't a hope in hell that the Democrats will win back the House in 2016 and chances are very good that the Senate will remain, marginally, in Republican hands. As such, Republicans will run the agenda in Congress for the foreseeable future. Hillary Clinton is pretty much despised in most Republican circles and also remembered for her disaster of healthcare reform in the early 90s that first brought her arrogance to light. There are few Republicans who will work to fix the ACA with Clinton as President. With a Republican President, and one like Jeb Bush, the Republicans will then own the ACA and it will be in their best interests to fix it, politically. Someone like Bush, a policy wonk and an even tempered person, can bring compromise to the table and bring a majority of both parties to reform.

Click to expand...

You make a pretty good argument here. I still have a hard time seeing a GOP President making positive changes to the ACA besides castrating it, but Governor Bush would be one guy who might not. I think you're assessment of Secretary Clinton's efficacy is likely right-on-the-mark. She'd probably do some minor stuff using Executive Order as President Obama's been doing, though

The reason I suggested an expansion of Medicaid is because the original rationale for the ACA was that too many poor people lacked any insurance - it's a legitimate concern in a first world nation - the way to solve it is for the federal government to self-insure them. Why subsidize payments to an insurance company to pad their profit margins when you can simply on a cost basis provide the care needed? If that had been done originally, the majority of people, most of whom liked their insurance, wouldn't have been nearly as opposed. And that truly would have been the first step towards a universal healthcare program in your system. When it was shown that the services could be provided at a lesser cost per patient than under the previous system, more Americans would have been interested in buying in.

Click to expand...

Good rational.

You might be on to something here. I also would've liked to see a MediCare buy-in option for the middle-class as another option. But you are absolutely right: the insurers profit & administrative costs eat up 27% of the healthcare pie, while MedicAid overhead is only 5%. That's a savings of over 22% and that savings would essentially cover all those currently uninsured! There's no reason for profiteering insurance companies causing parasitic losses.

As for having ancestors in and from Canada, they can probably tell you that our healthcare system has problems and isn't universally equal across the Provinces. As an example, pharmacare, or what is basically prescription medicine coverage, isn't part of our healthcare package. But in Quebec, the Provincial government subsidizes that far more than other provinces. Our system provides for basic coverages universally but much of today's healthcare services and needs are not covered. But the benefit we do have and the comfort we generally feel, is that if we ever get really, deadly, sick our care for the most part is covered and we don't have financial concerns related to health.

Click to expand...

Yeah, the lack of prescription coverage is an oddity to an outsider looking-in, but at least Canadian prescriptions don't suffer from as much excess price profiteering as in the States.

And your final sentence echos my relatives greatest concerns when they last visited, ironically during the 'town halls' summer prior to legislating the bill: They are pretty aghast that Americans lose their homes and go bankrupt by virtue of happening to get randomly sick through no fault of their own. For all the GOP bandying-about that summer about how Canadians are fleeing Canada for American healthcare, my relatives did not find this representative at all - they were pretty blown-away by how the were being characterized.

tuhaybey said:

Many Republicans certainly seem to think that, but again, as we discussed earlier, it actually slowed the rate at which prices were increasing.

Click to expand...

Lol !!

If it wasn't affordable to begin with, ( why we needed ObamaCare ) how is it more affordable after cost increase ?

Your party lied and has been lying ever since.

Its why you got your asses handed to you in 2014. Its why your Politicans has to keep a lid on discussing the ACA

The ACA isn't going to get better before 2016. Is going to get worse.

Threegoofs said:

It's funny. This used to be the hardcore Conservative position on healthcare.

Now it's the 'Conservatives' whining about things like high deductibles and being forced to pay high prices for things they want (but don't necessarily need).

Click to expand...

Your idiot Politicians lied, and their idiot supporters believed those lies.

They STILL believe the lies.

Looking forward to more Democrats pretending that ObamaCare doesn't exist in 2016 elections, and then losing.

Fenton said:

Your idiot Politicians lied, and their idiot supporters believed those lies.

They STILL believe the lies.

Looking forward to more Democrats pretending that ObamaCare doesn't exist in 2016 elections, and then losing.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I remember that was the GOP line in 2012 too.

Fenton said:

Lol !!

If it wasn't affordable to begin with, ( why we needed ObamaCare ) how is it more affordable after cost increase ?

Your party lied and has been lying ever since.

Its why you got your asses handed to you in 2014. Its why your Politicans has to keep a lid on discussing the ACA

The ACA isn't going to get better before 2016. Is going to get worse.

Click to expand...

Yep. NEXT year!

Fenton said:

Lol !!

If it wasn't affordable to begin with, ( why we needed ObamaCare ) how is it more affordable after cost increase ?

Your party lied and has been lying ever since.

Its why you got your asses handed to you in 2014. Its why your Politicans has to keep a lid on discussing the ACA

The ACA isn't going to get better before 2016. Is going to get worse.

Click to expand...

You seem to just be playing dumb at this point... I already addressed that squarely and you had no reply.

SlevinKelevra said:

and your thoughts?

Click to expand...

Kudlow makes some good points.

Fenton said:

Your idiot Politicians lied, and their idiot supporters believed those lies.

They STILL believe the lies.

Looking forward to more Democrats pretending that ObamaCare doesn't exist in 2016 elections, and then losing.

Click to expand...

God, I can't wait until Hillary becomes President next year. Republican tears...mmm, they'll taste so good.

Manc Skipper said:

This and the SC ruling on gay marriage. It's a bad day to be a conservative, you could almot pity them.

Click to expand...

No, I'm enjoying reading their despair over this ruling. In fact, I'm loving it!

Henrin said:

I prefer putting them in wheelchairs and flinging them off cliffs. Seriously though, it's not my problem if they can't afford.something.

Click to expand...

It may not be your problem, but we are going to see that you contribute to fixing the problem, whether or not you want to help or not. Get used to it!

Politicshead said:

God, I can't wait until Hillary becomes President next year. Republican tears...mmm, they'll taste so good.

Click to expand...

Lol !!

She's actually losing ground to a avowed Socialist.

How bad of a candidate do you have to be to have Bernie Sanders gaining ground on you ??

Hillary's disastrous book tour tells me she's not this big Political power house you people make her out to be. She wasn't even influential in the Mid-terms when she went out and stumped for Democrat candidates.

Hillary has a unfortunate problem. The MORE she talks. the more public appearances she makes, the more people hate her. Her shrill voice and funny pants suit clown outfits turn people off immediately.

Not to mention she has NOTHING to run on. No accomplishments to brag about and of-course she cant run on the successes of Obama and Obamacare.