Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

for someone who decries using Fox News as a source, listen to how the study publisher is described in the linked article:

Did you just compare Reuters to Fox?...lol Also, I'm missing your point about The Commonwealth Fund group.(the people who conducts these surveys)

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Anytime the US is compared in a world study, you need to ask yourself, is the US going to stack up equally with a country like the Netherlands(#1 on the list). They are two completely different animals with 2 different economies. Sometimes statistics just don't say the whole truth.

Well, I'm not looking as much as what we pay out as compared to these aspects.

The report looks at five measures of healthcare -- quality, efficiency, access to care, equity and the ability to lead long, healthy, productive lives.

The economies should have absolutely nothing to do with the quality and efficiency of the health care received. Aren't we touted as having the best doctors in the world, yet the foreigners get better quality care? The major thing that economies would affect is the cost and the access to health care.

[12thMan]

Skinsguy,

You seem to have your own interpretation of the rules, especially regarding the individual mandate. The mandate isn't specifically for low income people neither do ALL in the pool of 30 million qualify to receive a tax credit.

The Supreme Court's ruling said, the federal gov't under Obamacare cannot dictate to states whether to accept Medicaid funding. Essentially, that's the only portion of the law that was more or less struck down.

Right now the federal government pays for about 57% of total Medicaid costs. That's even before we start debating whether "Obamacare" is a good or bad idea. Medicaid eligibility varies from state to state. Some states have a vastly more complex healthcare delivery system than others. State run hospitals, university hospitals, and other network providers are absorbing the costs and looking toward the state for reimbursement. In other words, states defray costs and foot the bill for covering the uninsured. When times are lean, Medicaid is the typically the first program to see the axe and have eligibility requirements change. The new law, "Obamacare", says you can't change those eligibility requirements for Medicaid. Cut your budgets elsewhere. See where this is going? Now we can debate the merits of Medicaid, but to call it socialized medicine is not the case.

Lastly, I couldn't care less which party get's credit. The facts are the facts. A Democrat passed healthcare reform. Had it been Reagan, Bush, or Roy Rogers I'd acknowledge that.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Skinsguy,

You seem to have your own interpretation of the rules, especially regarding the individual mandate. The mandate isn't specifically for low income people neither do ALL in the pool of 30 million qualify to receive a tax credit.

It's what I said earlier. Not all will qualify to receive the tax credit. Those who don't will be covered under Medicaid, and those who refuse will have to pay a penality.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

The Supreme Court's ruling said, the federal gov't under Obamacare cannot dictate to states whether to accept Medicaid funding. Essentially, that's the only portion of the law that was more or less struck down.

Right. And I'm saying states will probably wind up going along with the medicaid extension program anyway, because the federal government is footing the bill for the next several years.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Right now the federal government pays for about 57% of total Medicaid costs. That's even before we start debating whether "Obamacare" is a good or bad idea. Medicaid eligibility varies from state to state. Some states have a vastly more complex healthcare delivery system than others. State run hospitals, university hospitals, and other network providers are absorbing the costs and looking toward the state for reimbursement. In other words, states defray costs and foot the bill for covering the uninsured. When times are lean, Medicaid is the typically the first program to see the axe and have eligibility requirements change. The new law, "Obamacare", says you can't change those eligibility requirements for Medicaid. Cut your budgets elsewhere. See where this is going? Now we can debate the merits of Medicaid, but to call it socialized medicine is not the case.

Yes, it's more government. More relaxed Medicaid requirements equals more getting on medicaid, which equals higher taxes to cover the costs, which means states having to eventually cut their budgets in other areas of need, which means more job loss.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Lastly, I couldn't care less which party get's credit. The facts are the facts. A Democrat passed healthcare reform. Had it been Reagan, Bush, or Roy Rogers I'd acknowledge that.

I'll hold you to that then.

[12thMan]

Oh, what does Obama's proposal to raise taxes, which he's not, have to do with Affordable Care Act? These are two distinctly different pieces of legislation.

I don't want to start a completely different argument in this thread, but...at some point taxes are going to have to go up. So there.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Oh, what does Obama's proposal to raise taxes, which he's not, have to do with Affordable Care Act? These are two distinctly different pieces of legislation.

I don't want to start a completely different argument in this thread, but...at some point taxes are going to have to go up. So there.

You were arguing in your last post against the idea of the Affordable Care Act being another case of redistribution of wealth, and then you say in this post that taxes will have to go up. Which means that all tax payers are having to shoulder the cost of this program. So, me, being a taxpayer who has health insurance will not only continue to struggle to meet my own medical expenses even after insurance has paid its part, but will now have to also shoulder the cost of this for others who are getting gov't sponsored health insurance at a subsidized rate.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

You were arguing in your last post against the idea of the Affordable Care Act being another case of redistribution of wealth, and then you say in this post that taxes will have to go up. Which means that all tax payers are having to shoulder the cost of this program. So, me, being a taxpayer who has health insurance will not only continue to struggle to meet my own medical expenses even after insurance has paid its part, but will now have to also shoulder the cost of this for others who are getting gov't sponsored health insurance at a subsidized rate.

Federal tax rates are at a 30 year low. Revenues are the lowest we've seen in years. Yes, taxes need to go up. Not because of Obamacare, but for the sake of our fiscal future.

As far as the bold portion of your statement, guess what, you and I are footing the bill right now for those without insurance every time they make an emergency room visit. You know that, right? I haven't seen one healthcare economist or insurance industry study that says your healthcare premiums will get jacked up to pay for someone else's healthcare plan. If you can show me ONE independent study reflecting that, I'm all ears.

You seem to either think or imply that I'm saying taxes need to go up to cover the costs of Obamacare. The healthcare law, by and large, pays for itself and is projected to be deficit neutral. I can't make that any more clear.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Federal tax rates are at a 30 year low. Revenues are the lowest we've seen in years. Yes, taxes need to go up. Not because of Obamacare, but for the sake of our fiscal future.

Revenues are at an all time low because unemployment is at an all time high. Couple that with increased spending that this Administration and the last Administration did, and that is why our government is in the fiscal shape that it is currently in. Raising taxes is not the end all, be all solution to the problem, and those of us who are lucky enough to be employed cannot take more tax hikes.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

As far as the bold portion of your statement, guess what, you and I are footing the bill right now for those without insurance every time they make an emergency room visit. You know that, right? I haven't seen one healthcare economist or insurance industry study that says your healthcare premiums will get jacked up to pay for someone else's healthcare plan. If you can show me ONE independent study reflecting that, I'm all ears.

Well, supposedly Obamacare is modeled after Romneycare...just ask the good citizens of Mass. why they are paying the highest premiums for health insurance in the country.

Originally Posted by 12thMan

You seem to either think or imply that I'm saying taxes need to go up to cover the costs of Obamacare. The healthcare law, by and large, pays for itself and is projected to be deficit neutral. I can't make that any more clear.

It was originally supposed to be a net reduction of about $143 billion in the deficit, but the plan is actually costing $115 billion more than what was originally estimated. So yay, deficit neutral. Did the "Doc fix" ever go into play as well? If so, then you're looking at adding roughly about $84 billion to the deficit. Just because it might be "deficit neutral" doesn't mean taxes won't go up because of the law.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Federal tax rates are at a 30 year low. Revenues are the lowest we've seen in years. Yes, taxes need to go up. Not because of Obamacare, but for the sake of our fiscal future.

As far as the bold portion of your statement, guess what, you and I are footing the bill right now for those without insurance every time they make an emergency room visit. You know that, right? I haven't seen one healthcare economist or insurance industry study that says your healthcare premiums will get jacked up to pay for someone else's healthcare plan. If you can show me ONE independent study reflecting that, I'm all ears.

You seem to either think or imply that I'm saying taxes need to go up to cover the costs of Obamacare. The healthcare law, by and large, pays for itself and is projected to be deficit neutral. I can't make that any more clear.

Keep kidding yourself that taxes will not go up. I don't care who tells me that or what party they are with we will see an increase in cost. Lets reverse this for a minute. Name one major federal program that has not had a drastic over run in projected cost?

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

I haven't seen one healthcare economist or insurance industry study that says your healthcare premiums will get jacked up to pay for someone else's healthcare plan. If you can show me ONE independent study reflecting that, I'm all ears.

http://ehbs.kff.org/pdf/8226.pdf

Obamacare Has Increased Cost of Health Insurance, Says Kaiser Foundation | CNSNews.com

From the link: "However, he continued, “Our analysis is that the Affordable Care Act [ObamaCare] could have been responsible for about one-and-a-half percentage points – we say 1 to 2 percentage points – of the increase that we’re documenting this year,” he said."

and that's just from 2010 to 2011, when most of the provisions haven't kicked in.

and this: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...0-premiums.pdf

From the link: CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.

and this from PolitiFact (no bastion of conservatism for sure):
PolitiFact | Nancy Pelosi says 'everybody' will get more and pay less under the health care law

Even one of the main architects of Obamacare is changing his tune:
How Obamacare Dramatically Increases the Cost of Insurance for Young Workers - Forbes

from the link:
"Gruber now: Obamacare will increase premiums by 19-30 percent
As states began the process of considering whether or not to set up the insurance exchanges mandated by the new health law, several retained Gruber as a consultant. In at least three cases—Wisconsin in August 2011, Minnesota in November 2011, and Colorado in January 2012—Gruber reported that premiums in the individual market would increase, not decrease, as a result of Obamacare.
In Wisconsin, Gruber reported that people purchasing insurance for themselves on the individual market would see, on average, premium increases of 30 percent by 2016, relative to what would have happened in the absence of Obamacare. In Minnesota, the law would increase premiums by 29 percent over the same period. Colorado was the least worst off, with premiums under the law rising by only 19 percent."

And just sayin: When Medicare was passed in 1965, for example, the federal government estimated it would cost $12 billion in 1990. Medicare actually cost $110 billion in 1990.

[12thMan]

Are you saying Romneycare was passed against Mitt Romney's will or what are you saying? And yes, the two plans are damn similar. The president used Romneycare as a template. LOL..so much for conservatism, I guess.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Are you saying Romneycare was passed against Mitt Romney's will or what are you saying? And yes, the two plans are damn similar. The president used Romneycare as a template. LOL..so much for conservatism, I guess.

The final version of Romneycare was passed with eight over-ridded Romney vetos of specific sections of the law.

The plans are similar, yet also quite different in scope and goals, read the link I posted it gives a good summary.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Are you saying Romneycare was passed against Mitt Romney's will or what are you saying? And yes, the two plans are damn similar. The president used Romneycare as a template. LOL..so much for conservatism, I guess.

First off Romney is not a conservative.

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by firstdown

First off Romney is not a conservative.

Conservatism is a myth. The sooner you realize that the better.

[saden1]

We are still waiting for the replacement:

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by saden1

We are still waiting for the replacement:

You have to laugh at those dimwits at this point.