ACA upheld

[quade 4]

Quote

Penalize them all you want, Joe the Plumber ( You and I) will be picking up the tab.

You're already picking up the tab for the uninsured. It's disguised in a million little small ways, but why do you think 2 aspirins cost $60 in a hospital?

This law helps to address that.

In doing so, it tries to level the playing field and in the test case state where this program is already in place there is a 98% compliance rate.

This is a good deal for everyone except the health care robber barons who have jacked up prices on virtually the entire industry.

It's impossible to know what the future will bring, but my guess is this is one of the better things our government has done for the average citizen in decades.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

my guess is this is one of the better things our government has done for the average citizen in decades.

At the expense of whom?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

my guess is this is one of the better things our government has done for the average citizen in decades.

At the expense of whom?

On average . . . probably nobody except some health care ceo's with gold plated toilets.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Bolas 5]

Quote

You're already picking up the tab for the uninsured. It's disguised in a million little small ways, but why do you think 2 aspirins cost $60 in a hospital?

If you have insurance you're not paying that much as they've negotiated lower prices on everything. Medicare/Medicaid pays even less.

$60 for aspirin is just the MSRP.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[lawrocket 3]

Yes. Have you had the opportunity to look at how much insurance pays for things? It's bad, but not nearly so bad as Medicare. Seriously - pennies on the dollar from the government.

Health care is struggling BECAUSE of third party payors. Health care CEOs have a tough job.

And note - if you are a health care CEO, how would you feel about a law passed that funnels American dollars to you. They are required. Seems like a healthcare bailout, doesn't it? It's why insurers - and especially Pharma - so heavily supported it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

No. You may not be paying for it as an individual with some types of health care insurance, but let me assure you we're ALL paying for it as a society.

Think bigger picture and less about yourself as an individual.

That's, in large part, what's wrong with this country.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

we're ALL paying for it as a society...That's, in large part, what's wrong with this country.

So how do you defend a system where the individual mandate is designed to ensure that society pays for it? The individual mandate is designed to make the healthy pay more so that the sick can pay less.

We're all going to pay for it - the law says that we all damned well better. That's bigger picture, and the individual is not allowed to fuck himself or herself. The freeloading is encouraged, and the cost is borne by society while the individuals benefit.

This law? What does it ensure? That the cost to society is spread among more people. That's all. It doesn't lower the cost. It just spreads it out more.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Actually, it does lower the cost by mandate.

Pity you're so focused on other aspects you didn't notice that.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Penalize them all you want, Joe the Plumber ( You and I) will be picking up the tab.

You're already picking up the tab for the uninsured. It's disguised in a million little small ways, but why do you think 2 aspirins cost $60 in a hospital?

My insurance company negotiated $7000 for stitches (of which they wanted $700 from me) after I made a warranty return following surgery (pools of blood on the floor suggest it's time to go back to the hospital).

The other people who'd over-filled the emergency room (It was so full I had to lie on the floor because there was no where to sit) did not appear to require care they could not have received through a doctor or urgent care clinic (there was a lot of minor coughing) for less money and also did not look like the sort of people who populated the surrounding $1.2-1.8M 1500-2000 square foot 3/2 ranch houses and generally had jobs which came with health care coverage.

Quote

This is a good deal for everyone except the health care robber barons who have jacked up prices on virtually the entire industry.

You're wrong.

It's a good deal for those guys too.

Everyone must buy their product.

No one 30 years old or beyond may buy a low-cost catastrophic policy.

They can't charge young people less than 1/3 of what they charge old people.

Young adults up to 26 are more likely to be on their parents' high-cost policy ($500 in my case if I chose to cover our adult son that way) than individual policies (it was $85 before Obamacare passed after which it jumped to $140).

The anti-trust exemption wasn't eliminated.

There are no limits on premiums (they do have to spend 80% of premiums on actual medical care, although approving a $100K procedure they wouldn't have before allows $125K in premiums of which they retain $25K which is a win-win - better care for you AND more profits).

Medicare for all would have been a bad deal for those guys.

Quote

It's impossible to know what the future will bring, but my guess is this is one of the better things our government has done for the average citizen in decades.

It's better for people who weren't covered by employer provided policies and either had pre-existing conditions or were too old for low rates and too young for Medicare.

It doesn't matter for the average person who statistically speaking is getting their insurance through their employer, paying the same rate as older people, and doing so with pre-tax money.

It may be worse for 30 year olds who are less likely than they were historically to land employer provided coverage especially in job-centers where the cost of living and wages are high and therefore disqualifying for government subsidies.

[airdvr 210]

Quote

Quote

Penalize them all you want, Joe the Plumber ( You and I) will be picking up the tab.

You're already picking up the tab for the uninsured. It's disguised in a million little small ways, but why do you think 2 aspirins cost $60 in a hospital?

This law helps to address that.

In doing so, it tries to level the playing field and in the test case state where this program is already in place there is a 98% compliance rate.

This is a good deal for everyone except the health care robber barons who have jacked up prices on virtually the entire industry.

It's impossible to know what the future will bring, but my guess is this is one of the better things our government has done for the average citizen in decades.

Based on that synopsis it won't cost the feds anything to enact ACA. So why does the CBO say it costs 200 Billion+ each year ultimately adding almost 2 trillion to a deficit we can't handle now?

Some on here are not so enamored with legislation to understand the gov't just picked another set of winners and losers. Trust me when I say that you and I are losers.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

I'm absolutely convinced that you do not read my posts before arguing wtih them. School attendance is not mandatory if you home school. It was in the first line that you ignored.

It's called home SCHOOL for a reason.

And even if you do it, you still pay for public education anyway.

Your argument is irrelevant to this discussion.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Think bigger picture and less about yourself as an individual.

That's, in large part, what's wrong with this country.

Even ignoring the heath debate, I agree with this statement.

Performance Designs Factory Team

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Penalize them all you want, Joe the Plumber ( You and I) will be picking up the tab.

You're already picking up the tab for the uninsured. It's disguised in a million little small ways, but why do you think 2 aspirins cost $60 in a hospital?

This law helps to address that.

In doing so, it tries to level the playing field and in the test case state where this program is already in place there is a 98% compliance rate.

This is a good deal for everyone except the health care robber barons who have jacked up prices on virtually the entire industry.

It's impossible to know what the future will bring, but my guess is this is one of the better things our government has done for the average citizen in decades.

Based on that synopsis it won't cost the feds anything to enact ACA. So why does the CBO say it costs 200 Billion+ each year ultimately adding almost 2 trillion to a deficit we can't handle now?

INCORRECT.

That is a GOP myth put about to scare ignorant people who can't be bothered to research the facts for themselves.

GOP Myth: Health reform will cost $2.6 trillion over a ten year period

Reality: The nonpartisan analysis from CBO estimates that the Affordable Care Act will cost $930 billion and reduce the deficit by $210 billion over a ten year period.[CBO, 2/18/2011]

Quote

Some on here are not so enamored with legislation to understand the gov't just picked another set of winners and losers. Trust me when I say that you and I are losers.

I wouldn't trust you to tell fact from fiction under any circumstances.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Actually, it does lower the cost by mandate

How? How does increasing demand for a service lower the cost?

Look - healthcare is, in many ways, an exception to the standard model of economics. It's not something that is cheaper the more supply there is. It's not like computers, that get better and less expensive as time goes on.

Please explain how increasing demand for health care makes it less expensive for society. Because NOBODY has explained that one. Not even you, and I want you to do it. For there is one way to have open access to health care and have lower cost: lower the quality. You can have inexpensive healthcare that is high quality but it will be rationed. You can have hig quality healthcare available on demand but it's expensive (what we have now). Or you can have inexpensive healthcare that is available on demand but it's low quality.

You can't have all three, Paul. At least not any way that anybody has ever demonstrated before.

You've made your position known. Now is time to explain it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The nonpartisan analysis from CBO estimates that the Affordable Care Act will cost $930 billion and reduce the deficit by $210 billion over a ten year period.[CBO, 2/18/2011]

Yeah. BEcause it starts taxing before paying out.

MEdicare and Social Security were money makers, too. As were Madoffs investments. Right up until the inherent unsustainability kicked in.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

The nonpartisan analysis from CBO estimates that the Affordable Care Act will cost $930 billion and reduce the deficit by $210 billion over a ten year period.[CBO, 2/18/2011]

Yeah. BEcause it starts taxing before paying out.

MEdicare and Social Security were money makers, too. As were Madoffs investments. Right up until the inherent unsustainability kicked in.

1. A lie is a lie, and this is a GOP promoted lie.

2. Romney, the Senate, and the House say it isn't a tax.

You are beginning to sound like a type I and II denier.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]Romney, the Senate, and the House say it isn't a tax.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

[Reply]Romney, the Senate, and the House say it isn't a tax.

The SCOTUS says it's both a tax and not a tax. So it doesn't mean shit what the House or you or I say.

And john - you've before written "a rose is a rose."

But how's it going to make healthcare less expensive to society by making everyone buy it?

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Actually, it does lower the cost by mandate.

Pity you're so focused on other aspects you didn't notice that.

I have no idea if it mandates lower cost or not. I've heard statements in different directions. Could you provide a cite, please?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Actually, it does lower the cost by mandate.

Pity you're so focused on other aspects you didn't notice that.

I have no idea if it mandates lower cost or not. I've heard statements in different directions. Could you provide a cite, please?

Lowering cost by mandate has always been a good idea. Look at how cheap gasolibe was in the 1970's.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wayneflorida 0]

Right or wrong.The whole deal is about control. The government has increased it's control.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Actually, it does lower the cost by mandate.

Pity you're so focused on other aspects you didn't notice that.

I have no idea if it mandates lower cost or not. I've heard statements in different directions. Could you provide a cite, please?

Lowering cost by mandate has always been a good idea. Look at how cheap gasolibe was in the 1970's.

That's why I would like to read that portion of the 2,000 pages that determines how rates will be determined. I can't come up with a good way. I'll be surprised if the government did. I'm guessing they created a board to provide oversight and cost to the system. But I haven't read the document and don't really intend to.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Think bigger picture and less about yourself as an individual.

That's, in large part, what's wrong with this country.

Even ignoring the heath debate, I agree with this statement.

That sounds good in theory, but for it to work, ALL or at least a majority need to do it.

Hell, if the majority did this this we wouldn't be in any of the messes we're in now.

For now the best we can do is to all take care of ourselves trying not to directly impact others in the process.

Which if we all do, our society will be much better off than we are now.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Think bigger picture and less about yourself as an individual.

That's, in large part, what's wrong with this country.

Even ignoring the heath debate, I agree with this statement.

That sounds good in theory, but for it to work, ALL or at least a majority need to do it.

Hell, if the majority did this this we wouldn't be in any of the messes we're in now.

For now the best we can do is to all take care of ourselves trying not to directly impact others in the process.

Which if we all do, our society will be much better off than we are now.

True, but too many think "Opportunity" is spelled "Entitlement".

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Quote

Please explain how increasing demand for health care makes it less expensive for society.

I'm not Quade, but I'll take a shot.

1. Many medical conditions are much cheaper to treat in a doctor's office, in the early stages of the disease. Think, for example, about the cost of having a pre-cancerous mole removed vs treating full-blown melanoma. People without insurance commonly defer medical treatment, hoping things will resolve on their own, and when they don't they go to Emergency (by far the most expensive option) and then may require life-saving treatment they can't afford, so the hospital treats them and passes the cost on to those who do have insurance.

Early intervention = lower cost.

2. Under the current system (EMTALA), some people receive care they cannot pay for, so that cost is shifted to the rest of us. I've seen estimates that suggest about $1,000/yr per family in insurance premiums goes to cover such costs. Under ACA, true "freeloaders" (people who could afford insurance, but choose to not get it knowing that if they are severely injured or seriously ill they will be treated anyway) will pay a tax penalty that is supposed to go to a fund to defray such costs (we'll have to see if it works that way). Those who are genuinely too poor to afford insurance will be covered under some expansion of medicare, though that will have to be paid for somehow (I'm not sure of the plan about that). Anyway, reducing the number of freeloaders means I won't have to spend so much to cover them, and earlier treatment should reduce the number of very high cost patients in the system.

Of course another option (one that several posters here in SC have advocated) is just to refuse treatment to anyone who isn't either insured or able to pay cash. That might take care of the real freeloaders, but it'll throw a lot of other people under the bus too, including young people in low wage entry level jobs who haven't had the time/experience to move up the employment ladder to where they can afford both insurance and rent, people with preexisting conditions (cancer survivors and all the other "uninsurables"), etc. As I've written about a few times, but no-one ever cares to respond because it presents an unsolvable problem for the "under-the-bus-with-them" crowd, it's not uncommon for accident victims, heart attack patients, etc to be brought to the hospital without ID/insurance cards. If we expect hospitals to verify insurance/bank accounts before beginning to treat critically ill patients, a lot of people will die or be left disabled, including people who are insured but don't have proof on them when the ambulance delivers them to the hospital.

Just so everybody understands what "no insurance/no cash = no treatment" will really require.

Also, personally I disagree with the calculus that your value as a human being is strictly limited by the ratio of size of your bank account to the cost of treating a life-threatening injury or disease. If we go there, is there any limit to the "cost savings to society" we could achieve by discarding those we consider to be not cost effective to keep around?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)