11 facts about the Affordable Care Act

128 posts / 0 new

I thought we could have some alternatives to the prison planet cut and pastes.

11 facts about the Affordable Care Act

In the past week, both Alec MacGillis and Sabrina Tavernise have written articles touching on how little the uninsured actually know about the Affordable Care Act. Given that polling shows the law remains unpopular even as its component parts — with the notable exception of the individual mandate — are very popular, it seems they’re not alone. So here’s a refresher on some of the law’s most significant policies and consequences:

1. By 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimates (pdf) the Affordable Care Act will have extended coverage to 33 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured. Here’s the graph:

2. Families making less than 133 percent of the poverty line — that’s about $29,000 for a family of four — will be covered through Medicaid. Between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line — $88,000 for a family of four – families will get tax credits on a sliding scale to help pay for private insurance.

3. For families making less than 400 percent of the poverty line, premiums are capped. So, between 150% and 200% of the poverty line, for instance, families won’t have to pay more than 6.3 percent of their income in premiums. Between 300 percent and 400 percent, they won’t have to pay more than 9.5 percent. This calculator from the Kaiser Family Foundation will let you see the subsidies and the caps for different families at different income levels.

4. When the individual mandate is fully phased-in, those who can afford coverage — which is defined as insurance costing less than 8 percent of their annual income — but choose to forgo it will have to pay either $695 or 2.5 percent of the annual income, whichever is greater.

5. Small businesses that have fewer than 10 employees, average wages beneath $25,000, and that provide insurance for their workers will get a 50 percent tax credit on their contribution. The tax credit reaches up to small businesses with up to 50 employees and average wages of $50,000, though it gets smaller as the business get bigger and richer. The credit lasts for two years, though many think Congress will be pressured to extend it, which would raise the long-term cost of the legislation.

6. Insurance companies are not allowed to discriminated based on preexisting conditions. They are allowed to discriminate based “on age (limited to 3 to 1 ratio), premium rating area, family composition, and tobacco use (limited to 1.5. to 1 ratio).”

7. Starting in 2018, the law imposes a 35 percent tax on employer-provided health plans that exceed $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. The idea is a kind of roundabout second-best to capping the tax code’s (currently unlimited) deduction for employer-provided heath insurance. The policy idea is to give employers that much more reason to avoid expensive insurance policies and thus give insurers that much more reason to hold costs down.

8. The law requires insurers to spend between 80 and 85 percent of every premium dollar on medical care (as opposed to administration, advertising, etc). If insurers exceed this threshold, they have to rebate the excess to their customers. This policy is already in effect, and insurers are expected to rebate $1.1 billion this year.

9. The law is expected to spend a bit over $1 trillion in the next 10 years. The law’s spending cuts — many of which fall on Medicare — and tax increases are expected to either save or raise a bit more than that, which is why the Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will slightly reduce the deficit. (There’s been some confusion on this point lately, but no, the CBO has not changed its mind about this.) As time goes on, the savings are projected to grow more quickly than the spending, and CBO expects that the law will cut the deficit by around a trillion dollars in its second decade. Here’s its graph, which covers the period between 2012 and 2021:


The ACA's taxes and spending cuts make it a slight deficit reduce in its first decade. (CBO)

10. In recent years, health-care costs have slowed dramatically. Much of this is likely due to the recession. Some of it may just be chance. But there’s also evidence that the law has accelerated changes in the way the medical system delivers care, as providers prepare for the law’s efforts to move from fee-for-service to quality-based payments.

11. The law’s long-term success at controlling costs will likely hinge on its efforts to change the way health care is delivered, most of which have gotten very little attention. They include everything from encouraging Accountable Care Organizations to spreading medical homes to penalizing hospitals with high rates of preventable infections to creating an independent board able to quickly implement new reforms through the Medicare system. A partial list of these efforts can be found here.

Acknowledgments: Much of the information in this post comes from the Kaiser Family Foundation’s excellent summary of the Affordable Care Act’s provisions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/06/24/11-facts-about-the-affordable-care-act/

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 10:01 am

Comments

Thank you for the information.

According to the chart my insurance premium will be $11,000, of which I will pay about $4000. (Or a penalty of about $1000) My present out of pocket health cost is about $700. So, the ACA will cost me about $3000 a year, though I will gain catastrophic coverage.

Single payer runs about 50% of American premiums. Under that estimate single payer would save me $4000 and the government $2000 compared to the ACA.

Or I can retire. This would reduce my income to a level that would make me eligible for MediCal while still enough for me to live on. ( Note however that if the ACA had been in effect when my income grew beyond MediCal eligibility my life savings would be less than half what they are now, and since I would also not have had the money to buy my own home my living costs would be more than double what they are now. That version of me would be unable to retire. Ever.)

I am surprised to be happy that I hate my job.

doh1304's picture
doh1304
Joined:
Dec. 6, 2010 9:49 am

One question: how does raising taxes on goods And services make them cheaper?

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:One question: how does raising taxes on goods And services make them cheaper?

You can't explain things to people who are happy about their ignorance so I will not try.

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 10:01 am

This is all I need to know about the Affordable Care Act. I don't need to know how much it's going to cost because unless you are less than human it doesn't matter how much it costs.

"Thousands of children die needlessly each year because we lack a health system that provides them health insurance. This should not be," says co-investigator Peter Pronovost, M.D., Ph.D., director of Critical Care Medicine at Johns Hopkins and medical director of the Center for Innovations in Quality Patient Care. "In a country as wealthy as ours, the need to provide health insurance to the millions of children who lack it is a moral, not an economic issue," he adds.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Recovering conservative2:
Quote workingman:One question: how does raising taxes on goods And services make them cheaper?

You can't explain things to people who are happy about their ignorance so I will not try.

This law was sold to the american people as a way to lower costs And get more people covered.

So my question is valid if you are to ignorant to explain it just admit you are to stupid to explain the process. Truely intelligent people can explain a complicated process so any one can understand it.

This medical insurance plan has zero chance of making stuff cheaper for two reasons.

One: it raises taxes on hospitals, drug makers, equipment makers, insursnce companies and individuals all these added costs are past on to the people except the individual tax.

Two: it does nothing to add more supply to the system. The supply Will be less driving up costs as more people are/ or become part of the system.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

This is all I need to know about the Affordable Care Act. I don't need to know how much it's going to cost because unless you are less than human it doesn't matter how much it costs.

"Thousands of children die needlessly each year because we lack a health system that provides them health insurance. This should not be," says co-investigator Peter Pronovost, M.D., Ph.D., director of Critical Care Medicine at Johns Hopkins and medical director of the Center for Innovations in Quality Patient Care. "In a country as wealthy as ours, the need to provide health insurance to the millions of children who lack it is a moral, not an economic issue," he adds.

You know we used to do things in this country because it was the right thing to do.... how can we tolerate children going hungry and continue being so petty? Where has morality gone? Where is the moral outrage?

I no longer expect conservatives or libertarians to be moral people anymore, they seem to have lost that somewhere along the way.

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am

Workingman, I think it should be workingchild since you want your answers in 5 words or less. 1) Medical insurance and the costs of medical treatment has never be subject to market forces. Increasing the number of doctors, hosptials, etc will not drive costs down.

The taxes do not drive costs down but limited what can be spent on other costs like CEO salaries will. WHY ARE YOU LIBERATIANS and RIGHT WING NUT JOBS YELLING ABOUT THE 40 MILLION SALARY OF THE CEO OF CALIFORNIA BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD? WHEN YOU ARE SCREAMING ABOUT 35K Teacher Salary.

If we had medicare for all, the head of the agency would be limited to 250K which means you would save 39 MILLIONS IN COSTS that whats drives prices down.

hopefully the entry and words are short enough for you to understand.

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 10:01 am

The Affordable Care Act may not be quite as much of a done deal as first thought. By calling it a tax, the Court struck down the provision that enabled the federal government to force states to expand Medicare in 2016. Now a lot of them won't. Read the following article when the aurthor argues that the "single payer" form of medical coverage got a death blow on Thursday.

Here is the link:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0701-chapman-20120701,0,6645496.column

mauiman58's picture
mauiman58
Joined:
Jan. 6, 2012 5:45 pm

Workingman, unless you can cite your "two reasons", they are false. There is nothing true about them!! The right has a hard time citing things. I don't want to see some study from Heritage Foundation either. Cold hard facts based on the law! Ok, so the only thing you say that is kind of true is that there will be a dividend tax increase over the %15 it is now for those making OVER $250k per year. That only effects the super wealthy, which as your screen name implies, you are not.

NemrehBob
Joined:
Apr. 9, 2012 1:21 pm
Quote NemrehBob:

Workingman, unless you can cite your "two reasons", they are false. There is nothing true about them!! The right has a hard time citing things. I don't want to see some study from Heritage Foundation either. Cold hard facts based on the law! Ok, so the only thing you say that is kind of true is that there will be a dividend tax increase over the %15 it is now for those making OVER $250k per year. That only effects the super wealthy, which as your screen name implies, you are not.

Posting from my phone so adding a link is difficult, however if you go to the american thinker web page and look up the comprehensive list of new taxes it Will list the page numbers where the new tax can be found.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote Recovering conservative2:

Workingman, I think it should be workingchild since you want your answers in 5 words or less. 1) Medical insurance and the costs of medical treatment has never be subject to market forces. Increasing the number of doctors, hosptials, etc will not drive costs down.

The taxes do not drive costs down but limited what can be spent on other costs like CEO salaries will. WHY ARE YOU LIBERATIANS and RIGHT WING NUT JOBS YELLING ABOUT THE 40 MILLION SALARY OF THE CEO OF CALIFORNIA BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD? WHEN YOU ARE SCREAMING ABOUT 35K Teacher Salary.

If we had medicare for all, the head of the agency would be limited to 250K which means you would save 39 MILLIONS IN COSTS that whats drives prices down.

hopefully the entry and words are short enough for you to understand.

Under medicare for all you would have a politican telling you what is And is not covered. The young would be charged more the old would be allowed to die. The government trying to force costs cheaper Will take away inovation and Care. At least according to Robert riech.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:

Under medicare for all you would have a politican telling you what is And is not covered.

The young would be charged more the old would be allowed to die.

The government trying to force costs cheaper Will take away inovation and Care.

At least according to Robert riech.

Which part of this did Robert Reich say and which points are your opinion?

delete jan in iowa
Joined:
Feb. 6, 2011 11:16 am
Quote workingman:
Quote Recovering conservative2:

Workingman, I think it should be workingchild since you want your answers in 5 words or less. 1) Medical insurance and the costs of medical treatment has never be subject to market forces. Increasing the number of doctors, hosptials, etc will not drive costs down.

The taxes do not drive costs down but limited what can be spent on other costs like CEO salaries will. WHY ARE YOU LIBERATIANS and RIGHT WING NUT JOBS YELLING ABOUT THE 40 MILLION SALARY OF THE CEO OF CALIFORNIA BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD? WHEN YOU ARE SCREAMING ABOUT 35K Teacher Salary.

If we had medicare for all, the head of the agency would be limited to 250K which means you would save 39 MILLIONS IN COSTS that whats drives prices down.

hopefully the entry and words are short enough for you to understand.

Under medicare for all you would have a politican telling you what is And is not covered. The young would be charged more the old would be allowed to die. The government trying to force costs cheaper Will take away inovation and Care. At least according to Robert riech.

Under the tradition insurance company program you would have an insurance adjuster telling you what is and is not covered. The young ARE charged more and the old ARE being allowed to die. I can remove the politician via the democratic process but I can't do anything about the adjuster for a private insurance company. There is no motive for a government official to deny me access to a health care procedure. There is a very large profit motive for an insurance company to deny me access to a health care procedure. Anyone who actually thinks that a private for profit industry will put my health above their profits in a better way than a not for profit government agency is either dense, ignorant or just plain stupid.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote NemrehBob:

Workingman, unless you can cite your "two reasons", they are false. There is nothing true about them!! The right has a hard time citing things. I don't want to see some study from Heritage Foundation either. Cold hard facts based on the law! Ok, so the only thing you say that is kind of true is that there will be a dividend tax increase over the %15 it is now for those making OVER $250k per year. That only effects the super wealthy, which as your screen name implies, you are not.

The web page americans for tax reform is another web page.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

here is a link to robert reich explaining health care reform.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:
Quote Recovering conservative2:

Workingman, I think it should be workingchild since you want your answers in 5 words or less. 1) Medical insurance and the costs of medical treatment has never be subject to market forces. Increasing the number of doctors, hosptials, etc will not drive costs down.

The taxes do not drive costs down but limited what can be spent on other costs like CEO salaries will. WHY ARE YOU LIBERATIANS and RIGHT WING NUT JOBS YELLING ABOUT THE 40 MILLION SALARY OF THE CEO OF CALIFORNIA BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD? WHEN YOU ARE SCREAMING ABOUT 35K Teacher Salary.

If we had medicare for all, the head of the agency would be limited to 250K which means you would save 39 MILLIONS IN COSTS that whats drives prices down.

hopefully the entry and words are short enough for you to understand.

Under medicare for all you would have a politican telling you what is And is not covered. The young would be charged more the old would be allowed to die. The government trying to force costs cheaper Will take away inovation and Care. At least according to Robert riech.

I think your stupidity has already been exposed by others who replied before I had a chance.

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 10:01 am
Quote Recovering conservative2:
Quote workingman:
Quote Recovering conservative2:

Workingman, I think it should be workingchild since you want your answers in 5 words or less. 1) Medical insurance and the costs of medical treatment has never be subject to market forces. Increasing the number of doctors, hosptials, etc will not drive costs down.

The taxes do not drive costs down but limited what can be spent on other costs like CEO salaries will. WHY ARE YOU LIBERATIANS and RIGHT WING NUT JOBS YELLING ABOUT THE 40 MILLION SALARY OF THE CEO OF CALIFORNIA BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD? WHEN YOU ARE SCREAMING ABOUT 35K Teacher Salary.

If we had medicare for all, the head of the agency would be limited to 250K which means you would save 39 MILLIONS IN COSTS that whats drives prices down.

hopefully the entry and words are short enough for you to understand.

Under medicare for all you would have a politican telling you what is And is not covered. The young would be charged more the old would be allowed to die. The government trying to force costs cheaper Will take away inovation and Care. At least according to Robert riech.

I think your stupidity has already been exposed by others who replied before I had a chance.

Cant break the arguement so resort to personal attacks I understand your scared to face reality.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Category A: "Families making less than 133 percent of the poverty line ...will be covered through Medicaid."

Category B: "Between 133 percent and 400 percent of the poverty line ... families will get tax credits on a sliding scale to help pay for private insurance."

"3. For families making less than 400 percent of the poverty line, premiums are capped."

"4. When the individual mandate is fully phased-in, those who can afford coverage — which is defined as insurance costing less than 8 percent of their annual income — but choose to forgo it will have to pay either $695 or 2.5 percent of the annual income, whichever is greater."

Something is fishy about the decrease in expenditures. But more to the point, as the baby-boomers need health care when they get old expenditures will increase. If costs cannot be limited to what those in categories A & B are able to pay (after tax breaks) then everybody above 400 percent of the poverty line will pay the costs in their premiums. If costs are able to be limited to what those in categories A & B can pay, there would not be a need to cap premiums at that income level.

Also what doesn't add up the way its sold is the ban on pre-existing conditions. Unless the same plan is offered to everybody, this is meaningless. But obviously, a cap on premiums based on income implies either different plans for people of different incomes or different premiums for the same plan based on income. In the latter case, everybody would be getting the same product, but, again, those above the 400% line will be paying more without getting more.

This seems to me to set the stage for a revolt which will usher in the Republican plan: "eliminate the ban on an interstate market." The goal of that, of course, is to allow health insurance companies to sell insurance from states which don't cap premiums.

Am I correct or what am I missing?

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote Recovering conservative2:
Quote workingman:
Quote Recovering conservative2:

Workingman, I think it should be workingchild since you want your answers in 5 words or less. 1) Medical insurance and the costs of medical treatment has never be subject to market forces. Increasing the number of doctors, hosptials, etc will not drive costs down.

The taxes do not drive costs down but limited what can be spent on other costs like CEO salaries will. WHY ARE YOU LIBERATIANS and RIGHT WING NUT JOBS YELLING ABOUT THE 40 MILLION SALARY OF THE CEO OF CALIFORNIA BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD? WHEN YOU ARE SCREAMING ABOUT 35K Teacher Salary.

If we had medicare for all, the head of the agency would be limited to 250K which means you would save 39 MILLIONS IN COSTS that whats drives prices down.

hopefully the entry and words are short enough for you to understand.

Under medicare for all you would have a politican telling you what is And is not covered. The young would be charged more the old would be allowed to die. The government trying to force costs cheaper Will take away inovation and Care. At least according to Robert riech.

I think your stupidity has already been exposed by others who replied before I had a chance.

Cant break the arguement so resort to personal attacks I understand your scared to face reality.

It is not a personal attack just simply an observation that people provide complete and thoughful responds that completely destroy your posts and you come back with some 5 word response that indicates that you either didn't read the response or you failed to comphend it.

I have better things to do with my time than trying to explain something to some one who will not see the nose on his face.

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 10:01 am
Quote Recovering conservative2:
Quote workingman:
Quote Recovering conservative2:
Quote workingman:
Quote Recovering conservative2:

Workingman, I think it should be workingchild since you want your answers in 5 words or less. 1) Medical insurance and the costs of medical treatment has never be subject to market forces. Increasing the number of doctors, hosptials, etc will not drive costs down.

The taxes do not drive costs down but limited what can be spent on other costs like CEO salaries will. WHY ARE YOU LIBERATIANS and RIGHT WING NUT JOBS YELLING ABOUT THE 40 MILLION SALARY OF THE CEO OF CALIFORNIA BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD? WHEN YOU ARE SCREAMING ABOUT 35K Teacher Salary.

If we had medicare for all, the head of the agency would be limited to 250K which means you would save 39 MILLIONS IN COSTS that whats drives prices down.

hopefully the entry and words are short enough for you to understand.

Under medicare for all you would have a politican telling you what is And is not covered. The young would be charged more the old would be allowed to die. The government trying to force costs cheaper Will take away inovation and Care. At least according to Robert riech.

I think your stupidity has already been exposed by others who replied before I had a chance.

Cant break the arguement so resort to personal attacks I understand your scared to face reality.

It is not a personal attack just simply an observation that people provide complete and thoughful responds that completely destroy your posts and you come back with some 5 word response that indicates that you either didn't read the response or you failed to comphend it.

I have better things to do with my time than trying to explain something to some one who will not see the nose on his face.

I post the shortest answers possible because i live in the real world were long verbose messages are a waste of time. Once you get a job in the real world you Will find out those long verbose posts, email or explainations just piss off the people above you.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

In the reel whirled speling and punchewation madders

nimblecivet's picture
nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote nimblecivet:

In the reel whirled speling and punchewation madders

Yes it does so when I am at work I use a pc, reread my emails while running it through a spell checker word. For blog board I post from my phone, just posting no rereading no editing.

So use a smart phone keyboard with no editing And no rereading and see how well you do.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Frankly workingchild, as you continue to prove that you have so little experience in the real world, when you move out of your mothers basement and spend 25 years working and moving up through a company we can talk.

You will notice that your boss's write long e-mails that they expect you to read and understand. HR will write long policies that you are expect to read and understand and your 5 word ignorant responses will get you a pink slip.

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 10:01 am
Quote workingman:
Quote nimblecivet:

In the reel whirled speling and punchewation madders

Yes it does so when I am at work I use a pc, reread my emails while running it through a spell checker word. For blog board I post from my phone, just posting no rereading no editing. So use a smart phone keyboard with no editing And no rereading and see how well you do.

You may want to ask your mother for a better smart phone, mine doesn't have that problem.

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 10:01 am
Quote Recovering conservative2:
Quote workingman:
Quote nimblecivet:

In the reel whirled speling and punchewation madders

Yes it does so when I am at work I use a pc, reread my emails while running it through a spell checker word. For blog board I post from my phone, just posting no rereading no editing. So use a smart phone keyboard with no editing And no rereading and see how well you do.

You may want to ask your mother for a better smart phone, mine doesn't have that problem.

I see your problem you have me a grown independent conservative confused with a progressive liberal, as a grown man I take care of myself, unlike liberals that require parental.assistance their entire life. When their parents finally get them to move out on their own (if that happens at all). They have the government to care for them.

This has nothing to do with this thread

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote Recovering conservative2:

Frankly workingchild, as you continue to prove that you have so little experience in the real world, when you move out of your mothers basement and spend 25 years working and moving up through a company we can talk.

You will notice that your boss's write long e-mails that they expect you to read and understand. HR will write long policies that you are expect to read and understand and your 5 word ignorant responses will get you a pink slip.

Unlike a liberal that lives off of their parents their whole life I moved out at 18 and have never gone back.

I have been working for 25 years, 16 of which have been at the same company. My boss does not write long emails he understands that peoples time has value. Wasting a half a Day writing a college essay to get something done is bad time management. I do not write long emails to the people under me for the same reason.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:
Quote Recovering conservative2:

Frankly workingchild, as you continue to prove that you have so little experience in the real world, when you move out of your mothers basement and spend 25 years working and moving up through a company we can talk.

You will notice that your boss's write long e-mails that they expect you to read and understand. HR will write long policies that you are expect to read and understand and your 5 word ignorant responses will get you a pink slip.

Unlike a liberal that lives off of their parents their whole life I moved out at 18 and have never gone back. I have been working for 25 years, 16 of which have been at the same company. My boss does not write long emails he understands that peoples time has value. Wasting a half a Day writing a college essay to get something done is bad time management. I do not write long emails to the people under me for the same reason.

It was your candiate that said borrow the money from you parents to go to college and start your business. All quotes from Mit Robme.

Are You currently working for Daddy since you can go online during the work day before lunch? I have been working for the same company for 25 years and promoted 7 times from the front line to headquarters, so there.

When you asked complicated questions you can't get a complete answer in half page, again, the observation that you enjoy your own ignorance.

Liberals move out early since we are independent group, it is conservatives who don't like change that stay with mommy and daddy for security.

If you want to live by 140 character response go to twitter.

Recovering conservative2's picture
Recovering cons...
Joined:
Feb. 14, 2011 10:01 am

Universal healthcare itself isn't a bad idea. It is just the implementation that is cause for debate.

Even among libertarians and constitutionalists healthcare could more than be covered under the General-Welfare clause. Since medicine has advanced since 1776 so must our laws.

This is one issue I disagree with Ron Paul on.... I think it is the role of the Federal-Government to provide a safety-net for the sick and the elderly under the General-Welfare clause.

I would support something like Social-Security as a model for universal health care. Let's face it... it needs to be done on a national level. Do you think a minority will recieve the same level of care in Texas as opposed to Illinois currently ?

However what needs to be addressed is those who would abuse the system.

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 2:41 pm

Obamacare is simply the expansion of what we have now, corporate/government collusion. Why does everyone (at taxpayer expense) have to have INSURANCE? Why not just healthCARE? No one, not even children, are dying in the streets, everyone can get life and limb saving healthCARE at an ER. If they are it is someone other than healthcare givers fault.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am

12 Incredible Obamacare Quotes That Show That Our Wretched Healthcare System Is Headed Directly Into The Toilet

Michael Snyder
The American Dream
Monday, July 2, 2012

You might as well stick a fork in the U.S. healthcare system because it is finished. Even before Obamacare, Americans paid far more for healthcare than anyone else in the world. Now thanks to Obamacare we will be faced with much higher health insurance premiums, much higher taxes, much longer waits to see doctors and more government bureaucrats involved in our lives than ever before. As I have written about previously, the U.S. healthcare industry is a horrible mess, and now Obamacare is going to take the entire system directly into the toilet. All over America today, families are going broke because of outrageous health insurance costs and suffocating medical debt, doctors are going broke and leaving the profession because they can’t make a living, and sick people are dying because they cannot get the care that they need. So what solution does Obama give us? A nearly 3,000 page monstrosity that will destroy what is left of our crumbling healthcare system and that will unleash 16,000 new IRS agents to hunt down the millions of Americans that do not currently have health insurance. For those that love Big Brother socialist totalitarianism, Obamacare is a dream come true. For the rest of us it is a total nightmare.

Obamacare is truly a Trojan horse. The millions of Americans that support Obamacare believe that they have been “given” something. But that is a lie.

All of us aren’t going to be getting free government healthcare as a result of this law.

Instead, we are all being forced to buy health insurance policies that many Americans do not even want from deeply corrupt health insurance companies that make more money when they provide less healthcare. If we don’t buy government-mandated health insurance the IRS will be coming after us. This reality was beautifully communicated by this cartoon that was posted on Facebook recently.

As a result of Obamacare, there will be more government intrusion in our lives than ever before. Hordes of government bureaucrats will now run the system, with predictable results.

If you think that the amount of paperwork in our healthcare system is bad now, just wait until this new law is fully implemented.

Is Obamacare complicated? For an answer to that question, just check out this flow chart. What sick minds came up with such a monstrosity?

A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Actually, we know that answer. The truth is that the big health insurance companies drafted much of the law. The Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare was very good news for health insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and government bureaucrats. It was very bad news for doctors and patients.

So who is going to pay for this monstrous system?

You and I are.

Americans for Tax Reform has compiled a list of 21 of the new taxes that Americans will be paying as a result of Obamacare. And because Democrats have decided that they will fight to the death to save this law, the Republicans will have to take the White House, the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives to have any chance of fully repealing it.

As I wrote about the other day, there are a whole host of reasons why Obamacare is bad for America. But instead of going on and on about what I think, I thought that I would share some of the very interesting things that other people have been saying about the Supreme Court Obamacare decision.

The following are 12 incredible Obamacare quotes that show that our wretched healthcare system is headed directly into the toilet….

#1 Donald Trump

Let me get this straight . . .

We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don’t! Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese , and financed by a country that’s broke!!!!!

‘What the hell could possibly go wrong?’

#2 Senior Wall Street Journal Economics Writer Stephen Moore during an interview with Fox and Friends….

“Again, whatever you want to call it Alisyn, fines, taxes, penalties, but three quarters of those costs will fall on the backs of families who make less than $120,00 a year, so it’s a big punch in the stomach to middle class families.”

#3 Dr. Elaina George of the Project 21 African-American Conservative Leadership Network

“Because of the mandate, Americans will be forced to pay for a system that will increase costs for patients, remove health care decisions from both the doctor and the patient and lead to rationing. It changes health care as we know it into a system based on one-size-fits-all, cost-controlled and conveyor belt socialized medicine”

#4 The incomparable Charlie Daniels

“The United States of America took a giant step toward a totalitarian socialist government when the Supreme Court voted to uphold Obamacare, allowing the individual mandate for the government to force American citizens to buy health insurance whether they want to or not.”

#5 Ron Paul

“This is patently obvious: the power to ‘regulate’ commerce cannot include the power to compel commerce! Those who claim otherwise simply ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution because they don’t want to limit federal power in any way. The commerce clause was intended simply to give Congress the power to regulate foreign trade, and also to prevent states from imposing tariffs on interstate goods. In Federalist Paper No. 22, Alexander Hamilton makes it clear the simple intent behind the clause was to prevent states from placing tolls or tariffs on goods as they passed through each state — a practice that had proven particularly destructive across the many principalities of the German empire.”

#6 U.S. Representative Todd Akin

“Today America is threatened with a stage three cancer of socialism, and Obamacare is exhibit 1. There are many of us here who have been fighting this for three years and we don’t really want the compassion of the IRS and the efficiency of the post office introduced in our healthcare and we are not going to rest until every single line of this bill is repealed.”

#7 The Health Ranger Mike Adams

“But even if Obama is replaced in the White House, the damage has already been done. With its decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has set a precedent of government control over private paychecks, and that precedent has fundamentally crushed economic freedom in America and opened the door to limitless taxes for everything imaginable. King George III couldn’t have done it better.”

#8 Documentary Filmmaker Michael Moore

“You better get on the train or watch your party implode – that’s my words of advice to the Republican Party”

#9 The communications director of the Tenth Amendment Center Mike Maharrey

“The states simply need to follow Thomas Jefferson’s prescription and nullify the entire act. They should just refuse to implement this monstrosity. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has already indicated he will refuse, and other states should follow his lead.”

#10 Becky Ayers

I’ve never bought medical insurance. The only time a policy has covered me was when it came incidental to a job. The Lord has blessed me with disgustingly good health; then, too, when I was 18, my mother died of a brain tumor that had escaped diagnosis for six years despite excruciating headaches and other symptoms a professor of nursing later described as “classic.” If I were bleeding and unconscious, I might wind up in the clutches of the medical establishment, but never of my own volition.

So I deeply and personally resent Roberts’s little parlor-trick of a word-game. Forcing me to buy medical insurance is unconstitutional if we call it a “fine” but perfectly OK if it’s a “tax.”

#11 Byron Maduska in the Leavenworth Times….

“A new survey of Doctors has been released. The results are bleak.

If Obamacare is fully implemented, 83 percent will consider leaving the practice of medicine. Sixty-one percent say it’s an affront to their ethics. Eighty-five percent say it destroys the doctor-patient relationship. Sixty-five percent say governmental involvement is the cause of the problems in medical care now. Seventy-two percent say the insurance mandate won’t result in improved access to medical care. Seventy-four percent say they’ll stop accepting Medicare patients, or leave Medicare altogether. Seventy percent say reducing governmental involvement would be the single best fix for healthcare in this country. The negatives of Obamacare went on and on in the results of the survey.”

#12 Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli

“This decision goes against the very principle that America has a federal government of limited powers; a principle that the Founding Fathers clearly wrote into the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. The Constitution was meant to restrict the power of government precisely for the purpose of protecting your liberty and mine from the overreaching hand of the federal government. This unprecedented decision says that Congress has the authority to force citizens to buy private goods or face fines – a power it has never had in American history, and a power King George III and Parliament didn’t have over us when we were mere subjects of Great Britain. Since the federal government itself could never articulate to the court a constitutional limit to this power, Congress has gained an unlimited power to force citizens to buy anything.”

So what do you think Obamacare is going to do to the healthcare system in America?

Please feel free to post a response with your feelings below….

http://www.prisonplanet.com/12-incredible-obamacare-quotes-that-show-that-our-wretched-healthcare-system-is-headed-directly-into-the-toilet.html

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 2:41 pm
Quote camaroman:

Obamacare is simply the expansion of what we have now, corporate/government collusion. Why does everyone (at taxpayer expense) have to have INSURANCE? Why not just healthCARE? No one, not even children, are dying in the streets, everyone can get life and limb saving healthCARE at an ER. If they are it is someone other than healthcare givers fault.

You have the first part right. Why a need for insurance? You're off base on the ER though. People get kicked out of ER's all across the country if they can't show proof of insurance BEFORE they get taken care of. It depends on the injury or health problem involved.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Obamacare, the Great Swindle

Mike Adams
Natural News
Monday, July 2, 2012

Now that Obamacare has been ruled a tax by the U.S. Supreme Court, reality is starting to sink in for all those who emotionally supported it. Promoted as a way to provide either free health care or low-cost health care to the masses, the sobering reality is that under Obamacare, health insurance prices keep rising, not falling. That’s no surprise, of course, since the Obamacare legislation was practically written by the health insurance companies, and they sure didn’t put their weight behind a sweeping new law that would earn them less profit.

In an era when the so-called “99%” are sick and tired of being exploited by the one percent who control everything, they just handed their medical futures over to precisely the one percent who skillfully monopolize the conventional health care system!

Obamacare is, at every level, a huge victory for the one percent.

A costly new tax on the middle class

By the year 2016, the Obamacare “penalty” tax will reach roughly $2,000 per year for a two-person household. According to Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, 75% of the financial burden of Obamacare’s new taxes will fall onto Americans making less than $120,000 a year (http://www.humanevents.com/2012/06/30/wsj-chief-economist-75-of-obama…). The great Middle Class, in other words, will bear this new tax more than anyone else.

In effect, what has really happened here is a great swindle: Obama got the middle class to support his legislation by promising it was NOT a tax, and by promising it would LOWER health insurance costs. In reality, however, it RAISES health insurance costs, it IS a tax, and the majority of that tax burden falls squarely on the very same middle-class voters who put Obama into office under false pretenses. That’s a swindle, by any definition.

Not surprisingly, this realization doesn’t sit well with many middle class taxpayers. While the original emotional appeal of Obamacare was nicely packaged and seductively marketed to the masses, the sobering, post-honeymoon reality slaps us all in the face like a wet fish: Smack! This thing is another huge tax increase on the working class! And on top of that, it gives the IRS scary new powers to pry into our private finances. How did you all think compliance with Obamacare was going to be enforced, anyway? It’s going to empower the IRS with even more agents!

Government monopoly for Big Pharma

Even worse than the trillions in new taxes and the IRS spy grid that’s now being set up to monitor compliance with Obamacare, there’s also the sobering fact that Obamacare never even attempted to give consumers a free choice in their health care providers. There’s no coverage of naturopathic medicine, herbal medicine, acupuncture or nutritional therapies. The entire law is written around — and for — Big Pharma and the conventional “sick care” industry that’s best described as a “medical racket.”

Thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, we don’t even have a chance to opt out of this corrupt, failed system of patented chemical medications and overpriced surgical procedures. Now, we are forced to hand over our hard-earned money to the very same medical system that we already know is responsible for killing over 750,000 Americans a year. It’s called “iatrogenic death,” and it means death by health care.

So not only are we being chemically abused and medically enslaved in America, we are now financially forced to pay for the privilege of being raked over the coals by the medical establishment. It makes you wonder… where is the “care” in Obamacare?

But wait, there’s more! From this position of being coerced by the government to pay for a system of medicine you don’t even want, it’s not much of a leap to being coerced to undergo medical procedures you don’t want, either.

How Obamacare will lead to mandatory vaccinations for everyone

Forced vaccinations — for adults! — are on the way, friends. And here’s why: Once everybody is “in the system” of mandatory health care, we will begin to hear arguments like this:

“Anyone who refuses to get vaccinated against influenza is thereby at risk of being an influenza carrier and infecting other people, thus increasing health care costs for us all. To save money, government must force everyone to get vaccinated!”

It’s a false argument, of course, but it will be used to literally line people up at courthouses (with the threat of arrest and jail time) and force them all to be vaccinated against their will.

The same false logic can be used to force people to undergo chemotherapy, take AIDS drugs, undergo coronary bypass surgery or be subjected to almost any medical procedure deemed “necessary” by the government. In the realm of mental health and psychiatry, this opens up a Pandora’s Box of exploitation of patients for the purpose of raking in record profits for the criminally-operated psychiatric drug industry.

Such is the inevitable abuse of monopolistic market practices enforced by a corrupt government that serves the interests of its corporate masters: Once the sick care industry has this monopoly and can force everyone to participate, they will exploit that advantage to its fullest profiteering capacity.

Remember: It is the dream of every corporation to dominate the world. Obamacare just gave Big Pharma and the other sick care giants huge monopolistic cheats to pursue precisely that goal.

Sober up, America

In a time when consumers are increasingly demanding transparency, free choice and the ability to shop around for competitive bargains, Obamacare codifies secrecy, mandatory compliance and monopolistic practices.

Maybe it’s time to sober up and take an honest look at what Obamacare really is instead of what Obama promised it would be. People bought into the dream, but what they actually received was a monumental swindle.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamacare-the-great-swindle.html

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 2:41 pm

15 Reasons Why The Obamacare Decision Is A Mind Blowing Disaster For America

Michael Snyder
The American Dream
Friday, June 29, 2012

You can almost always count on the Supreme Court to do the wrong thing. In fact, just about every major decision by the U.S. Supreme Court over the last 40 years has been bad for America. Many were hoping that the Supreme Court would strike down Obamacare, but the truth is that we all should have known better than to expect them to get something right. So now America is headed for a complete and total disaster as Obamacare is fully implemented over the next several years. Obamacare is going to absolutely shred the infrastructure of our medical system, it is going to send health insurance premiums soaring, it is going to dramatically expand the size and the scope of government, it is going to fundamentally alter the relationships between doctors and their patients and it is one of the largest tax increases in U.S. history. Not only that, it is also going to add about a trillion dollars to our national debt over the next decade. So no, the Obamacare decision is not good news. Obamacare was one of the worst pieces of legislation in American history, and now we are stuck with it.

It was a 5-4 decision to uphold Obamacare, and the swing vote was Chief Justice John Roberts who was appointed by George W. Bush.

After the vote today, it is hard to have any faith in the U.S. Supreme Court. Many constitutional conservatives kept voting for Republicans in the hope that the direction of the Supreme Court would change, but it hasn’t.

Prior to the Obama administration, Republicans controlled the White House for 20 out of 28 years. If Republicans were going to fundamentally change the nature of the Supreme Court, that was their opportunity.

But it didn’t happen.

Instead, what we have is a Supreme Court that is dominated by judges that have very little respect for the U.S. Constitution. When I was in law school I got to study the Supreme Court pretty closely and I quickly realized that most of the time they simply do whatever they want to do and they make up whatever reasons they can to justify their decisions.

That sounds really bad, but that is the truth.

And thanks to the Supreme Court, we are stuck with Obamacare – at least for now.

The following are 15 reasons why the Obamacare decision is a mind blowing disaster for America….

#1 According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government has the power to force you to buy private goods and services. Now that this door has been opened, what else will we be forced to buy in the future?

#2 Obamacare is another step away from individual liberty and another step toward a “nanny state” where the government dominates our lives from the cradle to the grave.

#3 The IRS is now going to be given the task of hunting down and penalizing millions of Americans that do not have any health insurance. In fact, the Obama administration has given the IRS 500 million extra dollars “outside the normal appropriations process” to help them enforce the provisions of Obamacare that they are in charge of overseeing.

#4 Obamacare imposes more than 20 new taxes on the American people. You can find a comprehensive list of Obamacare taxes right here. If you love paying higher taxes, then you are going to absolutely love Obamacare once it is fully implemented.

#5 In an attempt to “control costs” and “promote efficiency”, Obamacare limits the treatment options that doctors and patients can consider. This is likely to result in a decrease in life expectancy in the United States.

#6 Obamacare is going to impose nightmarish paperwork burdens on doctors, hospitals and the rest of the healthcare system. This is going to significantly increase our healthcare costs as a nation.

#7 Obamacare is going to send health insurance premiums soaring. This is especially true for younger Americans.

#8 Many small businesses are going to be absolutely crushed by the provisions in Obamacare that require them to provide expensive health insurance coverage for their employees. This is going to make them even less competitive with companies in other countries where businesses are not required to provide healthcare for their workers. This is also going to make it even less attractive for businesses to hire new employees.

#9 Obamacare is going to make the emerging doctor shortage in America a lot worse. Surveys have found that we could potentially see hundreds of thousands of doctors leave the medical profession because of Obamacare.

#10 Obamacare has already forced the cancellation of dozens of doctor-owned hospitals.

#11 Obamacare is going to result in a much bigger federal government. In order to fully implement all of the provisions of Obamacare, hordes of new government bureaucrats will be required.

#12 Thanks to Obamacare, you are going to have to wait much longer to see a doctor. Just look at what happened once Romneycare was implemented in Massachusetts….

In fact, we have already seen the start of this process in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney’s health care reforms were nearly identical to President Obama’s. Romney’s reforms increased the demand for health care but did nothing to expand the supply of physicians. In fact, by cracking down on insurance premiums, Massachusetts pushed insurers to reduce their payments to providers, making it less worthwhile for doctors to expand their practices. As a result, the average wait to get an appointment with a doctor grew from 33 days to over 55 days.

#13 Obamacare contains all kinds of insidious little provisions that most people don’t even know about. The following is one example from the Alliance Defense Fund….

“Did you know that with ObamaCare you will have to pay for life-saving drugs, but life-ending drugs are free. One hundred percent free. If this plan were really about health care wouldn’t it be the other way around?”

#14 As if the U.S. government was not facing enough of a crisis with entitlement spending, it is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls. You and I will be paying for all of this.

#15 The Congressional Budget Office estimates that Obamacare will add more than a trillion dollars to government spending over the next decade. Considering the fact that the U.S. government is already drowning in debt, how in the world can we afford this?

So what do you think about the Obamacare decision?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/15-reasons-why-the-obamacare-decision-is-a-mind-blowing-disaster-for-america.html

antikakistocrat's picture
antikakistocrat
Joined:
Apr. 18, 2012 2:41 pm

B_W- Ever hear of EMTALA?

http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/index.html?redirect=/EMTALA/

Why do we have to force people to buy health INSURANCE? Health insurance corporations ain't gonna write coverage at a loss. They will make a loss up somehow. And big healthcare and health insurance corporate execs aint gonna give up their salaries and perks. If that is what the progressives here think, they hace drank the koolaid. So taxpayers that pay for theirs are also going to have to pay for others also. That is already the way it is now.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am

The long winded and personal attacks in this thread aside, this bill just handed millions of new customers to insurance companies like United Healthcare who spent millions of dollars promoting this bill to congress in 2008-2010. Those who complain about their salaries are foolish. It is too late, the law is passed and they will , with the governments blessing , continue to raise rates as they see fit adjusting their profit margins along the way to stay in compliance. It will not save the country one dime. The projected costs have already doubled and the law is not in effect for two years. In the mean time, Medicaid is heading straight for bankruptcy. The insurance companies knew exactly what they were doing. Who actually got the con job? We did, as usual.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

While much of what you complain about is true, the problem is comparing it to what we have v. what we ought to have. Obamacare wins that first half being much better than what we have despite the fact that it enshrines the privateers and does very little to end their excess revenue extractions. It does end a number of the human abuses, and it does save us money by getting the ER backdoor closed. It will save the country a lot more than a dime, but we could do so much better.

I also question the "con job" line. The opposition to Obamacare includes a lot of those who want more. Were we conned? Should we have opposed the modest reforms and inclusion of more people just because it did not end the no-value-added payoffs to private health insurance? I don't feel conned at all. I think I know very well what is going on, and I think the pressure is building for real democratic healthcare in America as soon as we take back our democracy.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

Damn my eyes!

All that long winded talking and now I found out it was all just cruft while we got conned.

I guess I was born yesterday.

I'll check back tomorrow and see if I've changed.

Will someone please wake me up tomorrow?

Not too early please.

Why don't you re-hash all this stuff one more time before you wake me up.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am
Quote workingman:One question: how does raising taxes on goods And services make them cheaper?

It increases the pool, spreads the risk and lowers the cost.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:One question: how does raising taxes on goods And services make them cheaper?

It increases the pool, spreads the risk and lowers the cost.

What? Let me understand what you said: raising taxes on a product makes it cheaper by making more people buy it so it becomes cheaper. So lets go through this. the government raises taxes on say xray machines doubling the machines cost. which in turn Will make so many people run out And buy one it gets cheaper.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote camaroman:

B_W- Ever hear of EMTALA?

http://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/index.html?redirect=/EMTALA/

Why do we have to force people to buy health INSURANCE? Health insurance corporations ain't gonna write coverage at a loss. They will make a loss up somehow. And big healthcare and health insurance corporate execs aint gonna give up their salaries and perks. If that is what the progressives here think, they hace drank the koolaid. So taxpayers that pay for theirs are also going to have to pay for others also. That is already the way it is now.

There are all kinds of laws that are broken on a daily basis.

In its report "Questionable Hospitals," Public Citizen's Health Research Group says that the emergency departments of more than 500 hospitals in 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico illegally denied medical screening, did not provide stabilizing treatment, or improperly transferred patients with unstabilized emergency conditions to other hospitals between 1997 and 1999.

Under the 1986 Emergency Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, all hospitals with emergency rooms are required to provide appropriate medical treatment to every person who enters the ER seeking treatment, regardless of their ability to pay.

The report, available on Public Citizen's web site, is based on a review of confirmed violations from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the government agency responsible for making sure hospitals comply with the 1986 act.

One major reason for the illegal patient dumping is financial, Public Citizen charges. This is because many patients coming to ERs have no health insurance, and even if a patient does have insurance, their managed care organization may deny or reduce reimbursement to the hospital if the person is found not to have an emergency medical condition.

So in an attempt to avoid racking up expenses that will not be recouped, hospitals either discourage patients from receiving treatment by asking for payment up front or flat out refuse to treat the patients. Both actions can be construed as illegal, and in more than one case, they have led to the death of a patient, Public Citizen says.

Hospitals violating the 1986 act can be fined, but most never are, Sidney Wolfe, MD, said at a press conference on Thursday. Wolfe is the director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group.

Of the 500 hospitals that committed finable offenses during the study period, only 85, or 17%, were fined, Wolfe noted.

But even if the hospitals are fined, the maximum penalty, which is $50,000, is not much of a deterrent, according to Wolfe. This is "barely a drop in the bucket" in the budgets of most hospitals, which can have annual budgets of up to $200 million, he said.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:One question: how does raising taxes on goods And services make them cheaper?

It increases the pool, spreads the risk and lowers the cost.

What? Let me understand what you said: raising taxes on a product makes it cheaper by making more people buy it so it becomes cheaper. So lets go through this. the government raises taxes on say xray machines doubling the machines cost. which in turn Will make so many people run out And buy one it gets cheaper.

I thought you were talking about taxing people so they buy health insurance. Did I misunderstand your implication?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:One question: how does raising taxes on goods And services make them cheaper?

It increases the pool, spreads the risk and lowers the cost.

What? Let me understand what you said: raising taxes on a product makes it cheaper by making more people buy it so it becomes cheaper. So lets go through this. the government raises taxes on say xray machines doubling the machines cost. which in turn Will make so many people run out And buy one it gets cheaper.

I thought you were talking about taxing people so they buy health insurance. Did I misunderstand your implication?

I was taxing the entire health care system has no shot if naking it cheaper.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote workingman:

I was [saying] taxing the entire health care system has no shot if naking it cheaper.

The health system is not being taxed. It is the people who will be charged with a tax if they don't buy insurance.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:

I was [saying] taxing the entire health care system has no shot if naking it cheaper.

The health system is not being taxed. It is the people who will be charged with a tax if they don't buy insurance.

Yes it is. hosptials, equipment makers, drug makers And insurance companies are all taxed as well as the individual.

So again how Will this make it cheaper.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

The tax or penalty is unenforcible. If you read the paragraphs that refer to the penalty it states that there is no enforcement mechanism.

The monstrosity was constructed in a bipartisan manner. Republicans submitted over 700 amendments and all were reviewed. 130 of them were included in the final bill. 30 amendments from Democrats were included. When they say they weren't consulted they are lying.One republican submitted 20 amendments by herself.

About the ER rejections, the law states Medicare qualifying hospitals, or hospitals that accept medicare have to treat patients. Private hospitals that don't accept medicare are under no obligations. The ACA extends medicare coverage to rural hospitals that do not now accept it. County hospitals usually take medicare.

Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MS

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

But why do we give so much creed to people having health insurance than to simply providing health CARE? Could it be the corporate/government collusion still at work where the majority of healthcare expenses are picked up by the government while health insurance corporations profit off of the rest of the system? After all they can afford to have some of the highest paid CEOs in the country that have nothing to do with the actual delivery of healthcare.

That is the fallacy of obamadon'tcare, it just expands the existing system.

camaroman's picture
camaroman
Joined:
May. 9, 2012 10:30 am

Republibliss is Mitch McConnell's alternative.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I do believe that the entire point of Obamacare is to increase the payments from more people for a 'nearly universal health care system' that is going to be run just like it is now--with government still paying for most of what is paid for the most costly patients as insurance companies get to capitalize on the rest for profits. Now, made to get more from more people thanks to the individual mandate. Now, the removing the exemptions of pre-existing conditions and their maximum limits sounds nice but, once again, the most costly of those patients are already paid for by government (meaning that there already are fewer people that that truly affects than what it may initially appear like). This is the primary issue of Obama's point in his book, The Audacity of Hope, that states 20% of the population uses 80% of the health care budget (and most of most of what is paid of those is paid for by government)--and why even Obama isn't using that statistic should be cause for some people to pause and think. IF Obama had really wanted the single payer option, that statistic would have gone a long way into having people understand its real impact--after all, government is already paying for most of what is paid for those 20% that take up 80% of the medical budget, not insurance companies--and, that's the point....

So, why didn't Obama use that statistic--and that approach? The only answer that makes any sense is that Obama, for one reason or another, didn't want single payer because, once again, once you understand that point about how much government already pays (most of what is paid of the 20% that take up 80% of the medical budget right now), you'll understand how much insurance companies are NOT paying for--and, therefore, how much any increase in payments to them will just amount to more money for them to profit off of.

Obamacare stands to be one of the biggest dupes to the American public. In line with what Ravi Batra pointed out that Greenspan did (in Greenspan's Fraud) with upping the Social Security tax in Reagan's administration claiming it was to 'be there to cover the baby boomers' when, actually, that tax was taken to cover up for the decreasing public funds and increasing national debt being incurred after Reagan's administration reduced the upper income tax levels from 70% to 30% (or around there)--in other words, lying to the American people for the benefit of the wealthy. Obamacare stands to be in that same category. Why? It's the same point that I've tried to make here all along. Most of the most expensive patients are already covered (the few outliers that truly did face bankruptcy for their care were essentially there just be used 'as examples and warnings' to 'buy insurance or this could be you'--now, you'll have the mandate to buy it, or else....)--and Obama (or any public official) using Obama's own point would have shown that--the 20% that take up 80% of the medical budget are already, on a whole, being paid for with your tax money. Now, you, as the taxpayer, are having to turn around and pay a separate entity (insurance companies) for your own care. Do you, as, now, the taxpaying consumer, like being double charged for this system to even have the semblance of offering health care to all its population? You are having to pay twice for it. I think that that represents our system's 'reality' just about as well as anything that has been to 'represent it'--especially if all that's ever pointed out is the idea that 'more people buying health insurance means more health care for all' when a substantial part of those getting health care are, and still will be, paid for by government with your taxes. Why hasn't that ever been pointed out in a public debate on this issue? You're being duped, once again.....

And, the dupers are being able to have it all their way. I strongly suspect that they know this is just a way of sucking even more money out of an already weakened economy for no more than what amounts to the same amount of health care--for more profits. Sure, it seems to offer more in 'preventive medicine', but, for every one person that may avert that heart attack or cancer, you'll get many more 'checked' for it to cover that and, then, still claim that the expensive interventions (that will still be required) aren't having 'their costs covered' (you have pundits right here in thomland already setting you up for that)--interventions that by law right now cannot be withheld from those who really need it at the time whether they can pay or not (you think that EMTALA just magically 'stops' at the ER if truly faced with a life or limb threatening ailment?). But, instead of facing any of those points that should get anyone to thinking, it is just ignored and, then, the plan, once again, is to blame how 'government ruined it' to the little people who are being misled that any of this has anything to do--or has ever had anything to do--with the 'free market'--but, the 'free marketeers' are already ready to take credit for its known faults....and, it becomes a win-win for the colluders, once again.....at the taxpaying consumers increasing expense and burden.....

Be aware, be very aware....or, go on thinking this is 'opening up medical care for all'......I think it's just opening up more profit-taking for the colluders....and I've tried to explain to you how--and why.....I would love to be proven wrong but, then, it's hard to tell when it's not even being discussed--and Obama already knows how to discuss it that way but doesn't (after all, I'm using his statistics--and Obama not doing so says a whole lot to me...).

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Kerry:

(the few outliers that truly did face bankruptcy for their care were essentially there just be used 'as examples and warnings' to 'buy insurance or this could be you'--now, you'll have the mandate to buy it, or else....)

I had to follow myself on that one point because, as others have pointed out here, that 'or else' doesn't appear to have a whole lot of teeth (although, I'm always suspicious that anything that involves the IRS has 'teeth' in it)--I have heard recently that that may be the main reason that 'the industry' decided to turn against Obamacare even as 'the industry' played a substantial part in formulated its legislation--and that being that it didn't force people hard enough to 'buy insurance'.....

Kerry's picture
Kerry
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman:
Quote Dr. Econ:
Quote workingman:

I was [saying] taxing the entire health care system has no shot if naking it cheaper.

The health system is not being taxed. It is the people who will be charged with a tax if they don't buy insurance.

Yes it is. hosptials, equipment makers, drug makers And insurance companies are all taxed as well as the individual. So again how Will this make it cheaper.

Apparently there are some taxes and fees that will be paid. The reason no one brings it up because it is so insignificant. Good for you. My answer still applies: it expands the pool. Are you being purposely deceitful?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The Death of the Middle Class was by Design...

Even in the face of the so-called Recovery, poverty and inequality are getting worse in our country, and more wealth and power is flowing straight to the top. According to Paul Buchheit over at Alternet, this is the end result of winner-take-all capitalism, and this destruction of the working class has all been by design.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system