Jump to content

Obamacare upheld


Jamie_B

Recommended Posts

[url="http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-issue-obamacare-decision-135554880.html"]http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/supreme-court-issue-obamacare-decision-135554880.html[/url]




[quote]
[b] Supreme Court upholds Obamacare individual mandate as a tax[/b]


[color=#000000][font=Georgia, Times,]In a victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court decided to uphold his signature health care law's individual insurance mandate[/font][/color][url="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf"] in a 5-4 decision[/url][color=#000000][font=Georgia, Times,], upending speculation after hostile-seeming oral arguments in March that the justices would overturn the law. The mandate has been upheld as a tax, [/font][/color][url="http://news.yahoo.com/the-supreme-court-s-obamacare-decision--live-coverage-from-scotusblog.html"]according to SCOTUSblog[/url][color=#000000][font=Georgia, Times,], with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal wing of the court. Tom Goldstein of SCOTUSblog says Roberts' vote "saved" the Affordable Care Act.[/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=Georgia, Times,]Justice Anthony Kennedy, usually the court's swing vote, dissented, reading from the bench that he and three conservative justices believe "the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety."[/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Georgia, Times,]
The court's four liberal justices agreed that the individual mandate should be upheld as part of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce, but Roberts disagreed, and wrote that the mandate is actually a tax, despite the Obama administration's reluctance to describe it that way during the bill's passage. Under the law, people who do not have health insurance will have to pay 1 percent of their income to the IRS starting in 2014. (There are exceptions for religious beliefs and financial hardship.)[/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Georgia, Times,]
Twenty six states sued over the law, arguing that the individual mandate, which requires people to buy health insurance or face a fine starting in 2014, was unconstitutional. Opponents cast the individual mandate as the government forcing Americans to enter a market and buy a product against their will, while the government countered that the law was actually only regulating a market that everyone is already in, since almost everyone will seek health care at some point in his or her life.[/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Georgia, Times,]
Before oral arguments in March, polls of Supreme Court experts and scholars showed that most believed the mandate would be upheld as an exercise of Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. But after justices seemed deeply skeptical of the mandate in oral arguments in March, the consensus flipped, with most experts guessing the court would strike down the law.[/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Georgia, Times,]
House Republicans have vowed to repeal the entire law, though it's unlikely the Democratic-controlled Senate would let that happen, and this decision will most likely slow momentum for that move.[/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Georgia, Times,]
Though the sweeping, 1,000-page plus law passed more than two years ago, much of it will not go into effect until 2014. That's when states will have to set up their own health insurance exchanges, Medicaid will be expanded by 16 million low-income people, and Americans will have to buy health insurance (for many, with a government subsidy) or pay a penalty of 1 percent of their income to the IRS. Employers who have more than 50 employees and don't offer insurance will also begin to face a penalty. Insurers will no longer be able to turn away people with preexisting conditions, or charge people higher premiums based on their gender or health.[/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Georgia, Times,]
Only about 6 percent of the population will actually be required to buy health insurance or face a tax under the mandate, since most people already have coverage or will get it through Medicare, according to the Urban Institute.[/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Georgia, Times,]
Many of the more popular provisions of the law have already gone into effect, including a regulation saying insurers have to let children stay on their parents' plans until they are 26 years old, which 2.5 million Americans have already taken advantage of. Insurers can also no longer turn away children with preexisting conditions, and sick uninsured people can buy coverage in high-risk pools set up by the government.[/font][/color][color=#000000][font=Georgia, Times,]
Despite this intentional front-loading of consumer friendly, popular provisions of the law, the American public is pretty evenly split on the law's benefit. Slightly more people wanted the Supreme Court to strike down the law than uphold it in a recent poll.[/font][/color]
[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are fucking stupid, I'm glad I don't have that many friends on the internet who care about this shit. I am not a genius at anything, but this seems very basic. Get insurance, stop fucking up my shit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason I have a memory that had something to do with Obama, that he swore to us that this wouldn't be a tax. So.. it is a tax after all?

Anyway, hopefully this is the end of it, it goes into effect and there is no more pissing matches and going back and forth about it. Hopefully if Romney is elected he wont actually go through with trying to overturn it (he'll run on that) and positive, bipartisan efforts start coming about. Tired of Dems shitting on everything Republicans do, and Repubs shitting on everything Democrats do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='big_dish' timestamp='1340925284' post='1137122']
For some reason I have a memory that had something to do with Obama, that he swore to us that this wouldn't be a tax. So.. it is a tax after all?

Anyway, hopefully this is the end of it, it goes into effect and there is no more pissing matches and going back and forth about it. Hopefully if Romney is elected he wont actually go through with trying to overturn it (he'll run on that) and positive, bipartisan efforts start coming about. Tired of Dems shitting on everything Republicans do, and Repubs shitting on everything Democrats do.
[/quote]

Call it a tax and the legislation has to originate in the house of rep's because they are the ones that will have to weigh tax increase vs. re-election the most because of their 2 year terms. Instead you can call it a mandate to bypass all of that, then let the judges rename it to a tax and completely forget about the rest of the rules... wtf is up with the Roberts on this one?

While I agree I hate seeing both sides getting shitted on, I also don't want to get shitted on by a tax increase (and a very large one) in the middle of what I think could be another recession... And I am tired of racking up debt that will be getting paid by my children and their children. I pray to God he gets elected and kills it like he says he will.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1340931793' post='1137138']
Whee! More shit we cannot afford and the nanny state says we need. Yippee!
[/quote]

Um, how is that possible? If you have insurance already, nothing really changes. If you don't have it and can't afford it, it will be subsidized. If you can afford it, and don't buy it, you're a dumbass and your vote doesn't matter. I guess otherwise, you don't plan on ever getting sick.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='bengalrick' timestamp='1340931377' post='1137134']
Call it a tax and the legislation has to originate in the house of rep's because they are the ones that will have to weigh tax increase vs. re-election the most because of their 2 year terms. Instead you can call it a mandate to bypass all of that, then let the judges rename it to a tax and completely forget about the rest of the rules... wtf is up with the Roberts on this one?

While I agree I hate seeing both sides getting shitted on, I also don't want to get shitted on by a tax increase (and a very large one) in the middle of what I think could be another recession... And I am tired of racking up debt that will be getting paid by my children and their children. I pray to God he gets elected and kills it like he says he will.
[/quote]

No chance, Romney loves the mandate (at least when it was his bill in 2006). :)

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lmihmlb1LBY&feature=youtu.be[/media]


Seriously the SCOTUS has ruled, it's over, how about rather than repealing it which isnt going to happen, we all act like grown ups and work towards making it a single payer or public option down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1340932597' post='1137140']
Um, how is that possible? If you have insurance already, nothing really changes. If you don't have it and can't afford it, it will be subsidized. If you can afford it, and don't buy it, you're a dumbass and your vote doesn't matter. I guess otherwise, you don't plan on ever getting sick.
[/quote]


Dude, in case you haven't noticed, this country we live in is utterly bankrupt. It just doesnt matter...we cannot afford shit, let alone this system. Especially not [i]this[/i] system, given all our other debts and expenditures.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bunghole' timestamp='1340939555' post='1137151']
Dude, in case you haven't noticed, this country we live in is utterly bankrupt. It just doesnt matter...we cannot afford shit, let alone this system. Especially not [i]this[/i] system, given all our other debts and expenditures.
[/quote]

I'm not bankrupt. I can afford it. I hope more people can afford some level of heath care now.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='sois' timestamp='1340940401' post='1137153']
I'm not bankrupt. I can afford it. I hope more people can afford some level of heath care now.
[/quote]

It will be cheaper for people to just pay the penalty for not getting insurance than to buy the insurance, so guess who picks up the difference? If you want to penalize those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves, than make it a severe penalty.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='BengalBacker' timestamp='1340956669' post='1137170']
[url="http://www.usdebtclock.org/"]http://www.usdebtclock.org/[/url]
[/quote]

And please dont waste either of our times telling me Forbes is a liberal rag.

[url="http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/03/12/early-signs-that-obamacare-is-on-the-right-track-to-reduce-costs/"]http://www.forbes.co...o-reduce-costs/[/url]




[quote]
[b] Early Signs That Obamacare Is On The Right Track To Reduce Costs[/b]



[font=courier new,courier,monospace][color=#000000][background=transparent]While anyone who tries to tell you that the Affordable Care Act has already had some significant impact on either lowering or raising healthcare costs is being considerably less than honest—as the provisions that will do one or the other do not come into play for a few more years—there are some positive signs that the law might be on the right track when it comes to long-term cost savings.[/background][/color]
[color=#000000][background=transparent]One of the more controversial aspects of Obamacare is the expansion of the Medicaid program that is expected to bring some 16 million more people into the program. Of course, such an increase comes at a price—[url="http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/cbo-report-shows-obamacare%E2%80%99s-ballooning-costs/350796"]presently estimated by the CBO[/url] to raise the federal portion of Medicaid from the current 1.7 percent of GDP to 2. 5 percent in the year 2022.[/background][/color]
[color=#000000][background=transparent]If you understand [i]why[/i] the ACA has embarked on this approach, you know that the expansion is based on the notion that getting more people access to the healthcare system when ‘small’ illnesses can be treated before they become more complicated and dramatically more expensive, we will save considerably more money than we spend in the long term.[/background][/color]
[color=#000000][background=transparent][url="http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/31/2/350.abstract"]A new study[/url] conducted by The University Of California Irvine and the [url="http://www.forbes.com/colleges/virginia-commonwealth-university/"]Virginia Commonwealth University[/url] [url="http://www.forbes.com/health/"]Health[/url] System, has produced some results that indicate that the approach taken by the ACA may be very much on the right track.[/background][/color]
[color=#000000][background=transparent]The study involved giving health insurance to some 26,000 previously uninsured people in [url="http://www.forbes.com/places/va/richmond/"]Richmond[/url], Virginia, allowing them to access primary care services in the area. The demographics of those participating in the program were designed to match the demographics of those who will be affected by the expansion of the Medicaid program in 2014.[/background][/color]
[color=#000000][background=transparent]Similar to Medicaid, participants were responsible to re-enroll in the program proactively for subsequent years.[/background][/color]
[color=#000000][background=transparent]To date, the study reveals that primary-care visits, for patients who continued to participate it the program for three years, rose from 1.06 in the first year to 1.60 visits annualized over the three years of the study. Not surprisingly, the emergency room visitation rate fell from 1.02 for these folks in the first year to .74 by the end of year three.[/background][/color]
[color=#000000][background=transparent]The pay-off?[/background][/color]
[color=#000000][background=transparent]When measuring the change in health care costs for those participants who increased their visits to a primary care physician during the three year period while decreasing the number of visits to the emergency room, the study reveals that, on average, the total annual health care costs per enrollee fell from $8,899 in year one, to a startling $4,569 in year three—an almost 50 percent decline in the cost of health care per individual.[/background][/color]
[color=#000000][background=transparent]That’s a pretty huge savings.[/background][/color]

[background=transparent]When all participants, including those who did not stay in the program for the full three years, are added into the numbers, the total health care costs per patient declined form $7604 to $4,726.[/background]
[background=transparent]So, what does this tell us?[/background]
[background=transparent][url="http://today.uci.edu/news/2012/02/nr_insurance_120209.html"]According to study co-author[/url], David Neumark, UC Irvine Chancellor’s Professor of economics and director of UCI’s Center for [url="http://www.forbes.com/economics/"]Economics[/url] & Public[url="http://www.forbes.com/policy/"]Policy[/url] study –[/background][/font]
[indent=1]
[font=courier new,courier,monospace][color=#2F3236][background=transparent]A lot of the debate about healthcare reform surrounds the issue of whether we’re setting up something that’s going to cost us more by increasing use of medical services or something that will cut costs through more appropriate and timely use of medical services. Our research shows that, over time, costs can be reduced through increased use of primary care and reductions in emergency-department visits and hospital admissions, but it may take several years of coverage for substantive savings to occur.”[/background][/color][/font][/indent]

[font=courier new,courier,monospace][background=transparent]While the benefits of bringing more people into the healthcare system, by opening the Medicaid program up to more participants, are not going to be readily apparent overnight, this study does indicate the—in the long-term—we will end up saving a lot of money.[/background]
[background=transparent]The study reveals one additional thing that is highly relevant to the intent of the ACA—when people use the services of primary care physicians rather than waiting for a full blown emergency that takes them to the ER because they do not have health care coverage, we save a bunch of money. As there appears be a growing meme on the part of Obamacare opponents that there is no proof that preventative care pays off in cost savings, this study should help in putting that particular line of attack to rest.[/background]
[background=transparent]One additional caveat worth noting—if the states, who operate the Medicaid programs, continue to make it difficult or inconvenient for potential beneficiaries to sign up, we will not gain the cost savings that we see are possible. There is an inherent conflict between states looking to save money by lowering the number of enrollees to their Medicaid programs and the benefits this type of study reveals are possible when we sign up and retain everyone who qualifies.[/background][/font]


[/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='OneHeartBeat' timestamp='1340971750' post='1137179']
It will be cheaper for people to just pay the penalty for not getting insurance than to buy the insurance, so guess who picks up the difference? If you want to penalize those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves, than make it a severe penalty.
[/quote]

I'd have to look into it, but I'd be highly surprised if you can just pay the penalty without having to prove what your income and thus ability to buy insurance is.

[quote name='CincyInDC' timestamp='1340965597' post='1137172']
for Jamie_B: [url="http://www.usdebitclock.org/"]http://www.usdebitclock.org/[/url]
[/quote]

:glare:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Homer_Rice' timestamp='1340974312' post='1137188']
[url="http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2010/february/23/gop-1993-health-reform-bill.aspx"]Reality Check[/url]...or...just how far the political spectrum has traveled in 20 years.
[/quote]

Exactly. This was a Republican plan that was the alternative to what Clinton had proposed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='OneHeartBeat' timestamp='1340971750' post='1137179']
It will be cheaper for people to just pay the penalty for not getting insurance than to buy the insurance, so guess who picks up the difference? If you want to penalize those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves, than make it a severe penalty.
[/quote]
[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1340974007' post='1137184']
I'd have to look into it, but I'd be highly surprised if you can just pay the penalty without having to prove what your income and thus ability to buy insurance is.

[/quote]

My understanding based on the ruling is they cannot force people to get health insurance, but they can tax them if they don't. Based on that, I don't think there'd be any restrictions on just paying the penalty.

As far as picking up the difference, aren't the taxpayers already doing that? The people who got free healthcare before by having no insurance now have to contribute something, so isn't that better?

If hospitals are required to care for everyone that comes through their doors, then everyone should be required to put money towards health care.

I'm concerned with how much of an impact there is for removing pre-existing conditions and the lifetime cap. Those largely come into play when pricing insurance, so I assume costs will go up for everyone to cover that. That doesn't mean I think it was the wrong thing to do.

At the end of the day, I don't know enough of the specifics to say if Obamacare is great or horrible but I know major changes are needed to the health care system. At a minimum, this gets us moving in the right direction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='gatorclaws' timestamp='1340977392' post='1137207']
My understanding based on the ruling is they cannot force people to get health insurance, but they can tax them if they don't. Based on that, I don't think there'd be any restrictions on just paying the penalty.

As far as picking up the difference, aren't the taxpayers already doing that? The people who got free healthcare before by having no insurance now have to contribute something, so isn't that better?

If hospitals are required to care for everyone that comes through their doors, then everyone should be required to put money towards health care.

I'm concerned with how much of an impact there is for removing pre-existing conditions and the lifetime cap. [color=#ff0000]Those largely come into play when pricing insurance, so I assume costs will go up for everyone to cover that.[/color] That doesn't mean I think it was the wrong thing to do.

At the end of the day, I don't know enough of the specifics to say if Obamacare is great or horrible but I know major changes are needed to the health care system. At a minimum, this gets us moving in the right direction.
[/quote]

At the same time your going to get many more paying into the system which would reduce the overall costs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1340977546' post='1137208']
At the same time your going to get many more paying into the system which would reduce the overall costs.
[/quote]

I thought I read this plan only effects about 6% of people or somethin like that. If that's all that's going to be added to the system, I'm not sure that's enough to cover the extra costs. Either way, it was the right thing to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...