• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386, 590]

Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2


Medicare is based on paying in for your entire working life and than getting coverage beginning at age 65 IFF you live that long. Remember that medical care is about 1/6 of the U.S. economy, so a REASONBALE rate would be 18% of your income to cover those costs for "free"; that is FAR higher than most would agree to pay. The alternative is to pay all that you have at the time, go bankrupt, and then you qualify for medicaid. My preference is for "catastrophic" medical care insurance that has a high annual deductable and pays 100% of costs above that limit. It would be much more affordable, and still protect you from absolute bankruptcy for a major illness/injury. Unfortunately PPACA outlaws that type of reasonable insurance since it is of little value to the very poorest people and not as profitable for insurance companies as the "standard" policies that we now have.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

In terms of health care, it obviously can or the Affordable Care Act would never have been passed in the first place.

That is a cheezy lie. The PPACA sqeaked by in late 2009, yet goes into effect MOSTLY between 2014 and 2018 giving plenty of time for those that passed it to blame others or simply "retire" first. Passing it in chuncks that could actually be seen and COSTED accurately was out of the question. This is a SCAM to fool the people into believing that 1/6 of the U.S. economy is actually only going to cost 1/12 of it by adding 45 million more people to the insurance rolls. ;-)
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

That is a cheezy lie. The PPACA sqeaked by in late 2009,

Right. It was passed by a democratically-elected government. And it can be repealed by a democratically-elected government.

yet goes into effect MOSTLY between 2014 and 2018 giving plenty of time for those that passed it to blame others or simply "retire" first. Passing it in chuncks that could actually be seen and COSTED accurately was out of the question. This is a SCAM to fool the people into believing that 1/6 of the U.S. economy is actually only going to cost 1/12 of it by adding 45 million more people to the insurance rolls. ;-)

None of this is relevant to what I wrote. :roll:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

ttwtt78640 said:
Funny that you supply a link that has nothing to do with your ASSERTION that tort reform benefits doctors and insurance companies, yet those "savings" are not passed on to the consumer. I believe that a HUGE part of the tort reform needed would be to make the LOSER pay the legal costs of the winner, that alone would do wonders for the added costs of "malpractice" insurance. Perhaps you could show a link (or two) RELATED to your assertion.
First, my post was in response to the statement "If tort reform were enacted that would allow insurance costs to drop by placing ceilings on lawsuits...". I showed that some states had already done that (including your state).

This article showing the tort reform laws passing in your state and the decrease in medical malpractice premiums.
According to a recent article in the New York Times, physicians are flooding into Texas because of the state’s recent approval of a constitutional amendment limiting medical malpractice awards. Further, physicians noticed that the state of Texas experienced an average 21.3% decrease in medical malpractice insurance premiums during the four years following the tort reform legislation.

According to the article, the number of medical license applications in Texas has increased 18% in the four years since the state legislature enacted the caps. Many doctors cite the friendly malpractice climate as the reason for their move to Texas. Those physicians agree that Texas laws make it easier for doctors to care for patients with complex illnesses without fear of a frivolous law suit.

Tort Reform and the Effect of Medical Malpractice Caps

Couple the above showing a decrease in medical malpractice insurance premiums with this...
But, said Hyman [avid, professor of law and medicine at the University of Illinois.], who worked on health policy for President George W. Bush at the Federal Trade Commission, "we found no evidence that Texas spending went up slower in comparison to all other states and may have had an increase."

http://http://www.law.northwestern.edu/news/articleFull.cfm?id=400&db=NewDB


What it did accomplish was to discourage legitimate claimants. (from the above northwestern link)
Since tort reform, some Texas residents have complained that they cannot find a lawyer to pursue a malpractice case because of the $750,000 cap on payouts for pain, suffering, disfigurement and mental anguish. The limit often makes litigation cost prohibitive, patients and lawyers said.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Medicare is based on paying in for your entire working life and than getting coverage beginning at age 65 IFF you live that long. Remember that medical care is about 1/6 of the U.S. economy, so a REASONBALE rate would be 18% of your income to cover those costs for "free"; that is FAR higher than most would agree to pay. The alternative is to pay all that you have at the time, go bankrupt, and then you qualify for medicaid. My preference is for "catastrophic" medical care insurance that has a high annual deductable and pays 100% of costs above that limit. It would be much more affordable, and still protect you from absolute bankruptcy for a major illness/injury. Unfortunately PPACA outlaws that type of reasonable insurance since it is of little value to the very poorest people and not as profitable for insurance companies as the "standard" policies that we now have.

Medicare is based on that illusion. The government does the trick of borrowing the money to pay for the current deficit and drops an IOU into the Medicare account. It is all bull**** since like what 40% of the budge is deficit?

It is clear that it is cheaper to do preventative healthcare to reduce catastrophic care. Stopping the federal subsidies for bad food would help a lot too. What a bunch of dumbasses, in bed with industry at the expense of the people:
  • fat causes heart disease? bull****, carbohydrates do. Reduce fat by eating more processed carbs...OOPS! Obesity and heart disease go up. Why did they do this? Corporate interests.
  • drugs are bad? prohibition is worse as we imprison 1.6 million on minimum sentencing felonies...and so on and so on...corporate interests
  • tax code...oh brother
  • financial regulation? Overturning Glass-Steagall and promoting mortgages to high risk borrowers, completely undermined the valuation of CDOs. Too bad the ratings companies were unregulated....corporate interests.
  • corn/soybean subsidies...corporate interests
  • and so on and so on
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

If Massachusetts has very strict requirements about what kinds of insurance policies are allowed, and South Dakota has virtually none, then all of the insurance companies will simply move to South Dakota and start selling their plans to people in Massachusetts. This would create a situation where people "technically" had health insurance, but it didn't actually do anything.

That is BS. Requiring a male to purchase insurance for free BC pills or maternity care is simply a SCAM. As is requiring acupuncture be covered. Many policies have VERY few exclusions, but have very high deductables. PPACA is LOADED with tons of mandates for useless stuff that must be "free" from dollar ONE, causing premiums to increase. Just what does SD NOT cover that you feel is needed in MA?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

In terms of health care, it obviously can or the Affordable Care Act would never have been passed in the first place.

But did it change the system to the better? Does it reduce administrative costs or does it create jobs for shuffling paper? Is it what either side really wants? Does it serve the interests of corporations or the people, primarily?

Just one example of many where corporate interests trump the rights of the people.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

First, my post was in response to the statement "If tort reform were enacted that would allow insurance costs to drop by placing ceilings on lawsuits...". I showed that some states had already done that (including your state).

This article showing the tort reform laws passing in your state and the decrease in medical malpractice premiums.


Couple the above showing a decrease in medical malpractice insurance premiums with this...



What it did accomplish was to discourage legitimate claimants. (from the above northwestern link)

So, more doctors, lower costs and less lawsuits are a BAD thing? Texans think NOT. ;-)
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2


You do know that your first link shows why buying insurance across state lines isn't a good idea. Right?

Some have suggested that allowing interstate sales of health insurance policies will make coverage more affordable and available. In reality, interstate sales of insurance will allow insurers to choose their regulator, the very dynamic that led to the financial collapse that has left millions of Americans without jobs. It would also make insurance less available, make insurers less accountable, and prevent regulators from assisting consumers in their states.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

So, more doctors, lower costs and less lawsuits are a BAD thing? Texans think NOT. ;-)
The cost savings isn't passed along to the consumers, like was promised.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Is it what either side really wants? Does it serve the interests of corporations or the people, primarily?

It's not what either side really wants. It's a compromise. The Democrats had to make a lot of concessions to the GOP/corporations. But they also managed to defend a number of things to benefit the people in there.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

So, more doctors, lower costs and less lawsuits are a BAD thing? Texans think NOT. ;-)

A new study found no evidence that health care costs in Texas dipped after a 2003 constitutional amendment limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, despite claims made to voters by some backers of tort reform.

The researchers, who include University of Texas law professor Charles Silver, examined Medicare spending in Texas counties and saw no reduction in doctors' fees for seniors and disabled patients between 2002 and 2009. A 2003 voter campaign in Texas, and some congressional backers of Texas-style tort reform in every state, however, argued that capping damage awards would not onlycurb malpractice lawsuits and insurance costs for doctors, it would lower costs for patients while boosting their access to physicians.

New study: Tort reform has not reduced health care costs in Texas
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Medicare is based on that illusion. The government does the trick of borrowing the money to pay for the current deficit and drops an IOU into the Medicare account. It is all bull**** since like what 40% of the budge is deficit?

It is clear that it is cheaper to do preventative healthcare to reduce catastrophic care. Stopping the federal subsidies for bad food would help a lot too. What a bunch of dumbasses, in bed with industry at the expense of the people:
  • fat causes heart disease? bull****, carbohydrates do. Reduce fat by eating more processed carbs...OOPS! Obesity and heart disease go up. Why did they do this? Corporate interests.
  • drugs are bad? prohibition is worse as we imprison 1.6 million on minimum sentencing felonies...and so on and so on...corporate interests
  • tax code...oh brother
  • financial regulation? Overturning Glass-Steagall and promoting mortgages to high risk borrowers, completely undermined the valuation of CDOs. Too bad the ratings companies were unregulated....corporate interests.
  • corn/soybean subsidies...corporate interests
  • and so on and so on

LOL. The FIRST thing tha PPACA did was OUTLAW insurance companies from considering height/weight ratio (obesity) from raising premium rates. It also outlawed using gender, curiously it kept smoking and age. The bottom line id that gov't has NO idea how to assess actuarial risks in the insurance business, but it does know how to get (buy?) votes, by making "popular" laws.

The SAME, 1500 calorie, lunch can be eaten by a desk clerk and a construction worker; the desk worker will get fat and the construction worker will get hungry. Obesity is NOT based on the source of the calories, it is consuming more than your burn, some of the rest is stored as body fat. Education about diet and exercise, not food taxes/bans, is the key to reducing obesity and other "diet" related health issues.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

It's not what either side really wants. It's a compromise. The Democrats had to make a lot of concessions to the GOP/corporations. But they also managed to defend a number of things to benefit the people in there.
What specific concessions did House democrats make to the GOP that changed what they passed in any meaningful way?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

That is BS. Requiring a male to purchase insurance for free BC pills or maternity care is simply a SCAM.

No it isn't; the purpose of insurance is to spread the risk among a larger pool of people. What's a scam is charging some people more money for health care, for factors that are completely outside of their control (like being a man or a woman).

As is requiring acupuncture be covered.

Does PPACA require it to be covered? I dunno. If so, IPAB will study it like any other procedure, and it'll soon be phased out anyway since it isn't cost-effective.

Many policies have VERY few exclusions, but have very high deductables. PPACA is LOADED with tons of mandates for useless stuff that must be "free" from dollar ONE, causing premiums to increase.

If I'm not mistaken, the only things that must be free from the beginning are preventative care services...and that's a good thing. Although I'm all for catastrophic plans, there needs to at least be some free preventative care in there too. Otherwise, people will be less likely to see the doctor until it becomes a much more serious (and expensive) problem.

Just what does SD NOT cover that you feel is needed in MA?

I'm just using those states as an example of why buying policies across state lines wouldn't work, at least as it's structured now. I'm not referring to those states specifically, or any coverage specifically.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

It's not what either side really wants. It's a compromise. The Democrats had to make a lot of concessions to the GOP/corporations. But they also managed to defend a number of things to benefit the people in there.

It is a big pile of **** on the floor, stinking up Washington, DC, America's toilet.

The broader issues of unlimited federal power with entitlements and the inculcation of corporate interests in our government and the over-use of the Commerce Clause and no balanced budget and and and are all reasons that the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street folks ought to join forces. They are on the same side, as long as the Tea Party agrees to local, not federal, community care (education, welfare, unemployment, retirement and healthcare) and regulation of financial markets and reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, and as long as Occupy Wall Street agrees to local, not federal, community care (education, welfare, unemployment, retirement and healthcare) and a balanced federal budget. It is so easy and would be a significant political force.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

What specific concessions did House democrats make to the GOP that changed what they passed in any meaningful way?

Well obviously removing the public option is the hugest concession to the GOP and the corporations. Oddly, the mandate was another one. But also things like raising the caps on price increases.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

What specific concessions did House democrats make to the GOP that changed what they passed in any meaningful way?

Virtually the entire bill was the standard GOP idea for what our health care system should be, as little as three years ago.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

A new study found no evidence that health care costs in Texas dipped after a 2003 constitutional amendment limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, despite claims made to voters by some backers of tort reform.

The researchers, who include University of Texas law professor Charles Silver, examined Medicare spending in Texas counties and saw no reduction in doctors' fees for seniors and disabled patients between 2002 and 2009. A 2003 voter campaign in Texas, and some congressional backers of Texas-style tort reform in every state, however, argued that capping damage awards would not onlycurb malpractice lawsuits and insurance costs for doctors, it would lower costs for patients while boosting their access to physicians.

New study: Tort reform has not reduced health care costs in Texas

Costs may not have DROPPED in Texas but they certainly did not increase as fast as those in many other states did. Medicare spending in Texas is high because Texas has no state income tax and a warm winter climate making it a retirement and winter "home" for millions of yankees.

Look for yourself at Texas medical care costs, compared to ALL other states:

Health Spending per Capita by Service - Kaiser State Health Facts
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

LOL. The FIRST thing tha PPACA did was OUTLAW insurance companies from considering height/weight ratio (obesity) from raising premium rates. It also outlawed using gender, curiously it kept smoking and age. The bottom line id that gov't has NO idea how to assess actuarial risks in the insurance business, but it does know how to get (buy?) votes, by making "popular" laws.

The SAME, 1500 calorie, lunch can be eaten by a desk clerk and a construction worker; the desk worker will get fat and the construction worker will get hungry. Obesity is NOT based on the source of the calories, it is consuming more than your burn, some of the rest is stored as body fat. Education about diet and exercise, not food taxes/bans, is the key to reducing obesity and other "diet" related health issues.

Of course obesity is based on caloric intake. But it is also highly dependent on the source of the calories. 1500 calories from salad is not the same as 1500 cheeseburger and fries. HFCS cannot be metabolically processed the same as fat or straight starch-based glucose. HFCS turns into fat and cholesterol much more readily. It is a systemic problem, involving diet (including caloric intake and source of calories) and exercise (a daily walk is sufficient). What are we doing letting the government, as biased as they are to doing a corporate deal, make these sorts of decisions?

The same applies to actuarial risks in healthcare. Let the government collect the money. Let the industry allocate the resources.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

So think this through. Say you pay $2k/year for insurance. Before the fine, if you stopped offering insurance, you would save $2k/year. Now, with the fine, you would save only $1k per year. So the fine makes you LESS likely to stop offering insurance. You follow?

As for health care costs skyrocketting, I do agree that costs will continue to go up until we get at least a public option. The pressure from the right forced the left to abandon almost every measure that was designed to prevent the costs from going up. But that's nothing new. Health care costs have doubled every 7 years or so for almost 3 decades straight now. That will likely continue until we do something to change it.

That same 2k is likely to cost 4k or more by 2018.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

It is a big pile of **** on the floor, stinking up Washington, DC, America's toilet.

The broader issues of unlimited federal power with entitlements and the inculcation of corporate interests in our government and the over-use of the Commerce Clause and no balanced budget and and and are all reasons that the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street folks ought to join forces. They are on the same side, as long as the Tea Party agrees to local, not federal, community care (education, welfare, unemployment, retirement and healthcare) and regulation of financial markets and reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, and as long as Occupy Wall Street agrees to local, not federal, community care (education, welfare, unemployment, retirement and healthcare) and a balanced federal budget. It is so easy and would be a significant political force.

You're lumping things together in a weird way. The commerce clause is the primary tool the people have to counteract corporate domination. The strength of the commerce clause is the measure of how much power the people have over corporations. Weakening that means taking power from the people and giving it to the corporations. So lumping together corporate interests with a broad commerce clause is very strange.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2

Well obviously removing the public option is the hugest concession to the GOP and the corporations.

Yes, the government folded to corporate interests when single payer is the way to go. I am always amused when Congress decides to invite industry leaders for consultation.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives-Part 2[W:1, 183, 386]

That same 2k is likely to cost 4k or more by 2018.

Yep, that's right. And then $8k in 2025. And $16k in 2032. And so on until we get a public option or single payer system in place.

So is your position that the fine should be bigger? Or what exactly?
 
Back
Top Bottom