That is how all insurance pools work not just the ACA's. Young and "healthy" people get sick and injured all the time yet they game the system knowing they can't be turned away if the unthinkable happens. That's why we have the mandate. Ending pre-existing conditions requires that everyone be insured too.Originally Posted by ObamacareFail
Am I mistaken or do not the more series levies etc. kick in after Obama leaves?
You see, can kicking governments forget the negative legacy may backfire, in this case as the dues, as they say, come due, there will be pressure for change. This is the first chance since "You can keep your plan" for Americans to make their wishes known to a presidential candidate. If Obamacare does NOT become a major issue in this run, the Republicans do not deserve to be a political party.
In the meantime, were I a GOP candidate I would be talking about "reforming" it in "fairness" from the core out, as opposed to repealing it, as "the way it was has now become unacceptable". They will have to have a well defined and well thought out alternative.
"Small people talk about people, average people talk about events, great people talk about ideas" Eleanor Roosevelt
Yeah, the tax on the Cadillac plans kicks in in 2018. But, it is not likely to have a major impact on anything. It is a tax paid by insurers on plans that cost over $10k a year and the tax only applies to the amount over $10k. Only 17% of employers even offer a plan that costs more than $10k a year and only a small fraction of their employees pick one of those plans. Even for those who do, it usually isn't far over $10k/year, so the tax amount would be pretty small. The only people who would pay a significant amount are people who have plans of the sort that are not generally available to consumers. Custom plans that cover outlandish life extension treatments or cosmetic surgery and whatnot.
The reality is that we're past all the triggers for the Republican nightmare predictions about the ACA and none of them, not a single one, turned out to be accurate. Meanwhile, pretty much everything the Democrats predicted has come to pass or, in some cases, exceeded those expectations dramatically. At this point, the best strategy for the GOP is just to try to move on to other issues and hopefully do it in a more sensible way so they can rebuild some of the credibility they lost with all those wild and reckless ACA predictions.
I agree it will continue to be a hot potato, but rather than have the ACA rescinded and going back, it will be replaced or parts amended so that you move closer, not further away, to a single payer system. Your Supreme Court, in its two political rulings that ignored the constitution, has set in stone that you will not go back. And if a Republican wins the White House in 2016, which I hope happens, Republicans will own the problem.
A Canadian conservative is one who believes in limited government and that the government should stay out of our wallets and out of our bedrooms.
Actually yes. The congress passes unconstitutional laws, the President takes unconstitutional actions. The supreme court rules against the constitution.
Thanks for the compliment.
But in all fairness, I must admit my paternal grandfather emigrated from Calgary, I have relatives from Hull to Vancouver, and I spent chunks of my youth visiting them & ski-bumming across the country. If I were to retire expat, I'd very much consider Montreal or Quebec City (I love both).
The profit side of healthcare (incl insurance companies) speaks directly to the need for cost containment. And this then brings-up the much larger issue of how do we perceive healthcare on the spectrum from 'basic human right' to 'profiteering commodity' . There's a lot of lee-way between those two polar opposites, and unfortunately those that profit from healthcare have the most influence over those that regulate it and make those decisions for us as a society.
I particularly see the GOP attempting to roll-back government & institutions that bring us together or provide safety for us in the name of individualism & free-market capitalism, with the opposition to universal healthcare reflective of this. I believe they represent monied and corporate interests that are often at odds with our societal good.
In your last paragraph you speak of the more cooperative benevolent nature of Canadians, and attribute this in-part to universal healthcare, and I believe you are correct - though I believe the cause-effect axis is bilateral in this case. I see your universal healthcare & our respective lack of it as a societal/political result of the current political system and it's flaws. Worse yet, I see downward forces exerted from the political parties & their politician members to the citizenry, spreading disinformation and stoking the flames of anger & hatred - this is how we end-up with significant segments of our citizenry believing universal healthcare requires 'death panels', and 'Canadians are fleeing their country for American healthcare'. Indeed, 1/3 of the citizens that identify as Republicans believe President Obama was not born here, is not a citizen, and therefore is illegitimate - I find it hard to believe all these citizens came up with this idea independently. There is good reason why Canadian broadcast regulations allow 'Fox Entertainment' but not 'Fox News', and there is also good reason why Canadians have maintained their version of the 'Fairness Doctrine', rather than embrace the American 'right to lie' provision. This special interest/political party induced disinformation is (IMO) further dividing the citizenry, turning Americans against each other. And it works to the advantage of those that profit from an incohesive society.
In short, we have money at the top influencing our legislators where they thereby provide disinformation through a cooperative media in order to satisfy the special interests that finance their campaigns for them to remain monied & in power. It is the dark-side of the otherwise excellent system of free-market capitalism, and could be easily prevented with some basic financial regulation (Britain has excellent political regs, IMO) - unfortunately those that benefit from the lack-of regulation are the one's entrusted to provide them.
And this is how the most affluent country in the free-world fails to provide healthcare commensurate with her peer nations! (or even some of those below peer!)
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
The 10 Commandments of Logic - (Courtesy of Abbazorkzog Blog)
Worse Than the Supremes: Obamacare Economics - Larry Kudlow, IBD
The judicial decision to uphold all of the president's health care subsidies may be very disappointing, but the economics of Obamacare are far worse than whatever constitutional mistakes have been committed by the Supreme Court.
The economics of Obamacare are very bad. The law is inflicting broad damage on job creation and new business formation. It ruins job incentives by making it pay more not to work, thereby intensifying a labor shortage that is holding back growth and in turn lowering incomes and spending.
And across-the-board Obamacare tax increases are inflicting heavy punishment on investment -- right when the U.S. economy desperately needs more capital as a way of solving a steep productivity decline.
Because of Obamacare, there's an additional 0.9 percent Medicare tax on salaries and self-employment income, a 3.8 percent tax increase on capital gains and dividends, a cap on health care flexible spending accounts, a higher threshold for itemized medical expense deductions, and a stiff penalty on employer reimbursements for individual employee health policy premiums.
Each of these tax hikes is anti-growth and anti-job. . . .
"It's always reassuring to find you've made the right enemies." -- William J. Donovan
The SC decides final interpretation ludin, and they evaluate legislation in legal terms, not linguistic.
There's more to law, than specific phrases - there's context.
With all respects, and no specific prejudice to yourself, I'll trust the legal judgement of the Justices of the Court, before that an individual on the internet - though I'm happy for the discussion. But if we don't respect the Court, who do we respect?
I do agree the legislation can be re-written (within constitutional authority) if the political will is there (specifically, a GOP President & 60 count filibuster-proof Senate).
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
The 10 Commandments of Logic - (Courtesy of Abbazorkzog Blog)
You're right--I shouldn't be surprised. Maybe I'm too much an optimist at heart, but I'm still often surprised by the sheer lack of depth from posters on these boards. It's not just the conservative posters, and some conservative posters do post with some depth. But...just, damn. It's disheartening.
It's amusing that a government formed as the result of essentially a tax revolt has three branches that bend over backwards to increase/defend taxation (via mandated subsidies or otherwise) by the most convoluted/Alice-in-Wonderland reasoning. This latest decision by SCOTUS is just part of the pattern, where the actual literal wording of the law passed was ignored to effect the new agenda: states aren't bending to federal incentives to set up their own exchanges, so the trigger built in to get buy-in backfired and hence needs to be judicially changed to make the "intention" of the law "work" rather than the law itself.
The individual mandate decision three years ago was another example of this: it's not a tax otherwise SCOTUS couldn't rule on it (since it hadn't affected anyone yet) but it was a tax hence congress had authority to implement it.
I really think this country is no longer a nation of laws, but rather policies. For instance, it is still technically illegal to enter the US illegally, but the policy is not to enforce this law. Marijuana is still technically illegal federally but the policy is not to enforce this law in states that have decriminalized it despite the clear applicabilty of the supremcy clause. For instance, if a state made NFA firearms explicitedly legal and subject to the same laws governing non-NFA weapons, I suspect the policy would be to invoke the supremacy clause in short order along with aggressive ATF enforcement.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote