• 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!

Supreme Court Upholds Obama Health Care Subsidies[W:700]

So at the risk of thread derailment.....

My brother, hard core workin man, drives truck, does masonry, plumbing, framing and just about any other tough job that can be done with your hands. hasn't had insurance since he left the Marine Core 25 years ago. Under Obama he get's catastrophic insurance, it costs him like $110 a month and his deductibles are really, crazy high, but if he ever gets mouth cancer from chewing tobacco all these years, the $50,000-$100,000 dollars it would have cost him to have it treated is now paid for. He doesn't have to sell a lifetimes worth of tools (his livelihood) to pay for treatment....His out of pocket, $10K? I don't see how this isn't a steal?

Well first the catastrophic plan is only available to those under 30, and your brother sounds like he's more like late 40's early 50's, so he'd have to get one of the regular plans. Depending on how much he makes he may have to pay a deductible of $6,000 or so and yes, it's a steal because healthy people subsidize the remaining $94,000 (using your example). However it's not that great yet ... the solution so far has been to subsidize and continue to subsidize. Newer cancer treatment drugs are insanely expensive and $100,000 won't even begin to pay for the treatments.

Huffington Post said:
While insurers and premium-payers will be happy with the delay—whose legal justification is dubious once again—there are groups that grumbled. Specifically, groups representing those with chronic diseases, and the pharmaceutical companies whose costly drugs they will use. “The American Cancer Society shares the concern” about the delay, says Pear, “and noted that some new cancer drugs cost $100,000 a year or more.” But a big part of the reason those drugs cost so much is because manufacturers know that government-run insurers will pay up.

“The promise of out-of-pocket limits was one of the main reasons we supported health reform,” says Theodore M. Thompson of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society . “We have wonderful new drugs, the biologics, to treat rheumatoid arthritis,” said Patience H. White of the Arthritis Foundation. “But they are extremely expensive.”

The progressive solution to expensive problems? More subsidies. But subsidies don’t reduce the underlying cost of care. They only excuse the high prices that manufacturers and service providers already charge.
Obamacare's Out-Of-Pocket Caps Waived Until 2015: Forbes

This is why many have claimed insurance rates will increase because those who are on Obamacare will increase, the amount of chronic illness will exceed by far the amount of subsidies available in the system to have the healthy pay for those who cannot pay, therefore the healthy must pay MORE to even it out. I guess if you're healthy it kinds sucks to have to pay more, but if you're chronically ill, it's one less thing to worry about.
 
I've seen all the twitter comments from GOPs.
It's still the same song-and-dance routine with repeal and no specifics with which to replace it .

Jindal has a plan. Ryan has a plan. Price has a Plan. Plus I think there were like 3 others. All have specifics in them.

So its not like they didn't have a plan. Even had Demos in with them on repealing the Medical Device Tax. Plus had Demos seeking relief from the mandate.

Which we all know. BO was constantly threatening to veto anything that took down his Special Package.



I don't think Roberts will be hanging out in certain circles much anymore. Which for the Right. That is a good thing.
 
Sorry but I just don't buy a word of that. Liberals call it the Green Lantern Theory of the presidency, and it refers to the notion that the POTUS has these immense powers of persuasion that if only he'd use them could convince, in this case, right wing republicans (who met and agreed to fight Obama on EVERYTHING before he was inaugurated) would have gone along with socialized medicine in the U.S.

You just have to ignore all the political realities in the U.S. circa 2009 to believe it. The Democratic author of the bill, Baucus, was a puppet of the insurers and hired a f'ing insurance company VP to write the law. The idea that a single payer system killing off insurers makes it into a bill that even gets a serious hearing is wishful thinking at its finest, and the idea that a single payer system that would eliminate the market for some of the U.S. largest companies could get 60 votes is just absurd.



I guess you never read history and how a president eased the nation into war against Germany. I guess you never read about Ronald Reagan and how he convinced another nation to tear down a wall.

My politicians are leaders, go ahead back a follower....here they are called cowards. If the great Obama isn't as able as a lowly Canadian Prairie preacher who was able to sway a nation to a great idea.

But thanks for admitting Obama is an inept leader.
 
Incorrect.

1) Congress can pass another law; e.g. there is absolutely no legal reason it can pass a law that explicitly suspends subsidies for states that don't run their own exchanges, or overturns the ACA. If you've got the votes, of course.

2) Justices can be impeached.

3) The Constitution can be modified, either via amendment or a Convention.

There are numerous other flaws in the US Constitution, but this is not the thread to review those problems. Anyway...



hahahaha

Good luck with that.

The opponents of the law will also need a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, which is highly unlikely. Then, they'll need to fight the health care industry, most of which has already adapted to the new system at no small expense. Then, someone has to explain why the people who lambasted the ACA for pushing people off their old plans and onto new plans, are going to completely take away health insurance from about 18 million people. These are the same politicians who have not offered a real replacement, despite this whole process starting in 2010.

Let's not forget that merely referring to it as "Obamacare" drives down poll numbers; that calling it the ACA in a poll boost support by several points -- and that many of the provisions are, in fact, highly popular. E.g. in 2014:

- Extension of dependent coverage: 80% approval
- Close Medicare donut hole: 79%
- Subsidies: 77%
- Eliminate copays for preventative care: 77%
- Medicaid expansion: 74%
- Guaranteed issue: 70%
- Medical loss ratio: 62%
- Increase Medicare payroll tax on upper income: 56%
- Individual mandate/penalty: 35%

(And as usual, we see how the American public wants benefits, but doesn't want to pay for it. Big shock.)

Sorry dude, but this war's pretty much over.

obamacare-benefits.jpg
 
Exactly!

It takes a lot of balls, capital expenditure, capital flow (soon hopefully), and the need to develop positive cash flow ASAP. All of which are facilitated by taking healthcare expenditures off the table!

This seems so otherwise obvious, that I'm at a loss to see how it's not touted more ...



Wait there's more!

I ran businesses most of my life, even in media I was middle management. When you "own" the operation it's different again. You will more than a few times have to forgo paying yourself to make payroll, it is a fact.

but to the point, with UHC I have an advantage over US companies. While my company pays less tax than a US firm, I do not have the employer portion of the for profit insurance industry which is reaping in record profits through the Obamacare they wrote. I can, to be more competitive offering higher benefits than what is affordable by small companies in the US. Or I can offer better wages, or both.

Further, my sick leave pay will be down between 20 and 30 %, simply based on the fact the employee need not worry about any cost when seeing a doctor.

Then we can look at how much the Obamacare system takes OUT of the economy, where the profits go, and the true global cost of that system.
 
71% of all newly insured through 2014 were from Medicaid Expansion. (source)

The article states that "71 percent of the combined increase in health insurance coverage during the first half of 2014 was attributable to 25 states and the District of Columbia adopting the Obamacare Medicaid expansion."

So not "through 2014." "During the first half of 2014."

But....but....but just like with all those part time jobs being created showing impressive Obama job growth facts like these don't matter to big govt. liberals who promote the nanny state.

Another of this creep's lies that I have refuted over and over.

emp_pt_1994_2015.jpg

Spiked very briefly last fall for some reason, now back down to a historically low level of around seven million. Over the past five years, private-sector employment has increased by 12.6 million to 122 million, while public-sector jobs have decreased by about two million.

Yeah, it put your chart in its proper perspective.

What perspective is that?

mimi loves posting opinions and passing them off as fact. … I fully expect mimi

This putz loves referring to me as "mimi." What a clown.

>>I don't see Obama creating 12 million jobs because he inherited 142 million that is 148 million today at a cost of 7.6 trillion dollars added to the debt.

Employment fell to 138 million by the end of 2009, while the effects of the Great Recession, which resulted from tax cuts for the wealthy and an irresponsible deregulation of the financial sector, played through the labor market. This idiot pretends he can analyze the US economy, but he is completely ignorant of how it operates.

interesting that the articles say different than your post. your dishonesty is noted.

i have proven my point. your post is irrelevant compared to the articles.

My God, I quoted the articles. How could "the articles say different than [my] post"? Good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
I read most of it and it wasn't that hard to understand.

Holy crap!!!

You must be a genius with a lot of time on your hands, I mean a looooottttt of time on your hands. lmao.
 
Hmmm...my insurance dropped to $80 per month, no co-pay, no prescription fee, no difference whether in-vs-out of network coverage, no deductible. I pay $80 a month, and I can get literally any health care I need with no out-of-pocket cost. Ditto the other members of my immediate family. Most of the people I know experienced similar salutary effects. I don't know anyone whose premium increased. The stories I've read of people who did have increased premiums were of people who had super-high deductibles and co-pays or something beforehand, which plans the insurance companies decided to drop.

Well, I can think of thousands of people in my company alone whose premiums went up. Obama said I'd save $2500 a year. today he claimed $1800 a year, so I guess he is confused. $2500 a year savings because of Obamacare. So, over the past 5 years, where is my $12,500?
 
Well, I can think of thousands of people in my company alone whose premiums went up. Obama said I'd save $2500 a year. today he claimed $1800 a year, so I guess he is confused. $2500 a year savings because of Obamacare. So, over the past 5 years, where is my $12,500?

Don't hold your breath... I'm still waiting for my free Iraq oil card from when the left kept claiming the US invaded for the oil. Still no free Iraq oil card though....
 
GOP posters like you should be demanding to see what your leading POTUS contenders will REPLACE SCOTUS-care with, along with the plans from GOP House and Senate members being introduced on the floors of those bodies .



Right now theres a leadership problem with those in Congress, and we don't have to demand to see what the leading Potus Contenders will replace BO care with. They will eagerly tout their idea in their race to be President.

Although he wont be a leading contender. I do think Jindal has the advantage there with his plan that he came out with. I think that was last year or the year before.

Not to mention he use to be an advisor to HHS.
 
Holy crap!!!

You must be a genius with a lot of time on your hands, I mean a looooottttt of time on your hands. lmao.

It only took about an hour or two to read because it's double spaced and I can speed read. If you don't read it then how do you know you don't like what's in it, right?
 
I'm afraid we've crossed another barrier into lawlessness. The highest court in the land has now told us that the plain meaning of words in a law are less important than what the court thinks the words should mean.

That's gonna bite us all in the ass.
 
Jindal has a plan. Ryan has a plan. Price has a Plan. Plus I think there were like 3 others. All have specifics in them.

So its not like they didn't have a plan. Even had Demos in with them on repealing the Medical Device Tax. Plus had Demos seeking relief from the mandate.

Which we all know. BO was constantly threatening to veto anything that took down his Special Package.



I don't think Roberts will be hanging out in certain circles much anymore. Which for the Right. That is a good thing.

When will those plans hit the House and Senate floors? You are aware who is running the show, right? Until then, it's all lame GOP talk.

Since he took the ME, Kasich is the only one who could stand out from the rest of the clowns and point out GOP contributions to SCOTUS-care .
 
<facepalm>

Well, enjoy your sky-high premiums and $5K and $10K deductibles, LOL!

Y'know, when it comes to life-saving surgery, I'd much rather owe a $10K deductible (even though the max is actually about $6,500) than to forego the surgery at all because (if we went back to the way it was pre-ACA) I can't have it because I'm not rich enough to pay for it out of pocket and my pre-existing conditions prevent me from getting insurance anyway....

And if you lived in a state that accepted the federal funding, maybe you wouldn't be paying sky-high premiums. I know here in Washington state, my brothers-in-laws' premium payments are zero, and their deductibles (for major stuff not otherwise covered) is $6500.

But I guess that's tyranny...and telling people that they can't have insurance because they have pre-existing conditions, or that they have to pay more because they're women, well, THAT's REAL FREEDOM!
 
That's fair - I'd say if Hillary Clinton somehow becomes President, a huge mistake in my view, you can forget about any comprehensive change to the ACA. It will be left to collapse unto itself. The only chance for comprehensive reform will be through a Republican President, someone like Jeb Bush, who can move away from the mandates and push to have broadened coverage of those without insurance at the moment - this is what should have been done in the US before the ACA. It would be, in effect, a federally funded complete expansion of Medicaid to cover those without insurance for financial reasons. In effect, a self-insurance program.

That will, over time, move the nation towards a single payer system that is supported by the majority of people. And you're right, it wouldn't be quick and it won't be easy, but a Clinton Presidency sets it back a decade and perhaps the ACA collapses under it's own inefficient weight.
You bring up interesting points, though I'm not sure I (always) see the same results you envision.

Why is it you believe Mrs. Clinton would let the ACA collapse upon itself?

(she was a strong healthcare proponent during her husband's presidency, but got beaten back by the insurance industry then, from my best recollection)

I do find it interesting you feel a Republican could save it, but with someone like Mr. Bush you might be right, seeing that he seems extremely moderate to me. But I'm still not sure I see the GOP as a whole getting behind the ACA or universal healthcare at this time.

And you are right in that there is the possibility of MedicAid expansion (though I originally felt there could be a MediCare expansion, possibly starting with a buy-in, whether subsidized or not). But yes, the MedicAid threshold was increased 125% under the ACA, and it could be progressively bumped-up over time.

I wouldn't doubt that under the umbrella-guise of the ACA, several of these tacts merge and morph over the years into something approaching universal coverage.

But I'm dead against a means-tested 'government picks winners & losers system', like the current ACA and MedicAid. If there's a benefit to be provided, it should be provided for all, equally.

[BTW CanadaJohn, my grandfather migrated from Poland to Canada firstly, living there for quite a few years while bringing in tons of family members, before eventually ending-up in the States. Consequently, I've got relatives from Quebec to Vancouver and we visit each-other occasionally, so I've had some very basic familiarity with the Canuck health system since the early '70's - that's why, in part, I want us to enjoy universal healthcare here.]
 
I'm with you, justabubba -

An employment based healthcare system is asinine!

As I commented before: "In severe recession (like 2009), the rest of the civilized world suffers an economic crisis - but we suffer an economic crisis AND a healthcare crisis"!

Why?

And in other terms: Why would we want to stifle entrepreneurship by having employees unable to risk new ventures due to putting their families in jeopardy by lacking healthcare?

It's nonsense.

....:shrug: because FDR did it, and we don't like to change things that FDR did because Mean Old Republicans Hate Poor People?
 
unfortunately there is no more appeals. the SCOTUS again screwed the American people over.
we will have to wait till 2016 and hopefully a republican president use budget reconciliation to remove obamacare and put something else in it's place.


Heya Ludin. :2wave: Here is what Boehner said today.



Boehner: We'll keep trying to repeal Obamacare...... :roll:


House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday that the GOP will keep trying to repeal Obamacare, after a Supreme Court ruling that upheld subsidies to people using the federal insurance exchange and basically left the law intact.

Obamacare is fundamentally broken, increasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans. Today's ruling doesn't change that fact," Boehner said. "Republicans will continue to listen to American families and work to protect them from the consequences of Obamacare." "And we will continue our efforts to repeal the law and replace it with patient-centered solutions that meet the needs of seniors, small business owners, and middle-class families," he said.

Republicans have been legislatively picking at the law, voting to repeal parts of it, most recently the medical device tax. The GOP is also mulling a plan to repeal much of the law as part of the budget process, using a parliamentary procedure that would allow the Senate GOP to vote to repeal it with just 51 votes.....snip~

Boehner: We'll keep trying to repeal Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
 
That's an interesting comment, because the Supreme Court did more-or-less seize it's own power (over Congress), when Justice Marshall established 'judicial review' early-on in the Court's (and country's) history.

That is the problem. there is nothing to stop the SCOTUS. I mean congress can fix the bill,
but as we see here we have the SCOTUS doing an unconstitutional thing and re-writing a established law which is not their authority.
that is where scalia just nails them to the wall.

he is right words now mean nothing. what is worse is now the federal government is or a federal organization is not considered a state.
 
OK, issued decision you disagree with so obviously that must mean he's a traitor. :roll:

when a judges responsibility is to uphold the constitution and he upholds his politics instead yes that is treason.
 
My God, I quoted the articles. How could "the articles say different than [my] post"? Good luck with that.

no you quoted what you wanted from the articles and ignore the rest of it that says different. again your dishonesty is noted.

all those articles back what I said. you are proven wrong I am proven right.
 
Heya Ludin. :2wave: Here is what Boehner said today.



Boehner: We'll keep trying to repeal Obamacare...... :roll:


House Speaker John Boehner said Thursday that the GOP will keep trying to repeal Obamacare, after a Supreme Court ruling that upheld subsidies to people using the federal insurance exchange and basically left the law intact.

Obamacare is fundamentally broken, increasing healthcare costs for millions of Americans. Today's ruling doesn't change that fact," Boehner said. "Republicans will continue to listen to American families and work to protect them from the consequences of Obamacare." "And we will continue our efforts to repeal the law and replace it with patient-centered solutions that meet the needs of seniors, small business owners, and middle-class families," he said.

Republicans have been legislatively picking at the law, voting to repeal parts of it, most recently the medical device tax. The GOP is also mulling a plan to repeal much of the law as part of the budget process, using a parliamentary procedure that would allow the Senate GOP to vote to repeal it with just 51 votes.....snip~

Boehner: We'll keep trying to repeal Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com

still won't matter they don't have the 3/4's in the senate to override a veto.
 
Wait there's more!

I ran businesses most of my life, even in media I was middle management. When you "own" the operation it's different again. You will more than a few times have to forgo paying yourself to make payroll, it is a fact.

but to the point, with UHC I have an advantage over US companies. While my company pays less tax than a US firm, I do not have the employer portion of the for profit insurance industry which is reaping in record profits through the Obamacare they wrote. I can, to be more competitive offering higher benefits than what is affordable by small companies in the US. Or I can offer better wages, or both.

Further, my sick leave pay will be down between 20 and 30 %, simply based on the fact the employee need not worry about any cost when seeing a doctor.

Then we can look at how much the Obamacare system takes OUT of the economy, where the profits go, and the true global cost of that system.
You definitely have that right.

Also, in a macro economics sense it's very easy to see when you have a profit-making layer between the funds & the service (i.e. the insurance companies), there will be more costs (and more inefficiencies). Ditching the insurance companies will save us about 27% of our healthcare dollar (if I remember correctly), which would easily cover everyone.

This is what happens when you have a governing structure that is open to the highest bidder, and money flows in virtually unabated - in such a system moneyed interests will prevail.
 
Back
Top Bottom