• 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 [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758, 1205]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Those two statements mean the same thing. Prior to the ACA you had no recourse if you couldn't afford health insurance; now the costs will be transferred to the public, as they should be.

You're right. Before PPACA you had no recourse and the costs were transferred to the public. NOW after PPACA the costs will be transferred to the public. OR are you saying that before PPACA those without HI did not get medical care? Note the difference between HI and medical care.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

That makes NO sense at all. If there is ONE premium rate (set by the gov't)

There isn't. There will be a maximum premium rate in order for plans to qualify for the health insurance exchanges, but the government does not set the premium under the ACA. Insurers will be free to compete with one another on premium rates as long as they stay below that ceiling, in accordance with supply and demand.

and all must pay it (or get it subsidized by the taxpayers) then what does "private" medical insurance do except for take a cut of the action as a profit?

They spread the risk among their policy-holders and pay out the costs of health insurance to whichever policy-holders lose the game of health roulette.

Medicaid and Medicare now contain 100% of the RULES and paper pushers to verify/pay claims money to PRIVATE health care providers now; WHY does ObamaCare keep "private" insurance in the loop?

If you want to cut them out of the loop entirely, you won't get many objections from me.

The ONLY reason is to pretend that "options" are available, when, in fact, they are not, since ObamaCare sets the premium rates, defines the minimum/maximum benefits AND the allowable "overhead" (profit?) then there is nothing left for the insurance company to do EXCEPT act as paper pushers to verify/pay claims money to PRIVATE health care providers; EXACTLY what Medicaid/Medicare now do as well (but with no "profit").

And this is a problem why? What exactly do you think insurers do NOW, if not act as paper pushers to verify/pay claims money?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Think about this for a minute. Does it even seem plausible? I mean the median income is like what around $50k which means half of the population makes that or less. IF they have insurance now it costs $15k (per you) AND the $2k is correct they will get a ~85% reduction in cost with PPACA. Where is all this money going to come from?
It appears that some haven't been paying attention the past two years.

It's going to come from the places mentioned in the healthcare bill that was passed two years ago. Perhaps you should, um, read up on that?

In short, as orginally scored, Obamacare was going to cost $1 trillion over 10 years, so they either raised taxes (or cut loopholes) or cut spending (the $500 billion out of Medicare Advantage that the right is always lying about) to offset that $1 trillion over 10 years. Again, research is your friend... especially since that info is 2 years old.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

I mean it's free to the consumer.

EXACTLY. ObamaCare = Income redistribution. Taking setting the risk based premium rates out of the private insurance "business" leaves absolutely NOTHING for them to do but verify/pay claims for a profit (set by the gov't).
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

It appears that some haven't been paying attention the past two years.

It's going to come from the places mentioned in the healthcare bill that was passed two years ago. Perhaps you should, um, read up on that?

In short, as orginally scored, Obamacare was going to cost $1 trillion over 10 years, so they either raised taxes (or cut loopholes) or cut spending (the $500 billion out of Medicare Advantage that the right is always lying about) to offset that $1 trillion over 10 years. Again, research is your friend... especially since that info is 2 years old.

Which we all know is PURE fantasy. The average annual cost per Medicaid patient is NOW over $7,400. Multiply that by the millions added by ObamaCare PLUS a portion of that for each added to the "subsidized" pools by ObamaCare and you come up with the REAL cost. The CBO did NOT do that simple math.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

There isn't. There will be a maximum premium rate in order for plans to qualify for the health insurance exchanges, but the government does not set the premium under the ACA. Insurers will be free to compete with one another on premium rates as long as they stay below that ceiling, in accordance with supply and demand.



They spread the risk among their policy-holders and pay out the costs of health insurance to whichever policy-holders lose the game of health roulette.



If you want to cut them out of the loop entirely, you won't get many objections from me.



And this is a problem why? What exactly do you think insurers do NOW, if not act as paper pushers to verify/pay claims money?

What the insurers do NOW is set risk based; rates based on age, gender, smoking, weight/height and many other factors, in short, they DISCRIMINATE. They set ACTUARIAL based variable PREMIUM RATES, that is their current MAIN JOB. Under ObamaCare do the "exchanges" do that DISCRIMINATING? Do they still allow the "private" insurance companies to do that DISCRIMINATING? Under ObamaCare can "private" insurance rates still vary based on age, gender, weight/height and smoking?
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Which we all know is PURE fantasy. The average annual cost per Medicaid patient is NOW over $7,400. Multiply that by the millions added by ObamaCare PLUS a portion of that for each added to the "subsidized" pools by ObamaCare and you come up with the REAL cost. The CBO did NOT do that simple math.
Why don't you do it for us then?
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

EXACTLY. ObamaCare = Income redistribution. Taking setting the risk based premium rates out of the private insurance "business" leaves absolutely NOTHING for them to do but verify/pay claims for a profit (set by the gov't).

And yet...I'm OK with that. :lol:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

What the insurers do NOW is set risk based; rates based on age, gender, smoking, weight/height and many other factors, in short, they DISCRIMINATE. They set ACTUARIAL based variable PREMIUM RATES, that is their current MAIN JOB. Under ObamaCare do the "exchanges" do that DISCRIMINATING? Do they still allow the "private" insurance companies to do that DISCRIMINATING? Under ObamaCare can "private" insurance rates still vary based on age, gender, weight/height and smoking?

Discrimination based on gender is banned. Discrimination based on age is still allowed, but the premium spread for any given policy can't be more than 3-to-1 (old-to-young). Discrimination based on weight/height is not allowed. Discrimination based on smoking is allowed (as it should be), but the premium spread for any given policy can't be more than 1.5-to-1 (smokers-to-nonsmokers).

But I'll tell you what. I think that Mitt Romney should campaign on bringing back discrimination based on preexisting conditions, and forcing women to pay more than men for their health insurance. That seems like a real political winner. :lol:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Why not simply put EVERYBODY on Medicaid/Medicare and tax them directly at the ObamaCare defined "fair" rates? The answer, of course, is that would expose the SCAM and its TRUE COSTS immediately, rather than pretend it will "save money".

Why not indeed? Most other countries cover all of their citizens on what we pay just for the elderly and the indigent.

We could save even more by making Medicare a catastrophic care package that covers everyone, and lets us pay out of pocket for doctor's visits and the like.

The bottom line to all of this is that medical care costs are bankrupting the nation. Medical care costs significantly more than all federal expenditures outside of Medicare/Medicaid, and are increasing faster than inflation every year.

and no, "Obamacare" as it exists today isn't going to rein in costs significantly.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Lets get it right folks...the reason there will never be Medicare for all...is that there is too much money in the health insurance industry going to politicians they will never give up one of their golden gooses.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Incorrect. A person making just above this dollar amount would pay no more than 3-4% of their income toward insurance premiums. In other words, they could actually buy a policy for $600 a year.

In both of these cases, families earning just above the poverty line would have their health care subsidized to the point that they would only be paying 3-4% of their income toward premiums each year.


I have a source from some kooky bloggers called the Department of HHS, Department of Treasury, and Congressional Research Service:
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/reports/premiums01282011a.pdf
http://web.archive.org/web/20101027...eReform/CRS/HealthInsurancePremiumCredits.pdf
http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/Documents/36BFactSheet.PDF

Sigh. Is it really too much to ask that people actually learn the contents of the law before they go running their mouths about how horrible it is? I mean, it's one thing to disagree with the Supreme Court's interpretation of "tax," or to think that some provision of the law is bad policy. It's another thing to not even know the contents of the law. Sadly, this seems to be par for the course with the Affordable Care Act's most vocal opponents.

Kandahar--Just want to say thank you. You've been really great in this thread and willing to share a lot of your knowledge on this topic. I especially appreciate the links you've provided.

:thanks:
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Lets get it right folks...the reason there will never be Medicare for all...is that there is too much money in the health insurance industry going to politicians they will never give up one of their golden gooses.

There's about to be a lot less. PPACA mandates that they spend at least 80-85% of revenue on health care. If they don't, they have to rebate their customers for the difference.That only leaves 15-20% for everything else...administrative costs, overhead, profits, etc. They aren't going to have much money left to bribe politicians.
 
It was upheld under congress' authority to tax and nothing else. It's a tax.

only in a backwards, reverse-reality dimension is this considered to be the same thing as raising taxes on the Middle-class.

I am lower middle-class. And yet, Obama didn't just raise my taxes.

end of story.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

Lets get it right folks...the reason there will never be Medicare for all...is that there is too much money in the health insurance industry going to politicians they will never give up one of their golden gooses.

Which is the real reason we don't have universal health care today, not because of "socialism," or "death panels" or any of the other absurd claims being made against UHC.
 
only in a backwards, reverse-reality dimension is this considered to be the same thing as raising taxes on the Middle-class.

I am lower middle-class. And yet, Obama didn't just raise my taxes.

end of story.

The end of the story is that it is a tax, upheld by the authority to tax.
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

The answer: national 2008 Average Per Capita Medicaid Expenses is $14780.


and yet:

Health Spending per Capita
United States $6,815

Something doesn't add up there. How can the cost just for Medicaid be more than twice as much as the cost for everyone put together?
 
its a penalty, not a tax. taxes are not punitive.

This one is.

Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Law, 5-4, in Victory for Obama

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: June 28, 2012

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld President Obama’s health care overhaul law, saying its requirement that most Americans obtain insurance or pay a penalty was authorized by Congress’s power to levy taxes. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joining the court’s four more liberal members.

“The Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/29/us/supreme-court-lets-health-law-largely-stand.html?pagewanted=all
 
Re: SCOTUS LIVEBLOG - Obamacare Mandate Survives [W:125, 384, 635, 652, 758]

This is a real scary part to this whole bill being found constitutional. What's next?
I think the supporters of this decision missed a very important point I made. Let's say the religious right wins the next election and uses the decision for political gain, they say "okay, fine, you win on the abortion debate it's legal" "thanks to your new backdoor though we now can tax an abortion at 1000%, go ahead, take it to SCOTUS, but remember thanks to your new champion John Roberts we can tax for anything". Or, since the BOR was subjugated to tax powers, if say..........the poll tax were to be re-instituted, the civil rights act < BOR < Taxation. People don't realize what was done here.
 
I think the supporters of this decision missed a very important point I made. Let's say the religious right wins the next election and uses the decision for political gain, they say "okay, fine, you win on the abortion debate it's legal" "thanks to your new backdoor though we now can tax an abortion at 1000%, go ahead, take it to SCOTUS, but remember thanks to your new champion John Roberts we can tax for anything". Or, since the BOR was subjugated to tax powers, if say..........the poll tax were to be re-instituted, the civil rights act < BOR < Taxation. People don't realize what was done here.

they could have done that anyway. sin taxes have long been established.
 
Wrong. He has lied. He specifically said that it was not a tax. It was deemed constitutional under Congress' authority to tax. It is a tax...and a lie.

He doesn't see it that way. There are others who don't either. But the courts did. So, what makes this an issue for you and others? It doesn't change anything, other than tax will be repeated by republicans ad nausium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom