Affordable Care Act: D-Day

inlet13

mikepegg44 wrote:

The payer of last resort option has caused a huge increase in fees for service I think.

I was watching this guy on Stossel speak on this the other night and they mentioned something interesting. Why are "costs" increasing? Moreover, what exactly are "costs"? He flips typical logic of high costs on it's head.

Not saying whether he's right or wrong, but it's worth a viewing:

http://video.foxbusiness.com/on-air-stossel-87530

mikepegg44

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

I live in Pennsylvania, have insurance from Blue Cross of Illinois, and we drove to Delaware to have surgery performed on son. I don't understand how that is not interstate commerce.


I'm looking forward to seeing the death panels.

Did you ever live in Illinois? company you work for based in Illinois or did you buy it privately?
Since BCBS is a bunch of different companies, it is possible that a few of them, maybe even all of them, have reciprocal agreements that allow moving without underwriting changes.
a private citizen getting health care is, a private citizen buying health insurance is not.

Go Beavers

For those thinking that this makes an Obama loss more likely in Nov should pull-up a bit and wait and see. The health insurance bill is only unpopular in certain polls, and evenly split in others. My guess is support for the bill ticks up some as actual information about what the changes will look like comes in. I've already seen 3 level-headed what does this mean to you type articles in about 10 minutes. The undecided, middle-of-the-road voters will respond to this, as well as the perception of what this means. It will be portrayed as a win for Obama and his admin, and who wants to vote for a loser? Romney will likely counter with attacks that fit into the Obama is a big government socialist out to destroy our country category. That really only appeals to the crowd that's now assembling in the basement, collecting guns and canned goods, who were already not voting for Obama. The media will also portray the healthcare changes as not so scary as presented in the 3 or 4 years.

That's my take. It'll be interesting to watch the polls over the next 4-8 weeks.

inlet13

Go Beavers wrote:

For those thinking that this makes an Obama loss more likely in Nov should pull-up a bit and wait and see. The health insurance bill is only unpopular in certain polls, and evenly split in others. My guess is support for the bill ticks up some as actual information about what the changes will look like comes in. I've already seen 3 level-headed what does this mean to you type articles in about 10 minutes. The undecided, middle-of-the-road voters will respond to this, as well as the perception of what this means. It will be portrayed as a win for Obama and his admin, and who wants to vote for a loser? Romney will likely counter with attacks that fit into the Obama is a big government socialist out to destroy our country category. That really only appeals to the crowd that's now assembling in the basement, collecting guns and canned goods, who were already not voting for Obama. The media will also portray the healthcare changes as not so scary as presented in the 3 or 4 years.

That's my take. It'll be interesting to watch the polls over the next 4-8 weeks.

Pom Poms?

Johnny Abruzzo

mikepegg44 wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

I live in Pennsylvania, have insurance from Blue Cross of Illinois, and we drove to Delaware to have surgery performed on son. I don't understand how that is not interstate commerce.


I'm looking forward to seeing the death panels.

Did you ever live in Illinois? company you work for based in Illinois or did you buy it privately?
Since BCBS is a bunch of different companies, it is possible that a few of them, maybe even all of them, have reciprocal agreements that allow moving without underwriting changes.
a private citizen getting health care is, a private citizen buying health insurance is not.

Bought through my wife's company. Never lived in Illinois. I've been there a couple times. Love that Chicago pizza.

How about this? An uninsured resident of Montana is on a road trip and is injured in Illinois. The hospital in Illinois is lawfully bound to provide the Montana resident with health care.


I think all the conspiracy talk about Roberts crafting this decision to aid the GOP is pretty out there. He simply wanted to protect the reputation of his court.

mikepegg44

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

I live in Pennsylvania, have insurance from Blue Cross of Illinois, and we drove to Delaware to have surgery performed on son. I don't understand how that is not interstate commerce.


I'm looking forward to seeing the death panels.

Did you ever live in Illinois? company you work for based in Illinois or did you buy it privately?
Since BCBS is a bunch of different companies, it is possible that a few of them, maybe even all of them, have reciprocal agreements that allow moving without underwriting changes.
a private citizen getting health care is, a private citizen buying health insurance is not.

Bought through my wife's company. Never lived in Illinois. I've been there a couple times. Love that Chicago pizza.

How about this? An uninsured resident of Montana is on a road trip and is injured in Illinois. The hospital in Illinois is lawfully bound to provide the Montana resident with health care.


I think all the conspiracy talk about Roberts crafting this decision to aid the GOP is pretty out there. He simply wanted to protect the reputation of his court.

health care =/= health insurance

sorry got to slow down

Go Beavers

inlet13 wrote:

Go Beavers wrote:

For those thinking that this makes an Obama loss more likely in Nov should pull-up a bit and wait and see. The health insurance bill is only unpopular in certain polls, and evenly split in others. My guess is support for the bill ticks up some as actual information about what the changes will look like comes in. I've already seen 3 level-headed what does this mean to you type articles in about 10 minutes. The undecided, middle-of-the-road voters will respond to this, as well as the perception of what this means. It will be portrayed as a win for Obama and his admin, and who wants to vote for a loser? Romney will likely counter with attacks that fit into the Obama is a big government socialist out to destroy our country category. That really only appeals to the crowd that's now assembling in the basement, collecting guns and canned goods, who were already not voting for Obama. The media will also portray the healthcare changes as not so scary as presented in the 3 or 4 years.

That's my take. It'll be interesting to watch the polls over the next 4-8 weeks.

Pom Poms?

Nope, just a statement about voting patterns and perception. I'm countering the Republican/conservative/status quo pom-poms that hopefully you've been seeing in this thread. People are trying to spin this into a negative for dems/Obama because their 'side' lost. People often lose track that elections are about the people in the middle.

The good I see in it is that it's a step closer to a single-payer system, I just hope it doesn't take another 40 years. By the way, I dumped my dem registration in the 90's when Clinton dropped their healthcare reform. Dem's/Obama are generally too centrist for me.

EdsonNascimento

Go Beavers wrote:

Nope, just a statement about voting patterns and perception. I'm countering the Republican/conservative/status quo pom-poms that hopefully you've been seeing in this thread. People are trying to spin this into a negative for dems/Obama because their 'side' lost. People often lose track that elections are about the people in the middle.

The good I see in it is that it's a step closer to a single-payer system, I just hope it doesn't take another 40 years. By the way, I dumped my dem registration in the 90's when Clinton dropped their healthcare reform. Dem's/Obama are generally too centrist for me.

I don't see how this is any closer to single payer. Texas and Fla can continue their non-expansion of Medicaid while getting the same funding they've always gotten. What do you think that does to States that do expand? What type of citizens do you think that attracts?

And for the record - a Democrat in NY made Medicaid Managed Care Manadatory. So, even single payer doesn't seem to achieve the Dem's goals of killing the golden goose. Single payer does not bend the cost curve.

Spin, don't spin. I honeslty think Obama is still winning in November. There's still no IQ test prior to voting.

Johnny Abruzzo

If you dig into those polls on the popularity of PPACA, many who are opposed believe that the law didn't go far enough. Some people wanted it thrown out believing that Congress would then pass single-payor (haha).

EdsonNascimento

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

If you dig into those polls on the popularity of PPACA, many who are opposed believe that the law didn't go far enough. Some people wanted it thrown out believing that Congress would then pass single-payor (haha).

Bingo. That's the ultimate irony. With this "victory," we will not see anything further done on health care in Obama's admistration even if he wins a 2nd term. We are no closer to single payer today then we were 4 years ago. All we did was increase taxes and the need thereof while bending the cost curve UP. A triple dip of wholesome goodness for those smart enough to see it.

Jason P

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

I think all the conspiracy talk about Roberts crafting this decision to aid the GOP is pretty out there. He simply wanted to protect the reputation of his court.

Perhaps so. But the logic surrounding it is more sound then most conspiracy theories I see floated around on AMT.

As for protecting the reputation, I don't know if he accomplished that. He appears to be the only one who made a decision based on research and rule of the law. The other eight justices followed the line of the party that put them in power.

Going 1 for 9 does not speak well, whether it be politics or sports.

EdsonNascimento

Jason P wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

I think all the conspiracy talk about Roberts crafting this decision to aid the GOP is pretty out there. He simply wanted to protect the reputation of his court.

Perhaps so. But the logic surrounding it is more sound then most conspiracy theories I see floated around on AMT.

As for protecting the reputation, I don't know if he accomplished that. He appears to be the only one who made a decision based on research and rule of the law. The other eight justices followed the line of the party that put them in power.

Going 1 for 9 does not speak well, whether it be politics or sports.

No, no, no Jason. You missed the point - only the Conservatives were following party lines. The libs always act constitutionally.

cincybearcat

mikepegg44 wrote:

cincybearcat wrote:

You know, I'm still not sure the government should be able to mandate people buy something, but the one thing I never understood was you would think most republicans would be for this mandate portion at least. So that everyone is having to pay in and their are no free rides. What am I missing?

Of all the things I dislike about Obama's first term and even that I don't really like about Obamacare, that certainly isn't one of them. Plus, I think it's silly to think that everything is ok the way it is. We should always try and do better and it is ridiculous that a family could be going along just fine and then WHAM!!! major health issue and now they have all sorts of financial issues. That could happen to anyone.

I don't know anyone who thinks that is the case.

Inaction says otherwise.

gimmesometruth27

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

If you dig into those polls on the popularity of PPACA, many who are opposed believe that the law didn't go far enough. Some people wanted it thrown out believing that Congress would then pass single-payor (haha).

Bingo. That's the ultimate irony. With this "victory," we will not see anything further done on health care in Obama's admistration even if he wins a 2nd term. We are no closer to single payer today then we were 4 years ago. All we did was increase taxes and the need thereof while bending the cost curve UP. A triple dip of wholesome goodness for those smart enough to see it.

the basis was to get this law passed and then they were going to strengthen and add provisions like the public option to it later on. they did not anticipate the constitutional challenge and the outright opposition to it. bernie sanders has spoken about this at length. this law is the bare bones minimum that they had to get passed.

EdsonNascimento

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Johnny Abruzzo wrote:

If you dig into those polls on the popularity of PPACA, many who are opposed believe that the law didn't go far enough. Some people wanted it thrown out believing that Congress would then pass single-payor (haha).

Bingo. That's the ultimate irony. With this "victory," we will not see anything further done on health care in Obama's admistration even if he wins a 2nd term. We are no closer to single payer today then we were 4 years ago. All we did was increase taxes and the need thereof while bending the cost curve UP. A triple dip of wholesome goodness for those smart enough to see it.

the basis was to get this law passed and then they were going to strengthen and add provisions like the public option to it later on. they did not anticipate the constitutional challenge and the outright opposition to it. bernie sanders has spoken about this at length. this law is the bare bones minimum that they had to get passed.

Is that why they didn't let anyone read it before passing it?

This is a first step to nothing. It was poorly conceived, especially if that was the goal. Now the mandate is officially a tax. Always a good thing to go into an election season saddled with (Whether it effects Obama directly is to be seen - again, I don't think it will as he wasn't elected on the issues in the first place. But, it will effect Congressional elections as the scurrying is already showing.)

kenny olav

Time to claim my bragging rights... because I predicted that John Roberts would uphold the Affordable Care Act on March 27... it's on my Twitter feed... and I might as well pimp that here since I mentioned it: https://twitter.com/kennyolav

It's a good victory, but it's still pretty sad that it took the American government until the 21st century just to get us this type of plan. I think we should have had a universal health care system in the 19th century. 'Obamacare' isn't even universal. Maybe we can get a universal single-payer "Medicare-For-All" system in the 22nd century.

"The time has arrived to help millions of Americans living without a full measure of opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health...and [to have] protection...against the economic effects of sickness." - President Harry S. Truman, September 19, 1945

Cosmo

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Is that why they didn't let anyone read it before passing it?

...
Question: How come i had time to read it before it went to vote?
ADD: I don't have a full time staff or a small army of interns at my disposal. It was out there in full text/congressional format at thomas.gov while in Bill form and can be reviewed as law at opencongress.org
...
No one can do anything about lazy as fuck ass Representitives that 'didn't have the time' to read it. Suggestion to those assholes, put down the glass of scotch and send the prostitute back home and do your fucking job and read the goddamn bills.

Johnny Abruzzo

Cosmo wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Is that why they didn't let anyone read it before passing it?

...
Question: How come i had time to read it before it went to vote?
ADD: I don't have a full time staff or a small army of interns at my disposal. It was out there in full text/congressional format at thomas.gov while in Bill form and can be reviewed as law at opencongress.org
...
No one can do anything about lazy as fuck ass Representitives that 'didn't have the time' to read it. Suggestion to those assholes, put down the glass of scotch and send the prostitute back home and do your fucking job and read the goddamn bills.

Hey you, with your facts! You're ruining the good story!

peacefrompaul

FrankieG wrote:

Coming from a 21 year old, who has a pre-existing condition and would have been kicked of of my parent's health care soon, I like this Act.

Health Insurance paid for more than a million dollars worth of medical coverage for me when I got sick, so this Act really hits home how important good health insurance is.

How "good" the insurance will be is yet to be seen.

gimmesometruth27

see ya rush...please...get the fuck out....

Rush Limbaugh: I'll Leave Country Over Health Bill


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- ... 03544.html

March 9, 2010 1:20 PM

Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show that he will eventually leave the country if the health care bill passes and its provisions are implemented.


Liberal media watchdog Media Matters recorded Limbaugh's comments, which you can hear at left. At the 1:20 mark, Limbaugh says the following: "I'll just tell you this, if this passes and it's five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented -- I am leaving the country. I'll go to Costa Rica."

It is not clear if Limbaugh was making a joke, if he was saying he would leaving the country permanently, or if he was saying he would leave just for health care.

The radio host was responding to a caller who asked, "If the health care bill passes, where would you go for health care yourself?"

As Karen Tumulty points out, Limbaugh's suggestion that he will go to Costa Rica seems odd in light of the fact that the country offers government-financed universal health care.