Obamacare Upheld
Jeanwah
Posts: 6,363
I can't believe it's not on here already? :?
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/06/28/ ... ur-wallet/
On Thursday morning, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- aka "Obamacare" -- was constitutional, there was a brief pause as the country took a moment to imagine what this brave new world would look like. Had socialism won the day? Were death panels on the way? Would children be roused out of their beds for compulsory morning calisthenics?
Within moments, Twitter was hopping with messages from conservative dissenters such as Michelle Malkin, Ari Fleischer, the Heritage Foundation, and dozens of others, vowing to keep fighting health care reform all the way. But outside the beltway in the rest of the country, many Americans simply wondered how this ruling would affect their daily lives.
Back to the Future
In some ways, the future is already here. Many portions of the PPACA have already been quietly enacted. The government has streamlined the approval process for generic drugs and expanded Medicare's prescription benefit. It has levied a 10% tax on tanning booths, and passed several rules that will make it easier for people with "pre-existing conditions" to get the lifesaving treatments they need. For insurance companies, lifetime limits on coverage, price gouging, and a host of other cost-cutting measures are now illegal.
Slowly, almost imperceptibly, medication is getting cheaper, insurance coverage is getting easier to attain, and a healthy lifestyle is becoming more attainable.
Now, we can expect that over the next few months, more and more of the future will show up. Starting in August, insurance companies will not be able to charge a copay for many forms of preventative care -- treatments like colonoscopies and mammograms will now be free for patients. A few months later, people who make more than $200,000 per year will start having to pay an extra 0.9% tax which will help fund health care.
The Big Changes You'll Hardly Notice
These are little things, incremental changes that most people won't notice, except perhaps to occasionally wonder about when medications got cheaper or why achieving the Snooki look has gotten more expensive. But the big transition, the creeping socialism that Obamacare detractors are really worried about, will arrive in 2014. That's when everyone will either have to get insurance or pay a tax.
The funny thing is, creeping socialism probably won't feel much different than the current system. Imagine, if you will, an ordinary, middle class family. For mom and dad, who work full time, insurance will still be provided through work. They'll still go to the same doctor, pay the same copay, and head to the same hospital when things get dire. Their kids will still get the same care, too, although they'll be able to take advantage of their parents' health insurance until they're 26, if they need to.
As for grandpa and grandma, if they're over 65, they'll still be insured by Medicare, and their lives will largely go on as usual. If they're younger, and suddenly find themselves without insurance -- if, for example, grandpa is laid off from his job -- they will be able to get health insurance in spite of their pre-existing conditions. So grandpa may be stuck working part-time as a Walmart greeter, but he won't have to worry about paying for his insulin and blood pressure meds.
The Big Changes You Will
But what if grandpa's new job doesn't pay much and he can't afford insurance? Well, the new law may still cover him. One aspect of PPACA is that people who make up to 133% of the poverty line -- for a household of two adults and one child, this would be $23,344 -- would be eligible for Medicaid at no cost. Meanwhile, families that make up to 400% of the poverty line -- for a household of two adults and one child, this would be $70,208 -- would be eligible for some form of discounted insurance rate, scaled to their income.
So mom and dad, grandpa and grandma, and the kids are covered. What about Uncle Hank, the uninsured rebel with the ponytail and the motorcycle? Well, assuming he makes more than 400% of the poverty line, Hank's going to face a tough decision: He can either get insurance or pay a tax that will probably be slightly higher than the cost of insurance.
Hank might be able to get insurance through his work, but if he can't, the new law will give him another choice. It requires each state to create a health insurance exchange -- basically, an online marketplace where various insurance companies can directly compete with each other. Here are some proposals for Minnesota's health insurance exchange.
If Uncle Hank decides not to pay the health care tax, he would likely go to the exchange, pick a plan, set up a direct deposit program to take money from his paycheck -- much like the health insurance withholding that mom and dad pay -- and get an insurance card. And, later, if Hank gets into an accident on his bike, his insurance would cover his trip to the emergency room, as well as his ensuing operation and physical therapy.
The Winners and the Losers
So who wins and who loses under the new insurance program? For insurance companies, it's going to be a mixed bag: On the plus side, they will get millions of new, relatively young customers like Uncle Hank who will be cheap to insure, and will add mightily to their coffers. On the opposite side, they'll also get millions of older, low-income customers -- like grandpa and grandma -- who will be expensive to insure, and will have pricey pre-existing conditions. Overall, the insurance companies will probably make a tidy profit.
For the poor, the chronically ill, and the unemployed, the new insurance program will also be a definite win. Millions of people will be able to afford basic health care, get diagnostic tests, and buy medications. Many will be covered by an expanded Medicaid program, and those who aren't will likely see a steep drop in the cost of insurance.
For the average taxpayer, the new program will also be a win. Right now, a lot of the basic health care in America takes place in emergency rooms, where uninsured people end up when their colds turn into pneumonia, their untreated diabetes turns into a coma or an amputation, or their unmedicated high blood pressure leads to a heart attack. Many of these emergency rooms are already receiving taxpayer dollars. Preventing major, expensive health crises while they are small, inexpensive-to-treat problems saves everyone money.
In fact, the biggest losers of the new health care program will be folks like Uncle Hank, who previously didn't worry about health insurance, but will now have to pay for it. On the other hand, many will now have access to preventative care and basic medical care that were previously unavailable. Speaking as someone who once had to pay over $1,000 out-of-pocket for the treatment of a broken hand, I'd argue that mandatory health insurance might be an unwelcome prescription, but it is hardly unnecessary medicine.
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/06/28/ ... ur-wallet/
On Thursday morning, when the Supreme Court ruled that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act -- aka "Obamacare" -- was constitutional, there was a brief pause as the country took a moment to imagine what this brave new world would look like. Had socialism won the day? Were death panels on the way? Would children be roused out of their beds for compulsory morning calisthenics?
Within moments, Twitter was hopping with messages from conservative dissenters such as Michelle Malkin, Ari Fleischer, the Heritage Foundation, and dozens of others, vowing to keep fighting health care reform all the way. But outside the beltway in the rest of the country, many Americans simply wondered how this ruling would affect their daily lives.
Back to the Future
In some ways, the future is already here. Many portions of the PPACA have already been quietly enacted. The government has streamlined the approval process for generic drugs and expanded Medicare's prescription benefit. It has levied a 10% tax on tanning booths, and passed several rules that will make it easier for people with "pre-existing conditions" to get the lifesaving treatments they need. For insurance companies, lifetime limits on coverage, price gouging, and a host of other cost-cutting measures are now illegal.
Slowly, almost imperceptibly, medication is getting cheaper, insurance coverage is getting easier to attain, and a healthy lifestyle is becoming more attainable.
Now, we can expect that over the next few months, more and more of the future will show up. Starting in August, insurance companies will not be able to charge a copay for many forms of preventative care -- treatments like colonoscopies and mammograms will now be free for patients. A few months later, people who make more than $200,000 per year will start having to pay an extra 0.9% tax which will help fund health care.
The Big Changes You'll Hardly Notice
These are little things, incremental changes that most people won't notice, except perhaps to occasionally wonder about when medications got cheaper or why achieving the Snooki look has gotten more expensive. But the big transition, the creeping socialism that Obamacare detractors are really worried about, will arrive in 2014. That's when everyone will either have to get insurance or pay a tax.
The funny thing is, creeping socialism probably won't feel much different than the current system. Imagine, if you will, an ordinary, middle class family. For mom and dad, who work full time, insurance will still be provided through work. They'll still go to the same doctor, pay the same copay, and head to the same hospital when things get dire. Their kids will still get the same care, too, although they'll be able to take advantage of their parents' health insurance until they're 26, if they need to.
As for grandpa and grandma, if they're over 65, they'll still be insured by Medicare, and their lives will largely go on as usual. If they're younger, and suddenly find themselves without insurance -- if, for example, grandpa is laid off from his job -- they will be able to get health insurance in spite of their pre-existing conditions. So grandpa may be stuck working part-time as a Walmart greeter, but he won't have to worry about paying for his insulin and blood pressure meds.
The Big Changes You Will
But what if grandpa's new job doesn't pay much and he can't afford insurance? Well, the new law may still cover him. One aspect of PPACA is that people who make up to 133% of the poverty line -- for a household of two adults and one child, this would be $23,344 -- would be eligible for Medicaid at no cost. Meanwhile, families that make up to 400% of the poverty line -- for a household of two adults and one child, this would be $70,208 -- would be eligible for some form of discounted insurance rate, scaled to their income.
So mom and dad, grandpa and grandma, and the kids are covered. What about Uncle Hank, the uninsured rebel with the ponytail and the motorcycle? Well, assuming he makes more than 400% of the poverty line, Hank's going to face a tough decision: He can either get insurance or pay a tax that will probably be slightly higher than the cost of insurance.
Hank might be able to get insurance through his work, but if he can't, the new law will give him another choice. It requires each state to create a health insurance exchange -- basically, an online marketplace where various insurance companies can directly compete with each other. Here are some proposals for Minnesota's health insurance exchange.
If Uncle Hank decides not to pay the health care tax, he would likely go to the exchange, pick a plan, set up a direct deposit program to take money from his paycheck -- much like the health insurance withholding that mom and dad pay -- and get an insurance card. And, later, if Hank gets into an accident on his bike, his insurance would cover his trip to the emergency room, as well as his ensuing operation and physical therapy.
The Winners and the Losers
So who wins and who loses under the new insurance program? For insurance companies, it's going to be a mixed bag: On the plus side, they will get millions of new, relatively young customers like Uncle Hank who will be cheap to insure, and will add mightily to their coffers. On the opposite side, they'll also get millions of older, low-income customers -- like grandpa and grandma -- who will be expensive to insure, and will have pricey pre-existing conditions. Overall, the insurance companies will probably make a tidy profit.
For the poor, the chronically ill, and the unemployed, the new insurance program will also be a definite win. Millions of people will be able to afford basic health care, get diagnostic tests, and buy medications. Many will be covered by an expanded Medicaid program, and those who aren't will likely see a steep drop in the cost of insurance.
For the average taxpayer, the new program will also be a win. Right now, a lot of the basic health care in America takes place in emergency rooms, where uninsured people end up when their colds turn into pneumonia, their untreated diabetes turns into a coma or an amputation, or their unmedicated high blood pressure leads to a heart attack. Many of these emergency rooms are already receiving taxpayer dollars. Preventing major, expensive health crises while they are small, inexpensive-to-treat problems saves everyone money.
In fact, the biggest losers of the new health care program will be folks like Uncle Hank, who previously didn't worry about health insurance, but will now have to pay for it. On the other hand, many will now have access to preventative care and basic medical care that were previously unavailable. Speaking as someone who once had to pay over $1,000 out-of-pocket for the treatment of a broken hand, I'd argue that mandatory health insurance might be an unwelcome prescription, but it is hardly unnecessary medicine.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
It is now... and I'm glad!
(Ahh- throw guitar picks, not tomatoes!)
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Thanks gimme. I guess I don't look too hard.
access to basic health care and insurance is just as important as access to food and water. people complain about having to help fund food assistance, but if you withold food and water from someone they are gonna die. same as if you withold basic health care and preventive medicine from people. they are gonna die too. don't we have a duty to one another to make sure that we are not letting our brothers and sisters die?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Exactly. But taking care of each other isn't anywhere a part of capitalism - capitalism breeds greed and selfishness. And capitalism seems to be all conservatives are about. It certainly isn't about providing for friends, neighbors and the less fortunate...
Just look at the 1%. What's really troubling is that all the people that support Romney are too blind to see that he doesn't give one shit about them. He's into taking care of the 1% and that's it. I can't believe the stupidity of so many people.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Domino Motherfucker!!!
who else wants some of this???"
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
No kidding! If people just opened their eyes to the manipulation the media does to us every single day, maybe they'd learn a thing or two about psychology and mass manipulation. It just goes to show what suckers people are for thinking the media actually is telling them something when it's not about news, it's about manipulating the viewer into buying a product or acting the way the seller wants them to. I actually wanted to work in advertising design and marketing until I realized what a massive scam it all is on the human psyche. And political media is ten times worse. Sigh.
i think it is pretty shameful that if we want actual news we have to go to newspapers from other countries to get it. so much for the 4th estate...
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I'm trying to make an image of that in my head gimme.
But seriously, I've observed for years the way so much of our populous follows political trends like zombies without really looking at the issues. It's uncanny.
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
MGM Grand - Jul 6, 2006
Cox Arena - Jul 7, 2006
New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival - May 1, 2010
Alpine Valley Music Theater - Sep 3-4 2011
Made In America, Philly - Sep 2, 2012
EV, Houston - Nov 12-13, 2012
Dallas-November 2013
OKC-November 2013
ACL 2-October 2014
Fenway Night 1, August 2016
Wrigley, Night 1 August 2018
Fort Worth, Night 1 September 2023
Fort Worth, Night 2 September 2023
Austin, Night 1 September 2023
Austin, Night 2 September 2023
I also suggest you read the very top of the first page of the US Constitution starting at Article I, and just below the blip about the creation and requirements for House & Senate (ie. "NO DIRECT TAX").
It was of EXTREME importance in the founding of our country,
and it has been PERVERTED BEYOND REPAIR by this decision.
What the 16th amendment started by debasing the notions of freedom from oppression\tyranny in the United States, this ruling has finalized. We are back to being serfs.
Having read the full opinion of the court, i am utterly disgusted by CJ Roberts in general, and in several points IN SPECIFIC in his opinion.
Quite possibly the single most explicitly hypocritical and inexplicable portion of his opinon is the following set of statements which are SELF CONTRADICTING:
The Setup (all quotes from current Supreme Court opinion):
True statement.
Then: AT THE CRUX OF HIS ASSERTION THAT THIS LEGISLATION IS CONSTITUTIONAL IS THIS ABOVE HORSESHIT OF A STATEMENT.
HERE IS THE PROBLEM\CONTRADICTION:
CJ Roberts acknowledges that the only previously existing (because no one had thought of other bullshit ideas) KNOWN EXAMPLES of "direct tax" are "capitations" and "land taxes". BUT BETWEEN THIS ASSERTION AND THE ABOVE (that it is "thus not a direct tax") LIES THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT BY ROBERTS:
THAT WAS THE LAST FUCKING TIME THE GOVERNMENT TRIED TO PULL THIS BULLSHIT -- THE INCOME TAX ITSELF. (the FIRST time "they" proposed it) -- THE CHIEF JUSTICE ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE DEFINITION OF "DIRECT TAX" HAD TO BE EXPLICITLY "EXPANDED" BY THE COURTS IN RESPONSE TO AN ATTACK ON FREEDOM BY THE GOVERNMENT.
This time around he simply says the courts shrug and say, "oh well its not an existing defined KNOWN EXAMPLE of a 'direct tax' " ... ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?
GROW BALLS AND EXPAND YOUR EXPLICIT DEFINITION IF YOU NEED TO.
***BUT ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS GO GOOGLE "DIRECT TAX" AND READ WIKIPEDIA LINE 1 SENTENCE 1***
ITS NOT VERY COMPLICATED.
beyond that, go google "stamp act" (as previously stated) and use your freaking brain.
if the colonists considered BEING TAXED DIRECTLY ON PAPER because they want to WRITE to be a "DIRECT TAX" AND ABHORRENT AND WORTHY OF REVOLUTION, how can you possibly not get OUTRAGED at A TAX DIRECTLY ON YOUR HEAD (remittable DIRECTLY to the IRS) for a. EXISTING b. MAKING MONEY (which the government is ALREADY DIRECT TAXING through a bullshit ammendment ONLY allowing an INCOME tax and NO other DIRECT tax) and c. NOT PURCHASING SOMETHING?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
it is funny to see the reaction from the extreme right and tea party in the media. they are acting like a bunch of petulent children who did not get their way. they do not have the ability to use introspection and see what it was in their argument that caused roberts to decide the way he did. could it be that they made a mistake in their argument of the case? no, can't be that....the answer is roberts is just a sellout....
rupert murdoch, who owns fox news, had a stern warning for romney and republicans on twitter today. he said that the gop is going to lose badly if they campaign on overturning the affordable care act. and i think he is correct.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
I agree. Let them go psycho over it. For once, I hope they don't listen to Murdoch!
It may end up being better than what we have, for a lot of people. But by no means will it fix health care in this country. It is a corrupt plan, from a corrupt man. Like I said...wolf in sheep's clothing.
I can't agree more. I hope they just go psycho over attempting repeal. I'll never say I agree with the likes of Murdoch because the guy's an asshole, but republicans refuse to compromise nor concede so why start now? Repeal your way to defeat.
uh, this is a tax, and it doesn't affect only people making over 250,000.
I could care less if it is upheld or not. It is the precedent that has been set about, for lack of a better term, mandate taxes. I am surprised people aren't thinking about the further ramifications of a decision like this and what it means. Wait....no I am not, immediate gratification is the way of politics and guiding force behind legislation...more importantly the reason we have 15 trillion dollars in debt.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/hea ... -quiz.aspx
The health reform law promises to deliver big changes in the U.S. health care system. But, as with other sweeping pieces of legislation, it can be hard to get the real facts about what it does. And it is all too easy for misinformation about the law to spread.
Take our short, 10-question quiz to test your knowledge of the law, and then find out how you compare to the rest of the country, as represented by the findings of the Kaiser Family Foundation's monthly Health Tracking Poll.
Roberts wrote both Obamacare opinions
A Court source tells Salon the chief justice wrote the majority opinion and much of the dissent in the ACA case
By Paul Campos
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/03/roberts ... _opinions/
This weekend CBS News’ Jan Crawford reported that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote in regard to upholding the bulk of the Affordable Care Act. Crawford reports that Roberts voted with the rest of the court’s conservatives to strike down the individual mandate, but in the course of drafting his opinion changed his mind, and ended up siding with the court’s four liberals to uphold almost all of the law.
In response, according to Crawford’s story, the four conservatives then independently crafted a highly unusual joint dissent. If so, this would represent a powerful symbolic gesture: Joint Supreme Court opinions are rare. Normally a justice authors an individual opinion, which other justices may choose to join. Jointly authored opinions are reserved for momentous statements of principle, such as in Cooper v. Aaron, when all nine justices jointly authored an opinion declaring that the court’s anti-segregation decisions were binding on state governments that disagreed with the court’s constitutional interpretations.
It’s notable that Crawford’s sources insist on the claim that the joint dissent was authored specifically in response to Roberts’ majority opinion, without any participation from him at any point in the drafting process that created it. It would, after all, be fairly preposterous for the four dissenters to jointly “author” an opinion that was in large part written originally by the author of the majority opinion to which the joint dissenters were now so flamboyantly objecting.
Yet that, I am told by a source within the court with direct knowledge of the drafting process, is exactly what happened. My source insists that “most of the material in the first three quarters of the joint dissent was drafted in Chief Justice Roberts’ chambers in April and May.” Only the last portion of what eventually became the joint dissent was drafted without any participation by the chief justice.
This source insists that the claim that the joint dissent was drafted from scratch in June is flatly untrue. Furthermore, the source characterizes claims by Crawford’s sources that “the fact that the joint dissent doesn’t mention [sic] Roberts’ majority … was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him” as “pure propagandistic spin,” meant to explain away the awkward fact that while the first 46 pages of the joint dissent never even mention Roberts’ opinion for the court (this is surely the first time in the court’s history that a dissent has gone on for 13,000 words before getting around to mentioning that it is, in fact, dissenting), the last 19 pages do so repeatedly.
The explanation for this, according to the source, is very simple: Roberts’ chamber did much of the drafting of the former section, and none of the latter. In short, it appears Chief Justice Roberts ended up in large part authoring both the majority opinion and the dissent in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. This would seem to give a whole new meaning to the term “swing justice.”
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Health care reform is much needed. But this, I believe, will only make it worse than it already is.
Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing. How in God's name did he convince ANYONE, even these right-wing nut jobs that he is a socialist? It's fucking insane. Just fucking insane.
Chief Justice William Howard Taft
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company , 259 U.S. 20, 42 S.Ct. 449 (1922)
[Supreme Court strikes down Child Labor Tax as unconstitutional]
If I opened it now would you not understand?
YES >>>>> ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
US Constitution
Article III, Section 1:
YOU tell me what you think that means, and if you think failure to uphold your oath of office and the constitution equates to "bad behavior".
-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #81
If I opened it now would you not understand?
American Medical Association
National Physicians Alliance
American Academy of Pediatrics
Association of American Medical Colleges
American Cancer Society
National Organization for Rare Diseases
American Heart Association
Consumer Reports
March of Dimes
Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/medical-or ... _zaWRHlOGs
So since Obama voted against Bush's decision to elect John Roberts to the Supreme Court, do you agree with something Obama did? Just asking.
9/29/04 Boston, 6/28/08 Mansfield, 8/23/09 Chicago, 5/15/10 Hartford
5/17/10 Boston, 10/15/13 Worcester, 10/16/13 Worcester, 10/25/13 Hartford
8/5/16 Fenway, 8/7/16 Fenway
EV Solo: 6/16/11 Boston, 6/18/11 Hartford,