# BREAKING NEWS: Appeals court rules part of President Obamas health care law unconsti



## CaféAuLait (Aug 12, 2011)

BREAKING NEWS: Appeals court rules part of President Obamas health care law unconstitutional

No link MSNBC push notification


----------



## Lovebears65 (Aug 12, 2011)

just posted this on health care forum


----------



## Liberty (Aug 12, 2011)

hahaha. take that, commies.


----------



## Annie (Aug 12, 2011)

Appeals court strikes health insurance requirement - Yahoo! News



> ATLANTA (AP)  A federal appeals court has struck down the requirement in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul package that virtually all Americans must carry health insurance or face penalties.
> 
> A divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday struck down the so-called individual mandate, siding with 26 states that had sued to block the law.
> 
> ...


----------



## yidnar (Aug 12, 2011)

annie said:


> appeals court strikes health insurance requirement - yahoo! News
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hell yes!!!strike this economic back breaker down!!!


----------



## Big Black Dog (Aug 12, 2011)

I'll go ahead and say it...  TOLD YOU SO.  Sorry, Obama sheep.  It's unconstitutional.  Back to the drawing board and this time, let's try to do something within the framework of the Constitution that we can afford.


----------



## AmericanFirst (Aug 12, 2011)

Right decision. The Gov't. cannot force you to buy something. If it is unconstitutional for the individual mandate the whole law should be repealed, it is plainly a socialist law anyway and has NO place in this country.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 12, 2011)

Doesn't change anything

Some courts have approved it others have denied

Have to wait for that 5-4 Supreme Court decision


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Aug 12, 2011)

You cannot force Citizens to buy Health Care Insurance. Forcing Citizens to buy Health Insurance by threatening Fines & Imprisonment is as Un-American as it can get. I just hope the Courts agree with me in the end. This is a good start.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Doesn't change anything
> 
> Some courts have approved it others have denied
> 
> Have to wait for that 5-4 Supreme Court decision



What makes you think the SC has to hear it?  They can simply decide the appellate court is correct.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2011)

Right decision but the fight is not over.

Immie


----------



## AmericanFirst (Aug 12, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Doesn't change anything
> 
> Some courts have approved it others have denied
> 
> Have to wait for that 5-4 Supreme Court decision


Can't wait till obamaturds socialistic obamacare is repealed. It does matter. The appeals court made the right dcision. Lefties cry cry cry because there socialism march just got slowed down.


----------



## Seawytch (Aug 12, 2011)

Score is still in favor of the mandates. This will be decided by the SC.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/how-antonin-scalia-may-save-the-individual-mandate/


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 12, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> Score is still in favor of the mandates. This will be decided by the SC.
> 
> How Antonin Scalia May Save The Individual Mandate



It should have been decided by Congress.

Shame so many care about what so many died for.



Down With The Tyrants!!


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 12, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Doesn't change anything
> 
> Some courts have approved it others have denied
> 
> Have to wait for that 5-4 Supreme Court decision



Incorrect...

Once something is ruled unconstitutional it is deemed unconstitutional...  It doesn't "Stay Constitutional" because one of three or for rulings say it's ok with them...

The other ruling you libs are married to said that it wasn't unconstitutional with regards to that case and those litigants...  Those parties to the lawsuit can go about their merry ways with regards to 0bamacare if they want until appeal to a higher court smacks them down...

This case and the other one before it have ruled that the individual mandate clause is unconstitutional...  Legally, the parties that brought forth this lawsuit (26 states) can ignore the individual mandate without any reprocussions...  

Right now, more than half the states in the country do not have to force their residents to buy health insurance if they don't want to buy it....


----------



## Annie (Aug 12, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't change anything
> ...



The splits:

The Volokh Conspiracy » 11th Circuit Strikes Down Individual Mandate



> 11th Circuit Strikes Down Individual Mandate
> 
> Ilya Somin  August 12, 2011 2:14 pm
> 
> ...


 Links at site.


----------



## BoycottTheday (Aug 12, 2011)

Repeal the 13th first  if you want to start mandating anything  to me.

Live free or die.


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Aug 12, 2011)

Is this really what we want from our Government? Forcing Citizens to purchase something by way of threats & force? The Mandate has to be ended. It's just not right.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 12, 2011)

Well hallelujah!!!   Just about when I'm convinced our entire court system has gone over the dark side, they exercise some common sense and actually hold up the original intent of the Constitution.

Now, the question is, will our law professor POTUS accept this ruling?  Or will he deem it within his right to ignore it as he has all the other rulings?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Score is still in favor of the mandates. This will be decided by the SC.
> ...



It was decided by Congress and the people for a free United States of America lost.

Thank God there are checks and balances to prevent Congress from running a muck.

Immie


----------



## Maple (Aug 12, 2011)

Lovebears65 said:


> just posted this on health care forum



so did I.


----------



## Maple (Aug 12, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Well hallelujah!!!   Just about when I'm convinced our entire court system has gone over the dark side, they exercise some common sense and actually hold up the original intent of the Constitution.
> 
> Now, the question is, will our law professor POTUS accept this ruling?  Or will he deem it within his right to ignore it as he has all the other rulings?



Yes and this court is high enough to get the attention of the Supreme Court, The ruling will have respect from the Supreme Court.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 12, 2011)

They may have repealed a part of it, but the consequences are far reaching.  A great deal of the math to make this work depended on everyone being included.  Especially the young who don't need the medical care as much.  That supported the older folks who needed more.

Combine that with the exceptions granted many big corporations and you have a total loser plan.


----------



## Maple (Aug 12, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Is this really what we want from our Government? Forcing Citizens to purchase something by way of threats & force? The Mandate has to be ended. It's just not right.



No it's not, because if they are allowed to do this, then they will be mandating that we purchase a gym membership or they could tell us what we couldn't buy, it's a huge can of worms. You never want to give the government that much power.


----------



## CaféAuLait (Aug 12, 2011)

> The 11th Circuit U.s. Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia has declared the "individual mandate" provision of President Obama's health care bill unconstitutional, Reuters reports.
> 
> The court said that Congress cannot "mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die," according to Phillip Klein of the Washington Examiner.
> 
> *Klein writes that the three-person court includes two Democrats, "so this will be hard for the Obama administration to dismiss as the work of a lone activist conservative judge*."



11th Circuit Declares "Individual Mandate" Unconstitutional


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 12, 2011)

The CBO should rule Obamacare a deficit monster.


----------



## Ali777 (Aug 12, 2011)

Maple said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Is this really what we want from our Government? Forcing Citizens to purchase something by way of threats & force? The Mandate has to be ended. It's just not right.
> ...



Yeah, next they'll be forcing us to pay taxes.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 12, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't change anything
> ...



Which one?


----------



## Sallow (Aug 12, 2011)

LibocalypseNow said:


> Is this really what we want from our Government? Forcing Citizens to purchase something by way of threats & force? The Mandate has to be ended. It's just not right.



Cool. Lets get rid of licenses next.

Then we can work on copyrights. Heck..maybe even patents are unconstitional..even if they are in the constitution.

And maybe the mandate that hospitals must take patients is unconstitutional too.

I see dead people.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 12, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't change anything
> ...



I would think that is how the Supreme Court will handle it.  Otherwise, it opens up a whole slew of possibilities for future Congresional acts.  Accepting the lower court's ruling limits the scope.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 12, 2011)

Maple said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Is this really what we want from our Government? Forcing Citizens to purchase something by way of threats & force? The Mandate has to be ended. It's just not right.
> ...



True.

A standing professional army under federal control was never mandated by the Constitution and it should be disbanded.

Militias are the way to go!


----------



## signelect (Aug 12, 2011)

The country is on fire with problems and BO hasn't a clue as to which way to run so he will go  on vacation next week.  Many Americans can't afford vacations this year because of him and his buddies.


----------



## Sallow (Aug 12, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Which one?

Appellate Court Judge Rules Obamacare Is Constitutional


----------



## Cuyo (Aug 12, 2011)

two thumbs said:


> seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > score is still in favor of the mandates. This will be decided by the sc.
> ...



w.  

T.

F.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2011)

signelect said:


> The country is on fire with problems and BO hasn't a clue as to which way to run so he will go  on vacation next week.  Many Americans can't afford vacations this year because of him and his buddies.



He is never on vacation.

Ever work at a job were you were on call 24/7?  Well, take that experience and multiply it by say 100.  The man does not get a vacation for 4 years.  He is on the job for every minute of every day for the entire length of his term even while taking a crap.

Immie


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 12, 2011)

So much for Obama the "Constitutional Scholar".


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Is this really what we want from our Government? Forcing Citizens to purchase something by way of threats & force? The Mandate has to be ended. It's just not right.
> ...



Thank you Captain Hyperbole....









What an ultra maroon...


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 12, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > LibocalypseNow said:
> ...



So, can we finally dispense with the notion that this guy's the smartest guy in any room?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Is this really what we want from our Government? Forcing Citizens to purchase something by way of threats & force? The Mandate has to be ended. It's just not right.
> ...



I was listening to big 0 on the net yesterday.  He called for Congress to remove many of the regs on copyrights and patents.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Aug 12, 2011)

two thumbs said:


> sallow said:
> 
> 
> > libocalypsenow said:
> ...



doh!!!!!!


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 12, 2011)

Cuyo said:


> two thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > seawytch said:
> ...


----------



## Two Thumbs (Aug 12, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> two thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > sallow said:
> ...


yea, I had to bring up the screen to make sure it was still big 0 talking.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2011)

CaféAuLait;3993685 said:
			
		

> BREAKING NEWS: Appeals court rules part of President Obamas health care law unconstitutional
> 
> No link MSNBC push notification



Excellent!


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 12, 2011)

This has been a bad two weeks for Obama.  Between the downgrade, the debt ceiling deal he was cut out from, and now the appeals court ruling he must be sucking wind.
GOOD!

This is the beginning of the end of Obama's policies and the rule of the Leftists.  The Left will claim (as they are now) that Obama isn't really a progressive at all.  That is false.  He is as progressive as any of them.  But he is what happens when you put a progressive in the position of responsibility.  Sen. Obama ran his mouth about this and that.  But actually taking responsibility is different. Of course he isn't up to that either.

But now America can see the Progressivism is the creed of envy, stupidity, and poverty.  In 2012 the Dems will be swept away.  To survive they will need to dust off the old centrist plans of Bill Clinton.


----------



## Cuyo (Aug 12, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Cuyo said:
> 
> 
> > two thumbs said:
> ...



Testicles.  <that one's just for fun.  I had to add at least one un-quoted character.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > The country is on fire with problems and BO hasn't a clue as to which way to run so he will go  on vacation next week.  Many Americans can't afford vacations this year because of him and his buddies.
> ...



Poor guy. He'll be able to take a real vacation soon.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 12, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> Score is still in favor of the mandates. This will be decided by the SC.
> 
> How Antonin Scalia May Save The Individual Mandate



This isn't some highschool football game. There is no score kept idiot the last court ruling stands as law and the final decision UNLESS it is overturned. 

Without the mandate there is no funding. Obamacare is effectively dead now. 

Hahahahaha lulz


----------



## Ali777 (Aug 12, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't change anything
> ...



I'm going to presume that you know what you're talking about here. The only thing is that I was under the impression that, when two appellate courts rule inconsistently, it becomes what's called "ripe" for the SCOTUS to take up. And that pending their determination the constitutional status of the law is undecided. You're saying this is incorrect, right?


----------



## oreo (Aug 12, 2011)

CaféAuLait;3993685 said:
			
		

> BREAKING NEWS: Appeals court rules part of President Obamas health care law unconstitutional
> 
> No link MSNBC push notification




This is headed to the US Supreme's.


----------



## skookerasbil (Aug 12, 2011)

Union fAiL........jobs fAiL...........Court fAiL............Poll fAiL.............Global warming fAiL............Debt fAiL...........Stimulus fAil.................Keynesian economics fAiL...............

Who knew it would be so much fcukking fun around here to be a conservative with only half of 2011 over?? Not me..........but this has been priceless. Every day you look up, more misery for the k00ks!!!
And Im laughing..........just 24 short months ago, these mofu's were on top of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Aug 12, 2011)

It'll be going to the SC for a final decision.


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 12, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Two appellate courts have not issued contradictory rulings.  Only one appellate court has ruled, the one today.  So far that makes it binding precedent within the 11th circuit.  That is effectively for the rest of the country unless some other circuit decides differently.  That was the case with Heller where different circuit appeals courts made different rulings so the Supreme Court stepped in.
The Supreme Court can simply affirm the 11ths decision and that would be the end of it.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 12, 2011)

Why is it that the Conservatives have to give the government and economic basics to Liberals?  Learn how the US Supreme Court works people.


----------



## Too Tall (Aug 12, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > The country is on fire with problems and BO hasn't a clue as to which way to run so he will go  on vacation next week.  Many Americans can't afford vacations this year because of him and his buddies.
> ...


 
Only Obama is never on vacation according to his admirers.


> President Bush recently spent his 879th day at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, since the Supreme Court, in all its great wisdom, elevated him to the presidency. This according to NPR's "Wait, Wait Don't Tell Me," which noted that Bush broke former President Reagan's record for taking vacations from the White House.rIt's interesting to recall, all these wild years later, that George W. Bush did not decide to buy the ranch near Crawford until after he decided to run for president. Apparently, after Ronald Reagan's example, it seemed presidential to cut brush on a ranch, and Bush was seeking a brush with history. Or something.


COLUMN: Record Breaker! Bush Takes Most Vacation Days For Sitting President - CBS News


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 12, 2011)

Obama took a meeting at the White House today and was touring a plant in Michigan yesterday.  What vacation?  Don't confuse a lack of success and leadership with a vacation please.


----------



## Ali777 (Aug 12, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Ali777 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



I believe a previous appellate court, in the sixth circuit, confirmed a lower court ruling that the Affordable Care Act was constitutional, in it's entirety.


----------



## Ali777 (Aug 12, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Obama took a meeting at the White House today and was touring a plant in Michigan yesterday.  What vacation?  Don't confuse a lack of success and leadership with a vacation please.



President aren't really ever on "vacation" in the usual sense of the word.
But, yeah, he's just taking advantage of congress being in recess. He's working, not
on vacation.


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 12, 2011)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Score is still in favor of the mandates. This will be decided by the SC.
> ...



 You cons crack me up. You do realize that the mandate has been held up in another decision, right? The Affordable Care Act is not dead. It will head to the SCOTUS, and despite what some delusional cons have said, the SCOTUS will not automatically go with the 11th's decision. Grow a brain. It might do you some good. Maroons, the lot of you.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 12, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I didn't say SCOTUS wouldn't take the case...  In fact, I believe they will...

My comments are only that 0bamacare has technically been ruled unconstitutional and those participating states are within their rights to tell the 0bama administration to pound salt...


----------



## Zander (Aug 12, 2011)

In the end the entire Obamacare fiasco will become a footnote in the history of failed liberalism.
A wave of fiscal conservatism is sweeping the entire world 
Obama a was good for one thing , he pissed off so many people that he literally started the Tea party movement


----------



## Ali777 (Aug 12, 2011)

JosefK said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



It more likely that the SCOTUS will only take up whether individual mandates are constitutional. Even if it rules that they aren't, that doesn't kill the Act. It only sends it back to congress, for them to decide what to do.


----------



## Ali777 (Aug 12, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Ali777 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



It's been ruled constitution as well. The 11th circuit ruling is only binding in that jurisdiction . Not nation wide.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 12, 2011)

JosefK said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Thank you Swami JoseFuck for your most insightful prognostication...  You must have used all 4 of your brain cells to come up with this gem...  And so certain you seem...

Awesome work...


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 12, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Ali777 said:
> ...



That ruling has no bearing on the case that was just ruled...  I already stipulated it was for the 26 states...


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 12, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> It should have been decided by Congress.



It was...

That's why it's law.



Dr.House said:


> This case and the other one before it have ruled that the individual mandate clause is unconstitutional...  Legally, the parties that brought forth this lawsuit (26 states) can ignore the individual mandate without any reprocussions...



Given that the individual mandate doesn't exist before 2014, not much has changed with regard to what's happening right now.



Foxfyre said:


> Now, the question is, will our law professor POTUS accept this ruling?  Or will he deem it within his right to ignore it as he has all the other rulings?



What would ignoring it look like? The mandate isn't currently in effect and has little to do with any of the ongoing implementation activity. All that remains untouched by the ruling.



The Rabbi said:


> To survive they will need to dust off the old centrist plans of Bill Clinton.



The Health Security Act?



Grampa Murked U said:


> Without the mandate there is no funding.



The mandate has nothing to do with funding the law. This ruling hasn't altered funding for the ACA.



Dr.House said:


> My comments are only that 0bamacare has technically been ruled unconstitutional and those participating states are within their rights to tell the 0bama administration to pound salt...



The ACA remains the law of the land. The Court was careful to sever the mandate (one section of the law) from the rest of the law.

Applying these principles, we conclude that the district court erred in its decision to invalidate the entire Act. Excising the individual mandate from the Act does not prevent the remaining provisions from being fully operative as a law.  [...]

In light of the stand-alone nature of hundreds of the Acts provisions and their manifest lack of connection to the individual mandate, the plaintiffs have not met the heavy burden needed to rebut the presumption of severability. We therefore conclude that the district court erred in its wholesale invalidation of the Act.​


----------



## Ali777 (Aug 12, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> Ali777 said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



I must have missed that stipulation. Of course it has a bearing on the case that was ruled. It's one of the reasons why the issue is now "ripe" for a SCOTUS to take up.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 12, 2011)

Well let's recap. Were several pages in and still NO IDEAS FROM THE LEFT. 

Not that I expected any lol


----------



## elvis (Aug 12, 2011)

So it goes to the supreme court now?


----------



## Zander (Aug 12, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > It should have been decided by Congress.
> ...


Who are you shilling for anyway?


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 12, 2011)

Zander said:


> Who are you shilling for anyway?



I found the most interesting thing about today's ruling to be that it reversed the lower court's invalidation of the ACA and was instead careful to sever the individual mandate from the rest of the law. That fact seems to have been overlooked by some of the more overzealous posters around here.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Who are you shilling for anyway?
> ...



With no penalty.

I just have to say.

MAKE ME.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > signelect said:
> ...



Fine with me, but I would like to see his replacement be something other than a party insider.  None of last night's "contenders" inspired me one bit.  It seems pretty evident that whether or not Barack Obama is sent packing 2013 through 2016 are going to be just more of the same. 

Immie


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 12, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Who are you shilling for anyway?
> ...



Obamacare is dead without the mandate. That seems to be overlooked by you


----------



## elvis (Aug 12, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > signelect said:
> ...



really?  who's gonna beat him?


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 12, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> With no penalty.
> 
> I just have to say.
> 
> MAKE ME.



Right, with no penalty. If upheld, this decision would strip from the ACA the piece that some found so ideologically galvanizing. Perhaps then it could be left up to states to prevent adverse selection in their Exchanges. Those that don't want to won't. Not ideal policy, but okay. Life could then go on.



Grampa Murked U said:


> Obamacare is dead without the mandate. That seems to be overlooked by you



Thanks for the analysis, provocative.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 12, 2011)

Re: Repealing the Individual Mandate Is a Terrible Idea - By Mario Loyola - The Corner - National Review Online

Re: Repealing the Individual Mandate Is a Terrible Idea

July 22, 2011 3:56 P.M. By Mario Loyola  
Avik, you write that repealing the individual mandate in Obamacare, without repealing the rest of the law, would be a terrible idea. Well, not necessarily: As Eisenhower used to say, in order to solve a problem, it is sometimes necessary to enlarge it.

Forcing Democrats to vote on repeal of the individual mandate might be a great idea, both for political and policy reasons. First, I can&#8217;t wait to see what happens when we force them to vote on perhaps the most unpopular aspect of their own law. Second, the health-care law is unsustainable without the individual mandate, as you point out, but whose problem is that? You point out that if the mandate is repealed, the health-insurance industry will be destabilized. Actually, it will collapse. Democrats will be desperate to avoid a disaster created by their health-care law, and for which the public will blame them. Republicans will then be in a position to dictate terms.

As you point out, if we repeal the individual mandate, but leave in place the prohibition on denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, an &#8220;adverse selection death spiral&#8221; will set in. If people can get health insurance whenever they want, they will tend to wait until they are sick; with a much smaller pool of healthy insured, insurance companies will raise premiums, which will force even more healthy people off the insurance rolls, which will force insurance companies to raise premiums further, and so on &#8212; that&#8217;s the &#8220;death spiral.&#8221; Well, if you remove the funding stream for universal coverage &#8212; namely the requirement that all healthy people purchase insurance &#8212; the federal government will have exactly three choices: (1) let the health insurance industry collapse, and with it, health care as we know it; (2) absorb the cost of subsidizing the health insurance companies somehow, which would bankrupt the government; or (3) repeal or revamp the entire law. Republicans will be able to eliminate option (2) by refusing to appropriate the necessary funds. That will leave Democrats with a choice between (1) and (3) &#8212; either take the blame for bankrupting the entire health insurance industry, or replace Obamacare with a new law that will require at least seven Republican votes in the Senate, and the agreement of the Republican-controlled House.

Republicans at that point could extract concessions far more sweeping than the effective repeal of Obamacare &#8212; such as giving states full authority to regulate their own health care according to market principles. We might finally have the chance to fix what&#8217;s really wrong with our health care system, problems that existed long before Obamacare came along to make them all worse.

&#8212; Mario Loyola is director of the Center for Tenth Amendment Studies at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 12, 2011)

elvis said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



New sheriff in town.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 12, 2011)

grampa murked u said:


> re: Repealing the individual mandate is a terrible idea - by mario loyola - the corner - national review online
> 
> re: Repealing the individual mandate is a terrible idea
> 
> ...



*crickets chirping*


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 12, 2011)

Obamacare needs to be 100% overturned and a new plan formulated that keeps in mind the original idea of making health care more affordable instead of growing the government.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 12, 2011)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Re: Repealing the Individual Mandate Is a Terrible Idea



To repeat what I just said, in the absence of a major federal provision for deterring adverse selection (risk adjustment mechanisms aside), it will fall to the states to protect their Exchanges. The law sets minimum functionalities for state Exchanges, not a maximum. States that choose not to make design changes as necessary will see their individual markets suffer.

That said, only the first of ten titles of the ACA is about private insurance markets, as the court noted today. The vast majority of the law is unrelated to this issue.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 12, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Re: Repealing the Individual Mandate Is a Terrible Idea
> ...



So you admit that the "vast majority" of this law was nothing more than a power grab to begin with.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2011)

elvis said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Whoever the Republican nominee happens to be.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Great pic, 

I approve of this message


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 12, 2011)

Grampa Murked U said:


> So you admit that the "vast majority" of this law was nothing more than a power grab to begin with.



Read what I write, not what you'd prefer to imagine.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


More of the same? The new President is going to continue Obama's unbroken spree of higher spending, more regulatin' non-stop government takeover of the economy? 
I doubt it.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes, they are.  If they are not worse than Bush and Obama combined.

Talk is cheap and talk was very cheap in last night's "debate".  

Oh and for the record, I have no confidence in either party or is it one party two different names?

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2011)

In fact, Toddster, I wouldn't be surprised if should a Republican enter the oval office in 2013, he/she doesn't affirm the need for "Obamacare" (I hate that term) in the same manner that President Obama affirmed the need for the USA Patriot Act.

Immie


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 12, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Ali777 said:
> ...



It has no bearing on the states which just won their court case against the unconstitutional mandate....

It is not certain SCOTUS will take up the case...  I do think they will, though...


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 12, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> In fact, Toddster, I wouldn't be surprised if should a Republican enter the oval office in 2013, he/she doesn't affirm the need for "Obamacare" (I hate that term) in the same manner that President Obama affirmed the need for the USA Patriot Act.
> 
> Immie



You've drank too much liberal cherry kool-aid in the past 24 hours. Take two zanex and come back tomorrow


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2011)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, Toddster, I wouldn't be surprised if should a Republican enter the oval office in 2013, he/she doesn't affirm the need for "Obamacare" (I hate that term) in the same manner that President Obama affirmed the need for the USA Patriot Act.
> ...



Do you think I like that idea?  Do you think I support "Obamacare"?

On the contrary, I was opposed to the Patriot Act and I am opposed to "Obamacare".  I am looking at this from a realist standpoint.  Politicians live to accumulate power.  "Obamacare" is a power grab.  A politician is not going to willingly give up "Obamacare" or the tax dollars it will provide them in the future.  

I think Republicans are pissed that Obama was the one that succeeded in bringing it about.  He outsmarted them in their own game, but they will reap the rewards when their time has come.  Just as Obama did with the USA Patriot Act.

All that doesn't mean I support the bill.

Immie


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 12, 2011)

elvis said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



My wife has a potted fern that has yet to declare...

Stands a fair chance...


----------



## Ali777 (Aug 12, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



They call it Obamacare. But wasn't it originally a republican idea?


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 12, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



It wasn't even Obama's idea.  He didnt have any ideas.  He left that to Pelosi and Reid.
The GOP had a very good plan.  It of course got no hearing because Obama was busy capitulating to the Republicans.  At least in the Democrat telling of it.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Well, according to some things I have read many of the pieces of it were originally Republican ideas.  Including, I believe, the mandate.

Immie


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 12, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Not the abortion that was passed, no...


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 12, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I wasnt implying you supported it. I was inferring that youve let the libs goto your head. EVERY candidate has vowed to send out waivers to every state in their first week. And if they get enough votes it will be one of the first bills they repeal. They couldnt be clearer so that only leaves the possibility that the libs on here or elsewhere have you confused.

ps. why do you put your name in every post at the end? We know who you are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> In fact, Toddster, I wouldn't be surprised if should a Republican enter the oval office in 2013, he/she doesn't affirm the need for "Obamacare" (I hate that term) in the same manner that President Obama affirmed the need for the USA Patriot Act.
> 
> Immie



Would you care to place a wager?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2011)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Need I remind you that one of Candidate Obama's most out spoken promises was that he would not raise a single dime of taxes on any family making less than $250k and that the first thing he did upon entering office was to raise taxes on those families with his cigarette tax?

You obviously take them at their word.  I'm looking at history and calling them liars.

I do it because I can.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > In fact, Toddster, I wouldn't be surprised if should a Republican enter the oval office in 2013, he/she doesn't affirm the need for "Obamacare" (I hate that term) in the same manner that President Obama affirmed the need for the USA Patriot Act.
> ...



Sorry, I am unemployed thanks to Obama and the current economic situation.

You seem to think quite highly of the Republicans.  I share no such infatuation.  

I have given my opinion of the lot of them.  We can wait and see what happens.  As I said, I don't believe them.  

Immie


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 12, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



No president has broken those kinds of promises in their first week. If you choose to be that skeptical I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 12, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



If its that matter of fact for you, that cut n dry, why the hell are you here?


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2011)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Obama did, oh, I am sorry, it was on 2/9/09 which was less than three weeks after his inauguration.

Obama Signs Federal Cigarette Tax Hike



> February 9, 2009
> Obama Signs Federal Cigarette Tax Hike
> 
> President Barak Obama signed the Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, providing a major expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide health insurance to moderate-income families and illegal aliens.
> ...



Immie


----------



## Lovebears65 (Aug 12, 2011)

The part that is unconstitutional is the part where they cant fine us. That is how they were planning on funding this thing. Its dead in the water if the supreme court  also says this. I


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2011)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Oh, I see, I am not allowed to post here if I do not blow one party or the other!

Gotcha

Immie


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 12, 2011)

The next issue is will Kagan have to recuse herself....


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 12, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> The next issue is will Kagan have to recuse herself....



Prediction: She wont.
Not for any reason that resembles logic or precedence.  It is simply political expedience.  She will dress it up in some way or other, or her supporters.  But Dems only care about power, not fairness, legality or anything else.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 12, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I dont blow any party or any one. Unlike most lost souls I DO have a core set of values and principles that guide me. The democratic party has NEVER lived for self responsibility or self reliance. Makes it pretty easy to chose who is the party of responsibility. There are exceptions of course but under NO CIRCUMSTANCES would I ever consider voting for the party of the lazy govt can do for me party. 

But as you have admitted that you are unemployed I can see why your conflicted. Braggin about not having a set of moral values, ie party affilliation, does not speak well of you. 

FUCK LIBERALS AND THEIR LAZY GOOD FOR NOTHING AGENDA


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2011)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Clinton did. When his promised middle class tax cut became a middle class tax hike.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 12, 2011)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



In the first week?


----------



## Ali777 (Aug 12, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Careful. One minute you're having a normal conversation with this guy. The next thing you know, he puts you on ignore.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Aug 12, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Lol, naw. I only ignore idiots. Once and awhile I sneak a peak only to find they're still idiots.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 12, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > The next issue is will Kagan have to recuse herself....
> ...



How can she not recuse herself when she, as his Solicitor General,  was one of the President's chief legal advisors when they were putting this boondoggle together?   How could she ever claim to be objective and impartial now?


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



Only following orders from headquarters, Mam

It was never my personal view.

Just a guess.


----------



## 007 (Aug 12, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> The next issue is will Kagan have to recuse herself....



She won't at her own free will, that's a given. I see one hellofva fight over it though, because she should.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

Pale Rider said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > The next issue is will Kagan have to recuse herself....
> ...



She may surprise us, But I wouldnt hold my breath


----------



## bucs90 (Aug 12, 2011)

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!

Sorry lefties, your tyrant was wrong.

Looks like your leftie abortion stance was right all along: Keep the government out of my body. 

If I have the right to have a fetus scooped out of me, then I have the right to leave my body uninsured!!!!

YAY FREEDOM!!!!


----------



## Ali777 (Aug 12, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > The next issue is will Kagan have to recuse herself....
> ...



Yeah, really? When the republicans that signed a pledge not to increase taxes recuse themselves, then you might have a leg to stand on.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 12, 2011)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Well, maybe you don't understand that one need not support either party.

Obviously, you have allowed the liars in the Republican Party to convince you that they have the good of the American people at heart.  I realize that both parties are basically one in the same.  Both parties seek to remove my rights.  Only differences are which rights they care to remove first.

You can kiss Republican ass all you want. Be my guest and vote for the "lesser of two evils".  Doing so only assures you of getting evil.

And, if you have adopted the moral values of the Republican Party, I can only assure you that I pity you.

Immie


----------



## rdean (Aug 12, 2011)

Health care for Americans is bad.  Better they die:  Famous Republican Proverb


----------



## bucs90 (Aug 12, 2011)

God I hope the SC hears this case BEFORE the 2012 elections.


----------



## Intense (Aug 12, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



How could she claim the Law was Constitutional with a straight face in the first place?


----------



## 007 (Aug 12, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



She should have recused herself from her supreme court nomination period, for her racist and legislating from the bench comments, but she didn't. She's a died in the wool, radical, militant, mexican, liberal feminazi, and she won't step away from anything unless she's forced. That's the way I see it.


----------



## bucs90 (Aug 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> Health care for Americans is bad.  Better they die:  Famous Republican Proverb



No one is denying you or anyone else healthcare. They are only saying that the US government cannot FORCE you to buy it. Just like the gov't can't force you to give birth to or abort a baby. 

Gov't can't tell us what to do with our bodies...............right?


----------



## ShackledNation (Aug 12, 2011)

The law is unconstitutional whether the courts say so or not.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

Pale Rider said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



I dont have anything to argue against that. Thats why Im not holding my breath.

She certainly wasnt one of the brightest either.


----------



## Intense (Aug 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> Health care for Americans is bad.  Better they die:  Famous Republican Proverb



Signing over your property Rights for a band-aid ranks right up there rdean. You should be right proud.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 12, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



Nice deflection, but not relevant....

Swing and a miss....


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 12, 2011)

Intense said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Because she and the "constitutional professor' are not above bending the constitution for purposes of an agenda.  I still shudder to think what the poor students in his classes were taught.  But that is one of several differences between a leftist/progressive/liberal and a conservative in today's America.  Those on the left see the Constitution as a 'living document' that can be adapted to accommodate the circumstances.  Conservatives see it as an absolute as the Founders intended it.

Leftists, most especially those who at heart embrace at least some socialism, think it is okay to force people to accept government healthcare.  Conservatives believe in unalienable rights.


----------



## bucs90 (Aug 12, 2011)

I even heard MSNBC hosts saying Obama prefers the "professors lecturn" over the "bully pulpit".

Deep down, the realized that their boy has ZERO leadership skills. The 1st thing he's ever led in his life is the fucking White House. What kind of logic is that?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 12, 2011)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



 February 17, 1993 

In a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress, Clinton unveils his economic plan. The plan focuses on deficit reduction rather than a middle class tax cut, which had been high on his campaign agenda. Clinton also discusses the plan in his first State of the Union address later that day. Even though Democrats control both houses of Congress, the economic plan is in jeopardy because of the president's earlier missteps, which have weakened confidence in the new administration.

The first month.....


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 12, 2011)

So I guess this means that privitzarion of SS is also unconstitutional?


----------



## CaféAuLait (Aug 12, 2011)

bucs90 said:


> God I hope the SC hears this case BEFORE the 2012 elections.



Indeed:



> * If you want socialized medicine, heres the plan: First you pass a weak law that allows private insurance but imposes all sorts of rules on whom they need to enroll. Then, in order to keep them from going out of business, you require that every American buy health insurance. After that legislation is passed, have a court declare that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, but leave everything else in place.  -Rothbardian economist Bob Murphy



Potpourri


The cost of this HC plan w/o the mandate will make it so private insurers  are unable to stay above water and put them out of business. Some are stipulating this will open the door to the Public Option.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 12, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Doesn't change anything
> 
> Some courts have approved it others have denied
> 
> Have to wait for that 5-4 Supreme Court decision


Lets wait for January of '13 when the next president who will be a republican, shitcans that albatross around american citizens necks once and for all!


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 12, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...


Epic fail, yet again.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 12, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Ali777 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



   When did congress critters sit on the court?


----------



## Flopper (Aug 12, 2011)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...


That's not so.  There are dozens of major changes in the law that do not depend on the mandate. A lot have already been implemented.  The biggest impact of elimination of the mandate would be political.  Obama's  goal was 100% coverage which of course was not going to happen but elimination of the mandate would mean even less coverage. 

The plan would proceed but with less people covered.  The mandate itself is pretty weak.  The penalty is not high enough to insure full compliance.  One provision of the individual mandate would exempt people if insurance on the exchange costs more than 8 percent of their income. This would exempt most people in the middle class.

A wide variety of possibilities, some requiring legislation and some not,  have been suggested if the mandate is dropped, including:

Creating an open enrollment period each year for about a month when people could obtain insurance more easily, followed by stiff penalties if people try to opt in later.

Creating some kind of automatic enrollment policy in which individuals would specifically have to opt out and face tough penalties.

Tying federal subsidies for Medicaid and tax credits for the insurance exchanges to states passing their own mandates. Len Nichols raised this as one option. By way of metaphor, he wrote: "We do this with highway funds to get states to adopt speed limits that conform with federal policy...It's messy but workable, with some states essentially opting for a minimalist health system."

Some liberals are calling for the revival of a public option or allowing people to buy into Medicare, a point made recently on the blog, Firedoglake. Or possibly a single-payer system.

Princeton sociologist Paul Starr, who warned of a backlash to the mandate before the bill passed, has suggested letting people opt out without a penalty, but then not letting them opt back into the insurance market for five years.

And Mark Pauly, a health economist who was an adviser to former President George H.W. Bush and is considered to be the father of the mandate back in the 1990s, says this version of the mandate may not be needed or effective. "I believe you could achieve almost the same reduction of the uninsured with the subsidies and without the mandate," he told the Washington Post's Ezra Klein in an interview this week.

For its part, the Obama administration publicly maintains that it's not ready to consider a back-up plan. Tanden says White House officials will study alternatives for now just in case they lose at the Supreme Court.

There are numerous alternatives.  What that alternative might be would depend a great deal on the makeup of congress.

What If Health Reform Had No Mandate? Politicians, Experts Weigh In | The Rundown News Blog | PBS NewsHour | PBS


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 12, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Ali777 said:
> ...


Ya' got me, man........Ya' got the tater!

All I know, is that this new guy is runnin' all over the board, and never seems to have a friggin' clue about much o' anything.


----------



## rdean (Aug 12, 2011)

bucs90 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Health care for Americans is bad.  Better they die:  Famous Republican Proverb
> ...



Not if you're Republican.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 12, 2011)

AmericanFirst said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't change anything
> ...


Obamacare will not be repeal and here's why.  First the Republicans would have to control both houses and the presidency, but let's assume that happens and it's now 2013 and Congress is in session.  At that time most the healthcare provisions would have been implemented.  Insurance companies, healthcare providers, state health and welfare and the federal government would have spent hundreds of millions to implement the plan. The healthcare exchanges would be opening up in a matter of months.  In essence it would be too late.

What would happen is Republicans would introduce a bill that claimed to be a repeal which would include about 95% of what's in the current law plus Republican favorites such as tort reform and some other needed changes that would be supported by Democrats.  Republicans could then finally claim they have repealed Obamacare, but not much would have changed.

IMHO, if Democrats are still in control in 2012, there will be another bill which incorporates needed changes to the law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 12, 2011)

Seawytch said:


> Score is still in favor of the mandates. This will be decided by the SC.
> 
> How Antonin Scalia May Save The Individual Mandate



The "score" is even. This is only the second circuit court to rule on the mandate.

The score doesn't matter anyway, SCOTUS does not make decisions based on how many judges rule which way. If they did the 9th would have a much better track record.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Is this really what we want from our Government? Forcing Citizens to purchase something by way of threats & force? The Mandate has to be ended. It's just not right.
> ...



Copyrights are being misused, they should be discarded.

Patents, as applied, are definitely unconstitutional. Not to mention a tremendous drain on jobs and a huge obstacle to innovation.

Do you really want to take positions like that?


----------



## JohnA (Aug 12, 2011)

Sallow said:


> LibocalypseNow said:
> 
> 
> > Is this really what we want from our Government? Forcing Citizens to purchase something by way of threats & force? The Mandate has to be ended. It's just not right.
> ...



 only hospitals that  receive  public money  right decision 
 private clinics dont have to


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 12, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



It is actually correct.

The thing is, that if one circuit rules it unconstitutional, and another rules it constitutional, the ruling that says it is unconstitutional takes precedence. That is why DADT was considered unconstitutional when the 9th circuit ruled that way, even though the administration could point to other circuit courts that had said it was clearly constitutional.

Not that I expect you to understand the point I am making, but I can hope.


----------



## JohnA (Aug 12, 2011)

Flopper said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 the congress did vote to repeal it the senate blocked it 
 assholes 

House passes health law repeal - Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com


----------



## bucs90 (Aug 12, 2011)

Flopper said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Or.....I just refuse to obey the "law". It's been ruled unconstitutional. If I dont buy healthcare, and they try to punish me with a fine, I simply refuse it. Just like criminal law, if the law is unconstitutional, then so is it's enforcement. It can be on the books all day long, but they can't enforce it.


----------



## JohnA (Aug 12, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > The country is on fire with problems and BO hasn't a clue as to which way to run so he will go  on vacation next week.  Many Americans can't afford vacations this year because of him and his buddies.
> ...



 i bet you was one of the dimocrats ( thats not a spelling mistake  ) who complained that G bush was not available  when the country was in crisis .


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 12, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> So I guess this means that privitzarion of SS is also unconstitutional?



Nobody proposed that all americans must invest their SS....

Swing and a miss...

Not even a good swing, either...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 12, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > Ali777 said:
> ...



Technically, wrong.


----------



## JohnA (Aug 12, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...


 that may kill the act if nobody  buys the *mandate*  there is no funding for the bill


----------



## JohnA (Aug 12, 2011)

Pale Rider said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...


 i dont like her either


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 12, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.House said:
> ...



Why should they recuse themselves? Are they trying some sort of case that involves raising taxes?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 12, 2011)

rdean said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



The truth comes out. You need the government to tell you what to do, and you resent everyone who thinks for themselves.

I know some Democrats that like to think for themselves, does that make them Republicans?


----------



## Ali777 (Aug 13, 2011)

JohnA said:


> Ali777 said:
> 
> 
> > JosefK said:
> ...



Why wouldn't there be any funding?


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Aug 13, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Union fAiL........jobs fAiL...........Court fAiL............Poll fAiL.............Global warming fAiL............Debt fAiL...........Stimulus fAil.................Keynesian economics fAiL...............
> 
> Who knew it would be so much fcukking fun around here to be a conservative with only half of 2011 over?? Not me..........but this has been priceless. Every day you look up, more misery for the k00ks!!!
> And Im laughing..........just 24 short months ago, these mofu's were on top of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Bout sums it up.


----------



## uscitizen (Aug 13, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess this means that privitzarion of SS is also unconstitutional?
> ...



Nobody proposed?

You are in error as per usual.


----------



## Ali777 (Aug 13, 2011)

Wicked Jester said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



Why do you keep whining about me posting on this site?
I have to explain things to you like you're a two year old. You all were talking about fairness and how democrats only care about power. Republican sitting on the super committee that have signed a pledge to never raise taxes, under any circumstances, should recuse themselves, because part of their duties on that committee may involve raising taxes.


----------



## Ali777 (Aug 13, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Ali777 said:
> ...



Well gosh, if congress doesn't sit on the court, then obviously I must have
been referring to something else. It's not that complicated.


----------



## Dr.House (Aug 13, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Dr.House said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...



Nobody proposed all americans MUST invest their SS...

You can't read, as per usual...


----------



## Annie (Aug 13, 2011)

JohnA said:


> Ali777 said:
> 
> 
> > JosefK said:
> ...



I want the CBO report without the mandate. What would that future look like? Good grief!


----------



## auditor0007 (Aug 13, 2011)

Liberty said:


> hahaha. take that, commies.



One step closer to National Healthcare through a one payer system.


----------



## elvis (Aug 13, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> > hahaha. take that, commies.
> ...



Wake up and wipe off your stomach.


----------



## St.Blues (Aug 13, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't change anything
> ...



They won't have to fork up the money to prepare for either. 

Blues


----------



## St.Blues (Aug 13, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> This has been a bad two weeks for Obama.  Between the downgrade, the debt ceiling deal he was cut out from, and now the appeals court ruling he must be sucking wind.
> GOOD!
> 
> This is the beginning of the end of Obama's policies and the rule of the Leftists.  The Left will claim (as they are now) that Obama isn't really a progressive at all.  That is false.  He is as progressive as any of them.  But he is what happens when you put a progressive in the position of responsibility.  Sen. Obama ran his mouth about this and that.  But actually taking responsibility is different. Of course he isn't up to that either.
> ...



Clinton was Obama, still is.. With out the repubs... he was toast.


----------



## Lakhota (Aug 13, 2011)

The Eleventh Circuit&#8217;s Affordable Care Act Decision Cannot Be Squared With The Constitution | ThinkProgress


----------



## St.Blues (Aug 13, 2011)

skookerasbil said:


> Union fAiL........jobs fAiL...........Court fAiL............Poll fAiL.............Global warming fAiL............Debt fAiL...........Stimulus fAil.................Keynesian economics fAiL...............
> 
> Who knew it would be so much fcukking fun around here to be a conservative with only half of 2011 over?? Not me..........but this has been priceless. Every day you look up, more misery for the k00ks!!!
> And Im laughing..........just 24 short months ago, these mofu's were on top of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Pelosi was crawling out of her skin with socialist gleam.. She'll end up in a rubber room before long. She should have spent most of her life in one anyway.

Blues


----------



## St.Blues (Aug 13, 2011)

Ali777 said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



No, This was Hillarycare...


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> So I guess this means that privitzarion of SS is also unconstitutional?



If the Federal Government can force you to buy health Insurance, it can force you to buy anything. What part of that do you miss. How do you compare that to Social Security? There is no correlation. Why is it that you fail to see the threat of an out of control Government, throwing away our hard earned money on every whim without accountability, consent, or justification. The only difference between a soft tyranny and a hard tyranny is the order in which they come to be, one precedes the other. Why do you run so hard to get there?


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 13, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Thank you, Dr. Cock-stain, for showing us how clueless you are. Show me where I said anything that isn't a fact. As I said, the 9th (I believe) already ruled the mandate constitutional. The MANDATE, not the entire Affordable Care Act. So the entire law is not in jeopardy. And there is no law that says the SCOTUS automatically sides with the decision of the last appellate court. So, just because the 11th ruled the mandate unconstitutional, doesn't mean the SCOTUS will do the same. Of course, if you think I'm wrong, them prove it. Don't think your high school post is sufficient. You need to actually prove it.


----------



## Annie (Aug 13, 2011)

Intense said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess this means that privitzarion of SS is also unconstitutional?
> ...



The only common theme I understand between the two is coercion of the government on the people.


----------



## J.E.D (Aug 13, 2011)

Dr.House said:


> The next issue is will Kagan have to recuse herself....



Then Thomas should do the same, since his wife belongs to a group that advocates for the repeal of the ACA. He, along with Scalia, should also recuse themselves because they have both been paid to speak at events for Tea Party groups who advocate for the repeal of the ACA.


----------



## Ame®icano (Aug 13, 2011)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Ali777 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Take it easy... Immie is a good guy.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 13, 2011)

JohnA said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > signelect said:
> ...



That would be one bet you lost.  1) I left the Democratic Party during the Carter years, 2) I was a Republican and voted for George Bush in 2000 and in 2004, 3) when the bullshit about President Bush being on vacation so often came up, I said the exact same thing that you just quoted me about.

You would lose your bet.

George Bush was never "not available when the country was in crisis".  President Obama has never been not available while this country IS in crisis.  Now whether or not his "leadership" has helped at all is a different question.

Immie


----------



## Ame®icano (Aug 13, 2011)

Intense said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> > So I guess this means that privitzarion of SS is also unconstitutional?
> ...



Imagine government forcing you to buy one of Obama's books.

Damn, I would rather agree to insurance mandate...


----------



## Flopper (Aug 13, 2011)

The mandate should have never been put in the law.  The penalty is to low.  Half the middle class will be excluded.  There are a number of perfectly legal alternatives that can be used if the mandate is struck down.  For example, the government could have an open enrollment period as they did with the Medicare drug program.  Those who do not sign up for insurance, pay a penalty if they sign up later.  We were never going to get anything near 100% compliance anyway, so the mandate is really just amounts a matter of principal.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 13, 2011)

Flopper said:


> The mandate should have never been put in the law.  The penalty is to low.  Half the middle class will be excluded.  There are a number of perfectly legal alternatives that can be used if the mandate is struck down.  For example, the government could have an open enrollment period as they did with the Medicare drug program.  Those who do not sign up for insurance, pay a penalty if they sign up later.  We were never going to get anything near 100% compliance anyway, so *the mandate is really just amounts a matter of principal*.



Nope it was a matter of collecting a large amount of cash to help fund this monster.  This is a deficit increasing problem.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 13, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Nope it was a matter of collecting a large amount of cash to help fund this monster.  This is a deficit increasing problem.



Yes, it was expected to bring in a whopping $17 billion--total--over a ten year period.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2011)

Flopper said:


> The mandate should have never been put in the law.  The penalty is to low.  Half the middle class will be excluded.  There are a number of perfectly legal alternatives that can be used if the mandate is struck down.  For example, the government could have an open enrollment period as they did with the Medicare drug program.  Those who do not sign up for insurance, pay a penalty if they sign up later.  We were never going to get anything near 100% compliance anyway, so the mandate is really just amounts a matter of principal.



There are alternatives. But do you seriously think Republicans will allow any alternative other than "repeal Obamacare" to pass?


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 13, 2011)

St.Blues said:


> Ali777 said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Actually it goes back to at least Richard Nixon who wanted a national healthcare plan, but fortunately there were still enough conservative genes mixed among legislators on both sides of the aisle at that time that it didn't even get as far as Hillarycare.

And even the Democrats the relatively short distance back to Clinton's first years had enough common sense to see how destructive Hillarycare would have been.

Unfortunately, as the more moderately conservative Democrats and Republicans have left Congress, they have been increasingly replaced with big government liberals on both sides of the aisle.  And the result is witnessed in the current economic meltdown.

We started reversing that trend in the last election and hopefully will continue to do so in 2012.  I wish all our members regardless of political affiliation would get behind that concept as it is our only hope.


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2011)

Annie said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > uscitizen said:
> ...





> *Coersion.*
> 
> The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.
> 
> ...



I think the forced hand comes from Government, something it has grown too comfortable with. We are not commodities.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 13, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> JohnA said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



The difference I see here is that President Bush has never been invisible during a crisis.  He might have been at Camp David or at the family place in Kennebunkport or in Crawford--did George & Laura ever take a vacation anywhere else?--but his "red phone" was always at the ready and there was never any question that he was aware and involved in what was going on.

One of the biggest complaints about Obama, even sometimes among the Democrats, is that he so often appears to be MIA when he should be visibly involved and exercising leadership in serious negotations.


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 13, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Doesn't change anything
> 
> Some courts have approved it others have denied
> 
> Have to wait for that 5-4 Supreme Court decision




Very probably.   so let's look at that. 

Given to uphold it, the Clinton and Obama appointees. 

Given to reject it, Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts.  

So like all of these things, it's going to come down to Justice Kennedy.  

What I have seen of Kennedy is that he's really a swing vote.  He votes against social conservatives but usually votes in favor of economic conservatives.  

Clearly, these guys realize that the individual mandate is probably going to be impossible to enforce. Seriously, what are you going to do?  It isn't like car insurance, where you can arrest the uninsured when you catch them driving without insurance.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 13, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > JohnA said:
> ...



Appearances are not always fact.

The two of them have different styles.  One can argue that Bush was more evident in times of crisis than Obama has been, but then the moments of crisis that he suffered were different than President Obama's.  Hell President Obama's biggest crisis has been ongoing for nearly 2.5 years now.  If you want Obama in the limelight throughout that time, the man would never be allowed to sleep.  We would have 24/7 news coverage on every station about the economy... hmm, come think about it I suspect the suicide rate would skyrocket with that as well!   

Can you just imagine 24/7 news coverage on the fact that the unemployment rate is in the toilet and not going to get any better?  As you know, I have been unemployed for too long.  I have suffered through periods of depression and at times it frigging seems hopeless every morning when I get up and start looking for a job.  I'm not suicidal, but, I have to say last Monday only made things look even more bleaker than they had two weeks ago.

Immie


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > JohnA said:
> ...



He is a Master of Indecision. Like voting Present, the position sometimes changes like the tide.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 13, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Do you think those who are seeing their 401Ks, IRAs, and other investments decline week after week, who are unemployed and/or have friends, neighbors, and family who are unemployed and sinking futher into despair, who see 'going out of business' sales becoming more and more common or businesses that 'used to be there' just vanish overnight, who see their medicare taxes go up year by year while Congress gets their COLA but Social Security recipients don't; who see their disposable income decline but prices at the pump, grocery store, utlities, other necessities are more expensive. . . .do you honestly think all of those people are unaware of how 'bleak' it is???????

If the media was doing its job, it would dang sure be giving us 24/7 HONEST coverage of what is happening.  Obama and/or Congress promised THIS - but THAT happened.  Obama and/or promised if we do THAT, THIS OTHER THING won't happen, but it did anyway.  Every country that has tried to spend itself rich is now on the brink of economic collapse with rioting in the streets, while those who cut back on spending and exercised fiscal sanity are well on their way to full recovery.

And every nation that has increased taxes to increase government entitlements is now seeing those become more and more insolvent and unsustainable and producing negative consequences that were not originally anticipated.

Repeal of Obamacare would be one of the most economically sane actions that our President and Congress could do now, and the appeals court has given them a splendid reason to do so.  That and a few other fiscqlly sane and simple reassurances to the people would do wonders to get us started on the road to recovery too.

If we had a media saying that 24/7, we would return to some semblance of normal in no time.  Unfortunately, we have a media too reluctant to fully expose the President and Congress's incompetence.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 13, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Did you forget who you were typing that response to?  Just to remind you, read the last paragraph of what you quoted.

No, I am not unaware of how bleak it is.  Do you think I want to be reminded 24/7?

Immie


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



It's a Master / Lap Dog thing.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 13, 2011)

Intense said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Moi?  Really?  Are you serious?

You know me better than that.

Immie


----------



## LibocalypseNow (Aug 13, 2011)

Forcing Citizens to purchase Health Insurance is just wrong. Threatening Force against Citizens who choose not to purchase a product is truly Un-American. I don't see how anyone can support this Mandate.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 13, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I would think you would want it fixed.  Sticking our heads in the sand and pretending the problems aren't there won't fix it.  A media that glosses over the President's and the Congress's culpability and failure won't fix it.  Reagan also had a financial mess on his hands when he took office--double digit interest rates, double digit inflation, fuel costs off the charts, high unemployment, a sluggish economy.   It wasn't sugar coated.  We were all living it.  We knew how bad it was.

He, however, didn't wring his hands about what a terrible and unmanageable mess he inherited.  He set about working with Congress to restore fiscal sanity while assuring Americans that they were fixing it, what we could expect, and brighter days were ahead.  We could look forward encouraged and expecting great things.  And he delivered.

President Obama doesn't do that.  He keeps telling us that 'we're not even halfway there' and blames everybody but the kitchen sink for failure to achieve improvement with his ill founded policies.  No way does he give us ANY reason for optimism or encouragement.  And over the many times he tells us what results to expect as a result of this or that policy, he hasn't delivered yet.

THAT is what the media should be telling the people and be working to actually inform them so they can vote more intelligently when the next election rolls around.


----------



## rightwinger (Aug 13, 2011)

JoeB131 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't change anything
> ...



It will be the usual 5-4 conservative judgement


----------



## JoeB131 (Aug 13, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Which again, is a good thing. ObamaCare is a disaster waiting to happen.  The sooner we kill it, the better.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 13, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yes, if there is any justice or sanity left in this country, that would be a good thing.  Much better a court that would rule 9 to zero in favor of unalienable rights, freedom, and fiscal sanity.  But I guess that is too much to hope for.


----------



## Mr.Nick (Aug 13, 2011)

Obamacare is obviously unconstitutional - every mandate in the bill is.

Forcing a program on an individual then forcing more bullshit violates all the principals this country was founded on....

Obama and the rest of his gang are a bunch of fucking tyrants...

This is a free country - that means you don't tell individuals what they need to do, or how to live THEIR lives.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 13, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Who says I don't want it fixed?  But do you think I want to be reminded about how screwed up this world is every time I turn on my computer or TV?  When a man is dying of Stage IV Lung Cancer and in the hospital, do you think he wants the hospital TV on a station that constantly reminds him that the one year survival rate is less than 5%?  

Do you think I want to get up in the morning, turn on the computer to start sending out resumes and the first thing I read is... "*IT IS HOPELESS! DON'T BOTHER LOOKING FOR A JOB TODAY BECAUSE FOR EVERY RESUME YOU SEND OUT THERE ARE 500 OTHERS GOING TO BE RECEIVED FOR THE SAME JOB.  MAY AS WELL JUST GO BACK TO BED AND SLEEP IT OFF.*"

Did I say President Obama was doing a good job?  Please quote where I said that.

You are right, he tells everyone we are still in the slump and things are going to take a long time to climb out of, but by gosh, it is not his fault.  I know it.  You know it.  Do you think I need to be reminded of it 24/7?

Does a dying man want to be reminded that he is dying?  

How does President Obama being on TV 24/7 assuring us that the problems will get better help me in the least?  Hell, I would rather not see his face and know that something was being done to fix this mess.  I, however, know better than that and that is why someone new should be in that office, but I have to tell you that I am not convinced that anyone who participated in Thursday Night's debate are qualified to solve this problem nor that they would put America first over their own desires.



> A media that glosses over the President's and the Congress's culpability and failure won't fix it.



Correct they won't, but neither will a media that excoriates the President or Congress for their sins... not that this is likely to happen mind you.  

Immie


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 13, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



I disagree.  I think a media that HONESTLY excoriates the President and/or Congress for their sins is doing their job as the media was intended to do.  The media has not been doing its job for some years now to the point that the raw truth of many things is not given an honest hearing or is glossed over to make the President and his advocates look better.  And it allows the President and his advocates to continue in the delusion that he is doing okay and no change of course is needed.

Believe me,  getting re-elected is the MOST important thing to most of them, and if the media was really doing its job, they would be doing a better job of getting it right and/or doing it better.

And we wouldn't be discussing Obamacare going to the Supreme Court because it never would have been passed in the first place.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 13, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



Two things about your post:



> I think a media that HONESTLY excoriates the President and/or Congress for their sins is doing their job as the media was intended to do.



1) Do I have to be reminded of it 24/7?  Which is what this discussion was about.

and 2) Do you honestly believe the media will be honest?

Immie


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2011)

I think the Media, too easily abandons it's role as Witness, to that of Spokesperson, for whatever agenda it supports. Sometimes so caught up in spin, it is not capable of unbiased reporting.


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



We each have our precious moments, so Yes. Just not often enough, nor timely enough.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 13, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...



Nobody forces you to watch or listen or read anything 24/7.  If you don't want to see, hear, or read it, it is very easy to avoid it.

But the country is bleeding to death, we have people that have been hurting not for weeks or months, but extending into years, and we have a government hell bent on continuing policies that caused the problem and refusing to change anything that would reverse the current destructive course we are on.

I think that needs 24/7 attention.

And no, as I said, I do not believe most of the Media will be honest because too much of it is also ideologically blind to the point they are incapable of recognizing and/or acknowledging the truth about their designated heroes and icons.


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2011)

The Government is definitely compounding the problem, paying off and buying off potential political allies at our expense, multiplying the debt with nada to show for it....   Like a Potential Gang Rapist it wants more stimulus. Fannie and Freddie setting us up for a repeat too.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 13, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



It is not getting better and it won't for a long time to come.

And I believe that I said 24/7 on all stations or that was my intention.  Need I become a hermit just to survive?

Honestly, there is a new country song, I don't remember who sings it or its title and the guy discusses leaving his job, getting on a boat and just sailing away for ever... the idea is damned tempting!  Except I hate the taste of fish and I am allergic to seafood. 

Immie


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 13, 2011)

"He, however, didn't wring his hands about what a terrible and unmanageable mess he inherited. He set about working with Congress to restore fiscal sanity while assuring Americans that they were fixing it, what we could expect, and brighter days were ahead. We could look forward encouraged and expecting great things. And he delivered."

And quadrupled the debt. But he didn't have an opposition who obstructed EVERYTHING, with a fear mongering Propaganda machine bitching about EVERYTHING 24/7/365, and huge loudmouth brainwashed dupe 1/2 nation...


----------



## Flopper (Aug 13, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > The mandate should have never been put in the law.  The penalty is to low.  Half the middle class will be excluded.  There are a number of perfectly legal alternatives that can be used if the mandate is struck down.  For example, the government could have an open enrollment period as they did with the Medicare drug program.  Those who do not sign up for insurance, pay a penalty if they sign up later.  We were never going to get anything near 100% compliance anyway, so *the mandate is really just amounts a matter of principal*.
> ...


The money spent on the health insurance policies do not go to the government.  It goes to the insurance companies.  There is no direct effect on the deficit.


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> "He, however, didn't wring his hands about what a terrible and unmanageable mess he inherited. He set about working with Congress to restore fiscal sanity while assuring Americans that they were fixing it, what we could expect, and brighter days were ahead. We could look forward encouraged and expecting great things. And he delivered."
> 
> And quadrupled the debt. But he didn't have an opposition who obstructed EVERYTHING, with a fear mongering Propaganda machine bitching about EVERYTHING 24/7/365, and huge loudmouth brainwashed dupe 1/2 nation...



Aren't you missing your cartoons?


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2011)

Flopper said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



*The money spent on the health insurance policies do not go to the government.  It goes to the insurance companies.*

Which the Government takes many pieces of, every time the money changes hands, just like what happens to you and I.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 13, 2011)

Intense said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Not to mention the HUGE chunk of healthcare that the government already controls--  Medicare, Medicaid, VA--most of which is out of control and will sink us if they don't get a handle on it.  So our fearless leaders, despite their abysmal track record on managing such programs, would prefer to put us all under their authority and control and you can be sure they will make it so miserable for the insurance companies that the insurance companies will bail out.  And that leaves the door open for government to take over healthcare for all those unfortunate souls dumped by the insurance companies.

If we don't dump obamacare as quickly as possible and begin major reforms on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, we will sink as there is no way we can bail as fast as these programs are filling all the boat.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 13, 2011)

Intense,You are brainwashed and close to braindead. LOL! Totally misled.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 13, 2011)

rightwinger said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > The mandate should have never been put in the law.  The penalty is to low.  Half the middle class will be excluded.  There are a number of perfectly legal alternatives that can be used if the mandate is struck down.  For example, the government could have an open enrollment period as they did with the Medicare drug program.  Those who do not sign up for insurance, pay a penalty if they sign up later.  We were never going to get anything near 100% compliance anyway, so the mandate is really just amounts a matter of principal.
> ...


Some of the alternatives do not require congressional approval.  They can be handled by executive order.  

If the Republicans control government in 2013, they would undoubtedly pass a bill to repeal  the Healthcare law.  Since most of the current bill would have already been implemented and the insurance pools, would be scheduled to open in a matter of months, the new law would have be identical to about 95% of the current law.  They would add some Republican solutions to healthcare cost such as tort reform and remove anything that might result in abortion funding, but there would only be minor changes.


----------



## hellofromwarsaw (Aug 13, 2011)

The Pub base is so brainwashed now they probably WOULD wreck the whole thing...


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 13, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> The Pub base is so brainwashed now they probably WOULD wreck the whole thing...



Please be quiet while adults are speaking.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 13, 2011)

Intense said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


You can say that about almost any financial transaction.  However, less policies being sold is not going to directly increase the deficit.

The individual mandates should have never been in the law.  There are so many exclusions, it's really not going to force many people to buy insurance.  A much better alternative would be to allow carriers to put a surcharge on individuals who go without insurance coverage accompanied by limited coverage of preexisting conditions.  In stead of mandating, the government coerces.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 13, 2011)

And there has been something like 1500 different exemptions to obamacare so far.

Why so many?

It is a bad law and never should have been passed. 

Anyone with half a brain knows it.


----------



## sparky (Aug 13, 2011)

well of course Ollie

you think HC is expensive now?

just wait until it's free!

~S~


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 13, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> And there has been something like 1500 different exemptions to obamacare so far.
> 
> Why so many?
> 
> ...



And how can anybody with half a brain not understand that when all their friends and cronies get exemptions, the rest of us will be expected to pick up the slack.  The whole idea was sold on the basis that the cost would be spread so that it would become affordable for everybody.  Well the pool to spread it on is drying up fast.


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2011)

sparky said:


> well of course Ollie
> 
> you think HC is expensive now?
> 
> ...



Yeah, right.  One Term does come to mind though, "Denial of Coverage". You can have it, you just can't use it. 
The New and Improved "Catch-22" Insurance Plan". 
Just don't get hurt and you will be fine.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 13, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> And there has been something like 1500 different exemptions to obamacare so far.
> 
> Why so many?
> 
> ...


Some health insurance policies do not meet minimum standards set forth in the law.  Their policies lacked coverage for major illnesses.  In order that policy holders are not stuck having no insurance, the government has granted one year exemptions to give policy holders time to find other policies.  1500 out of millions of health insurance policies is not that many.  These exemptions do not indicate any shortcoming in law, but rather the shortcomings in cheap near worthless health insurance policies some states have allowed companies to sell.


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And there has been something like 1500 different exemptions to obamacare so far.
> ...



Nah, it is all very scientific, like Musical Chairs.


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2011)

Flopper said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > And there has been something like 1500 different exemptions to obamacare so far.
> ...


Yep, just ignore who is on the list and you sound credible. How many on that list supported it? How many knew what was in it before they supported it? How long would the phone call take to increase your coverage, relating to something important to you personally? I especially appreciate the new powers for government to raid your savings and checking accounts when you have a problem paying medical expenses. Government could not get anymore personal and caring than that huh.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 13, 2011)

Intense said:


> I especially appreciate the new powers for government to raid your savings and checking accounts when you have a problem paying medical expenses.



What?


----------



## sparky (Aug 13, 2011)

Intense said:


> sparky said:
> 
> 
> > well of course Ollie
> ...



and you can prick your _finger,_ but you can't finger your _prick_ too Intense.......~S~


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2011)

This may or may not be cleared up. Bring a Weegie Board to decipher and maybe you can clear the matter up for me.  Let's do a before and after. Before, the original red flag on the proposed legislation. The after, from what I believe to be from the Current Bill.  I have to comment on the use of the term "ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION", touching and eye opening. . 
_____________________________________________________________
*Before:*

Correcting the Record on ObamaCare's Access to Individuals' Bank Accounts

From Justin Quinn, About.com Guide   *August 20, 2009*
Nevertheless, the language is unclear enough to create fear and loathing that is legitimate. Recalling that this is falling under the category of "Definition of Services" and "Medical and Other Services" in Medicare, it raises the questioned about why this language was included at all. There's really only one reason that makes sense. Consults every five years are going to be required (mandatory) if patients want to receive Medicare reimbursement for associated services, and when end-of-life decisions become imminent, more consultations will be required if reimbursements are to be made regarding end-of-life treatment. It may not mean "death panels," but the language is obscure enough to raise the question about the participatory nature of the consults. The bottom line: if they're not mandatory, why are these consults included in the bill at all?

Back to the bank account stuff.

This article at CNN.com uses the news network's so-called "truth-squad" to dispel the notion that the House bill provides the federal government with real-time access to the bank accounts of "individuals." Their verdict (False. The provision cited doesn't affect individuals, but companies involved in medical billing.),is reckless in its misinformation.

For the sake of clarity, it is important to note that this part of the bill updates Title XI of the Social Security Act, and once again cite the page number, section and subsection of the ObamaCare plan that spells this out. It is called "Administrative Simplification" (Section 163) and Subsection 1173A of this measure, "Standardize Electronic Transactions" has a provision (a)(2)(B) that ensures that this new governmental power:

    "be authoritative, permitting no additions or constraints for electronic transactions ..." (C) "be comprehensive, efficient and robust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper transactions or clarification by further communications;" and, finally, (D) enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual&#8217;s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;" ... (E) "enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims ..." (Emphasis added)

According to President Barack Obama, there are several versions of the bill now in existence. If this is indeed the case, (so far, I've only been able to find and read one) it is possible that this language has been clarified to strike out all references to the individual. As it stands, however, the language in the current version of the House bill clearly indicates that the authority of the government pertains to "individuals" not providers, physicians or insurers.

In fact, this is so clearly defined in the bill, that on page 64, the language for "operating rules" (which regulate the "using and processing [of] transactions") is changed in a related section to add the phrase "on behalf of an individual." Combine the two, and you have the government paying for services on behalf of an individual from the individual's account.

The most disturbing aspect of this part of the bill, as I've mentioned before is the lack of language outlining any sort of authorization on the part of the individual.

In my previous post (linked to above), I mentioned that the Democrats and Obama would scoff off any notion of the federal government dipping into individual's accounts without permission. This is indeed what has happened. If the bill had some sort of measure in it that explicitly describes the authorization process, perhaps conservatives wouldn't feel quite so paranoid about what this legislation has in store for them.

Correcting the Record on ObamaCare's Access to Individuals' Bank Accounts


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Current Bill:*
111TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. R. 3200
3 SEC. 163. ADMINISTRATIVE SIMPLIFICATION.
4 (a) STANDARDIZING ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE
5 TRANSACTIONS.&#8212;
6 (1) IN GENERAL.&#8212;Part C of title XI of the So7
cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d et seq.) is
8 amended by inserting after section 1173 the fol9
lowing new section:
10 &#8216;&#8216;SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE
11 TRANSACTIONS.
12 &#8216;&#8216;(a) STANDARDS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRA13
TIVE TRANSACTIONS.&#8212;
14 &#8216;&#8216;(1) IN GENERAL.&#8212;The Secretary shall adopt
15 and regularly update standards consistent with the
16 goals described in paragraph (2).
17 &#8216;&#8216;(2) GOALS FOR FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRA18
TIVE TRANSACTIONS.&#8212;The goals for standards
19 under paragraph (1) are that such standards shall&#8212;
20 &#8216;&#8216;(A) be unique with no conflicting or re21
dundant standards;
22 &#8216;&#8216;(B) be authoritative, permitting no addi23
tions or constraints for electronic transactions,
24 including companion guides;
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
58
&#8226;HR 3200 IH
1 &#8216;&#8216;(C) be comprehensive, efficient and ro2
bust, requiring minimal augmentation by paper
3 transactions or clarification by further commu4
nications;
5 &#8216;&#8216;(D) enable the real-time (or near real6
time) determination of an individual&#8217;s financial
7 responsibility at the point of service and, to the
8 extent possible, prior to service, including
9 whether the individual is eligible for a specific
10 service with a specific physician at a specific fa11
cility, which may include utilization of a ma12
chine-readable health plan beneficiary identi13
fication card;
14 &#8216;&#8216;(E) enable, where feasible, near real-time
15 adjudication of claims;
16 &#8216;&#8216;(F) provide for timely acknowledgment,
17 response, and status reporting applicable to any
18 electronic transaction deemed appropriate by
19 the Secretary;
20 &#8216;&#8216;(G) describe all data elements (such as
21 reason and remark codes) in unambiguous
22 terms, not permit optional fields, require that
23 data elements be either required or conditioned
24 upon set values in other fields, and prohibit ad25
ditional conditions; and
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
59
&#8226;HR 3200 IH
1 &#8216;&#8216;(H) harmonize all common data elements
2 across administrative and clinical transaction
3 standards.
4 &#8216;&#8216;(3) TIME FOR ADOPTION.&#8212;Not later than 2
5 years after the date of implementation of the X12
6 Version 5010 transaction standards implemented
7 under this part, the Secretary shall adopt standards
8 under this section.
9 &#8216;&#8216;(4) REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC STAND10
ARDS.&#8212;The standards under this section shall be
11 developed, adopted and enforced so as to&#8212;
12 &#8216;&#8216;(A) clarify, refine, complete, and expand,
13 as needed, the standards required under section
14 1173;
15 &#8216;&#8216;(B) require paper versions of standard16
ized transactions to comply with the same
17 standards as to data content such that a fully
18 compliant, equivalent electronic transaction can
19 be populated from the data from a paper
20 version;
21 &#8216;&#8216;(C) enable electronic funds transfers, in
22 order to allow automated reconciliation with the
23 related health care payment and remittance ad24
vice;
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
60
&#8226;HR 3200 IH
1 &#8216;&#8216;(D) require timely and transparent claim
2 and denial management processes, including
3 tracking, adjudication, and appeal processing;
4 &#8216;&#8216;(E) require the use of a standard elec5
tronic transaction with which health care pro6
viders may quickly and efficiently enroll with a
7 health plan to conduct the other electronic
8 transactions provided for in this part; and
9 &#8216;&#8216;(F) provide for other requirements relat10
ing to administrative simplification as identified
11 by the Secretary, in consultation with stake12
holders.
13 &#8216;&#8216;(5) BUILDING ON EXISTING STANDARDS.&#8212;In
14 developing the standards under this section, the Sec15
retary shall build upon existing and planned stand16
ards.
17 &#8216;&#8216;(6) IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT.&#8212;
18 Not later than 6 months after the date of the enact19
ment of this section, the Secretary shall submit to
20 the appropriate committees of Congress a plan for
21 the implementation and enforcement, by not later
22 than 5 years after such date of enactment, of the
23 standards under this section. Such plan shall in24
clude&#8212;
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
61
&#8226;HR 3200 IH
1 &#8216;&#8216;(A) a process and timeframe with mile2
stones for developing the complete set of stand3
ards;
4 &#8216;&#8216;(B) an expedited upgrade program for
5 continually developing and approving additions
6 and modifications to the standards as often as
7 annually to improve their quality and extend
8 their functionality to meet evolving require9
ments in health care;
10 &#8216;&#8216;(C) programs to provide incentives for,
11 and ease the burden of, implementation for cer12
tain health care providers, with special consid13
eration given to such providers serving rural or
14 underserved areas and ensure coordination with
15 standards, implementation specifications, and
16 certification criteria being adopted under the
17 HITECH Act;
18 &#8216;&#8216;(D) programs to provide incentives for,
19 and ease the burden of, health care providers
20 who volunteer to participate in the process of
21 setting standards for electronic transactions;
22 &#8216;&#8216;(E) an estimate of total funds needed to
23 ensure timely completion of the implementation
24 plan; and
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
62
&#8226;HR 3200 IH
1 &#8216;&#8216;(F) an enforcement process that includes
2 timely investigation of complaints, random au3
dits to ensure compliance, civil monetary and
4 programmatic penalties for non-compliance con5
sistent with existing laws and regulations, and
6 a fair and reasonable appeals process building
7 off of enforcement provisions under this part.
8 &#8216;&#8216;(b) LIMITATIONS ON USE OF DATA.&#8212;Nothing in
9 this section shall be construed to permit the use of infor10
mation collected under this section in a manner that would
11 adversely affect any individual.
12 &#8216;&#8216;(c) PROTECTION OF DATA.&#8212;The Secretary shall en13
sure (through the promulgation of regulations or other14
wise) that all data collected pursuant to subsection (a)
15 are&#8212;
16 &#8216;&#8216;(1) used and disclosed in a manner that meets
17 the HIPAA privacy and security law (as defined in
18 section 3009(a)(2) of the Public Health Service
19 Act), including any privacy or security standard
20 adopted under section 3004 of such Act; and
21 &#8216;&#8216;(2) protected from all inappropriate internal
22 use by any entity that collects, stores, or receives the
23 data, including use of such data in determinations of
24 eligibility (or continued eligibility) in health plans,
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
63
&#8226;HR 3200 IH
1 and from other inappropriate uses, as defined by the
2 Secretary.&#8217;&#8217;.
3 (2) DEFINITIONS.&#8212;Section 1171 of such Act
4 (42 U.S.C. 1320d) is amended&#8212;
5 (A) in paragraph (7), by striking &#8216;&#8216;with
6 reference to&#8217;&#8217; and all that follows and inserting
7 &#8216;&#8216;with reference to a transaction or data ele8
ment of health information in section 1173
9 means implementation specifications, certifi10
cation criteria, operating rules, messaging for11
mats, codes, and code sets adopted or estab12
lished by the Secretary for the electronic ex13
change and use of information&#8217;&#8217;; and
14 (B) by adding at the end the following new
15 paragraph:
16 &#8216;&#8216;(9) OPERATING RULES.&#8212;The term &#8216;operating
17 rules&#8217; means business rules for using and processing
18 transactions. Operating rules should address the fol19
lowing:
20 &#8216;&#8216;(A) Requirements for data content using
21 available and established national standards.
22 &#8216;&#8216;(B) Infrastructure requirements that es23
tablish best practices for streamlining data flow
24 to yield timely execution of transactions.
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
64
&#8226;HR 3200 IH
1 &#8216;&#8216;(C) Policies defining the transaction re2
lated rights and responsibilities for entities that
3 are transmitting or receiving data.&#8217;&#8217;.
4 (3) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.&#8212;Section
5 1179(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d&#8211;8(a)) is
6 amended, in the matter before paragraph (1)&#8212;
7 (A) by inserting &#8216;&#8216;on behalf of an indi8
vidual&#8217;&#8217; after &#8216;&#8216;1978)&#8217;&#8217;; and
9 (B) by inserting &#8216;&#8216;on behalf of an indi10
vidual&#8217;&#8217; after &#8216;&#8216;for a financial institution.&#8217;&#8217;
11 (b) STANDARDS FOR CLAIMS ATTACHMENTS AND
12 COORDINATION OF BENEFITS .&#8212;
13 (1) STANDARD FOR HEALTH CLAIMS ATTACH14
MENTS.&#8212;Not later than 1 year after the date of the
15 enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Health and
16 Human Services shall promulgate a final rule to es17
tablish a standard for health claims attachment
18 transaction described in section 1173(a)(2)(B) of the
19 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d&#8211;2(a)(2)(B))
20 and coordination of benefits.
21 (2) REVISION IN PROCESSING PAYMENT TRANS22
ACTIONS BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.&#8212;
23 (A) IN GENERAL.&#8212;Section 1179 of the So24
cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320d&#8211;8) is
25 amended, in the matter before paragraph (1)&#8212;
VerDate Nov 24 2008 23:22 Jul 14, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H3200.IH H3200 jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
65
&#8226;HR 3200 IH
1 (i) by striking &#8216;&#8216;or is engaged&#8217;&#8217; and in2
serting &#8216;&#8216;and is engaged&#8217;&#8217;; and
3 (ii) by inserting &#8216;&#8216;(other than as a
4 business associate for a covered entity)&#8217;&#8217;
5 after &#8216;&#8216;for a financial institution&#8217;&#8217;.
6 (B) EFFECTIVE DATE.&#8212;The amendments
7 made by paragraph (1) shall apply to trans8
actions occurring on or after such date (not
9 later than 6 months after the date of the enact10
ment of this Act) as the Secretary of Health
11 and Human Services shall specify.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3200ih.pdf


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 13, 2011)

Intense said:


> This may or may not be cleared up.



I'm seeing three problems here.

First, figuring out whether something is in the law would best be done _before_ you reference it and cite it as a pillar of your opposition.

Second, you're producing sources about the wrong legislation, a House health care bill that never became law.

Third, the comprehension here is lacking. "Administrative simplification" refers to a process that began with HIPAA in the late '90s: namely, the development of uniform standards for health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers who conduct standard health care transactions with each other electronically. The issue in that proposed legislation from 2009 is standards for electronic information sharing between your doctor and your insurer with regard to verifying eligibility for services, communicating prior authorizations for services when necessary, and transferring funds electronically (again, between the payer and the provider--that is, the insurer and the doctor).

None of that has anything to do with the government "dipping into individual's accounts without permission" or empowering anyone to "raid your savings and checking accounts when you have a problem paying medical expenses."

This hysteria is far past the point of absurdity.


----------



## dblack (Aug 13, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> First, figuring out whether something is in the law would best be done _before_ you reference it and cite it as a pillar of your opposition.



Agreed. It should probably also have been done before our asshat congress critters voted on it.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 13, 2011)

dblack said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > First, figuring out whether something is in the law would best be done _before_ you reference it and cite it as a pillar of your opposition.
> ...



Don't forget, they had to pass it so that we could know what was in it.

All of that was for our own good.

Immie


----------



## Flopper (Aug 13, 2011)

Intense said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > SFC Ollie said:
> ...


These exemptions were given mostly to employers and unions with group plans that did not meet the minimum requirement.  Increasing coverage of group plans, usually means replacing the whole plan often with a different company.  Typically large group plans are covered by a yearly or longer contract.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 13, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



And if I am not mistaken they are not permanent exemptions.  I believe they expire after a few years.  Not 100% positive on that, but I thought I read that somewhere and I'm simply not willing to look it up tonight.

Immie


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > This may or may not be cleared up.
> ...



First, figuring out whether something is in the law would best be done _before_ you reference it and cite it as a pillar of your opposition. False.

Second, you're producing sources about the wrong legislation, a House health care bill that never became law. Well, that is good.
None of that has anything to do with the government "dipping into individual's accounts without permission" or empowering anyone to "raid your savings and checking accounts when you have a problem paying medical expenses." The fact that it was tried in the first place is reason for concern. At least one version of it did provide access to Individual Saving Accounts. Try reading the post and the link.
Third, the comprehension here is lacking. "Administrative simplification" refers to a process that began with HIPAA in the late '90s: namely, the development of uniform standards for health plans, health care clearinghouses, and health care providers who conduct standard health care transactions with each other electronically. The issue in that proposed legislation from 2009 is standards for electronic information sharing between your doctor and your insurer with regard to verifying eligibility for services, communicating prior authorizations for services when necessary, and transferring funds electronically (again, between the payer and the provider--that is, the insurer and the doctor).
True in the Amended version. Still, applied here is is an oxymoron.
This hysteria is far past the point of absurdity.
What is absurd every time it happens is signing legislation before even knowing what is in it.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 13, 2011)

They are permanent waivers until 2014 when a government plan, which we were told was not in the works, will kick in.  Right now they wanted to keep as many on board as possible and prevent companies from dropping coverage altogether which any company exec with a brain would almost certainly do faced with this boondoggle mishmash of a healthcare overhaul.

In the very first wave, just before the 2010 election, 29 large companies were exempted:



> Nearly a million workers won't get a consumer protection in the U.S. health reform law meant to cap insurance costs because the government exempted their employers.
> Thirty companies and organizations, including McDonald's (MCD) and Jack in the Box (JACK), won't be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.
> 
> The Department of Health and Human Services, which provided a list of exemptions, said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn't lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.
> ...



Of course there have been many many other 'waivers' extended, mostly to Obama's union buddies and such as that, and no doubt many many more to come.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 13, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> They are permanent waivers until 2014 when a government plan, which we were told was not in the works, will kick in.  Right now they wanted to keep as many on board as possible and prevent companies from dropping coverage altogether which any company exec with a brain would almost certainly do faced with this boondoggle mishmash of a healthcare overhaul.
> 
> In the very first wave, just before the 2010 election, 29 large companies were exempted:
> 
> ...





> They are permanent waivers until 2014



Explain what that means.  To me that says they are temporary i.e. not permanent.

Immie


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 13, 2011)

Intense said:


> At least one version of it did provide access to Individual Saving Accounts.



I did. And there's nothing in the link or the legislative text posted to support that assertion. Which is because it was never true, even for that older bill (which, again, isn't the Affordable Care Act).



Foxfyre said:


> They are permanent waivers until 2014 when a government plan, which we were told was not in the works, will kick in.



There is no "government plan." You're confusing the concept of an Exchange with a public health insurance plan.


----------



## Intense (Aug 13, 2011)

Here is something I came across that is up to your speed Greenbeard. What is your take on it?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis
The finding that insurers have exited the child-only plan market, often leaving families
with no options to purchase insurance coverage for their children, is an entirely
predictable consequence of how the Administration drafted the new rule prohibiting
preexisting condition exclusions.
By redefining through regulation the definition of these exclusions, the Administration
created a new guaranteed issue requirement for child-only plans. This regulatory policy
change went beyond the scope of the language in section 2704 of the PHSA, and
created the problems that have caused insurance companies to no longer offer childonly
plans in several states.
Requiring carriers to sell child-only plans to anyone at any time allows individuals to wait
until a child is sick and then purchase coverage. This undermines one of the
fundamental principles of insurance, which allows individuals to manage risk by pooling
resources to help pay for future, unpredictable expenses. If an individual can avoid
paying premiums until they know they will incur an expense, it is impossible for such a
system of insurance to be financially sustainable.
6
This is not a hypothetical concern, but rather one that has already been documented in
the market. A recent study, commissioned by the Massachusetts Division of Insurance,
reported that after Massachusetts enacted its health care reform law (which included a
guaranteed issue requirement), there was a significant increase in the number of
individuals who purchased coverage for short periods of time and incurred high costs.5
The Administration has also previously acknowledged this reality. A January 31, 2011
White House blog post noted:
If insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to anyone who applies for
insurance &#8211; especially those who have health problems and are potentially more
expensive to cover &#8211; then there is nothing stopping someone from waiting until
they&#8217;re sick or injured to apply for coverage since insurance companies can&#8217;t say
no. That would lead to double digit premiums increases &#8211; up to 20% &#8211; for
everyone with insurance, and would significantly increase the cost health care
spending nationwide.
We don&#8217;t let people wait until after they&#8217;ve been in a car accident to apply for auto
insurance and get reimbursed, and we don&#8217;t want to do that with healthcare. If
we&#8217;re going to outlaw discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, the only
way to keep people from gaming the system and raising costs on everyone else
is to ensure that everyone takes responsibility for their own health insurance.&#8221;6
This statement indicates that the Administration understood how a stand-alone
guaranteed issue requirement could raise costs for everyone. Despite this
understanding, the Administration still chose to arbitrarily impose a guaranteed issue
requirement.
When confronted with the reality of this regulatory action, insurers in 39 states stopped
selling child-only plans to new enrollees. They indicated that to do otherwise would
likely expose them to significant, unsustainable financial losses and thereby jeopardize
their continuing ability to offer insurance coverage to current enrollees.
The October 13, 2010, Administration Questions and Answers document did not solve
the problems created by the initial rule. Insurers have asserted that absent a uniform
annual enrollment period applicable to all market participants, they would still face
potential competitive disadvantages created by plans with different open enrollment
periods, which in turn could create serious risks of adverse selection. For these
reasons, insurers have declined to return to the child-only plan market in many states.


http://help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Child-Only Health Insurance Report Aug 2, 2011.pdf


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 13, 2011)

Intense said:


> Here is something I came across that is up to your speed Greenbeard. What is your take on it?



Their recommendation is to institute uniform open enrollment periods (similar to those that will be in effect in the Exchanges starting in 2014). That's fine, I don't have any objection to that. Even HHS has already indicated a willingness to take that step if necessary. There are other steps that can be taken by insurers or state regulators to deter adverse selection in child-only plans, however. But if that's the one that will be most effective (though, given the other options available, it doesn't strike me that it would be), by all means they can and should amend the regs.

Those are the kinds of productive discussions about salient policy issues in the ACA I'd love to see taking place between Congressional committees and executive branch officials, instead of the politicized, point-scoring tit-for-tats we've mostly seen so far.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 13, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > They are permanent waivers until 2014 when a government plan, which we were told was not in the works, will kick in.  Right now they wanted to keep as many on board as possible and prevent companies from dropping coverage altogether which any company exec with a brain would almost certainly do faced with this boondoggle mishmash of a healthcare overhaul.
> ...



Permanent meaning nobody will mess with them until 2014 when they'll be forced into the government organized system with everybody else.  Probably could have picked a different word but I'm using government speak.  

Like, make the Bush tax cuts 'permanent' until at least. . . . .

But when we think about how quickly that last two years have passed, 2014 is right around the corner.  We had better start paying attention to this stuff and giving some serious backup to elected leaders that want to stop it now.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 14, 2011)

hellofromwarsaw said:


> "He, however, didn't wring his hands about what a terrible and unmanageable mess he inherited. He set about working with Congress to restore fiscal sanity while assuring Americans that they were fixing it, what we could expect, and brighter days were ahead. We could look forward encouraged and expecting great things. And he delivered."
> 
> And quadrupled the debt. But he didn't have an opposition who obstructed EVERYTHING, with a fear mongering Propaganda machine bitching about EVERYTHING 24/7/365, and huge loudmouth brainwashed dupe 1/2 nation...



Bullshit!


----------



## Flopper (Aug 14, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


Yes, they one year exemptions and can be renewed each year till 2024.


----------



## emilynghiem (Aug 14, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Score is still in favor of the mandates. This will be decided by the SC.
> ...



The article you linked seemed to point to the necessity of the mandate to meet the OTHER mandated condition that all people with preexisting conditions be covered.

So this is a self-perpetuating loop!

If the law did not attempt to mandate universal coverage on private insurance companies, then it would not need to require all people to purchase it!

This really seems like a case of no one wanting to admit that the
Emperor we are all staring at is butt naked.

This is totally blurring the lines between private industry and government taxation
to pay for public services. I think the only reason this went so far, is it did provide emergency means to save some lives in the meantime while this is debated
how to achieve greater coverage in a CONSTITUTIONAL way. This isn't it.
This is a mess.

If you cannot see this is unconstitutional, you have no business making
government decisions that are supposed to reflect the consent and interests
of the public. 

The fastest way I see to fix this is
1. change Opt Out to Opt In and make this bill optional
so anyone who believes in following or funding it still has the right to do as they believe
without imposing on those who dissent
2. separate the health care policies and exchanges along the same party lines
that the votes indicate. so the liberal Democrats who vote for mandated policies can
run their own exchange based on that; the independents and conservative Republicans and Tea Party members who want free enterprise without mandates can set up and fund their own exchanges under that policy; and the Greens and single-payer supporters can set up their system. I see no problem with a public option as long as there is no manipulation by govt on the provision and pricing of supplies and services.

In general the Democrats who voted for this have to get real.
How can you argue for no government interference or regulation of abortion
and then argue for government mandates at the same time?

The only way I see to afford to pay for everyone's coverage is to MANDATE
health codes like no smoking or drinking or drug addictions, compel all people
to go through spiritual healing therapy to get rid of disease and causes of
ills to reduce the costs of more evasive or expensive treatments, and you
CANNOT mandate that!!! So you are asking to separate church and state
but then mandating people to pay the costs without responsibility for one's health.

What a mess. Which judge is going to be as brave as the little girl
in the story with the honesty to point out the Emperor is naked.
When are we going to snap out of this whole ruse, really!


----------



## dblack (Aug 14, 2011)

emilynghiem said:


> This really seems like a case of no one wanting to admit that the Emperor we are all staring at is butt naked.



Well said.


----------



## dblack (Aug 14, 2011)

Good article in the Nation:




> The individual mandate was always a bad idea. Instead of recognizing that healthcare is a right, the members of Congress and the Obama administration who cobbled together the healthcare reform plan created a mandate that maintains the abuses and the expenses of for-profit insurance companiesand actually rewards those insurance companies with a guarantee of federal money.
> ...




While I think the discussion of health care as a 'right' badly misconstrues what rights are, it's good to see liberals who recognize the hypocrisy inherent in ACA.


----------



## The Rabbi (Aug 14, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



What's going to change next year that will reverse the logic of the exemption?

The Health Care Act is a disaster. Every indicator says that it will be.  It will result in rationed care and yes, death panels.  Look at the statements of Donald Berwick and that is exactly what he is talking about.
The Democrats have managed to take the best health care system in the world and trash it.  Obamacare needs to be repudiated wholesale.  The individual mandate is essential to the program, as Democrats said repeatedly during the debates on it.  It is unconstitutional.  Therefore since there is no severability clause in the legislation the whole thing needs to go.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 14, 2011)

The simple fact that there had to be waivers and exemptions immediately after the bill was passed should have been enough to tell us that it is a piece of crap bill.

The fact that it had to be passed in backroom deals and bribes to certain congressmen should have told us it was a piece of crap bill.

Obamacare does not do what we needed it to do. Lower healthcare costs........


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 14, 2011)

&#8220;We have to pass the (health care) bill so you can find out what is in it&#8221;.

&#8220;Unemployment benefits are creating jobs faster than practically any other program&#8221;

 &#8220;Every week we don&#8217;t pass a Stimulus package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs.&#8221;

- Nancy Pelosi at work,,,


----------



## BoycottTheday (Aug 14, 2011)

The best thing that could have been done about health care would have been tort reform imho.


----------



## Intense (Aug 14, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > At least one version of it did provide access to Individual Saving Accounts.
> ...



*I did. And there's nothing in the link or the legislative text posted to support that assertion. Which is because it was never true, even for that older bill (which, again, isn't the Affordable Care Act).
*

I did not make it up Greenbeard. The Link affirms everything you denied was in it. It is a dead issue now, because it is not in the current Bill, true you pointed that out correctly. You have the Link and the article, in which the language is plain.
Correcting the Record on ObamaCare's Access to Individuals' Bank Accounts


----------



## Intense (Aug 14, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



That's another vein for Campaign Financing, right?


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 14, 2011)

The Rabbi said:


> Look at the statements of Donald Berwick and that is exactly what he is talking about.



We could even look at some of his papers.

The 100,000 lives campaign: setting a goal and a deadline for improving health care quality
What Practices Will Most Improve Safety?
On the trail of quality and safety in health care
The Business Case For Quality: Case Studies And An Analysis 
Measuring Physicians' Quality and Performance
The Triple Aim: Care, Health, And Cost 

Wow, interesting to see one of the country's foremost experts on quality improvement and patient safety write so much about quality improvement and patient safety.



SFC Ollie said:


> The simple fact that there had to be waivers and exemptions immediately after the bill was passed should have been enough to tell us that it is a piece of crap bill.



Do you think if annual limits in health plans weren't being phased out it would be a good piece of legislation?



Intense said:


> I did not make it up Greenbeard. The Link affirms everything you denied was in it.



No, it doesn't. That's my point. The argument, poorly formulated as it is, seems to be based on two things:

1) The electronic standards are to, among other things, _"enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual&#8217;s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility"_ and _"enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims ..."_. Judging by the use of bold in the article, that second one is particularly important (as is use of the word "individual").

2) The second part seems to be the real crux of it:

In fact, this is so clearly defined in the bill, that on page 64, the language for "operating rules" (which regulate the "using and processing [of] transactions") is changed in a related section to add the phrase "on behalf of an individual." Combine the two, and you have the government paying for services on behalf of an individual from the individual's account.​
The author has clearly drawn a conclusion, yet it makes no sense and doesn't follow from anything else that has been laid down. "The government" hasn't even entered in the equation (beyond Medicare adhering to the same standards as everyone else when it pays claims), as this is about electronic communications between private insurers and private providers. Nor has any individual's bank account. The text references private insurers making payments on behalf of individuals, which I take it is supposed to be the scary, offending piece of the puzzle--_except that's what private insurers do_. They pay all or part of the clam for you. 

I can't really grasp how this is supposed to be contorted into the government (not mentioned in the text) accessing your bank account (not mentioned in the text), but I don't think that's a failing on my part--that article is really just argument by innuendo. There's no there there.

Let me give you a very simple example of what these standards would have been for. A few months ago, I had some dental work done. As I was leaving, the admin person estimated what my share of the costs would be and I paid it. Several weeks later I received a letter from my insurer in the mail showing the value of the claim submitted by the dentist's office and the portion that had been reimbursed by the insurer. Lo and behold the difference (my share) was actually smaller than what I had paid on the day of the visit. Which means I then had to wait a few more weeks to get a check from the dentist's office correcting the overpayment.

Now, in the 21st century it's entirely possible for that process to take place in closer to 6 minutes than six weeks, avoiding the initial overcharge of the consumer (me) in the first place. That requires the information systems of my provider and my insurance company to speak to each other real time.

What would they be communicating about in my case?

Well, first my dentist's admin people wouldn't give me an--ultimately incorrect--estimate of my share of the costs, they would communicate with the insurer in real time and tell me exactly what I personally owe (_"enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual&#8217;s financial responsibility at the point of service"_). That eliminates the annoying initial overcharge and the wait-for-the-reimbursement-check-to-come-in-the-mail delay.

Of course, stepping back a bit, I might have needed to verify that my insurer would pay for part of the dental work I got and that my dentist is or still is in my insurer's network (_"enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of [...] whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility"_). If I needed that done, it would be great to have it verified in real-time on-site.

But now the work is all done, the admin folks have charged me the correct amount (which _I_ still pay for out of _my_ account). However, it still remains for my insurer to pay my dentist its share, which could take a few weeks. Now, as an individual, I don't care so much about this part because it's between the dentist and the insurer but they sure care about it. Imagine if they resolved it over the course of a few minutes instead of over the course of a few weeks of exchanging paper related to the insurance claim (_"enable, where feasible, near real-time adjudication of claims ..."_).

Of course, in my case I _did_ care about this because my financial responsibility for those services wasn't determined in real-time and thus wasn't calculated correctly--thus I had to wait for the insurer-provider reimbursement process to occur, and then I had to wait for additional time beyond that to get my money back from the provider. Granted this is a somewhat trivial example that pales in comparison to equivalent situations in which someone is receiving actual medical care (no offense, dentists!). But I hope it gets the point across.

Allowing this real time communication between insurers and providers to allow things like the real-time calculation of my portion of the tab and the amount the insurer will be charged (yes, on behalf of me, the individual) requires uniform standards for the information and financial transfers, in large part to make sure my information is protected. *But none of this involves anyone, including the government, going into your bank account*. Do you see what these standards are for?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 14, 2011)

As I think back in time it seems as though there was never a sentence in this piece of crap legislation that our Mr Greenjeans didn't love. In fact he was an expert on this legislation before it even passed congress. Seems as though he knew more about it than any of the congress critters........

Just thinking out loud...................................


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 14, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> As I think back in time it seems as though there was never a sentence in this piece of crap legislation that our Mr Greenjeans didn't love. In fact he was an expert on this legislation before it even passed congress. Seems as though he knew more about it than any of the congress critters........
> 
> Just thinking out loud...................................



I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that neither "Mr. Greenjeans" nor any o the congress critters have ever read the entire bill and not one could competently recite all the key points in it, let alone the little nuances and traps and obscured meanings and intent that will be surfacing for years to come if the legislation is not reversed. You can cram a lot of smoke and mirrors and legalese into 2200 pages.


----------



## boedicca (Aug 14, 2011)

ObamaCare raises the costs of health care as a ratio of GDP - this is widely acknowledged in DC now that the bill is available to read and analyze.

As it was sold on the basis of "bending the cost curve down", it no longer meets the "fake but accurate" pretense of its promoters.

Better to kill it off now.


----------



## dblack (Aug 14, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that neither "Mr. Greenjeans" nor any o the congress critters have ever read the entire bill and not one could competently recite all the key points in it, let alone the little nuances and traps and obscured meanings and intent that will be surfacing for years to come if the legislation is not reversed. You can cram a lot of smoke and mirrors and legalese into 2200 pages.



And the biggest gotchas are yet to come, given that most of the key decisions have been deferred. The whole thing will be a lobbyist smorgasbord.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 14, 2011)

dblack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that neither "Mr. Greenjeans" nor any o the congress critters have ever read the entire bill and not one could competently recite all the key points in it, let alone the little nuances and traps and obscured meanings and intent that will be surfacing for years to come if the legislation is not reversed. You can cram a lot of smoke and mirrors and legalese into 2200 pages.
> ...



The lobbyists don't worry me anywhere near as much as the bureaucrats do.  It will be they who write the rules and regulations to implement and enforce legislation so vague they will have an almost free hand doing so.  And you can be sure, if a pro-Obamacare Preident and/or Congress is in power, those rules and regs will put us as close to 100% socialized medicine as they can get.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 14, 2011)

It's hard to believe that the American style of healthcare will continue into the 21st century.  Currently there are 62 million people on Medicaid.  Add to that another 30 million that don't qualify for Medicaid but can not afford insurance and you have nearly 1 in 3 people who can not get healthcare without government assistance.  Think the recession has helped bring down the rising healthcare cost, think again.  USAToday reported healthcare cost rose 9% in 2010.  If the healthcare cost increases we have seen in the first decade of the century continue, healthcare cost, will triple in the next 20 years with or without Obamacare.

There is no question that healthcare will have to be rationed.  The question is how is to be rationed? 

Report: Health care costs to rise 9% in 2010 - USATODAY.com


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 14, 2011)

Flopper said:


> It's hard to believe that the American style of healthcare will continue into the 21st century.  Currently there are 62 million people on Medicaid.  Add to that another 30 million that don't qualify for Medicaid but can not afford insurance and you have nearly 1 in 3 people who can not get healthcare without government assistance.  Think the recession has helped bring down the rising healthcare cost, think again.  USAToday reported healthcare cost rose 9% in 2010.  If the healthcare cost increases we have seen in the first decade of the century continue, healthcare cost, will triple in the next 20 years with or without Obamacare.
> 
> There is no question that healthcare will have to be rationed.  The question is how is to be rationed?
> 
> Report: Health care costs to rise 9% in 2010 - USATODAY.com



First off, according to my Doctor, healthcare is already rationed. Secondly, the entire original Idea of healthcare reform was to make healthcare more affordable. Somewhere along the way that was forgotten in favor of more power, control, and of course if they had their way, taxes.


----------



## Intense (Aug 14, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Look at the statements of Donald Berwick and that is exactly what he is talking about.
> ...



I see what was implied, and that is subject to interpretation. It was poorly written, it is not in he current Bill. Regardless of intention it was poorly written. That is how bad things happen. That is how bad People Usurp Power. It is a dead issue.


----------



## Intense (Aug 14, 2011)

(CNSNews.com) - The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Tuesday that it has awarded $28.8 million to 67 community health centers with funds from the Obamacare health reform law. 

Of that $28.8 million, "approximately $8.5 million will be used by 25 New Access Point awardees to target services to migrant and seasonal farm workers," Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Spokeswoman Judy Andrews told CNSNews.com. HRSA is a part of HHS.

Andrews said that grant recipients will not check the immigration status of people seeking services.

&#8220;Health centers do not, as a matter of routine practice, ask about or collect data on citizenship or other matters not related to the treatment needs of the patients seeking health services at the center,&#8221; Andrews said.

Further, the grant recipients are required to serve "all residents" who walk through their doors.

&#8220;The Program&#8217;s authorizing statute does not affirmatively address immigration status,&#8221; said Andrews. &#8220;Rather, it simply states that health centers are required to provide primary health care to all residents of the health center's service area without regard for ability to pay.&#8221;

These Obamacare disbursements seem to contradict a claim President Obama famously made in a nationally televised speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009.

&#8220;The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,&#8221; Obama said then.

ObamaCare Watch


----------



## Intense (Aug 14, 2011)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is not so much a set of norms to regulate conduct as an authorization to administrators to produce norms to regulate conduct. Implementation of the Act will require many years and literally thousands of administrative regulations that will determine its substantive content and coverage. Under current law, those regulations will be promulgated through so-called informal rulemaking procedures, which offer very limited opportunities for public input. A recently introduced bill, H.R. 1432, proposes that rulemakings under the PPACA be conducted using formal rulemaking procedures that enhance the transparency and accountability of the rulemaking process. The idea deserves serious consideration. While formal rulemaking has largely disappeared from the modern administrative scene, it offers some significant advantages in the right setting, and the PPACA may very well be the right setting.
Formal Rulemaking and Transparency for Obamacare Regulations


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 14, 2011)

Let's just kill the law and then we can forget it.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 14, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > It's hard to believe that the American style of healthcare will continue into the 21st century.  Currently there are 62 million people on Medicaid.  Add to that another 30 million that don't qualify for Medicaid but can not afford insurance and you have nearly 1 in 3 people who can not get healthcare without government assistance.  Think the recession has helped bring down the rising healthcare cost, think again.  USAToday reported healthcare cost rose 9% in 2010.  If the healthcare cost increases we have seen in the first decade of the century continue, healthcare cost, will triple in the next 20 years with or without Obamacare.
> ...


You are correct on both counts.  Healthcare is rationed today.  Those who can afford it or those with  government assistance have healthcare and those who don't do without.  But if healthcare cost continues to rise at 9%, we will need a lot more rationing.

The healthcare law that Obama first introduced was a single payer system.  It would have reduced  the insurance cost part of healthcare but when the insurance companies were thrown back into the mix, the bill was no longer about affordable healthcare but rather equitable healthcare.  IMHO, the next healthcare bill, call it a repeal or Obamacare II, will address cost.  I think Obamacare is only the first in a number of healthcare bills we will see over this decade.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 14, 2011)

Correct Obamacare never addressed real cost savings in healthcare.  Of course, neither will adding everyone to the system.


----------



## dblack (Aug 14, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Healthcare is rationed today.  Those who can afford it or those with government assistance have healthcare and those who don't do without.



That's the opposite of rationing.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 14, 2011)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Healthcare is rationed today.  Those who can afford it or those with government assistance have healthcare and those who don't do without.
> ...


You're correct.  I meant that today healthcare is made available to those that can pay or have government assistance.  In the future we will have to make healthcare available based on other criteria for example need.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 14, 2011)

Or we could get the federal government out of it entirely and let the free market work.  When we did that, most people paid for their doctor's visits, shots, broken fingers or whatever, and most people could afford the healthcare they had to have.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 15, 2011)

I'm looking at a bill for $425 for a trip to the doctor.  Two years ago there was $45,000 for a stay in the hospital.  Those prices are twice what they were 10 years ago and half what they will be in 10 years.  

You can repeal the healthcare law, shit can Medicare and Medicaid and those prices are going to keep going up, maybe not quite as fast but they're going to keep rising.  Before the government, became a major player in healthcare, costs began rising.  Healthcare costs started rising in the 1950's, 4% of GDP in 1955, 5% in 1960, 7.5% in 1970,  9.5% in 1980, 12% in 1990...  The increased costs tracks fairly well the increase in the use of healthcare insurance and the rise in of new developments in healthcare.  Neither of these is going away.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 15, 2011)

> I think Obamacare is only the first in a number of healthcare bills we will see over this decade.



Lets hope so. Until a single payer system is installed. 

We need to get insurance companies out of the business of health maintenance and back into the business of *actual Health Insurance*  used only for catastrophic illness or injury, traditional supplemental policies.


----------



## sparky (Aug 15, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Or we could get the federal government out of it entirely and let the free market work.



we could, but what that would mean to many here is we get the insurance cabal out of Congress as well to do so

~S~


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 15, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > I think Obamacare is only the first in a number of healthcare bills we will see over this decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The last thing we need is an unscrupulous bureaucracy that has no competition and no real oversight 100% control over our health care costs.  That is the absolute last thing we need.

Immie


----------



## dblack (Aug 15, 2011)

Flopper said:


> I'm looking at a bill for $425 for a trip to the doctor.  Two years ago there was $45,000 for a stay in the hospital.  Those prices are twice what they were 10 years ago and half what they will be in 10 years.



Absolutely. Runaway health care inflation is the number one problem with health care. ACA doesn't just ignore this problem, it yanks enthusiastically on the same levers that caused it in the first place. 



> Before the government, became a major player in healthcare, costs began rising.  Healthcare costs started rising in the 1950's, 4% of GDP in 1955, 5% in 1960, 7.5% in 1970,  9.5% in 1980, 12% in 1990...  The increased costs tracks fairly well the increase in the use of healthcare insurance and the rise in of new developments in healthcare.



Government influence in health care tracks right along with these numbers. The over-reliance on health insurance followed the tax incentives and labor polices that began in the 50's. Even if you don't want to admit that government created the problem, it's clear that the ACA doesn't resolve it. We need to reverse course, but the ACA just pushes us headlong into the same ravine.


----------



## Claudette (Aug 15, 2011)

Yup into the ravinie then right over the cliff. 

The Govt has never run anything cheaply or well and anyone who thinks Obamacare is gonna be cheaper and better is living in lalaland.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 15, 2011)

sparky said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Or we could get the federal government out of it entirely and let the free market work.
> ...


There is no way government is going to get out of healthcare.  There are 62 million on Medicaid and 50 million on Medicare.  Then add another 5 million in the VA healthcare system. That's 1/3 of the  population.   With the US passing Obamacare, all developed countries have some form of universal care.  Russia is the only country that has a program to move government out of the healthcare business and it has been a miserable failure.  The population&#8217;s health has deteriorated on virtually every measure and costs have risen.  Like it or not, government's presence in healthcare is here to stay.  Instead of trying to turn the clock back, we should be trying to make the healthcare system work better.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 15, 2011)

Before government got involved in healthcare, just about everybody could afford that doctor's visit and paid for it out of pocket.  A shot or a prescription was also something people could and did pay out of pocket.  The very few who couldn't pay the modest fees received a bill and were expected to pay it out as they were able.  Ditto for the emergency room or the first couple of hundred or so of a hospital stay.

So nobody abused the system because it cost them something to do so.

We all pay up front out of pociket for maintenance, repairs, and service on our appliances, houses, automobiles, heating and air conditioning systems, etc. etc. etc.   To think that it is somehow immoral to for people to pay up front out of pocket for routine healthcare and maintenance is absurd.  Aren't people of capable of putting as much importance on our health as we are our automobiles?

And under that system the USA had the very best healthcare in the world.  We were the envy of everybody.

But the more the government got involved, the more the system was twisted and thrown out of kilter.  No longer were honest market driven costs the norm but what anybody could cheat or obfusicate or manipulate because the government would pay the price.  And that is a cancer that begins to affect other products and services that are all interconnected.  And it didn't take long before routine healthcare was artificially inflated for everybody so that it is now difficult to go to the doctor if you don't have insurance.

It should not be that way.

Get government out of it entirely and let the free market work.  And we will again have the very best and affordable healthcare in the world.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 15, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Before government got involved in healthcare, just about everybody could afford that doctor's visit and paid for it out of pocket.  A shot or a prescription was also something people could and did pay out of pocket.  The very few who couldn't pay the modest fees received a bill and were expected to pay it out as they were able.  Ditto for the emergency room or the first couple of hundred or so of a hospital stay.
> 
> So nobody abused the system because it cost them something to do so.
> 
> ...


Yes, people could afford to go to the doctor because a trip to the doctor did not include 15 blood test, immunization for Influenza, Pneumonia, Hepatitis, Mumps, Measles, and recommended specialize diagnostic tests and procedures.

If people had to pay for all their healthcare, you're absolutely correct, costs would come down however so would life expectancy.  Insurance with high deductibles would seem to be the answer because it makes the patient more responsible.  However, we know that high deductible policies encourage people to bypass physical exams, immunizations, maintenance drugs, and low cost procedures that prevent illnesses that are very expensive to treat.  In addition, the poor are not likely to have enough money to pay a high deducible. 

I don't think putting up to a 1/3 of the population in jeopardy of dying or suffering from curable diseases because they don't have the money to pay for treatment is going to be the answer.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 15, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Before government got involved in healthcare, just about everybody could afford that doctor's visit and paid for it out of pocket.  A shot or a prescription was also something people could and did pay out of pocket.  The very few who couldn't pay the modest fees received a bill and were expected to pay it out as they were able.  Ditto for the emergency room or the first couple of hundred or so of a hospital stay.
> ...



And I don't think your point of view will hold up under scrutiny.  But what makes a leftwinger a leftwinger is looking to big government to be nanny, protector, rescuer, and insurance policy against all evils.  What makes a conservative a conservative is believing in the right of the people to choose to do what is best for them and not taking that right away from them.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 15, 2011)

Tort reform would go a long way to end redundant or unnecessary tests.  Having to pay for some of the costs can help prevent frequent visits too.  The poor will still default to emergency services, because they provide a free ride.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 15, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Eliminating the federal government from healthcare is about as likely as eliminating it's involvement in the monetary system.  That train left a long time ago.


----------



## dblack (Aug 15, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Eliminating the federal government from healthcare is about as likely as eliminating it's involvement in the monetary system.  That train left a long time ago.



Yup... and the bridge ahead is washed out. I say we slow that sucker down enough that we can jump off!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 15, 2011)

Duelling appellate decisions guarantees a busy SCOTUS.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 15, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Tort reform would go a long way to end redundant or unnecessary tests.  Having to pay for some of the costs can help prevent frequent visits too.  The poor will still default to emergency services, because they provide a free ride.


I agree tort reform would help, but there are bigger factors to consider. We must reward quality of care not quantity of care, promote prevention, encourage wellness and take better care of those with chronic illnesses (*who account for at least 70 percent of health costs*).


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 15, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Before government got involved in healthcare, just about everybody could afford that doctor's visit and paid for it out of pocket.  A shot or a prescription was also something people could and did pay out of pocket.



How much did an MRI or CT scan cost in those days?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Aug 15, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Before government got involved in healthcare, just about everybody could afford that doctor's visit and paid for it out of pocket.  A shot or a prescription was also something people could and did pay out of pocket.
> ...



I paid $75 for my last MRI. Guess how much the guy right behind me with a union health insurance pan got charged.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 15, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Before government got involved in healthcare, just about everybody could afford that doctor's visit and paid for it out of pocket.  A shot or a prescription was also something people could and did pay out of pocket.
> ...



There were no MRIs or CT scans when Medicare went into effect.  But a chest x-ray would run the patient about $15.  Something more complicated maybe a bit more.  A hospital bed was about $35/night for a semi-private room.  Patients who couldn't afford their bills were set up on contracts to pay it out - at $10/month if that is all they could afford.  But nobody expected healthcare for free.

I was working for a hospital the day Medicare went into effect.  And from Day 1 there was abuse of the system and from that day costs began rising at an unprecedented rate and have been escalating ever since.  Medicaid made it worse.  And all the other stuff they've included in those programs have made healthcare unaffordable for anybody.

We need to get the federal government out of it.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 16, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


Comparing an X-ray to an MRI or CT Scan is like comparing a magnifying glass to a microscope.  I agree you didn't pay much for medical care but you didn't get much compared to today.  Cancer survival rates today are twice what they were then.  Diseases we had no treatment for then are being  treated and cured. 

Medical advances have come at a high cost, hundreds of billions in research, machines such as an MRI costing a million dollars or more, and hundreds of new highly trained medical professionals.  One of the things that is really driving up cost is that we are developing treatments for much less common diseases. This means there're fewer people to pay the costs.  These costs will continue to accelerate as we tackle more rare diseases.

Of course government adds cost to healthcare but using government as a scapegoat for all problems is counterproductive.  Without government involvement in healthcare most of the medical marvels of the last half century would not be available to large segment of the population.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 16, 2011)

> And I don't think your point of view will hold up under scrutiny. But what makes a leftwinger a leftwinger is looking to big government to be nanny, protector, rescuer, and insurance policy against all evils. What makes a conservative a conservative is believing in the right of the people to choose to do what is best for them and not taking that right away from them.



What makes a conservative a conservative is adhering blindly to dogma in spite of the facts, such dogma as all government is bad or &#8216;the left&#8217; advocates government involvement in all aspects of life. What the right fails to understand (among many, many other things) is that a pragmatic approach is the best approach, a blend of private and public sector &#8211; go with what works, not what only conforms to a particular political ideology. 

And the best approach is a single payer system, where supplemental insurance can be bought for those who believe they need it. As noted, government isn&#8217;t getting out of healthcare, it&#8217;s far too expensive for many Americans to afford and the costs too great for a so-called &#8216;free market&#8217; solution.


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 16, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > And I don't think your point of view will hold up under scrutiny. But what makes a leftwinger a leftwinger is looking to big government to be nanny, protector, rescuer, and insurance policy against all evils. What makes a conservative a conservative is believing in the right of the people to choose to do what is best for them and not taking that right away from them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sorry which of these two plans are you advocating? It's like yes and no, you can't have them both.......


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 16, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > And I don't think your point of view will hold up under scrutiny. But what makes a leftwinger a leftwinger is looking to big government to be nanny, protector, rescuer, and insurance policy against all evils. What makes a conservative a conservative is believing in the right of the people to choose to do what is best for them and not taking that right away from them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To the tune of "The Wheels on the Bus".

Health care costs go up and up, up and up, up and up. Health care costs go up and up all through the land.

Immie


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 16, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> There were no MRIs or CT scans when Medicare went into effect.



Indeed! Many, many treatments and technologies didn't exist when Medicare was created. The pace of advancement and change in medicine over the past half century has been staggering. Contrasting the modern medical landscape with a single professional with a black bag and a stethoscope making house calls in Mayberry--and blaming "government" for the difference--is a pretty weak analysis.

Yes, the payment system initially adopted by Medicare from the private sector of reimbursing fee-for-service at customary, prevailing and reasonable rates was bad. I'd be the first to agree that payment policy matters profoundly. But a bit more has changed on the road from Mayberry to Mayo than just the government paying for the care of the elderly.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 16, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > There were no MRIs or CT scans when Medicare went into effect.
> ...



Yet government invovlement IS the biggest and most influential difference between the two.  Certificates of Need, rules and regualtions for receiving Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, no help in limiting lawsuits, favoring large metropolitan in rates and a host of other things.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Aug 16, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



That's funny.


----------



## clevergirl (Aug 16, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...



There are a complexity of reasons why healthcare costs go up. Still, with regards to entitlement spending on medicare and medicaid, those costs are exponentially unexplainable when comparing to private medical costs. 

One other cost, that few realize exists is that we, the US, basically subsidize prescription drug costs for much of the rest of the globe. If we socialized our medicine to the degree the UK or Canada does, we would expect the same discounts on pharma- meaning those countries, who are already sinking from their "free" medicine would have to absorb our new savings.

Republican's really did offer great solutions- interstate deregulation; flex accounts; medical co-ops; etc. These are market place ideas as opposed to nanny state inefficiencies that do nothing for real care, but do strangle economies.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 16, 2011)

All good points CleverGirl.

As I posted earlier, from Day One that Medicare went into effect, we saw medical providers take advantage of government payments that would not be questioned.  Until then we all got copies of our medical bills whether at the doctors office or emergency room or hospital.  We could SEE charges for things we never asked for or received and would question them and they were taken off.  Private insurance companies also scrutinized the bills and challenged anything that looked out of line.

Enter government medicine with artificially capped payments but unchallenged 'unnecessary medical care/treatment' and the whole system was almost immediately skewed.  No longer market driven, the government determined costs and payments which were artificially low requiring medical providers/suppliers to shift costs to others driving everybody's out of pocket costs and insurance premiums higher.

Let the free market work and honest costs will be involved.

As for litigation, it just didn't happen except in cases of gross negligence.  The doctor didn't order any tests or treatment that were not medically indicated.  Defensive medicine was unnecessary and now that alone accounts for almost half of all medical costs outside of surgical, cancer treatment, and other unusually costly care.

Enter government medicine and more and more unnecessary tests ordered because the government would pay for them and that became the norm.  A doctor who didn't order the tests would be challenged as negligent.  A whole new cottage industry for the legal profession cropped up.  Ambulance chasers weren't just after people involved in accidents any more but were looking for ANY possible oversight or ommission as an excuse to sue doctors and other medical professionals.  Malpractice insurance went through the roof and half our costs are now for stuff that isn't medically indicated but they don't dare not give it to us.

All that would be required is some legal cover.  The doctor offers the treatment or test or whatever along with his professional opinion whether it is medically indicated, the patient has the right to accept or decline, it is noted in the chart, and the doctor won't be sued for not ordering a test that isn't medically indicated via the symptoms or circumstances.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 16, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > > And I don't think your point of view will hold up under scrutiny. But what makes a leftwinger a leftwinger is looking to big government to be nanny, protector, rescuer, and insurance policy against all evils. What makes a conservative a conservative is believing in the right of the people to choose to do what is best for them and not taking that right away from them.
> ...


A single payer system only defines how the system is financed not how services are delivered.  Under a single payer system, healthcare facilities can be privately owned, thus forming a partnership between private enterprise and government.

Medical care has never been a very profit orientated business.  Only 18% of our hospitals are privately owned.  The reminder are government owned or non-profits.  Listening to the rhetoric, you would think government posed some danger of destroying the heart of free enterprise and capitalism in the country.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 16, 2011)

clevergirl said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...


Your're right about drugs.  Brand name drugs bought outside the US run 1/4 to 1/2 what we pay in the US.  These are the same drugs you buy in the US, often manufactured in the same facility.  Thanks to lobbyist efforts, the government has seen fit to protect the drug companies by banning  importation.  Obama signed an executive order allowing limited importation by individuals.  There's legislation in congress and pressure on the white house to stop even this.   

We are paying for the research and development cost of drugs for whole world.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 16, 2011)

Single payer is control of choices, options, quality, access that was NEVER intended to be a role of the Federal government in a nation that values unalienable rights and considers those first above all other concerns.  Socialism, facism, and Marxism all presumably put the needs of the most at the forefront and do not recognize unalienable rights. And those eventually create such misery that they transition to dictatorships or totalitarian governments so that the government retains control.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 16, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Single payer is control of choices, options, quality, access that was NEVER intended to be a role of the Federal government in a nation that values unalienable rights and considers those first above all other concerns.  Socialism, facism, and Marxism all presumably put the needs of the most at the forefront and do not recognize unalienable rights. And those eventually create such misery that they transition to dictatorships or totalitarian governments so that the government retains control.


Seems like I've heard this before.  Single payer eliminates the insurance companies, that's it.  Most people today don't really have a choice of carrier.  Because of costs, they have to accept whoever their employer selects.  Once on the plan, most people are restricted again by cost to a select network of providers. 

As long as we keep arguing about whether government or insurance companies are to be the carrier, focus is drawn away from the major cause of high healthcare cost, the way we delivery healthcare in America.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 16, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Single payer is control of choices, options, quality, access that was NEVER intended to be a role of the Federal government in a nation that values unalienable rights and considers those first above all other concerns.  Socialism, facism, and Marxism all presumably put the needs of the most at the forefront and do not recognize unalienable rights. And those eventually create such misery that they transition to dictatorships or totalitarian governments so that the government retains control.
> ...



When government doesn't screw up the free market system--before government screwed up the free market system for healthcare--insurance companies had to compete with each other to attract policy holders.  Make the premiums unaffordable and the company goes out of business.   And there was strong incentive among medical providers and suppliers to also compete so that the people would use them and the insurance companies would authorize them.

Make the hospitals provide free medical care to those who can't or won't pay or provide free healthcare courtesy of the taxpayer, however, and the free market system goes out the window along with our freedoms, choices, options, opportunities, and control over our own destinies.


----------



## dblack (Aug 16, 2011)

Flopper said:


> As long as we keep arguing about whether government or insurance companies are to be the carrier, focus is drawn away from the major cause of high healthcare cost, the way we delivery healthcare in America.



How we pay for health care IS the major cause of high healthcare costs. Over-insured consumers fail to provide any downward price pressure. In one sense I agree with your point, it doesn't really matter whether health care consumers are over-insured through private corporations, or state-supported. Either approach drives price inflation the same way.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 16, 2011)

Flopper said:


> SFC Ollie said:
> 
> 
> > C_Clayton_Jones said:
> ...



Single payer is government control with zero competition.

That means the government can charge you whatever the hell they want for your health insurance and there is not a damned thing you can do about it.  

They get their revenues by payroll taxes?  They simply raise the payroll tax.

Revenue from employer premiums?  Raise the premiums.

There would be no way for us to control our costs except the fallacious threat of voting them out of office and they will laugh in your faces every time you make that idiotic threat.

Immie


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 16, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Single payer is control of choices, options, quality, access that was NEVER intended to be a role of the Federal government in a nation that values unalienable rights and considers those first above all other concerns.  Socialism, facism, and Marxism all presumably put the needs of the most at the forefront and do not recognize unalienable rights. And those eventually create such misery that they transition to dictatorships or totalitarian governments so that the government retains control.
> ...



At least the employer, who is generally looking out for themselves as well, can choose another carrier if the one they chose before is not doing the job.

Immie


----------



## Conservative (Aug 16, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Without government involvement in healthcare most of the medical marvels of the last half century would not be available to large segment of the population.



link to credible source for this information please???


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 16, 2011)

Conservative said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Without government involvement in healthcare most of the medical marvels of the last half century would not be available to large segment of the population.
> ...



There is no such link, the rope he used to pull that out of his ass broke....


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 16, 2011)

Oh come on, everybody wants to buy a multimillion dollar piece of equipment and then not allow people to use it.


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 16, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Yet government invovlement IS the biggest and most influential difference between the two.





saveliberty said:


> Oh come on, everybody wants to buy a multimillion dollar piece of equipment and then not allow people to use it.



Really? You sure the biggest difference in input costs and health spending between the single doctor with the black bag and the facility housing "multimillion dollar pieces of equipment" is...government involvement?



clevergirl said:


> There are a complexity of reasons why healthcare costs go up. Still, with regards to entitlement spending on medicare and medicaid, those costs are exponentially unexplainable when comparing to private medical costs.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 18, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


The free market system in the deliver of healthcare has been dead for many years and nothing is going to revive it.  82% of our hospitals are nonprofit or government owned.  Almost a third of our doctors are salaried and the percent is rising each year.  1 out 3 American's healthcare is partially or fully paid for by the government.  

As far as choice goes, you're limited to the insurance carrier your employer picks and to the network of doctors and hospitals the insurance company picks.  The insurance company formulary determines the drugs it covers and the procedures it pays for is purely at it's own discretion.  Of course you can have choice, but only if you can afford it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 18, 2011)

Blind ideologue, no facts, just dogma: 



> When government doesn't screw up the free market system--before government screwed up the free market system for healthcare--insurance companies had to compete with each other to attract policy holders. Make the premiums unaffordable and the company goes out of business. And there was strong incentive among medical providers and suppliers to also compete so that the people would use them and the insurance companies would authorize them.
> 
> Make the hospitals provide free medical care to those who can't or won't pay or provide free healthcare courtesy of the taxpayer, however, and the free market system goes out the window along with our freedoms, choices, options, opportunities, and control over our own destinies.



Facts, no dogma:



> The free market system in the deliver of healthcare has been dead for many years and nothing is going to revive it. 82% of our hospitals are nonprofit or government owned. Almost a third of our doctors are salaried and the percent is rising each year. 1 out 3 American's healthcare is partially or fully paid for by the government.
> 
> As far as choice goes, you're limited to the insurance carrier your employer picks and to the network of doctors and hospitals the insurance company picks. The insurance company formulary determines the drugs it covers and the procedures it pays for is purely at it's own discretion. Of course you can have choice, but only if you can afford it.


Correct. 

The blind adherence to rightist dogma will be the end of this Nation.


----------



## Dude111 (Aug 18, 2011)

CaféAuLait said:
			
		

> BREAKING NEWS: Appeals court rules part of President Obamas health care law unconstitutional


Good because IT IS!!


----------



## dblack (Aug 18, 2011)

Dude111 said:


> Good because IT IS!!



I'm much more hopeful about getting it turned around than I've been in the past. I'm reading more and more from independents and Democrats indicating that it's not just the Obama-haters who realize that the mandate is a really bad idea. At the same time we could see the court set some clear constraints around the abuse of the commerce clause as the all-purpose tool to expand the scope of federal government. Call me an optimist, but this whole fiasco could produce some pretty decent results in terms of constitutional precedent.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 19, 2011)

dblack said:


> Dude111 said:
> 
> 
> > Good because IT IS!!
> ...


If the mandate is overturned, the government can do what they did with the Medicare Part D program.  If you don't sign up initially, you pay more latter for insurance.


----------



## Patrick2 (Aug 19, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


----------



## BoycottTheday (Aug 19, 2011)

Flopper said:


> If the mandate is overturned, the government can do what they did with the Medicare Part D program.  If you don't sign up initially, you pay more latter for insurance.



They can do more than that.



Feds Get Real-Time Access to Patient Bank Accounts Under ObamaCare


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 19, 2011)

BoycottTheday said:


> They can do more than that.
> 
> Feds Get Real-Time Access to Patient Bank Accounts Under ObamaCare



Some bullshit never dies, does it? Wonderful example of a zombie lie.


----------



## dblack (Aug 19, 2011)

Flopper said:


> If the mandate is overturned, the government can do what they did with the Medicare Part D program.  If you don't sign up initially, you pay more latter for insurance.



There's a wide variety of things they _could_ do that would be better than the mandate, including nothing at all.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 19, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Blind ideologue, no facts, just dogma:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Amazing that rightist dogma will ruin the nation though it made this nation the greatest the world has ever known but leftist dogma, without any way to back it up, is spot on.

Prejudice, ideology, and tunnel vision is an amazing thing.


----------



## saveliberty (Aug 19, 2011)

Anyone disagree that leftist policies are in play throughout Western Europe?  Please explain how those economic policies are helping?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 19, 2011)

saveliberty said:


> Anyone disagree that leftist policies are in play throughout Western Europe?  Please explain how those economic policies are helping?



How can anyone do that with a straight face?


----------



## BoycottTheday (Aug 19, 2011)

SFC Ollie said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone disagree that leftist policies are in play throughout Western Europe?  Please explain how those economic policies are helping?
> ...



Cant a lefty doit with a gay face?


   

Dont get mad @ me, gay used to mean happy


----------



## Flopper (Aug 19, 2011)

Patrick2 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre said:
> ...


----------



## BoycottTheday (Aug 19, 2011)

Whats so bad about dying?


----------



## Flopper (Aug 19, 2011)

BoycottTheday said:


> Whats so bad about dying?


can't post anymore


----------



## Flopper (Aug 19, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> All good points CleverGirl.
> 
> As I posted earlier, from Day One that Medicare went into effect, we saw medical providers take advantage of government payments that would not be questioned.  Until then we all got copies of our medical bills whether at the doctors office or emergency room or hospital.  We could SEE charges for things we never asked for or received and would question them and they were taken off.  Private insurance companies also scrutinized the bills and challenged anything that looked out of line.
> 
> ...


Foxfyre, I enjoy reading your post, although I can't say I agree.  What is missing from your posts, at least from the ones I have read, you don't address how you would take government out of healthcare.  With the government paying full or partial payment of a hundred million people's healthcare, congress can not just cut it off.  Even a gradually phase out would not only be opposed by the left, but all those that are benefiting from the system, which would include a number from the right.   This is why I believe, you must work withing the current system, with all of it's shortcoming


----------



## dblack (Aug 19, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre, I enjoy reading your post, although I can't say I agree.  What is missing from your posts, at least from the ones I have read, you don't address how you would take government out of healthcare.  With the government paying full or partial payment of a hundred million people's healthcare, congress can not just cut it off.  Even a gradually phase out would not only be opposed by the left, but all those that are benefiting from the system, which would include a number from the right.   This is why I believe, you must work withing the current system, with all of it's shortcoming



I'm not clear on what you're getting at here. Are you agreeing we should get government out of health care? (and just pointing out that it would difficult) Or are you saying it would be difficult, so we shouldn't try?

We'd get government out of health care by first recognizing that it's a problem. Until we can do that, it won't change. We'll continue down this same path and see just how bad it gets.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 20, 2011)

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Foxfyre, I enjoy reading your post, although I can't say I agree.  What is missing from your posts, at least from the ones I have read, you don't address how you would take government out of healthcare.  With the government paying full or partial payment of a hundred million people's healthcare, congress can not just cut it off.  Even a gradually phase out would not only be opposed by the left, but all those that are benefiting from the system, which would include a number from the right.   This is why I believe, you must work withing the current system, with all of it's shortcoming
> ...


 No, I don't think we should get government out of healthcare but that wasn't my point.  Many posts go on and on about the evils of government in healthcare and just about everything else, yet no one seems to offer any sensible way of separating the two.  

It's not that I think it would be difficult, I think it would be almost impossible under our current form of government.  Government involvement in healthcare started when Teddy Roosevelt campaigned for universal healthcare and has grown steadily for a hundred years.  Today a third of the population receives some healthcare assistance from the  government.  I think government support of healthcare has gone too far to reverse it.  We would be better off attempting to improve the current system, than wasting the effort trying to turn the clock back a hundred years.


----------



## waltky (Aug 20, 2011)

Couple of guests on Charlie Rose tonight talking about the economy...

... one made the point that its going to take consumer demand to get the economy going again...

... that got me to thinking...

... what will happen to consumer demand when the premiums of Obamacare demand to be paid?

Seems to me that will shunt money from most peoples' pocketbooks away from buying goods and services...

.. to paying the premiums instead of spurring the economy.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 20, 2011)

waltky said:


> Couple of guests on Charlie Rose tonight talking about the economy...
> 
> ... one made the point that its going to take consumer demand to get the economy going again...
> 
> ...



There is a plan to cut costs.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 20, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> waltky said:
> 
> 
> > Couple of guests on Charlie Rose tonight talking about the economy...
> ...





The best the combined efforts of the President and Democrats and Republicans in Congress could do was to essentially cut no costs this year or next year and reduce the projected future costs so that the debt is projected to climb only $7 trillion more over the next 10 years.  That is IF they didn't lowball that figure (which they ALWAYS do) and IF future Congresses implement the listed spending cuts, and if you believe that will happen I have a nice assortment of bridges to show you.

We are now $14+ trillion in debt, the debt clock is running so fast it is a blur, our credit rating has been downgraded and still includes a negative outlook meaning more downgrades could be coming, the economy is so slow the debt now approximates the GDP, and the Preident is wanting more stimulus spending.

And we're not broke???????  Lordy, if we don't do something about education soon, we're absolutely doomed.

And if we don't defund and rescind Obamacare and put Congress on a strict revenue diet, it isn't going to matter anyway.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 20, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > waltky said:
> ...



I was going through you tube clips of Pelosi. She thanked the insurance companies for their support.  WELL DUH


----------



## dblack (Aug 20, 2011)

Full-Auto said:


> I was going through you tube clips of Pelosi. She thanked the insurance companies for their support.  WELL DUH



I'm sure they were very thankful in return.


----------



## Common_Tater (Aug 21, 2011)

Wouldn't forcing people to buy auto insurance also be unconstitutional?


----------



## SFC Ollie (Aug 21, 2011)

Common_Tater said:


> Wouldn't forcing people to buy auto insurance also be unconstitutional?



Nope, you have a choice to drive or own a car and not to do so..........


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 21, 2011)

Common_Tater said:


> Wouldn't forcing people to buy auto insurance also be unconstitutional?





SFC Ollie said:


> Common_Tater said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't forcing people to buy auto insurance also be unconstitutional?
> ...



I have to disagree with Ollie on his reason.  

The states have the right to mandate auto insurance as one of the powers of the states via the 10th Amendment.  The federal government does not mandate auto insurance.  Only the states do.  In the same manner, states could pass mandated health insurance coverage.  The states can not the federal government.

BTW: Welcome to USMB.  Enjoy you time with us.

Immie


----------



## Flopper (Aug 21, 2011)

Foxfyre said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > waltky said:
> ...


The healthcare law makes possible the addition of 14 million more people to Medicaid. It does not actually add anyone because the states have to come up with their share of the cost.  In most states it's 50%.  I would think with the current financial situation, it will be some time before the states can match federal funds.

I'm surprised that those that really want to get government out of healthcare, are not lobbying to revoke their state Medicaid laws.  Medicaid is a state program so the state should be able to discontinue it.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 21, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> Common_Tater said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't forcing people to buy auto insurance also be unconstitutional?
> ...


Massachusetts requires citizens to carrier health insurance as do a number of foreign countries.  I'm not sure if any other state has that requirement.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 21, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Common_Tater said:
> ...



As far as I know only Massachusetts does at this point in time.  Should Massachusetts law prove a workable idea then I suspect other states would follow suit.

I don't know enough about the Massachusetts law, but I am not keen on government control of the health insurance industry.  Strike that up to not trusting politicians or bureaucrats.

Immie


----------



## BoycottTheday (Aug 21, 2011)

I was always told driving was a privilege not a right.

So mandating insurance for a privilege doesnt seem like a big deal to me.


----------



## Immanuel (Aug 21, 2011)

BoycottTheday said:


> I was always told driving was a privilege not a right.
> 
> So mandating insurance for a privilege doesnt seem like a big deal to me.



Your parents told you that, didn't they?  

Of course, now that I am a parent, I see their point.  

Immie


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 21, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



Medicare is broke now.  Next stop 30 trillion debt?


----------



## BoycottTheday (Aug 21, 2011)

Immanuel said:


> BoycottTheday said:
> 
> 
> > I was always told driving was a privilege not a right.
> ...



no, it was the Ohio State patrol...

After my first ticket,

 for Evasion when i was 16.

Tell ya what,

 that was the last time i used pa's car to try to outrun the cops


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 21, 2011)

BoycottTheday said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > BoycottTheday said:
> ...



LOL  I owned my first car at 15. I used to park it a few blocks away so the ole man wouldnt find out. Never did either.


----------



## BoycottTheday (Aug 21, 2011)

When i was 15 id just steal ma's car when they wernt looking


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 21, 2011)

BoycottTheday said:


> When i was 15 id just steal ma's car when they wernt looking



When I was that age, if it didnt cause me trouble, it wasnt worth doing. Could be how I ended up at Dads.


----------



## BoycottTheday (Aug 21, 2011)

Just being typical old school Kids, if we wernt going to trouble we were coming from it .


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 21, 2011)

BoycottTheday said:


> Just being typical old school Kids, if we wernt going to trouble we were coming from it .



Youve been repped sir!


----------



## Greenbeard (Aug 21, 2011)

Flopper said:


> I'm surprised that those that really want to get government out of healthcare, are not lobbying to revoke their state Medicaid laws.  Medicaid is a state program so the state should be able to discontinue it.



Most of them probably realize (1) that Medicaid is huge for local and state economies, and (2) that withdrawing from Medicaid doesn't eliminate the need to support local health centers, pay for long-term care, and provide care for low-income people. Even states like Texas and Wyoming that have made noises about opting out of Medicaid and commissioned studies this year to analyze the potential impact on the state ended up with reports suggesting that opting out wasn't a good idea.


----------



## Foxfyre (Aug 21, 2011)

Mandating reasonable liability insurance for vehicles that will be sharing the road with other people's vehicles is a perfectly sound policy.  When we get behind the wheel on public roads and highways, we are voluntarily accepting a degree of risk and also creating a degree of risk for others.  But only liability insurance should be mandated by the government and not collision, comprehensive, and other insurance we buy to cover risk to our persons and property.

Those who drive only on private roads or who leave their cars parked are not required to have insurance, nor should they.  They are not causing any risk for others, and it would be a violation of our property rights to force us to buy insurance we do not need or want or can't afford when it doesn't affect anybody but us.

The same rationale should apply to medical insurance.


----------



## Flopper (Aug 22, 2011)

Greenbeard said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > I'm surprised that those that really want to get government out of healthcare, are not lobbying to revoke their state Medicaid laws.  Medicaid is a state program so the state should be able to discontinue it.
> ...


I agree.  However, if the federal government tried to shut down Medicaid, the first to scream would be the states as it would double their cost.


----------

