You are mixing up the rolls/taxes of federal and state. Are you from the US?

[QUOTE=OmahaJoe;19029025]If it were struck down give a tax credit to everyone having health care would have been the work around. same same but different.

Damn, you're getting dumber by the post.

:helpme

I think our healthcare system is a mess.

We are a family of three, and it costs more to insure us than my wife makes on a month by month basis. That's insane. A third of my income should not be going towards healthcare costs.

A friend of mine has three kids, a wife, and himself. His wife has Crohn's disease and needs regular treatment, and his son too has huge medical problems. Over hal of his income goes to healthcare costs.

Someone needs to do something here, and they need to move past this fucking bickering and come to an agreement.

[QUOTE=Michael O;19029052]Returning someones taxes is very different than taxing someone for not doing something.

I am not for the US so I might be mixing up things but you pay your tax and does it really matter where it goes? taxes are taxes.

Lets do something that I think is 100% government.
Should you pay for the defense of your country.
For FEMA if you are in NY or NJ where the chances are a lot lower than in FL or hurricane/flood prone states
DHS if you live in the wild in Colorado or have a farm in Montana why should you pay the same as someone in NY or DC which is about 100.000.000 times the risk of an terrorist attack?

No taxes are not taxes. Federal taxes and state taxes are different. Some feel the more local the tax the better because we can spend the money on what we think is best and we have more control over where the money is spent. Federal taxes are far removed from the local people and thus we have far less control over how the money is spent.

If you want to create Obamacare in Mass like Romney did, fine. But people from surrounding states should not have to pay for it.

It takes 12 years to finish through high school in America.

:helpme

BINGO! :thumbsup:)



.

I was nice before, but fuck it. You do not have a dog in this fight, your opinion is worthless and full of crap. Fuck your opinion. I DO NOT WANT TO BE FORCED TO BUY MEDICAL INSURANCE WHEN I REFUSE TO EVEN HAVE A FUCKING DOCTOR.

Got it?

and he should know

I am sure all those poor people you are concerned with are going to love the additional burden of health insurance costs.

.. but OBAMA brought the price of gas down ... isn`t it around 3.20/ gal. ?

When I watch all the Facebook status updates from my Canadian friends talking about how fucked up their medical care is it makes me wonder how the hell people like Chris can come in here saying Obamacare is a good thing. I guess misery truly loves copmpany

You are so fucking stupid it is past being funny. :2 cents:

Yes, you know when you're waiting there filling out the 150 page questionnaire, as 10 white trailor trash in labor, get a deductible waiver, as your deductible is $1200 (cash), so your kid can get a few stitches from ridding his skateboard.

Can't wait!


:1orglaugh

As an American, I'm glad to see this decision. I hope it continues to improve and health care becomes free for all Americans. I also hope we can lower the costs, if not make education free for all Americans, as well.

It's my belief every American should get free health care and a free education.

It's a step in the right direction and I hope one day it will be.

It's just as free as all other free shit we get.


:1orglaugh

Yes because the USA has the best health care model and doesn't need to change it at all?

At a 1% penalty, the thought of dropping my $8K a year insurance sounds like a savings.

And Obama has promised not to arrest anyone who does not pay the 1%. :thumbsup But I would not take his word on that.

Price for private college here in SC: $26,000/year
Price for public college here in SC: $2500/year

So much for what you said

For those who think the 'free market knows all'

Insurance company stocks are down 5-7% on the news

Hospital stocks are up 5-7% on the news

The result of this decision is that more money will be paid to hospitals while insurance companies profit less in the middle from what private investors seem to be saying.

Maybe, because there will be increased competition from new state pools and other alternatives to currently existing insurance companies?

Did I say that? Go fix a fucking sandwich or something. jeez

And then we will all win the lottery and ride unicorns.

The fellow a few houses down from me is the chief of surgery at a local hospital. His house is large and expensive. He has one daughter at Stanford and a son at Harvard. I can say with a large degree of confidence that he won't be working for free any time soon.

I just filled up my Smart car. $3.63 per gallon.

Thankyou Mr. Obama

Don't you already ride a unicorn?

I can understand hospital stocks rising, because they will be doing more business if more people have coverage.

I can understand insurance stocks dropping, because there will be new competition to them that doesn't exactly exist yet.

Surely you didn't expect the market not to react, even if only moderately.

Local hospital charged an uninsured kid $85,000 (and expected to increase further) for a tibia/fibular fracture after he fell off his bike.

I do ride a unicorn, It's great to get around the midwest quickly for the many business meetings I attend.

Relentless made the post on stocks.

Already in effect:

It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)

It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )

It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )

It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.

It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.

It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )

It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )

Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.

Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.

Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).

Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.

New ways to stop fraud are created.

Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.

Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.

Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.

A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).

A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.

A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.

A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.

Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.
8/1/2012

Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.

1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners.

1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.

If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.

Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )

Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher.
Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.

Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.

Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.
Cut some Medicare spending

Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.

Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.

Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.

A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.

A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.

A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.

The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.

1/1/2015
Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat.

1/1/2017
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).

2018
All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).
A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).

2020
The elimination of the "Medicare gap"

Interesting article from the weekly standard blog:


"What Did SCOTUS Just Do?


11:31 AM, Jun 28, 2012 ? By JAY COST

Was today's Supreme Court Obamacare decision a win for conservatives or a loss? It depends on what you were rooting for.

If you were above all interested in the bill being struck down, it was mostly a loss. On the other hand, if you were more concerned about the qualitative expansion in the power of the government that the bill represented, it was definitely a win.

First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power.

Second, the Roberts Court also threw out a portion of the Medicaid expansion. States have the option of withdrawing from the program without risk of losing their funds. This is another major victory for conservatives who cherish our system of dual sovereignty. This was also a big policy win for conservatives; the Medicaid expansion was a major way the Democrats hid the true cost of the bill, by shifting costs to the states, but they no longer can do this.

Politically, Obama will probably get a short-term boost from this, as the media will not be able to read between the lines and will declare him the winner. But the victory will be short-lived. The Democrats were at pains not to call this a tax because it is inherently regressive: the wealthy overwhelmingly have health insurance so have no fear of the mandate. But now that it is legally a tax, Republicans can and will declare that Obama has slapped the single biggest tax on the middle class in history, after promising not to do that.

Conservatives have a shot at getting the best of both worlds: having the Supreme Court use Obamacare as a way to limit federal power while also using the democratic process to overturn the law. I didn't think we could have one without the other, but now maybe we can.

If Obama loses in November, that is..."

If it wasn't for ObamaCare, the people mentioned by Rochard wouldn't be able to get insurance on their own because the free market excluded them so your point is invalid. As someone with Crohns myself I was only recently allowed to purchase health insurance as all carriers rejected me or would exclude Crohns claims.

:thumbsup Glad you're covered!

I don't expect the result of this ruling or the law (even in its present condition) will be anyone working for free... Do you?

We are headed for a three tier system:
1) A single payer system that covers basic healthcare across the board
2) A private insurance option for people seeking additional supplemental insurance for things outside the coverage provided by the single payer plan
3) An upper crust of Doctors and services that accept cash only (much the same way they do right now) from a wealthy clientele who can afford their services.


The questions that remain will be what is 'basic' healthcare and what can be done to reduce the waste inherent in the system. As one simple example, virtually no basic medical policy covers dental expenses currently... yet it is well-established that basic dental care is a key component of preventative care that reduces the risk of much worse and much more expensive to treat illnesses down the road. The aggregation of medical treatment information would have an enormous impact on lowering costs... but has never been possible because people rightly fear that the information might be used against them (especially by insurance companies citing preexisting conditions). With that barrier removed, how quickly and how well can we build a healthcare system that learns from unsuccessful methods and benefits from proven best practices...

Those are the issues that do need to be wrestled with once the political heat simmers down. :2 cents:

Here is a simple fix champ.

Make hospitals and insurance companies non-profit as they once were.

:2 cents:

So far I do not see how this makes health care more affordable for me. I make too much to get medicaid, too little to get health insurance.

interesting stuff Shotsie, thanks for the post or repost.

The reference was for posters who continue to blurt FREE HEALTHCARE. There is no way possible for healthcare to be free for the masses. Someone will pay for it. If private business gets tasked for the job,then everyone's prices will go up. And in many cases, a lot.

If the healthcare law would've been written in three simple sentences there would've not been any need for the supreme court to be involved. The whole idea falls flat,when the government decided to get involved.

A sad day for America.

On that we agree. Nothing is 'free' and nobody with any sense thinks healthcare will be objectively free. However, if structured properly and enforced correctly the increase in costs will be considerably lower than the runaway cost increases we are already facing. We are #1 in money spent on health and #37 in quality of care provided. We can and must do better than that.

In areas of luxury, private businesses do a fantastic job of setting prices. In areas of necessity, not so much. Imagine if your electric company could raise their rates at will by 30% or more. How absurd is it to think that individuals would have to pay for police services on a affordability basis. We do not play games with other necessities, yet we have been treating healthcare as if it were a luxury item and allowing for-profit insurance middlemen to dominate the pricing decisions.

It's past time to build a workable system. Obama doesn't deserve any credit for that, this Act is not the system we need in place. He does deserve credit for moving the issue forward and exposing how broken the old version of healthcare was. It is ironic that the guy running against him built an effective version of Obama care in Massachusetts. He ought to campaign on the notion that he can build it nationally better than Obama... instead he is campaigning on the idea that the best thing he did as a Governor was a massive mistake. A weird twist from any angle.

why can't anyone see the inevitable big picture?

4 more years! Thank You Justice Roberts!

There is still a reason we will actually run an election. What happened today could very well ignite the republicans to vote this clown out of office.

The insurance company lobby won.

Big business won.

It would take a lot more than that to repeal the law at this point.

Repealing it would require a President who is interested in repealing it (Romney has said he is, but he has said a lot of things and he pushed a similar law into effect as Governor). Even if he wanted to repeal it, he would also require a 60 vote majority in the Senate, which would include several major upsets in local elections. The momentum of a policy like this is very hard to reverse.... and once it actually starts affecting people in their day to day life it will be even harder to put the genie back in the bottle.

Opponents of the law would be much better suited applying their energy to putting forward workable revisions and creative improvements to the existing document. So would proponents of the law. The status quo was more unacceptable than the new law and that says a lot about the status quo... It's time to push forward and transform the healthcare system into something that gets better results with less revenue. :2 cents: