ObamaCare upheld.

[twozerosix]

Originally Posted by superblyTRIFE

Serious question here. To those opposed to the ACA, what is an alternative, realistic solution to getting our healthcare system back on track? I often hear opposition and criticism, but rarely a plan to fix an obviously broken system.

A private, market-based system.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by firmePORvida



Really? I work for DPH and all the M.D. here praise the ACA.

DPH as in Department of Pubic Health?

Government bureaucracy employees happy with an extension of bureaucracy resources does not surprise me.

That's why I asked, because people in private practice are going feel a lot different than people who are on a salary working for the government.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by firmePORvida



Really? I work for DPH and all the M.D. here praise the ACA.

DPH as in Department of Pubic Health?

Government bureaucracy employees happy with an extension of bureaucracy resources does not surprise me.

How exactly is this an extension of bureaucracy?

From what  understand this system that the obama administration has come up with was made to avoid having the government control and administer health care.

 

[ballrn23]

Sick care, which is our current "health" care system, will always be unsustainable regardless of how efficient it can get. THAT, is the real issue and unfortunately that's what is being overlooked because it sure does make money!

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by rashi


DPH as in Department of Pubic Health?

Government bureaucracy employees happy with an extension of bureaucracy resources does not surprise me.

How exactly is this an extension of bureaucracy?

From what  understand this system that the obama administration has come up with was made to avoid having the government control and administer health care.

Here is a small list I found:

1. Grant program for consumer assistance offices (Section 1002, p. 37)

2. Grant program for states to monitor premium increases (Section  1003, p. 42)

3. Committee to review administrative simplification standards  (Section 1104, p. 71)

4. Demonstration program for state wellness programs (Section 1201, p.  93)

5. Grant program to establish state Exchanges (Section 1311(a), p. 130)

6. State American Health Benefit Exchanges (Section 1311(b), p. 131)

7. Exchange grants to establish consumer navigator programs (Section  1311(i), p. 150)

8. Grant program for state cooperatives (Section 1322, p. 169)

9. Advisory board for state cooperatives (Section 1322(b)(3), p. 173)

10. Private purchasing council for state cooperatives (Section  1322(d), p. 177)

11. State basic health plan programs (Section 1331, p. 201)

12. State-based reinsurance program (Section 1341, p. 226)

13. Program of risk corridors for individual and small group markets  (Section 1342, p. 233)

14. Program to determine eligibility for Exchange participation  (Section 1411, p. 267)

15. Program for advance determination of tax credit eligibility  (Section 1412, p. 28

16. Grant program to implement health IT enrollment standards (Section  1561, p. 370)

17. Federal Coordinated Health Care Office for dual eligible  beneficiaries (Section 2602, p. 512)

18. Medicaid quality measurement program (Section 2701, p. 51

19. Medicaid health home program for people with chronic conditions,  and grants for planning same (Section 2703, p. 524)

20. Medicaid demonstration project to evaluate bundled payments  (Section 2704, p. 532)

21. Medicaid demonstration project for global payment system (Section  2705, p. 536)

22. Medicaid demonstration project for accountable care organizations  (Section 2706, p. 53

23. Medicaid demonstration project for emergency psychiatric care  (Section 2707, p. 540)

24. Grant program for delivery of services to individuals with  postpartum depression (Section 2952(b), p. 591)

25. State allotments for grants to promote personal responsibility  education programs (Section 2953, p. 596)

26. Medicare value-based purchasing program (Section 3001(a), p. 613)

27. Medicare value-based purchasing demonstration program for critical  access hospitals (Section 3001(b), p. 637)

28. Medicare value-based purchasing program for skilled nursing  facilities (Section 3006(a), p. 666)

29. Medicare value-based purchasing program for home health agencies  (Section 3006(b), p. 66

30. Interagency Working Group on Health Care Quality (Section 3012, p.  68

31. Grant program to develop health care quality measures (Section  3013, p. 693)

32. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 3021, p. 712)

33. Medicare shared savings program (Section 3022, p. 72

34. Medicare pilot program on payment bundling (Section 3023, p. 739)

35. Independence at home medical practice demonstration program  (Section 3024, p. 752)

36. Program for use of patient safety organizations to reduce hospital  readmission rates (Section 3025(b), p. 775)

37. Community-based care transitions program (Section 3026, p. 776)

38. Demonstration project for payment of complex diagnostic laboratory  tests (Section 3113, p. 800)

39. Medicare hospice concurrent care demonstration project (Section  3140, p. 850)

40. Independent Payment Advisory Board (Section 3403, p. 982)

41. Consumer Advisory Council for Independent Payment Advisory Board  (Section 3403, p. 1027)

42. Grant program for technical assistance to providers implementing  health quality practices (Section 3501, p. 1043)

43. Grant program to establish interdisciplinary health teams (Section  3502, p. 104

44. Grant program to implement medication therapy management (Section  3503, p. 1055)

45. Grant program to support emergency care pilot programs (Section  3504, p. 1061)

46. Grant program to promote universal access to trauma services  (Section 3505(b), p. 1081)

47. Grant program to develop and promote shared decision-making aids  (Section 3506, p. 108

48. Grant program to support implementation of shared decision-making  (Section 3506, p. 1091)

49. Grant program to integrate quality improvement in clinical  education (Section 3508, p. 1095)

50. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health  (Section 3509(a), p. 109

51. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women's Health (Section  3509(b), p. 1102)

52. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women's  Health (Section 3509(e), p. 1105)

53. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women's  Health (Section 3509(f), p. 1106)

54. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (Section  3509(g), p. 1109)

55. National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council  (Section 4001, p. 1114)

56. Advisory Group on Prevention, Health Promotion, and Integrative  and Public Health (Section 4001(f), p. 1117)

57. Prevention and Public Health Fund (Section 4002, p. 1121)

58. Community Preventive Services Task Force (Section 4003(b), p. 1126)

59. Grant program to support school-based health centers (Section  4101, p. 1135)

60. Grant program to promote research-based dental caries disease  management (Section 4102, p. 1147)

61. Grant program for States to prevent chronic disease in Medicaid  beneficiaries (Section 4108, p. 1174)

62. Community transformation grants (Section 4201, p. 1182)

63. Grant program to provide public health interventions (Section  4202, p. 118

64. Demonstration program of grants to improve child immunization  rates (Section 4204(b), p. 1200)

65. Pilot program for risk-factor assessments provided through  community health centers (Section 4206, p. 1215)

66. Grant program to increase epidemiology and laboratory capacity  (Section 4304, p. 1233)

67. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 4305, p.  123

68. National Health Care Workforce Commission (Section 5101, p. 1256)

69. Grant program to plan health care workforce development activities  (Section 5102(c), p. 1275)

70. Grant program to implement health care workforce development  activities (Section 5102(d), p. 1279)

71. Pediatric specialty loan repayment program (Section 5203, p. 1295)

72. Public Health Workforce Loan Repayment Program (Section 5204, p.  1300)

73. Allied Health Loan Forgiveness Program (Section 5205, p. 1305)

74. Grant program to provide mid-career training for health  professionals (Section 5206, p. 1307)

75. Grant program to fund nurse-managed health clinics (Section 5208,  p. 1310)

76. Grant program to support primary care training programs (Section  5301, p. 1315)

77. Grant program to fund training for direct care workers (Section  5302, p. 1322)

78. Grant program to develop dental training programs (Section 5303,  p. 1325)

79. Demonstration program to increase access to dental health care in  underserved communities (Section 5304, p. 1331)

80. Grant program to promote geriatric education centers (Section  5305, p. 1334)

81. Grant program to promote health professionals entering geriatrics  (Section 5305, p. 1339)

82. Grant program to promote training in mental and behavioral health  (Section 5306, p. 1344)

83. Grant program to promote nurse retention programs (Section 5309,  p. 1354)

84. Student loan forgiveness for nursing school faculty (Section  5311(b), p. 1360)

85. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors and outcomes  (Section 5313, p. 1364)

86. Public Health Sciences Track for medical students (Section 5315,  p. 1372)

87. Primary Care Extension Program to educate providers (Section 5405,  p. 1404)

88. Grant program for demonstration projects to address health  workforce shortage needs (Section 5507, p. 1442)

89. Grant program for demonstration projects to develop training  programs for home health aides (Section 5507, p. 1447)

90. Grant program to establish new primary care residency programs  (Section 5508(a), p. 145

91. Program of payments to teaching health centers that sponsor  medical residency training (Section 5508(c), p. 1462)

92. Graduate nurse education demonstration program (Section 5509, p.  1472)

93. Grant program to establish demonstration projects for community- based mental health settings (Section 5604, p. 1486)

94. Commission on Key National Indicators (Section 5605, p. 1489)

95. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled  nursing facilities (Section 6102, p. 1554)

96. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities  (Section 6103(a)(3), p. 1561)

97. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section  6103(b)(3), p. 156

98. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing  facilities and nursing facilities (Section 6112, p. 1589)

99. Demonstration projects for nursing facilities involved in the  culture change movement (Section 6114, p. 1597)

100. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (Section 6301, p.  1619)

101. Standing methodology committee for Patient-Centered Outcomes  Research Institute (Section 6301, p. 1629)

102. Board of Governors for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research  Institute (Section 6301, p. 163

103. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (Section 6301(e),  p. 1656)

104. Elder Justice Coordinating Council (Section 6703, p. 1773)

105. Advisory Board on Elder Abuse, Neglect, and Exploitation (Section  6703, p. 1776)

106. Grant program to create elder abuse forensic centers (Section  6703, p. 1783)

107. Grant program to promote continuing education for long-term care  staffers (Section 6703, p. 1787)

108. Grant program to improve management practices and training  (Section 6703, p. 178

109. Grant program to subsidize costs of electronic health records  (Section 6703, p. 1791)

110. Grant program to promote adult protective services (Section 6703,  p. 1796)

111. Grant program to conduct elder abuse detection and prevention  (Section 6703, p. 179

112. Grant program to support long-term care ombudsmen (Section 6703,  p. 1800)

113. National Training Institute for long-term care surveyors (Section  6703, p. 1806)

114. Grant program to fund State surveys of long-term care residences  (Section 6703, p. 1809)

115. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 8002, p. 1926)

116. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 8002, p. 1927)

117. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 8002, p. 1931)

118. Personal Care Attendants Workforce Advisory Panel (Section  8002(c), p. 193

119. Multi-state health plans offered by Office of Personnel  Management (Section 10104(p), p. 2086)

120. Advisory board for multi-state health plans (Section 10104(p), p.  2094)

121. Pregnancy Assistance Fund (Section 10212, p. 2164)

122. Value-based purchasing program for ambulatory surgical centers  (Section 10301, p. 2176)

123. Demonstration project for payment adjustments to home health  services (Section 10315, p. 2200)

124. Pilot program for care of individuals in environmental emergency  declaration areas (Section 10323, p. 2223)

125. Grant program to screen at-risk individuals for environmental  health conditions (Section 10323(b), p. 2231)

126. Pilot programs to implement value-based purchasing (Section  10326, p. 2242)

127. Grant program to support community-based collaborative care  networks (Section 10333, p. 2265)

128. Centers for Disease Control Office of Minority Health (Section  10334, p. 2272)

129. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Minority  Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)

130. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Office  of Minority Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)

131. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Minority  Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)

132. Food and Drug Administration Office of Minority Health (Section  10334, p. 2272)

133. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Office of Minority  Health (Section 10334, p. 2272)

134. Grant program to promote small business wellness programs  (Section 10408, p. 2285)

135. Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p. 2289)

136. Cures Acceleration Network Review Board (Section 10409, p. 2291)

137. Grant program for Cures Acceleration Network (Section 10409, p.  2297)

138. Grant program to promote centers of excellence for depression  (Section 10410, p. 2304)

139. Advisory committee for young women's breast health awareness  education campaign (Section 10413, p. 2322)

140. Grant program to provide assistance to provide information to  young women with breast cancer (Section 10413, p. 2326)

141. Interagency Access to Health Care in Alaska Task Force (Section  10501, p. 2329)

142. Grant program to train nurse practitioners as primary care  providers (Section 10501(e), p. 2332)

143. Grant program for community-based diabetes prevention (Section  10501(g), p. 2337)

144. Grant program for providers who treat a high percentage of  medically underserved populations (Section 10501(k), p. 2343)

145. Grant program to recruit students to practice in underserved  communities (Section 10501(l), p. 2344)

146. Community Health Center Fund (Section 10503, p. 2355)

147. Demonstration project to provide access to health care for the  uninsured at reduced fees (Section 10504, p. 2357)

148. Demonstration program to explore alternatives to tort litigation  (Section 10607, p. 2369)

149. Indian Health demonstration program for chronic shortages of  health professionals (S. 1790, Section 112, p. 24)*

150. Office of Indian Men's Health (S. 1790, Section 136, p. 71)*

151. Indian Country modular component facilities demonstration program  (S. 1790, Section 146, p. 10*

152. Indian mobile health stations demonstration program (S. 1790,  Section 147, p. 111)*

153. Office of Direct Service Tribes (S. 1790, Section 172, p. 151)*

154. Indian Health Service mental health technician training program  (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 173)*

155. Indian Health Service program for treatment of child sexual abuse  victims (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 192)*

156. Indian Health Service program for treatment of domestic violence  and sexual abuse (S. 1790, Section 181, p. 194)*

157. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (S. 1790,  Section 181, p. 204)*

158. Indian youth life skills demonstration project (S. 1790, Section  181, p. 220)*

159. Indian Health Service Director of HIV/AIDS Prevention and  Treatment (S. 1790, Section 199B, p. 25*

 

[firmeporvida]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by rashi


DPH as in Department of Pubic Health?

Government bureaucracy employees happy with an extension of bureaucracy resources does not surprise me.

That's why I asked, because people in private practice are going feel a lot different than people who are on a salary working for the government.

They were expressing personal opinion vs. programmatic benefits

 

[DownByLaw]

Originally Posted by nightruans

So basically it forces you to pay 1% of your families monthly income on health care if you don't have it?
Lets say a couple earns 60K annually together- 30 each, and they did NOT have health insurance- they would have to pay 600 dollars monthly for them to have health insurance in 2014 or else it is illegal?

I wonder if now there will be "health insurance evasion" 

You're leaving out a very important detail in your fantasy land scenario. The employer of your said couple will have to offer insurance to all of its employees. The couple will have insurance and won't have to pay $600 a month.

The real issue that must be addressed is the cost of health insurance, that's the real elephant in the room.

 

[dj b milk]

8tothe24 wrote:

The Declaration of Independence only proves my point.  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are in the context of a persons rights to be free from government control.  Freedom of self-reliance without having to give one's life for the benefit of anothers'.  Freedom of thought without government control of thought.  Freedom to achieve happiness without devote one's existence to another- hence, happiness. 

The DoI stated that the government work for the people and not the people for the government.  It was a rejection of the British monarchy.  It is this context in which these terms apply.

And in this case the U.S. government is telling us we do have an obligation to the moral existence of others.  We are responsible to pay for the others at the expense of the self.  You are in essence giving of money that would promote your self well-being for the well-being of other individuals.  Of course this situation is not the same, because we as a society "chose" this for ourselves.  Chose, is a relative term because our elected officials passed this tax law without reading the bill, without civil discourse, and without any of the openness and transparency that the Obama administration promised us. 

As I feel for your family's plight.  This tax law did nothing to improve the healthcare system, it only extended benefits to more individuals at the cost of others.  The rising cost needs to be fixed before we dump more people on a broken system.

From a legal perspective, the ACA legal because the SC(including one of the most conservative jurists in the country) has ruled it legal. Your interpretation of the declaration of independence (which is not law) is irrelevant. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars have been saying that the ACA is legal since day one. Legally, the ACA is without a doubt consistent with the constitution. Morally, if you feel that its wrong for the government to essentially take from the rich to help the poor and sick, that's cool. That's up to you. To me, everyone paying a bit more to give access to healthcare to  50 million uninsured Americans is a pretty easy call. 

 

[kadukukicks]

...so overall the healthcare coverage that you will be mandatory will really be preventative coverage for future outrageous hospital bills, medications, emergency room visits, and doctor fees...

...hell I'd rather pay 1k a year and be covered for a surgery or procedure that would cost me 10k+...IMO...

 

[360wavesandxbox]

UPS is hiring... Great insurance for the time being...shoot they can have 15 hours of my time per week.. Wifey just got an IUD..bill? 1550.00? ours costs? NADA! fingers crossed nothing happens to them lol

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN

Originally Posted by nightruans

So basically it forces you to pay 1% of your families monthly income on health care if you don't have it?
Lets say a couple earns 60K annually together- 30 each, and they did NOT have health insurance- they would have to pay 600 dollars monthly for them to have health insurance in 2014 or else it is illegal?

I wonder if now there will be "health insurance evasion" 

You're leaving out a very important detail in your fantasy land scenario. The employer of your said couple will have to offer insurance to all of its employees. The couple will have insurance and won't have to pay $600 a month.

The real issue that must be addressed is the cost of health insurance, that's the real elephant in the room.

Just to clarify, employers don't have to offer insurance; they can not offer insurance or cancel your current insurance, pay the penalty, and force you to either 1) go on the government plan OR 2) force you to get your own health insurance.  And this only applies to companies with more than 50 employees... if you work for a small business, you still have to find your own healthcare or pay the "tax."

 

[dj b milk]

Originally Posted by 360wavesandxbox

UPS is hiring... Great insurance for the time being...shoot they can have 15 hours of my time per week.. Wifey just got an IUD..bill? 1550.00? ours costs? NADA! fingers crossed nothing happens to them lol

haha. Love this post. Congrats on the IUD bruh 

 

[DownByLaw]

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN

Originally Posted by nightruans

So basically it forces you to pay 1% of your families monthly income on health care if you don't have it?
Lets say a couple earns 60K annually together- 30 each, and they did NOT have health insurance- they would have to pay 600 dollars monthly for them to have health insurance in 2014 or else it is illegal?

I wonder if now there will be "health insurance evasion" 

You're leaving out a very important detail in your fantasy land scenario. The employer of your said couple will have to offer insurance to all of its employees. The couple will have insurance and won't have to pay $600 a month.

The real issue that must be addressed is the cost of health insurance, that's the real elephant in the room.

Just to clarify, employers don't have to offer insurance; they can not offer insurance or cancel your current insurance, pay the penalty, and force you to either 1) go on the government plan OR 2) force you to get your own health insurance.  And this only applies to companies with more than 50 employees... if you work for a small business, you still have to find your own healthcare or pay the "tax."

You are correct and I couldn't imagine a company that would do its employees dirty like that, but we both know that's the type of world we live in. Bottom line is this was a step in the right direction. There are more issues that need to be resolved, but with how divided this country is; I don't think you or I will see that in our lifetime.

 

[rawsheed]

Originally Posted by dj B Milk

8tothe24 wrote:

The Declaration of Independence only proves my point.  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are in the context of a persons rights to be free from government control.  Freedom of self-reliance without having to give one's life for the benefit of anothers'.  Freedom of thought without government control of thought.  Freedom to achieve happiness without devote one's existence to another- hence, happiness. 

The DoI stated that the government work for the people and not the people for the government.  It was a rejection of the British monarchy.  It is this context in which these terms apply.

And in this case the U.S. government is telling us we do have an obligation to the moral existence of others.  We are responsible to pay for the others at the expense of the self.  You are in essence giving of money that would promote your self well-being for the well-being of other individuals.  Of course this situation is not the same, because we as a society "chose" this for ourselves.  Chose, is a relative term because our elected officials passed this tax law without reading the bill, without civil discourse, and without any of the openness and transparency that the Obama administration promised us. 

As I feel for your family's plight.  This tax law did nothing to improve the healthcare system, it only extended benefits to more individuals at the cost of others.  The rising cost needs to be fixed before we dump more people on a broken system.

From a legal perspective, the ACA legal because the SC(including one of the most conservative jurists in the country) has ruled it legal. Your interpretation of the declaration of independence (which is not law) is irrelevant. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars have been saying that the ACA is legal since day one. Legally, the ACA is without a doubt consistent with the constitution. Morally, if you feel that its wrong for the government to essentially take from the rich to help the poor and sick, that's cool. That's up to you. To me, everyone paying a bit more to give access to healthcare to  50 million uninsured Americans is a pretty easy call. 
spot on

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN

Originally Posted by 8tothe24

Originally Posted by FIRST B0RN



You're leaving out a very important detail in your fantasy land scenario. The employer of your said couple will have to offer insurance to all of its employees. The couple will have insurance and won't have to pay $600 a month.

The real issue that must be addressed is the cost of health insurance, that's the real elephant in the room.

Just to clarify, employers don't have to offer insurance; they can not offer insurance or cancel your current insurance, pay the penalty, and force you to either 1) go on the government plan OR 2) force you to get your own health insurance.  And this only applies to companies with more than 50 employees... if you work for a small business, you still have to find your own healthcare or pay the "tax."

You are correct and I couldn't imagine a company that would do its employees dirty like that, but we both know that's the type of world we live in. Bottom line is this was a step in the right direction. There are more issues that need to be resolved, but with how divided this country is; I don't think you or I will see that in our lifetime.

Morally it is a step in the right direction.  Economically and level of intrusion by government into decisions that relate to the individual this is completely in the wrong direction.  And like you said, it didn't even address the real problems, it was a power grab.  Now that they have this power over us, they can mold it as they see fit.  And, as soon as the dust settles, both parties will willingly do to the public in what they see best for us.

 

[True Blues]

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by TXCaddyKing

We need single payer with an option to buy private insurance. Everyone will be guaranteed a basic level of healthcare and those that can afford and want extra can get it. Your employer will not have to cover your insurance and theoretically could pay you more. Of course, we would have to pay more taxes, but then there could be price controls.

Love the reply about being thankful for living in Canada. All I ever hear is how Canadians come to the US to go to the doctor.

Yeah sure, believe that propaganda if you want.

Look at any rankings of the quality of health care by country you will find Canada consistently ahead of the united states, especially for the average person, as somebody who has had family go through cancer as US citizens and Canadian citizens, I'm sticking with Canada b. The quality of care was the same, if not better, did not have worry about insurance coverage,  we didn't even have to pay for in home tutoring, while my bro missed school or the nurse that would come to our house daily and deliver shots, and take blood etc.  

Agreed.

The "Canadians traveling to the United States to receive treatment for ailment X" argument is largely fallacy. Rarely (i.e. ultra-wealthy or rare disease) do individuals seeking health care treatment actually do so.

 

[Majorbread]

don't the insured essentially pay for those uninsured anyways?

There isn't a simple solution to complex problems or issues like these.

The whole healthcare insurance system needs to be changed. Prices should be available to consumers to be able to pay out of pocket. Until then they can basically charge whatever they want. Medicare and Insurance companies shouldn't be running at such an absurd profit.

I mean going to the docs office and only paying a co pay? While the trip in its entirety might have cost $200+. It's like going to the gas station and using car insurance to fill up your tank, it just doesn't make sense the way health insurance is used/applied.

Bottom line is that companies focusing soley on the bottom line aren't making our country better as a whole. If we really want to better our country, businesses would be focusing on sustainability and improving OUR economy, but that in essence can hurt the bottom line so they basically DGAF

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by dj B Milk

8tothe24 wrote:

The Declaration of Independence only proves my point.  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are in the context of a persons rights to be free from government control.  Freedom of self-reliance without having to give one's life for the benefit of anothers'.  Freedom of thought without government control of thought.  Freedom to achieve happiness without devote one's existence to another- hence, happiness. 

The DoI stated that the government work for the people and not the people for the government.  It was a rejection of the British monarchy.  It is this context in which these terms apply.

And in this case the U.S. government is telling us we do have an obligation to the moral existence of others.  We are responsible to pay for the others at the expense of the self.  You are in essence giving of money that would promote your self well-being for the well-being of other individuals.  Of course this situation is not the same, because we as a society "chose" this for ourselves.  Chose, is a relative term because our elected officials passed this tax law without reading the bill, without civil discourse, and without any of the openness and transparency that the Obama administration promised us. 

As I feel for your family's plight.  This tax law did nothing to improve the healthcare system, it only extended benefits to more individuals at the cost of others.  The rising cost needs to be fixed before we dump more people on a broken system.

From a legal perspective, the ACA legal because the SC(including one of the most conservative jurists in the country) has ruled it legal. Your interpretation of the declaration of independence (which is not law) is irrelevant. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars have been saying that the ACA is legal since day one. Legally, the ACA is without a doubt consistent with the constitution. Morally, if you feel that its wrong for the government to essentially take from the rich to help the poor and sick, that's cool. That's up to you. To me, everyone paying a bit more to give access to healthcare to  50 million uninsured Americans is a pretty easy call. 

Which is why I said we "chose" it.  Because we elected these morons that passed this thing without even reading it.  Which is why it is exactly what I say it is- a Power Grab.  The left took advantage of the fact they had control of all 3 position to force this through while the striking was hot, they been waiting for this moment for decades.  As for legal scholars opinions, there are many others that argued it is not legal.  But the SCOTUS deemed it legal under the aspect that this is a tax, so it is a legal tax- on all Americans, not just the rich.  As for the DoI, my "interpretation" is based upon "legal scholars" definition of the DoI.  Furthermore, I'm not even the one that brought it into this conversation and I said it was written against the British monarchy and explained why even if it was applicable, why it shows this tax law should not have been passed.  But I am glad you feel your "morality" supersedes the widely accepted position that the government should not be involved in the business of heatlhcare.  Now only if morality was a legal standing.  Hence why I asked you about abortions.  But I already know you are against abortion, because you are for doing the morally right thing and all.

 

[txcaddyking]

Originally Posted by True Blues

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Originally Posted by TXCaddyKing

We need single payer with an option to buy private insurance. Everyone will be guaranteed a basic level of healthcare and those that can afford and want extra can get it. Your employer will not have to cover your insurance and theoretically could pay you more. Of course, we would have to pay more taxes, but then there could be price controls.

Love the reply about being thankful for living in Canada. All I ever hear is how Canadians come to the US to go to the doctor.

Yeah sure, believe that propaganda if you want.

Look at any rankings of the quality of health care by country you will find Canada consistently ahead of the united states, especially for the average person, as somebody who has had family go through cancer as US citizens and Canadian citizens, I'm sticking with Canada b. The quality of care was the same, if not better, did not have worry about insurance coverage,  we didn't even have to pay for in home tutoring, while my bro missed school or the nurse that would come to our house daily and deliver shots, and take blood etc.  

Agreed.

The "Canadians traveling to the United States to receive treatment for ailment X" argument is largely fallacy. Rarely (i.e. ultra-wealthy or rare disease) do individuals seeking health care treatment actually do so.

I don't believe it. I just wish we had a real life Canadian in our office to laugh at all the people who tell this same story about someone they know waiting months to get an x-ray while they wasted away.

I have an opportunity to partner up with someone and start a business. I am afraid to because of the cost of insurance for my family. Right now, I get it through my employer. I have met my deductible of $4k per person for the year for two of us. If I switch coverage now, I not only pay the full premium out of pocket, but my deductible starts all over again. If I lived in Canada, none of this would matter. I could start my business and potentially create jobs for others.

 

[mf doomer]

Eventually this will backfire in costly ways, what kind of healthcare stimulus can benefit 30 million Americans long term?

 

[createdestroy]

Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased:
What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.
Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.
So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):
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, [1] PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( [2] 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. ( [3] 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. ( [4] 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. ( [5] 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. ( [6] 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: [7] 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. ( [8] 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. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in [9] this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.
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"
.
Aaaaand that's it right there.
The biggest thing opponents of the bill have against it is the mandate. They claim that it forces people to buy insurance, and forcing people to buy something is unconstitutional. Personally, I take the opposite view, as it's not telling people to buy a specific thing, just to have a specific type of thing, just like a part of the money we pay in taxes pays for the police and firemen who protect us, this would have us paying to ensure doctors can treat us for illness and injury.
Plus, as previously mentioned, it's necessary if you're doing away with "pre-existing conditions" because otherwise no one would get insurance until they needed to use it, which defeats the purpose of insurance.
Whew! Hope that answers the question!

 

[True Blues]

Originally Posted by TXCaddyKing

Originally Posted by True Blues

Originally Posted by Osh Kosh Bosh

Yeah sure, believe that propaganda if you want.

Look at any rankings of the quality of health care by country you will find Canada consistently ahead of the united states, especially for the average person, as somebody who has had family go through cancer as US citizens and Canadian citizens, I'm sticking with Canada b. The quality of care was the same, if not better, did not have worry about insurance coverage,  we didn't even have to pay for in home tutoring, while my bro missed school or the nurse that would come to our house daily and deliver shots, and take blood etc.  

Agreed.

The "Canadians traveling to the United States to receive treatment for ailment X" argument is largely fallacy. Rarely (i.e. ultra-wealthy or rare disease) do individuals seeking health care treatment actually do so.

I don't believe it. I just wish we had a real life Canadian in our office to laugh at all the people who tell this same story about someone they know waiting months to get an x-ray while they wasted away.

I've never heard of a Canadian citizen waiting months for an x-ray-- especially if it is a serious case. Never.

Oh, and I worked in diagnostic imaging.

 

[dj b milk]

only Roberts treated it as a tax in his concurring opinion. The majority opinion treats the ACA as a valid excercise of Congress' commerce clause powers. Also, I'm not sure why you keep citing the DoI as a reason why the ACA shouldn't have been passed. What does one have to do with the other?

Finally, stop with the strawman arguements. When did I ever say that my morality should trump the morality of others? I support human rights. The UN and most countries has deemed access to healthcare as a human right. Therefore, I view the ACA as a positive development. I'm happy. Let me be happy. I'm not even sure what you're complaining about.

 

[8tothe24]

Originally Posted by dj B Milk

only Roberts treated it as a tax in his concurring opinion. The majority opinion treats the ACA as a valid excercise of Congress' commerce clause powers. Also, I'm not sure why you keep citing the DoI as a reason why the ACA shouldn't have been passed. What does one have to do with the other?

Finally, stop with the strawman arguements. When did I ever say that my morality should trump the morality of others? I support human rights. The UN and most countries has deemed access to healthcare as a human right. Therefore, I view the ACA as a positive development. I'm happy. Let me be happy. I'm not even sure what you're complaining about.

, for the last time, I didn't bring up the DoI someone else did.  It passed based upon Roberts opinion which is that it is a tax... so if the deciding vote was that it was a tax, I feel free to refer to it as a tax.  And my "strawman" question is a valid one, you feel morality should drive government and I feel laws should drive government.  You feel laws should create morality and I feel morality should exist within the bounds of law.  I find it amusing that people are selective about when concepts apply.  I support human rights as well, but there is nothing in our Constitution stating that health insurance is a legal right, let alone human right.  The opinions of the U.N. mean nothing to the laws of the U.S.A.  You can be happy all you want and what you call complaining, I call civil dialogue about legislation that was sold as one thing and something totally else.  Just because I don't share your enthusiasm for this doesn't mean I'm going to go away because you want to enjoy your good feeling buzz.  Only time will tell if this is a success or a mistake; but based upon every other expenditure the U.S. has undertaken I will put my chips on horrible mistake and it is more than just money that they are going to destroy this time. But we'll argue about it, it will stand, life will go on, until the next time we subservients are called upon to give up more personal choices and freedoms for the betterment of society.

 

[kramer]

well that sucks