The number one target of the GOP was the mandate which has survived. With the mandate it will be possible to insure that the sick as well as the healthy are covered and therefore make the plan economic. The plan can survive without the other measure although it will take some work but it could not have survived without the mandate.
Will the SCOUS Strike Down Any Part of Obamacare?
- Thread starter onthebottom
- Start date
The number one target of the GOP was the mandate which has survived. With the mandate it will be possible to insure that the sick as well as the healthy are covered and therefore make the plan economic. The plan can survive without the other measure although it will take some work but it could not have survived without the mandate.
Punitive taxes on those who are literally unable to afford insurance (and who will not have the government subsidies which have been knocked out) is great news?
LOL!!!
Nice, as expected 'spin' but in the end just more conservative BS!!!....
It's comical watching the goofy GOPer leadership blowhards 'react' to this stinging DEFEAT handed them by the conservative SCOTUS!.....:eyebrows:
Obfuscate on counsel....as only lawyers like you can.....:thumb:
Health care for all and relief for those who cannot afford it yes is great news. The state of health care in the US should be a source of national shame. By let the GOP keep talking about American exceptionalism. My view is that the US rather than calling itself exceptional should try and be exceptional. This is a step in the right direction.
The problem is that as the law stands this afternoon, it creates a huge punitive tax hole for many of the very people the president said this law was all about helping!
I think it leaves in place the plan he set up with the ability of states to opt out. That should not interfere with the ability to subsidize poorer people although iy will now requires some fine tuning. I do not believe that mandate is punitive and I think that is the what separates the GOP from the Dems. Paying into a healthcare system to insure that all Americans are covered is not punitive to me. Refusing to pay so that you can get a free ride should you get sick is simply unfair and results in an unfair tax upon all Americans.
You wait, unless the hole is fixed or the next congress replaces it, when it fully comes into effect in two years there are going to be a lot of very angry people.
What does that have to do with the fact that after todays USSC ruling: The penalty tax for failing to have health insurance coverage is still there. But in many states, which just plain do not have the funding in a weak economy to impliment it, there are going to be a significant cohort of people who will be unable to afford health insurance without the govenment subsidy, which those states now do not have to provide.
I never liked the law, but it's here and the reality is it's here to stay. Premiums are going to go up no matter what everyone who is for this bill says. This law only accomplishes one thing, and it does expand healthcare access to more people. However it doesn't lower healthcare costs at all in fact the opposite will happen.
Employers might find it cheaper to stop paying for employee insurance and just pay the penalty and leave their employees to fend for themselves.
This also spells more trouble for doctors who private practices as they will be further squeezed in between the government health committees and insurance companies. It will shift more doctors to work for hospitals or clinics instead so they wouldn't have to worry about overhead and malpractice insurance. Ironically most of the insurance companies are buying these hospitals.
Big winners here are the insurance companies and hospitals. Losers are patients and doctors....
Employers might find it cheaper to stop paying for employee insurance and just pay the penalty and leave their employees to fend for themselves.
This also spells more trouble for doctors who private practices as they will be further squeezed in between the government health committees and insurance companies. It will shift more doctors to work for hospitals or clinics instead so they wouldn't have to worry about overhead and malpractice insurance. Ironically most of the insurance companies are buying these hospitals.
Big winners here are the insurance companies and hospitals. Losers are patients and doctors....
How can the 43M patients who now have no coverage be losers. Or the people who lose their jobs and lose their coverage. Or the children of employees whose plans doe not cover them. Or people who finally get a job and therefore have coverage but have preexisting conditions. The US may be the only country in the western world which purports to be enlightened in which it leaves its citizens without health coverage.
You only mention the surface of the bill, what I mention about the bill is not the stuff that's is being sold to you everyday. Sure the 43 m you mention getting coverage is good and people with preexisting conditions..etc.
what they didn't mention is that the 250 m with existing coverages will see a change and increase in premiums regarding their existing insurance. What they didn't mention is that employers may find it cheaper to dump your coverage and pay the penalty. What they didn't mention is that insurance companies still can deny what kind of healthcare the patient and doctor want and instead provide what the government panels have published.
What I deplore is how they passed this and never took the time to study what may happen in the long term. Healthcare for everyone is a noble goal, I want that, I'm in the medical field. But like social security was a noble idea, these ideas have to be sustainable and the way this law was done and worded will do the opposite.
The point is to slow the rate of increase. if you compare the cost of healthcare in the US as a percentage of GDP it is among the highest in the world even though 43 million are not covered and all of the other problems. Every metric in health care demonstrates that with the exception of the rich the system is inferior.
This will improve access and over time decrease the cost of healthcare as a percentage of GDP even though there may be increases in the short run.
This is an opinion of the proponents of this law. This may be true for the other western economies where a single payor system prevails. And the assumption is that these 43m could afford to pay or buy on their own. But the reality is that the federal government will provide credits and subsidize again. The only way for this to be paid is to increase the cost for everyone else.
That is just not right. When healthcare represents such a high percentage iof GDP where do you think the money comes from to pay for it. Taxes, the deficit and therefor the debt. By slowing the rate of increase the demand on the tax system will decline and therefor the additions to the deficit and debt will decline over time.
In any event it is just the right thing to do. it is a national disgrace that such a rich country has so many uncovered people. Look at the mortality rates, rates of infant death etc. It is shameful. It is certainly not exceptional.
Well at least you were honest enough to say it that it will mean more taxes. Can't say the same thing about how the democrats and Obama sold this. If they had mentioned that, no way would this have passed. Don't see how this will slow down the demand on the tax system, as more revenue will be needed to cover said 43 m.
I don't concur with mortality rates as a predictor of health outcomes, same as infant death. But that is a totally different argument.
Every reputable economist and commentator has said that revenue must be increased along with reductions in costs including entitlements. When i sat reputable i exclude every GOP member of Congress and all of the disciples of that idiot Grover Norquist who may be the single biggest threat to the US. he is likely to cause the US to go over the fiscal cliff.
Well wouldn't you agree that they just took on more entitlements without really trying to figure how to really reduce healthcare costs. When was there enough revenue to satisfy a liberal.
More people buying car insurance in Ontario never really led to decreased premiums for everyone else right?
