The Affordable Healthcare Act in the U.S. Supreme Court -…
Forum Index > General Forum |
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 | ||
Irre
United States646 Posts
| ||
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On June 29 2012 03:20 CaptainCrush wrote: Everyone keeps saying this, but what you guys fail to realize is that we already know this, and some of us want to keep it that way. Under socialized medicine, sure you can pick your doc, but all the docs recieve the same amount of money from the government for their services. I personally want a free market society, even if it is more expensive because I want to be able to go to a doc who is willing to put forth the extra effort. Think about it, why would doctors or care givers go the extra mile when they all get paid the same thing? The only time they might do that is if they are in danger of losing buisness all together. I'm sorry some people cant afford it but at some point its no longer my job to provide for them or even care. It sounds cold but I didnt work my ass off in college, nor do I continue to work my ass off so that some lazy sack of shit can get the healthcare that they dont deserve on my nickle. This law not only provides health care to those individuals but also exempts them from the tax if their income is below a certain threshold.... Did I mention that Obama has elected 3 supreme court justices during his term? This is socialism of the highest degree, how can anyone be excited over this!?!? First, strangely, I know a lot of doctors who put the extra effort, seems to contradict your statement. Secondly, what about hard working people who cannot afford healthcare, they are also lazy sacks of shit ? Also what is wrong with giving money to support some people if you will actually save money doing that compared to your current system. | ||
Doublemint
Austria8366 Posts
So, because the Supreme Court decided one way I can't disagree with it? I would point out there were four justices in disagreement with the majority ruling. So their opinion just doesn't count? If four highly intelligent, highly educated legal minds are arguing against the ruling, there is at obviously a legitimate argument to be made against the law. I would say you're being a sore winner with the attitude that all dissenting opinions are now invalid. That's rediculous. The law may have been ruled constitutional by a plurality of justices, but I reserve my right to agree with Justice Kennedy and the other opposing Justices. If you don't like it, well that's too bad. God forbid, I don't want you not being able to give your opinion on the ruling - you just have to acknowledge it. But as you said 4 judges voted against it - and 5 at least equally intelligent and educated judges for it. Not the least ridiculous to say the"legal"opinions are "invalid" for this case now, as this case is decided and not going to change any time soon. Whether ObamaCare will survive the political attacks or is being repealed after Romney's victory however remains to be seen. | ||
ixi.genocide
United States981 Posts
On June 29 2012 04:17 Chocolate wrote: They can ask for other rewards from the politician, you know. That is called corruption and is a different issue. | ||
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 29 2012 04:24 xDaunt wrote: Oh, ok. That case was a logical extension of Citizen's United and a very easy decision for the Court. States can no more violate the bill of rights than the federal government can. If a state passes a law that violates these rights, then it should be struck down. I don't see where the hypocrisy comes into play. Republicans haven't adopted a per se "the feds should never interfere with the affairs of the states" position. Yeah, the Citizen's United case basically established that corporate political donations are a form of protected speech. As such, it would be inappropriate to block corporations from giving money in local elections just as it would be in a federal election. I don't understand at all why CC is arguing that makes Roberts a "hypocrit". | ||
biology]major
United States2253 Posts
On June 29 2012 04:24 Irre wrote: anyone catch Romney's response to the Healthcare decision? It was a disgusting display of lies and distortion of the Healthcare BIll. What makes it worse is it was a model of HIS healthcare plan, and REPUBLICANS Plan back in the 90s...really shows how far our politics have degraded that someone as poisonous as Mitt Romney could get to the top a major party ticket to lead the country. None of it makes any sense, the health care mandate was an idea introduced by republicans.. Power of propaganda >> general public though | ||
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + 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! http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/vqory/supreme_court_upholds_affordable_health_care_act/ | ||
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On June 29 2012 04:20 Kaitlin wrote: edit: To contrast, the Conservative mantra can pretty much be summed up as: "Government, leave me the fuck alone." More the libertarian mantra, no? Conservatives want government to outlaw many social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and generally want government to spend freely on things they like (defense, police) and have a long history of spending on things they often oppose (Medicare Part D) and in ways they oppose (deficit spending). Stick to arguing issues. Saying "liberals = bad, conservatives = good" just hurts your credibility. | ||
ixi.genocide
United States981 Posts
Well, let's see. I see Liberals bitching about having to pay so much for college and their student loans not being forgiven. What is this ? Oh, they want something and they want someone else to pay for it. They will certainly vote Democrat because Republicans are cold-hearted and don't think they should go to college. I see Liberals protesting various Union issues across the country. They want higher wages, more benefits, less hours, whatever. They want something and they want someone else to pay for it. They will also vote Democrat because Republicans are evil, Scott Walker supporters, and hate the 'American Worker'. I see Liberals groups of all kinds wanting something from the government. They want something and they want someone else to pay for it. They all vote Democrat because Republican are the 'Party of No'. These are the groups I see and the politicians who stand in support of their wants, are the Democrats. These people vote for Democrats, and in turn, Democrats give them things and raise taxes to pay for it. Who pays these taxes ? A minority of the population. A majority forcing the minority to pay for a bunch of things for the majority is not a wise country. It's certainly not the basis upon which this country was founded. Does the word 'Limited' mean anything anymore ? edit: To contrast, the Conservative mantra can pretty much be summed up as: "Government, leave me the fuck alone." The cost of student loans is directly tied to the inflation of the US dollar and is not even a fair subject to talk about. I don't think forgiving student loans is acceptable but something should be done about public college tuition increasing like it has. Yeah, most 20 something vote democrat, simply by the discussion of ideas such as social justice and the motives behind actions. Unions represent less than 9% of the private sector today and cost a rediculous amount of money, I think that they are largely unneeded with the labor laws that we have today. It's funny that such a small group of people represent the American Worker. | ||
ShatterZer0
United States1843 Posts
| ||
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Do yourselves a favor and drop down a class. | ||
Irre
United States646 Posts
On June 29 2012 04:38 jdseemoreglass wrote: Damn, this ruling really sucks for all those middle class people who don't qualify for medicaid and yet will be forced to subsidize the ridiculous costs of care in this country. Lucky for me I am too poor for the mandate to affect me. The government every day comes up with more incentives to stay poor and more punishments for making money, so I don't even want to try to get rich anymore. I'm perfectly comfortable right now living under this government defined "poverty." I'm fed and healthy, all my bills are taken care of... if I ever need any real assistance I can get free food or unemployment or whatever. Poverty is the new land of opportunity in America. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Do yourselves a favor and drop down a class. nice try, but no one buys that line of bullshit sorry. | ||
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
No, not all Republicans are selfish, white, rich, xenophobic, homophobic, militaristic Evangelicals. Likewise, not all Democrats are poor, lazy, pot smoking, hypocritical, pussified-Hippy socialists of foreign descent. Please, whether you are from here or not, or even if you're a government representative, don't think you're good enough to speak on behalf of millions of people. We all have the same damn goals: Make the country better (Though some like to prefer thinking of making the whole world better). Some people like equality, some people like freedom. It basically comes down to that. You cannot have both, as they both are complete opposites in practice. Equality can only be achieved through enforced rules and regulations, because (I believe we can all agree...) we are not a perfect, tolerant, generous, peaceful species. Freedom is the lack of this political denial of a person's right to a private livelihood. I think it's kinda sad that, even though we have a common goal, we're so divided based on our means of accomplishing what we want. | ||
ampson
United States2355 Posts
| ||
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
| ||
MstrJinbo
United States1251 Posts
On June 29 2012 04:27 biology]major wrote: None of it makes any sense, the health care mandate was an idea introduced by republicans.. Power of propaganda >> general public though It's almost like there is little actual difference between the two parties. Interesting | ||
TOloseGT
United States1145 Posts
We got conservatives in here telling us they want less government, when clearly the overwhelming evidence points to the contrary. I mean, maybe their understanding of "less" is different? | ||
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On June 29 2012 03:55 Kaitlin wrote: Conservatives vote for what is good for the Country, not for our 'own personal circumstances'. That's how Liberals vote. It's why Republicans are always portrayed by Democrats as saying no to everything. People who want free stuff from the government vote for tax and spend Democrats because it's in the interest of 'their own personal circumstances' because the taxes are paid by others, but the spending is coming to them. Yeah. Voting tax increases because they help your own personal circumstances. Right. More like voting for others to pay for you to get stuff is more like it. It's not even just about ACA, it's why people vote Democrat in this country. Please provide evidence that democratic voters are the drain on the system compared to conservative voters. Even with that evidence you would be wrong. I know plenty of people who are during their lifetimes provide more money to the system than take from it and yet vote for "socialist" policies. For example I would vote for tax increase to cover some more social programs even though I would not be recipient of them. | ||
ixi.genocide
United States981 Posts
On June 29 2012 04:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote: More the libertarian mantra, no? Conservatives want government to outlaw many social issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and generally want government to spend freely on things they like (defense, police) and have a long history of spending on things they often oppose (Medicare Part D) and in ways they oppose (deficit spending). Stick to arguing issues. Saying "liberals = bad, conservatives = good" just hurts your credibility. No, That is Republicans. Conservatives is not based off of religious aspects and typically doesn't have a social point to it. Conservatives look for decreased taxes and want a more competitive country for companies, this increases jobs in US. Republican is an overarching umbrella of religous views and conservative ideas, Libertarians specifically want the federal government to stay out of the economy and let the state governments decide on social issues etc. | ||
Deathmanbob
United States2356 Posts
On June 29 2012 04:18 TheToast wrote: So? That happens all the time. Why does that make him a hypocrit? because people use the argument that the government should not be able to do this and it is a state issue (healthcarewise) this is the main argument romney uses when he defends his state law that AFA is based off of. If you are going to use the argument that this should be left up to the states you are hypercritical when you say that CU was fine to strike down the state law. now i am not saying that anyone here has used that argument mainly because i am not going to dig around post, but there are a lot of people who have used this argument | ||
| ||