Experts predict ObamaCare wil lbe overturned

[Kaa]

So if you are sick you are obligated to see a doctor?

Nah, just pay the money :-D

Kaa

[Horace]

Well, inspite of what he was, he's now the fearless leader of a state that ranks among the top four in numbers of uninsured people below the age of 65. He intends to make sure we maintain that status.

Really? Got a current (2012) link?

[ljb5]

So if you are sick you are obligated to see a doctor?

Don't be silly. I already pointed out that the PPAHCA provides exemptions for people (such as Christian Scientists) who don't want health care.

Under Obamacare, no one is forced to seek health care.

The individual mandate is not about forcing people to see a doctor (or join a gym, or eat broccoli, or any of those other silly arguments.)

It's about preventing people from transferring their costs onto others. It's about protecting the rights of other people from being unfairly burdened with the responsibility to pay for your health care.

I pay for my own health care and I don't want to have to pay for yours too. You pay for your own, okay?

Get your own damn insurance and stop leeching from me.

Please remember: as recently as 2009, prominent conservatives were in favor of the individual mandate precisely because they said it was conservative -- i.e. it prevented freeloaders from leeching off of responsible people.

I'm really amazed that so many conservatives today are coming out in support of deadbeats and freeloaders.

[Horace]

The seniors are gonna love the fact that their medicare will go back up and the donut hole in perscription drugs reappears if ACA is struck down.

I suspect that you have little or no direct or indirect experience with Medicare. Please tell us how Medicare rates have gone significantly down (or up) since 2009, and what part (if any) ACA had in it. As well, kindly tell us what the projected rates for the immediate future will be.

And, even more, please explain first how the doughnut hole for “perscription drugs” actually disappeared, in order for it to be capable of “reappearing.”

Or are you just saying stuff?

[ljb5]

And, even more, please explain first how the doughnut hole for “perscription drugs” actually disappeared, in order for it to be capable of “reappearing.”

That's an easy one:

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (aka "Obamacare"), the "Donut Hole" coverage gap will be gradually eliminated through a combination of measures including brand-name prescription drug discounts, generic drug discounts, and a gradual decrease in the "catastrophic coverage" threshold. The "Donut Hole" coverage gap is due to be completely eliminated by 2020.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D

[ccmanuals]

I suspect that you have little or no direct or indirect experience with Medicare. Please tell us how Medicare rates have gone significantly down (or up) since 2009, and what part (if any) ACA had in it. As well, kindly tell us what the projected rates for the immediate future will be.

And, even more, please explain first how the doughnut hole for “perscription drugs” actually disappeared, in order for it to be capable of “reappearing.”

Or are you just saying stuff?

I'm not going to do your research for you. Don't know how to use the google?

[BrianW]

Didn't read the whole thread. It went sour after a few posts anyhow.

But, if you were for ObamaCare, then you should be angry at Obama, Reid, and Pelosi for screwing it up. Not at (some) Republicans because they never wanted it.

[Rum_Pirate]

Regardless: you're still a citizen.

You get to carry a US passport, enjoy the security of our borders, the stability of our economy, the protection of our legal system, etc. These are privileges.

Tell me again how many illegal immigrants are in the USA, how many has Mr Obama 'legalized' with his executive (whatever) order?

The economy is stable?

[Curtism]

Really? Got a current (2012) link?

Is January ok?

http://www.govhealthit.com/news/heal...gard-much-gain

That, in a state with the 48th-worst ranking of uninsured people younger than 65, according to America’s Health Ranking, sponsored by United Health Foundation.


Such a low ranking places Florida snugly in the category of “states that have made the least progress toward establishing their exchanges,” according to the Urban Institute’s study, which emphasizes that the states are also ripe “to benefit the most from the ACA in terms of covering their uninsured population.”

Like I've been saying, Horace, Florida leads the pack in a bunch of categories such as this.

[Y Bar Ranch]

The individual mandate is not about forcing people to see a doctor (or join a gym, or eat broccoli, or any of those other silly arguments.)

It's about preventing people from transferring their costs onto others. It's about protecting the rights of other people from being unfairly burdened with the responsibility to pay for your health care.

Isn't that what insurance is all about? Getting other people to pay for your unexpected costs? You make me buy insurance I don't want, and now it all of the sudden becomes a fair burden?

[Horace]

Originally Posted by Horace

And, even more, please explain first how the doughnut hole for “perscription drugs” actually disappeared, in order for it to be capable of “reappearing.”

That's an easy one:

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (aka "Obamacare"), the "Donut Hole" coverage gap will be gradually eliminated through a combination of measures including brand-name prescription drug discounts, generic drug discounts, and a gradual decrease in the "catastrophic coverage" threshold. The "Donut Hole" coverage gap is due to be completely eliminated by 2020.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D

It's only easy if you unquestioningly accept propaganda. As it's currently structured, the 'doughnut hole' is actually larger this year (2012); the out-of-pocket expense is greater by $100 or so--check it out. The 50% reduction on brand-name meds just means that it takes longer to reach the same level of required out-of-pocket expense; the 15% (?) for generics also counts, in a very minor way. But either way, you have to pay the same amount before you emerge from the other end of the 'hole' and the reduced ('catastrophic') level of co-pay kicks in.

In fairness, if you have small to moderate medicine expenses, you might see an advantage if you don't reach the out-of-pocket limit before the roll-over to a new benefit year, but I would hesitate to say how many recipients will actually benefit from that scenario. And so far, I haven't seen any time-line projections for reduction of the out-of-pocket requirement--which of course, is not the same as saying it's not on record.

[Tom Montgomery]

I predicted months ago it would be overturned by a 5-4 vote.

I mean really, did anyone seriously expect a different outcome?

[Boater14]

And to think, this is the healthcare proposed by the heritage foundation and eschewed by the dems who wanted single payer. Anyone heard a reep saying he'd support dropping the college age off spring from the parents insurance? Me neither.

[John Smith]

Four things.

Kaa

As I recall, day one was arguing whether the mandate is a tax or not.

Day two if it is not a tax, is it legal.

Day three concerned whether states have to accept new Medicaid rules.

[John Smith]

So if you are sick you are obligated to see a doctor?

NOt the question. Are we obligated to pay for your medical treatment? That's the question.

[BrianW]

Just another interesting point that struck me as odd...

In the OP, the second quote twice (at least) attempts to combine 'Romeny Care' and 'Obama Care' as one and the same.

It appears Obama Care is founded on shaky Constitutional ground, and may be significantly impacted negatively. But 'Romney Care' is somewhat of a success in Massachusetts.

So if health care is a major deciding factor in how you place your presidential vote in November, wouldn't it make more sense to vote for Romney?

[ccmanuals]

Just another interesting point that struck me as odd...

In the OP, the second quote twice (at least) attempts to combine 'Romeny Care' and 'Obama Care' as one and the same.

It appears Obama Care is founded on shaky Constitutional ground, and may be significantly impacted negatively. But 'Romney Care' is somewhat of a success in Massachusetts.

So if health care is a major deciding factor in how you place your presidential vote in November, wouldn't it make more sense to vote for Romney?

With your logic Brian we will all need to move to Mass. Not sure Norm has room for all of us.

[George Jung]

sIt's okay; Norman has a yacht! Whoo hoo!

[John Smith]

Just another interesting point that struck me as odd...

In the OP, the second quote twice (at least) attempts to combine 'Romeny Care' and 'Obama Care' as one and the same.

It appears Obama Care is founded on shaky Constitutional ground, and may be significantly impacted negatively. But 'Romney Care' is somewhat of a success in Massachusetts.

So if health care is a major deciding factor in how you place your presidential vote in November, wouldn't it make more sense to vote for Romney?

Romneycare has a mandate. Kind of makes this an interesting question.

Would you be so kind as to list the differences between the two plans?

[Norman Bernstein]

So if health care is a major deciding factor in how you place your presidential vote in November, wouldn't it make more sense to vote for Romney?

Hmmm, I must be missing the logic here. Romney has done everything possible to essentially disavow his own MA health law, short of literally disavowing it.... And promises to overturn obamacare on day one, if elected.

Can you explain why it would 'make more sense' to vote for Romney, if health care were important to you?

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Didn't read the whole thread. It went sour after a few posts anyhow.

But, if you were for ObamaCare, then you should be angry at Obama, Reid, and Pelosi for screwing it up. Not at (some) Republicans because they never wanted it.

It was the AHC bill or nothing. If you can remember back a ways the Repugnicans were having cat fits because they thought they had it by the jugular and the Dems found a procedural way to get around that filibuster and into law.
The folks you are trying to damn outfoxed and outfought you rummies in the No-New-Nuthin'- Brigade. I hear they want to put General Pelosi's picture in the capital.

[ljb5]

Isn't that what insurance is all about? Getting other people to pay for your unexpected costs?

No.

Insurance is about replacing risk with predictability.

You don't just get other people to pay for you, you also pay for yourself and (yes), there is a possibility that you do end up paying for others.

But those expenses are distributed over a risk pool such that costs do not become catastrophic.

You make me buy insurance I don't want, and now it all of the sudden becomes a fair burden?

It's not really an issue of if you want it.

Long experience teaches us that you need it. "Want" is a rather juvenile way of looking at it.

If you don't have insurance and you get sick or injured, I get stuck with the bill. Is that right? Is that just?

Don't I have some reasonable expectation that my assets are protected from your leeching?

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Just another interesting point that struck me as odd...

So if health care is a major deciding factor in how you place your presidential vote in November, wouldn't it make more sense to vote for Romney?

AHC isn't on the table, booger. It's in the hands of the Supremes as we speak.
And why anyone would want to vote for someone that was sure to give the voter less than he had already is an irrational position I won't even try to comprehend.

[George Jung]

It was the AHC bill or nothing. If you can remember back a ways the Repugnicans were having cat fits because they thought they had it by the jugular and the Dems found a procedural way to get around that filibuster and into law.
The folks you are trying to damn outfoxed and outfought you rummies in the No-New-Nuthin'- Brigade. I hear they want to put General Pelosi's picture in the capital.

Nicely summarized.

[BrianW]

Romneycare has a mandate. Kind of makes this an interesting question.

Would you be so kind as to list the differences between the two plans?

It does indeed make it interesting.

When done at the State level, the issue of a tax, or mandate, at the Federal level is moot. Or nearly so.

Perhaps the way Obama, Reid, and Pelosi should have tried, is to provide some way for the Feds to encourage individual States to pass something like ObamaCare at their level. Afterall, that's sort of how they do it in Canada.

[BrianW]

AHC isn't on the table, booger. It's in the hands of the Supremes as we speak.

Hmm... then why not address the person who started the thread, and specifically mentioned ObamaCare?

And why anyone would want to vote for someone that was sure to give the voter less than he had already is an irrational position I won't even try to comprehend.

This, I believe.

[George Jung]

So.... how'd ya get the moniker of 'booger'???

[Y Bar Ranch]

If you don't have insurance and you get sick or injured, I get stuck with the bill. Is that right? Is that just?

If I do have insurance, then the other policy holders get stuck with the bill, right? I mean, in order for it to all work out in the end, for the insurance to be sustainable not to mention the insurance company to make a "meager profit" (heh), for each person that ends up seeing medical costs that far exceed what they put in, there has to be a big pool of people whose medical costs were well under what they put in.

Look, I follow your thinking. But arguing that before we all had to pay for sick people who were uninsured while now we don't have to pay for those sick people who are now insured simply is false. We're paying for them, through a formal system or an informal one. Norm has the far better argument, that there are sick people who aren't getting treated at all.

[Horace]

The seniors are gonna love the fact that their medicare will go back up and the donut hole in perscription drugs reappears if ACA is struck down.

I'm not going to do your research for you. Don't know how to use the google?

Actually, I do--but I already knew the facts in regard to the above two posts. See post #164 for the current status of prescription drugs and the doughnut/donut hole. The same for Medicare Part B premiums: they went up slightly in 2012, after being the same for the previous 3 years. Against all odds, that rise in rates was less than originally predicted and occurred in an election year--praise be! Here's a couple of links:


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ise-next-year/


http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pr...20111027a.html

[Keith Wilson]

Ezra Klein has an excellent article in The New Yorker about how Republicans in the last three years decided that what was originally a conservative Republican heath care plan is really the end of all freedom. Not to be too snide, I'll warn you: it's moderately long, uses lots of big words, does not present simple ideas in predigested form, and requires a certain amount of thinking to understand. You can read it here.

[ljb5]

Look, I follow your thinking. But arguing that before we all had to pay for sick people who were uninsured while now we don't have to pay for those sick people who are now insured simply is false. We're paying for them, through a formal system or an informal one. Norm has the far better argument, that there are sick people who aren't getting treated at all.

With the mandate, they're also paying for themselves.

If you're holding out for a system in which no one ever gets sick and we all get rich, you're going to be disappointed.

That's not what we're after here. All we're looking for is a system where health care is a managed and planned expense, not a catastrophic burden so immense that it drives people to bankruptcy and cripples the competitiveness of American business.

When you set aside the rhetoric and ideology, you'll find that most of us have insurance and most of us want it. Even people who argue against the mandate have health insurance. (I suspect you might have it. I know Paul Pless does).

(Nearly) everyone recognizes that insurance is sensible and responsible. Five years ago, Republicans were pushing the idea of mandating it for everyone. Mitt Romney did it. Newt Gingrich was in favor of it. This was considered "responsible" and "conservative."

I understand that some people just can't deal with the government telling them what to do... (even if it's something they were doing anyway).... but you know what? Tough noogies. You don't get everything you want and life doesn't come with a guarantee.

Sometimes, you just gotta man up and be responsible. Deal.