Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: It's time for national healthcare - Page 129







Post#3201 at 06-28-2012 04:04 PM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
06-28-2012, 04:04 PM #3201
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

I suspect that part of the Supreme Court's unstated rationale for their decision (which surprised me, in all honesty) is that they know if the ACA were struck down, it would send the country's health-care system into full-on crisis mode and very likely result in a more radical (and desirable) solution. Keeping Obamacare in place lets the mess limp along for a while more.

Also, they struck down the requirement for expanded Medicaid coverage. Keep the demand that the middle class pay, lose the benefit for the poor. As usual.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#3202 at 06-28-2012 04:56 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
06-28-2012, 04:56 PM #3202
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
I suspect that part of the Supreme Court's unstated rationale for their decision (which surprised me, in all honesty) is that they know if the ACA were struck down, it would send the country's health-care system into full-on crisis mode and very likely result in a more radical (and desirable) solution. Keeping Obamacare in place lets the mess limp along for a while more.

Also, they struck down the requirement for expanded Medicaid coverage. Keep the demand that the middle class pay, lose the benefit for the poor. As usual.
Will they require that poor people pay the penalty if they don't get expanded Medicaid coverage? If the poor instead get the subsidized pool rates, then who pays the subsidy? I do have a lot of questions...
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#3203 at 06-28-2012 06:05 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
06-28-2012, 06:05 PM #3203
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504




According to the president:

We should also remember that under today’s ruling, having health insurance is and will continue to be a choice. If you can’t afford insurance or you’re a small business that wants to provide affordable insurance to your employees, you’ll get tax credits that make coverage affordable. But if you can afford insurance and you choose not to purchase it, the taxpayers will no longer subsidize your care for free.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/...care-checklist
Last edited by Eric the Green; 06-28-2012 at 06:15 PM.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#3204 at 06-28-2012 06:06 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
06-28-2012, 06:06 PM #3204
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Guess who thought the health insurance mandate was a very good idea back in 1993?

Gingrich appeared on NBC’s Meet the Presson Oct. 3, 1993, at a time when the Clinton administration was trying to pass a health-care overhaul. On the May 15, 2011, edition of Meet the Press, host David Gregory replayed a clip from Gingrich’s 1993 appearance that addressed the individual mandate.

"I am for people, individuals -- exactly like automobile insurance -- individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...acked-individ/
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#3205 at 06-28-2012 06:15 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
06-28-2012, 06:15 PM #3205
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by Cole94 View Post
*facepalm* Seriously though, instead of wasting 2 more years trying to repeal one law, it would be more productive for the other party to put their own improvements into healthcare.
also wise and I agree.

Quote Originally Posted by Cole94 View Post
On a video of Neil Howe on YouTube, I saw him say (similarly),"In the 90's when the amount of retirees was the least, that was when we should have reformed the healthcare system. But the excuse was "times are good, we don't need to focus on healthcare!", now people say "times are bad, we can't focus on healthcare", well how long are we supposed to wait?". I think the point was to have a good healthcare and social security system to hold up the 100 million retirees in the next 10-15 years. Maybe that could be one of the things that breaks the camel's back and sends us into another economic catastrophe?
This is all based on the myth of the federal deficit monster is going to get ya! It's no more true than the tooth fairy or Santa Claus (sorry to break that to our resident t-baggers) There is nothing the federal govt cannot afford if it is sold in dollars; they just use keystrokes to credit bank accounts and they're not going to run out of keystrokes.

The question is whether the spending by the feds, when added to the spending of the private sector, exceeds the capacity of the economy to supply. That is very unlikely for the economy as a hold but it might happen within the health care sector - but that is very complicated with many factors to consider.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#3206 at 06-28-2012 06:22 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
06-28-2012, 06:22 PM #3206
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Cole94 View Post
*facepalm* Seriously though, instead of wasting 2 more years trying to repeal one law, it would be more productive for the other party to put their own improvements into healthcare.
The record of "the other party" in regards to doing what is "more productive" is not too good.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#3207 at 06-28-2012 06:33 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
06-28-2012, 06:33 PM #3207
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
ACA/Health Care Reform/Obamacare is a big start in the right direction.
To Deb and other fellow progressives: I think it is better for us that it has been upheld, with all its flaws. Having some insurance and health care reform will move us closer to single-payer Medicare for All; not having it will not, because Americans, being generally wedded to the status quo, will just accept the old system. Obamacare will show that health care reform works, and so they will want more and better reform by the time the 2020s decade begins. It is obvious that conservatives like JPT agree with me; that's why they oppose it so ferociously.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#3208 at 06-28-2012 08:24 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
06-28-2012, 08:24 PM #3208
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Cole94 View Post
It's weird how Republicans were the ones who pushed Healthcare into a Supreme Court ruling, yet the Chief Justice (Republican) ended up being the deciding vote and the method of payment ended up being a tax. How much more of a backfire could there have been?

But personally, it's good for me. I'm on my parent's plan for 7-8 more years, meaning employers won't need to provide healthcare for me, making me (if only minutely) a more attractive applicant. The increase in taxes and premiums means that it's paid for. I guess a larger issue would be maintaining quality care and doctors while adding millions of more people into the healthcare system. That should be the focus.
This will bring a lot of low income Millies to the polls come November, methinks.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#3209 at 06-28-2012 08:25 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
06-28-2012, 08:25 PM #3209
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
When a *win* is not actually a win.

If we consider ourselves progressives, we may want to look at who is actually benefiting, not only from this mandate, but the ones being proposed by Republicans. Everything isn't always as it might seem. It's imperative that we look behind the curtain to see who is working the smoke and mirrors.

"
“Thus, both the Ryan plan for Voucher-Care, and the radical right’s ambition to privatize Social Security depend on individual mandates.”

Now there's much more about what today's decision holds for the future. And it isn't pretty.


“The Court’s cramped view of Medicaid expansion means that low income people will bear the individual mandate ‘tax’ disproportionately. Upholding the requirement that individuals buy private insurance while allowing states to opt out of Medicaid expansion is the worst possible outcome. Achieving universal coverage by compelling low income Americans to purchase private insurance may beef up health industry profits but at the expense of people most in need of health care for all.” ... Guewndolyn Mink

Not much of a win if your in that income bracket, is it?
************************************************** *********************

Roberts Upholds "Obamacare": Corportists United?






http://www.accuracy.org/release/robe...rtists-united/

The SCOTUS Medicare limitation is that it is at each state's option. No way the Blue states, and even very unlikely the most moronic Red state, will turn down the federal govt picking up the entire tab for the initial three years and that winding down very slowly in the years later - its the highest federal share of ANY federal-state joint funding program. Moreover, once the states get hooked on this, you really believe they are going to have their federal delegations vote against their best interest - the federal funding will get indefinitely extended - bet on it.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#3210 at 06-28-2012 08:28 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
06-28-2012, 08:28 PM #3210
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Cole94 View Post
*facepalm* Seriously though, instead of wasting 2 more years trying to repeal one law, it would be more productive for the other party to put their own improvements into healthcare.
Because the Republicans don't give a damn about fixing things, they want to keep everything sucking via obstructionism so they can blame it on Obama.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#3211 at 06-28-2012 08:28 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
06-28-2012, 08:28 PM #3211
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
To Deb and other fellow progressives: I think it is better for us that it has been upheld, with all its flaws. Having some insurance and health care reform will move us closer to single-payer Medicare for All; not having it will not, because Americans, being generally wedded to the status quo, will just accept the old system. Obamacare will show that health care reform works, and so they will want more and better reform by the time the 2020s decade begins. It is obvious that conservatives like JPT agree with me; that's why they oppose it so ferociously.
Eric, I respectfully have to disagree. I stress the word *respectfully.*

I wonder how the millions of people who will die, don't qualify, or go bankrupt because of the on going costs and co-pays, might feel about what you just wrote?

Example:

In crafting the Affordable Care Act, Congress assumed that adults with incomes below the poverty line would be eligible for Medicaid. Therefore, Congress set the income range for eligibility for premium tax credits (i.e., for subsidies) to help purchase coverage in the new insurance exchanges at 100 to 400 percent of the poverty line. If a state decides not to implement the Medicaid expansion, poor adults in the state would not be eligible for the premium tax credits — and they would remain uninsured.

The biggest burdens in such cases would fall on low-income adults, who would lose the promise of coverage even while people with somewhat higher incomes will be eligible for premium tax credits. Hospitals and other health care providers would also lose out, as they lose the promise of Medicaid payment for services that currently are not reimbursed.
More here: http://www.offthechartsblog.org/health-reforms-medicaid-expansion-is-a-very-good-deal-for-states/

O
R

Health care ruling could leave poorest Americans at greatest risk

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...test-risk?lite
Last edited by Deb C; 06-28-2012 at 08:34 PM.
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#3212 at 06-28-2012 08:31 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
06-28-2012, 08:31 PM #3212
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
Will they require that poor people pay the penalty if they don't get expanded Medicaid coverage? If the poor instead get the subsidized pool rates, then who pays the subsidy? I do have a lot of questions...
They would obviously quality for the subsidies and that is paid for by the federal govt (by using keystrokes to credit the bank accounts of the associated health providers).

As I noted above, that this need to move these people to the subsidies will ever come about is a pretty remote possibility for the states will choose to take the federal monies and provide the extended Medicaid. It's a no-brainer even for the most bone-headed Red state.
Last edited by playwrite; 06-28-2012 at 09:24 PM.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#3213 at 06-28-2012 08:40 PM by disgruntledxer [at Seattle, WA joined Sep 2010 #posts 674]
---
06-28-2012, 08:40 PM #3213
Join Date
Sep 2010
Location
Seattle, WA
Posts
674

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
You do know that Federal taxes have done nothing but gone down since Obama came into office?

Am I missing your point?

EDIT
__________________________________________________ ____________
Never mind. I got it. I think it's a stretch to go from subsidized health insurance for all low income and many middle income to them paying more taxes by way of the penalty. But, give some of the stupidity now comng out from the t-baggers, I wouldn't be surprised by such desperate grasping.
It's an electionyear. Even "swiftboating" worked enough.
Initially, the questions I ask when reviewing any saeculur event: What did the decision makers know about the cyclical time, when did they know it, and how did they act on that knowledge? Then I can ask the question, "what was their purpose?" I take extra special notice when reviewing events before Generations was released by Strauss-Howe.







Post#3214 at 06-28-2012 08:57 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
06-28-2012, 08:57 PM #3214
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post



According to the president:

We should also remember that under today’s ruling, having health insurance is and will continue to be a choice. If you can’t afford insurance or you’re a small business that wants to provide affordable insurance to your employees, you’ll get tax credits that make coverage affordable. But if you can afford insurance and you choose not to purchase it, the taxpayers will no longer subsidize your care for free.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/...care-checklist
That's good stuff, but it might have missed the big sleeper in the whole law, the MLR -

MLR stands for Medical Loss Ratio which in the final version of ACA was set at 85% for the Group market and 80% for the Individual market for health insurance policies issued by private insurers. Now 'Medical Loss' is itself an interesting term of art, it represents the actual amount of insurance premiums collected 'lost' via being expended on actual care paid for under your policy. That is for insurance companies the actual end service being delivered from purchase of their product is from their perspective a dead loss to be reduced. Hence a business model built around denying claims.

MLR minimums start to flip that model on its head. Under the rule if the ratio of premium collected to provider payments issued exceeds 15% or 20% respectively in Group or Individual market the difference has to be rebated to the policy holder. And indeed such rebate checks actually went out this year, this provision having already kicked in. Well after this morning's ruling that rule will continue to operate until specifically repealed. And it is important, though maybe not as much as I was able to convince Donny Shaw of when he put this post up on Open Congress on Nov 14, 2009 The Most Important Health Care Reform Provision You've Never Heard Of. For example Richard Escow of HuffPo and elsewhere is of the opinion (expressed semi-privately to me and some others), that while important MLR can be gamed. And in fact I discuss that somewhat in my original 2009 post, feel free to rip on this in comments. Me? I still think MLR is transformational.



So what things are NOT included as 'medical losses'? In short: administration, management, and direct profits from operations. (For example gains from retained and reinvested profits would not I think count against the company). Currently a lot of health insurance administration is focused on making sure that people likely to submit claims don't get signed up and/or denying claims to those who for whatever reason obtain coverage. Well various separate 'must cover' 'no pre-existing condition exclusion' rules take care of much of the first part, under ACA the companies have little room to just turn customers away. And MLR installs limits on the second part. While companies have an incentive to trim their medical 'losses' as close to the minimum as possible, every dollar spent doing so puts a squeeze on the same 15% or 20% of premiums they need to pay management salaries and return profits to shareholders. While every dollar squeezed out of the claims process by increasing efficiency and throughput of claims (i.e. actually paying providers on a timely basis with a minimum of paperwork requirements) leaves that much left over for management and shareholders. Gosh all of a sudden we have a business model based on efficient DELIVERY of services rather than DENIAL of them.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#3215 at 06-28-2012 10:40 PM by Deb C [at joined Aug 2004 #posts 6,099]
---
06-28-2012, 10:40 PM #3215
Join Date
Aug 2004
Posts
6,099

Is this worth it?

The law depends on the mandate because a good chunk of the revenue to pay for subsidized private-label insurance comes from fines – or, as SCOTUS would have it, taxes – paid by those households too poor to pay for insurance under the new program.

How much are the mandate provisions expected to raise in federal revenue? According to the non-partisan CBO (see table 2 here) the mandate-related penalties for those too poor to afford insurance will amount to 54 billion dollars over the 2012-2022 period.
http://my.firedoglake.com/obey/2012/...come-families/
"The only Good America is a Just America." .... pbrower2a







Post#3216 at 06-29-2012 12:09 AM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
06-29-2012, 12:09 AM #3216
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Deb C View Post
Eric, I respectfully have to disagree. I stress the word *respectfully.*

I wonder how the millions of people who will die, don't qualify, or go bankrupt because of the on going costs and co-pays, might feel about what you just wrote?

More here: http://www.offthechartsblog.org/heal...al-for-states/

Health care ruling could leave poorest Americans at greatest risk

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...test-risk?lite
I'm wondering two things; will states really opt out of Medicaid when that would help them with their budget?

from the article:

"Donald Berwick, former head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which administers the two programs, said few states were likely to take that risk.
"Those people are still living in your state, They're still poor. They're going to come to your emergency room. They're going to be operated on, and they're going to have diseases that get worse, and you're going to have to pay for that. That will come from the state — free care pools and charity in the state," Berwick said in an interview on MSNBC-TV.
"I think what's going to happen is the states are going to be under pressure from providers of care who say: 'Why are you leaving this money on the table? Let's join in with the federal dollars.'" "

And second, is it really true that those under the poverty line can't get a tax credit for health insurance? Could that be changed?

Also, this will mainly affect people in very red states, and these "poor" people (if they are white) probably voted against Obama anyway. They probably don't really want the coverage, and/or were against ACA. Or if they do want it, they could join with other like-minded folks who have already done so, and move to a blue state. Or, this concern could be one more factor in turning their own state more purple or even blue.

I think low income people who don't have to pay income taxes, won't have to pay this "fine." Am I wrong about that? I think there is an exemption for low income.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#3217 at 06-29-2012 12:42 AM by SF_Steve_63 [at joined Apr 2012 #posts 114]
---
06-29-2012, 12:42 AM #3217
Join Date
Apr 2012
Posts
114

What a great ruling. Let the healing begin.







Post#3218 at 06-29-2012 06:32 AM by wtrg8 [at NoVA joined Dec 2008 #posts 1,262]
---
06-29-2012, 06:32 AM #3218
Join Date
Dec 2008
Location
NoVA
Posts
1,262

I love the fact in the ruling, Obamacare must be represented legally as a 'Tax' now.







Post#3219 at 06-29-2012 08:49 AM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
06-29-2012, 08:49 AM #3219
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

Romney apparently got 40,000 donations in the last 24 hours, totaling $4.2 million.







Post#3220 at 06-29-2012 08:56 AM by Joral [at Acworth, GA joined Feb 2009 #posts 152]
---
06-29-2012, 08:56 AM #3220
Join Date
Feb 2009
Location
Acworth, GA
Posts
152

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I think low income people who don't have to pay income taxes, won't have to pay this "fine." Am I wrong about that? I think there is an exemption for low income.
(e)Exemptions
No penalty shall be imposed under subsection (a) with respect to—
...
(2) Taxpayers with income below filing thresholdAny applicable individual for any month during a calendar year if the individual’s household income for the taxable year described in section 1412(b)(1)(B) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is less than the amount of gross income specified in section 6012 (a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

Other than the fact that this law and similar is worse than the most absurd spaghetti code I have ever seen, my understanding is if you make little enough that you do not have to file, you're not subject to the penalty. There is another exemption which says that you're exempt if the cost would be over 8 percent of your household income.

It's been quite a long time since I've seen anything even looking like an income below the filing threshold, so I'm not sure where that is. ($7000?)

I can't find the section of the ACA now, but everywhere I look says that there will be subsidies for individual purchase (as tax credits) of some amount up to 400% of the poverty level.
"On the day the storm has just begun I will still hope there are better days to come."







Post#3221 at 06-29-2012 08:58 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
06-29-2012, 08:58 AM #3221
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I'm wondering two things; will states really opt out of Medicaid when that would help them with their budget?

from the article:

"Donald Berwick, former head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which administers the two programs, said few states were likely to take that risk.
"Those people are still living in your state, They're still poor. They're going to come to your emergency room. They're going to be operated on, and they're going to have diseases that get worse, and you're going to have to pay for that. That will come from the state — free care pools and charity in the state," Berwick said in an interview on MSNBC-TV.
"I think what's going to happen is the states are going to be under pressure from providers of care who say: 'Why are you leaving this money on the table? Let's join in with the federal dollars.'" "

And second, is it really true that those under the poverty line can't get a tax credit for health insurance? Could that be changed?

Also, this will mainly affect people in very red states, and these "poor" people (if they are white) probably voted against Obama anyway. They probably don't really want the coverage, and/or were against ACA. Or if they do want it, they could join with other like-minded folks who have already done so, and move to a blue state. Or, this concern could be one more factor in turning their own state more purple or even blue.

I think low income people who don't have to pay income taxes, won't have to pay this "fine." Am I wrong about that? I think there is an exemption for low income.
Yes, there is an exemption to the mandate based on income as well as religious beliefs.

Further, you or the links you provided are absolutely correct about the Medicaid expansion. Can you imagine a governor on TV telling the Nation he's turning down 10s, if not 100s, of millions of dollars in essentially free money for his state to give health care to poor women and children (imagine the photos and video of sick women and children) because of what, I don't know. Not going to happen.

You will note that this not being raised by the Right wing nuts. It is only being raised in parts of the media to play upon those on the Left still looking for a magic pony to poop out single payer - orchestrated, of course, as part of the entrenched elite's continued divide-and-conquer strategy - it's nearly as easy to do within the Left as it is between the Left and the Right sheeple.

I'm certain that nearly all on the Left want single payer or at least the public option; it’s only a matter of tactics of how best to get there. The reality is that ACA is now the starting point. Tactically, the way to proceed from here is to work for the public option at the state level or even better in multi-state regional exchanges, further expand eligibility of Medicaid, raise the subsidies, and lower the age of Medicare eligibility. Each of those things is now below-the-fold if even on the front page of a newspaper and therefore much more politically doable once things start settling down.

The question for those on the disappointed Left is - do they want to keep whining about not getting the magic pony or do they want to get their hands dirty and make something happen that actually moves the system towards what we agree is better.

I realize that working on below-the-fold issues or specific state/regional issues doesn’t allow one to blog or comment upon big national issues on the Internet, but there’s real life then there’s virtual life – one needs to decide which is actually more important.
Last edited by playwrite; 06-29-2012 at 09:02 AM.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#3222 at 06-29-2012 09:53 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
06-29-2012, 09:53 AM #3222
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by wtrg8 View Post
I love the fact in the ruling, Obamacare must be represented legally as a 'Tax' now.
Yes, I can understand that. It gives the Right the ability to lie through their teeth again and self-excuse themselves for doing so because of ideology.

The latest is this obfuscation that the entire law is a tax. It will work with the pea-brain t-baggers but will it work with anyone who actually has a fully-functioning brain?


The truth is that what the SCOTUS said was the mandate is EQUVALENT to a tax since it was set up that way to collect the penalty. AND, it only applies to less than 2% of the total US population.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412...al-mandate.pdf

....18.2 million Americans (6 percent of the total population, 7 percent of the nonelderly population) will be required to newly purchase coverage or face a penalty. Of that 18.2 million, 10.9 million people will be eligible to receive subsidies toward private insurance premiums in the newly established health insurance exchanges, but will have to make partial contributions toward their coverage. About 7.3 million people—2 percent of the total population (3 percent of the population under age 65)—are not offered any financial assistance under the ACA and will be subject to penalties if they do not obtain coverage
.

98% of the people are BUYING A SERVICE called insurance - that has NOTHING to do with any tax. Only a-hole outright liars would suggest otherwise.

In addition to the mandate originally being a GOP idea and first implemented by their current leader, Mittens, the additional irony is the realtiy of the Right, that sees itself as the moral conservative compass, being so very willing to lie through their teeth on everything and anything if it helps their financial elite masters. Obamacare as a tax is just another example of that. The only question is whether the voter is stupid enough to believe in the latest lie from the Right.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#3223 at 06-29-2012 09:54 AM by JustPassingThrough [at joined Dec 2006 #posts 5,196]
---
06-29-2012, 09:54 AM #3223
Join Date
Dec 2006
Posts
5,196

This law is unfortunately typical of the left: "I WANT EVERYBODY TO HAVE INSURANCE!!! WAAA!!! AND I DON'T CARE HOW IT HAPPENS!!!!"

So you get a convoluted monstrosity of a bill passed on a fanatical one party vote in full defiance of the will of the people, that (perhaps) makes things marginally better for a few people who were uninsured, while completely wrecking the entire nation's health care system and making things much worse for everybody who already had insurance. Nevermind that the biggest issue was cost not coverage, and the law does nothing to address that issue. And it will add a trillion dollars to the deficit. And it will wreck the economy (it already has to a large degree and it's barely even gone into effect).

The Republicans should do what the Democrats would do in this situation. They should go into every low income neighborhood and blast the airwaves with ads telling people Obama is going to tax them $700 a year for the privilege of breathing.

But like I said before...if the law stays in effect, the real carnage is going to happen when businesses start dropping insurance benefits and dumping people onto the government rolls. The estimate is that it will happen to about 120 million people, i.e. a full third of the population, mostly people on the lower end of the income scale. The Democrats should be praying (if they did such a thing) that they will lose this year and it will be repealed. Otherwise they're going to be in much bigger trouble for a much longer period of time.
Last edited by JustPassingThrough; 06-29-2012 at 09:57 AM.







Post#3224 at 06-29-2012 10:05 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
06-29-2012, 10:05 AM #3224
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

What it actually does

Without all the political BS, particularly outright lies from the Right, here is probable the best down-to-earth list of what the ACA actually does -

http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikei...d_what_did_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) ( Citation: An entire section of the bill, called Title VII, is devoted to this, starting on page 747 )

It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less) ( Citation: Page 216, sec. 2501 )

It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )

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

It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them. ( Citation: Page 30, sec. 1101, Page 45, sec. 2704, and Page 46, sec. 2702 )

It forbids insurance companies from discriminating based on a disability, or because they were the victim of domestic abuse in the past (yes, insurers really did deny coverage for that) ( Citation: Page 47, sec. 2705 )

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

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

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

Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26. ( Citation: Page 15, sec. 2714 )

No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19. ( Citation: Page 45, sec. 2704 and Page 57, sec. 1255 )

Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans. ( Citation: Page 47, sec. 2794 )

People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend. ( Citation: Page 379, sec. 3301 )

Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )

Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).

Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down. ( Citation: Page 42, sec. 2719 )

Anti-fraud funding is increased and new ways to stop fraud are created. ( Citation: Page 699, sec. 6402 )

Medicare extends to smaller hospitals. ( Citation: Starting on page 344, the entire section "Part II" seems to deal with this )

Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.

Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly. ( Citation: Page 492, sec. 4202 )

A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ). ( Citation: Page 36, sec. 1103 )

A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness by paying half the cost of the investment. (Note - this program was temporary. It already ended) ( Citation: Page 830, sec. 9023 )

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. ( Citation: Page 22, sec. 1101 )

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. ( Citation: Page 800, sec. 9003 )

Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms. ( Citation: Page 800, sec. 9002 )

Any new health plans must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2713 )

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. ( Citation: Page 818, sec. 9015 )

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. ( Citation: Page 45, sec. 2704, Page 46, sec. 2701, and Page 57, sec. 1255 )

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. (Note: On 6/28/12, the Supreme Court ruled that this is Constitutional, as long as it's considered a tax on the uninsured and not a penalty for not buying insurance... nitpicking about wording, mostly, but the long and short of it is, it looks like this is accepted by the courts) ( Citation: Page 145, sec. 5000A, and here is the actual court ruling for those who wish to read it. )

Question: What determines whether or not I can afford the mandate? Will I be forced to pay for insurance I can't afford?

Answer: There are all kinds of checks in place to keep you from getting screwed. Kaiser actually has a webpage with a pretty good rundown on it, if you're worried about it. You can see it here.

Okay, have we got that settled? Okay, moving on...

Small businesses get some tax credits for two years. (It looks like this is specifically for businesses with 25 or fewer employees) ( Citation: Page 138, sec. 1421 )

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

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

Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers. ( Citation: Page 62, sec. 1302 )

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. ( Citation: Page 801, sec. 9005 )

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. ( Citation: Page 81, sec. 1312 )

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 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). ( Citation: Page 98, sec. 1332 )

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"
Now I don't think that was too bad of a read even for someone with an 8th education that can't sit still for more that 10 minutes to learn something.

So, next time you hear some t-bagger (e.g., Eric Cantor) give you the old song-and-dance that its too big, too dense, too convoluted, give the poor stupid basdard this list. Or, preferrable, shove it up their.....
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#3225 at 06-29-2012 10:30 AM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
06-29-2012, 10:30 AM #3225
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough View Post
This law is unfortunately typical of the left: "I WANT EVERYBODY TO HAVE INSURANCE!!! WAAA!!! AND I DON'T CARE HOW IT HAPPENS!!!!"

So you get a convoluted monstrosity of a bill passed on a fanatical one party vote in full defiance of the will of the people, that (perhaps) makes things marginally better for a few people who were uninsured, while completely wrecking the entire nation's health care system and making things much worse for everybody who already had insurance. Nevermind that the biggest issue was cost not coverage, and the law does nothing to address that issue. And it will add a trillion dollars to the deficit. And it will wreck the economy (it already has to a large degree and it's barely even gone into effect).

The Republicans should do what the Democrats would do in this situation. They should go into every low income neighborhood and blast the airwaves with ads telling people Obama is going to tax them $700 a year for the privilege of breathing.

But like I said before...if the law stays in effect, the real carnage is going to happen when businesses start dropping insurance benefits and dumping people onto the government rolls. The estimate is that it will happen to about 120 million people, i.e. a full third of the population, mostly people on the lower end of the income scale. The Democrats should be praying (if they did such a thing) that they will lose this year and it will be repealed. Otherwise they're going to be in much bigger trouble for a much longer period of time.
Thanks, JPT, this is exemplary of the fear mongering and outright lies the Right has and will pursue on this issue.

Readers, compare what one of our resident t-baggers says here with my post of what is ACTUALLY in the law.

Do you see anything in the actual law that will "wreck the economy" or cause "real carnage"

How about the notion of going "into every low income neighborhood and blast the airwaves with ads" that are outright lies? A person/family can have an income 33% above the poverty line and have all their insurance paid for by the govt. A person/family gets a govt subsidy up to 400% income (that's $44,000 for an individual; $88000 for a family of four!). And JPT wants to blast out lies to the contrary???

Often enough, JPT comes across as level-headed, ethical kind of guy who may be just a tad too much wanting to impose his value set on others. That is a ploy.

When it comes down to it, he is willing to lie through his teeth, justifying it with the self-certainty of his worldview and ideology. He is representative of about a third of our voting population that are frankly and simply sick.

Let's hope for some eventual self-awareness of how their actual behavior belies their trumped-up self-righteousness; and when the time comes, they will have the health insurance afforded by the ACA to finally get some real serious help- they, and the country, need it.
Last edited by playwrite; 06-29-2012 at 10:32 AM.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.” - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite
-----------------------------------------