Obamacare

[snupy]

This thing will be in court for years. More than half of the states have legislation pending to stop it from happening.

I am sure those articles will play well to the extremist base.

Good idea or not, it's not over yet.

1. There's plenty of court precedents to demonstrate federal law trumps state law.

2. This could backfire easily, most particularly in states with very strained budgets, who are already cutting services. The politicians will have to find a way to justify these expensive court cases in the present economic environment, assuming this is something more than political grandstanding.

3. I wish them luck explaining how representatives legally chosen by the voters, as deemed in the Constitution, who then legislate on behalf of the voters who elected them, can somehow be demonstrated to be 'cramming law down the throats' of the citizens. It's not like we lack the numbers to prove the black hole in the federal budget (going back for years) with respect to health care costs. It's not like we lack the enormous number of medical bankruptcy cases to prove the problem the law is attempting to address. It's not like we lack the numbers to demonstrate the exceedingly high cost of health care US citizens pay, and the little return we receive for it, as can be shown by statistics in comparison to other countries.

[LaZeR]

Is ObamaCare headed for a Supreme Court smackdown?

First State to give the finger to Obamacare mandate (shakes 8-Ball): Tennessee

Minnesota's own Rep. Crazy Eyes has announced plans to introduce a bill to repeal healthcare reform

Republican candidates already campaigning on the platform of overturning health care legislation


This thing will be in court for years. More than half of the states have legislation pending to stop it from happening. Good idea or not, it's not over yet.

There aren't many posts on here that give me a boner but this is one of them. Git R Done!...........................

[redheadedmax]

I notice you failed to offer any other solution to the healthcare issues. Should I take that to mean you personally have no ideas

Wow, you must be selectively reading this, eh? :lol:

1. The bar is exceedingly high to do something like that. Since I am not an aristocrat, I have neither the money nor the connections to do such.

The bar isn't "exceedingly high" there's one where I live and it works just fine for the people who participate in it. It takes nothing more than the will to want it done, really.

2. Even if I could acheive it, it would not solve the health care issue on a national level.

I'm not interested in helping "solve the health care issue on a national level". I really don't care. I pretty much want the right to be left alone to live my little life. Those of you who feel the issue is so pressing should just deal with it on your own and leave those of us who don't want to participate out of it.

What are your ideas to solve it, given you think the present solutions are so horrible?

I already gave you my idea- like-minded people can go out and start something on their own and cut out the government mandated for profit middleman. Leave those of us who do not want to participate out of it. Simple as that, really.

If you don't want to participate you pay a fine, which doesn't make you a criminal. I myself will have to decide whether to buy in or pay the fine. Either way, I won't be a criminal and neither will you. The present concern is many won't participate because the fines will be cheaper than buying in.

Oh, right now we won't be criminals, but criminalizing non-participation will be the only way this plan will ever work. In a decade or so I'm sure they'll get their money through a payroll deduction.

[tom502]

What seems crazy to me, is everyone is going to be forced to buy health insurance, or be fined, or arrested. Good thing is, this won't go into effect till 2014, and well, the world will end in 2012, and if it doesn't the new president will reverse all this nonsense, hopefully Pact too.

[snupy]

The bar isn't "exceedingly high" there's one where I live and it works just fine for the people who participate in it.

Alright. How much money does it take to do this? It must not be much if you claim the bar ISN'T exceedingly high. And if it is so easy and such a simple solution, why wasn't something like this instituted in the years from 2000-2008?

I'm not interested in helping "solve the health care issue on a national level".

That's certainly your right, but it doesn't mean the rest of us would care to see health care rationing continue by pre-existing condition or policy recission. It doesn't mean the rest of us would care to see health care costs continue to raise deficit levels.

Those of you who feel the issue is so pressing should just deal with it on your own and leave those of us who don't want to participate out of it.

Exactly! Who cares if your baby, or the baby of your fellow citizen is denied health care by pre-existing condition? Why should I care? And why should any other American care if you, as an American, are treated this way? And who cares if you, or someone in your family can have their insurance policy rescinded for any reason whatsoever? Beleive me, I do get the idea of 'government needs to quit intruding into our lives.' The problem is, that idea only shows HALF of the equation. Solution B is a response to problem A. It works out like this:

How DARE the government tell business they can not market their products and services to Americans by telephone. Government needs to quit interfering in our lives! What is NOT mentioned is the fact the solution of the Do Not Call List was a direct response to Americans getting sick of being called at home as they sit down to dinner or called on their cell phones and having their minutes wasted.

The same is true in the case of health insurance. There are MANY who do not believe insurance companies should have the right to deny a baby health insurance for arbitrary reasons like being 'overweight' at 4 months of age, or rescinding insurance policies when one actually gets sick and needs it the most. If the insurance company can rescind a policy simply because one becomes sick and needs care the most, there's really no point in the company existing at all.

I already gave you my idea- like-minded people can go out and start something on their own and cut out the government mandated for profit middleman.

Which doesn't solve the problem at the national level and does nothing to fund the black hole left in the federal budget due to increasing health care costs, which means your 'solution' is not a solution at all.

Leave those of us who do not want to participate out of it. Simple as that, really.

You don't have the right to make that choice, no more than a war protester has the right to demand their tax dollars be left out of paying war expenses. We are ALL in this together. It's really easy to demand to be left out this, until YOU are the one who gets sick and YOUR insurance company tells you to go fvck off when you need them most.

Oh, right now we won't be criminals, but criminalizing non-participation will be the only way this plan will ever work.

Logically, this makes no sense whatsoever. There is no need to criminalize anyone, when simply raising the fine such that it is cheaper to buy in than pay the fine will easily solve the problem of not enough people buying in.

You have obviously taken one too many swigs of the Repubican kool-aid, if the only answer you have is 'the end is near, because really scary things MIGHT happen in the future.'

In a decade or so I'm sure they'll get their money through a payroll deduction.

I get it. Everything is terrible and only horrible things will happen in the future, based on your personal speculation.

[snupy]

What seems crazy to me, is everyone is going to be forced to buy health insurance, or be fined, or arrested.

Cite the section of the bill which demands arrest for those who do not buy in.

Good thing is, this won't go into effect till 2014, and well, the world will end in 2012, and if it doesn't the new president will reverse all this nonsense, hopefully Pact too.

I wish future presidents all the luck in the world in convincing the population the insurance companies should have the right to deny coverage to infants due to pre-existing conditions. And I doubt very seriously PACT will ever be repealed. Neither the federal nor the state governments will EVER willingly choose to give up the billions in tobacco revenue.

[tom502]

I just heard that, but if it is mandated, and if one refuses to do it, and gets fined, and refuses to pay the fine, then it seems arrest would be next in line. if not, then the bill cannot be enforced.

I just wish we'd liquidate the insurance scam extortionists totally, have a "Health Tax", and health care providers would get a check like the Fireman, Police, Army, and the citizens could just the care they need. This is to me, what good socialized medicine would be.

[snupy]

I just heard that, but if it is mandated, and if one refuses to do it, and gets fined, and refuses to pay the fine, then it seems arrest would be next in line. if not, then the bill cannot be enforced.

Oh do you mean to tell me one can be jailed if one does not obey the law? WHO KNEW? What section of the bill demands arrest for not paying the fine though? Does that section state whether it would be a misdemeanor or a felony if one refused to pay the fine?

I just wish we'd liquidate the insurance scam extortionists

We would pocket an immediate 30% savings if we did exactly that.

have a "Health Tax", and health care providers would get a check like the Fireman, Police, Army, and the citizens could just the care they need. This is to me, what good socialized medicine would be.

That's known as HR 676. I would support that idea as well, not because I believe in socialism but because I am a HUGE fan of saving costs by buying in bulk through a single payer, as we do with other services that you mentioned like fireman and policeman. There are several problems in making that happen. First of all, you would hear all manner of wild claims of socialism and Marxism from those opposed to it, including the corporations. We would have instant unemployment in massive numbers if the health insurance companies were put out of business. There are many people presently who have health insurance and are happy with it, because they don't see the true costs of it, because their employer is paying the costs, instead of increasing the worker's wage.

In other words, it would be a DRASTIC change, which I don't believe the public or industry is ready for at this time, which is why the legislation which did pass is moderate reform.

I have said for some time, that capitalism has no place whatsoever in health care, because the more claims denied, the greater the profit. That's a conflict of interest if ever there was one.

[sgreger1]

First of all, the bill doens't mention arresting anyone. That is because it is already law that if you don't pay your taxes, the IRS has means of getting that money, which starts at taking it from your check, and then can lead to arrest if you continue to be delinquent or evade said taxes. Realistically, the fine is so low, I don't see this happening to many people.


It's still got a way to go, as many states don't want this:

Twelve state attorneys general, all of whom are Republican, have already filed suits to block the health care billon the grounds that its requirement that everyone have health insurance is unconstitutional. Four state legislatures have already passed laws blocking the bill. On Wednesday, Virginia's GOP Gov. Bob McDonnell will sign the bill into the state's law, making it illegal for the federal government to require Americans to purchase health insurance.

Already, Pelosi's approval has dropped to 11% and Reid's dropped to 8%. This is going to get ugly.





The problem with this bill: Someone playing up the good side could say it limits lifetime caps and banns pre-existing conditions, etc etc. But that is because it mandates everyone buy GOOD health insurance. Those who wish to save money by buying high deductible plans (for those who odn't goto the Dr often) or those who wish to have low limetime caps in exchange for lowert premiums are out of luck.


Investors business daily has a good piece on it (20 reason why it sucks):

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d)(1)(A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).
10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)).

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).


16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).
The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).
That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

[sgreger1]

Re: imprisoned if you don't have coverage.

This is how it works, the House bill said you could be imprisoned, but not for failure to buy insurance, but rather for failure to pay the resulting tax.

IRS lists the penalies as:

Section 7203 - misdemeanor wilful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
Section 7201 - felony wilful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.

However, the senate finance comitte took that out.

In the Senate, the Finance Committee’s health care bill was amended to nullify the possibility of jail time for not paying the penalty tax. It stipulates that in the case of nonpayment, "such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." Instead, the Senate measure would allow the government to collect the tax by deducting it from any IRS tax-refund checks or other government payments.




And really almost no one is jailed for not paying their taxes, except in extreme cases. The fine of 2.5% of your income or whatever will be so low that they will just garnish your wages or take your tax refund. So no one's going to jail.

--------------------------------


Snupy, maybe you can answer this for me, but as I recall, companies (50 emp or more) had to either provide healthcare to their employees or pay an 8% tax.

Employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

So I would imagine an 8% tax is nothing compared to having to pay for 72% of your employees helath insurance costs. What's to stop companies from just dropping your health insurance plans and just paying the 8% fine?

I am sure I am missing something here but I can't seem to find anything on it. Seems like companies could stand to save a lot of money by doing this.

[tom502]

I heard for individuals too, it'd be cheaper to just pay the fine and not have insurance.

[truthwolf1]

Yeah so for a $100,000 dollar surgery with 80% coverage you will have to come up with $20,000 still. This means you will need a expensive item like a sports car, cabin or extra house to have on hand by the time you are 40 to unload quickly.
It will also be a good idea to have about $1000 if not $5000 dollars in cash to grease the overworked nurses who will be doing most of the work on you because doctors will be few and far between.

[sgreger1]

How would you only have 80% coverage? The bill mandates that you buy a good plan. The employer just has to cover a certain amount, but like the crrent employer prvided insurance, the employee must pay a percentage of it as well. You will be covered 100% though, in theory.


Where is the infrastructure coming from for this thing though? We have such a shortage here that RN's start out making 100k in San Francisco. How will we cover 30 million new people plus all the illegals?

If there's one place that's going to have job security in the future, it will be healthcare professionals.

[truthwolf1]

How would you only have 80% coverage? The bill mandates that you buy a good plan.

CO-INSURANCE with deductible.
Which I will be allowed to keep and which I dont have because it is already too expensive.

The bill I fully agree does have some great new features but most people can barely afford medical bills, dental bills and basic medicine as is!!

[sgreger1]

Yah all this bill does is mandate that we all buy the whole meal from these companies, and supersize it, yet it doesn't address the rising cost of the meal.

We are now forced to buy big plans with no lifetime caps, no high deductibles etc, those plans are expensive. Nothing goes into making insurance companies charge less, instead the gov just subsidizes it with federal money.


It's like saying you have to buy a GM vehicle, but not just that, you have to buy their most expensive car, but don't worry, you'll be subsidized with your tax dollars to help you afford it. <-- this is retarded.