Supreme Court Upholds "Obamacare!"

Post Reply New Topic

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0HjZpVe6fo[/youtube]

It's likely that if one had a chronic illness and was not able to afford treatment or health insurance, that one would see that the problem in the US, is a much larger problem than cost. It is policy that prevents many individuals from being insured, regardless of how hard they work in life.

The same mantra repeated by the republicans for the last several decades of tort reform, to lower costs, is a myth, as a solution to significantly reduce costs. The only proven effective solution to reduce costs, is a single payer solution, evidenced to reduce costs in every country that has been able to provide that solution.

While the solution provided now might not be that solution, it is the only solution that the government has been able to come to a compromise on, as several attempts have failed during the course of the last half a century, to prevent potential suffering of individuals among the 10's of millions per current statistics that are not covered by insurance.

The republicans had 8 years to come up with a solution, and no attempt was made, in part, because the potential for that chronic suffering among those individual whom work hard in life, and are excluded from the mainstream that are covered, because of insurance policy restrictions, did not rise to the level of concern required to take action, in that political party whom had power to do something about it, if they wanted to.

It took a 70 year old grandmother/democrat speaker of the house, with enough spunk, to make anything happen. And by the way, I don't agree with some of the waivers given out, that seemed politically motivated as part of the overall process, championed by that speaker of the house, in the locality of the area she represents, but it is part of the process, that will never be perfect, and can only hope to be refined in the coming years.

With no solution to the cost issue, per costs that have risen by double for many in the last decade, along with increasingly restrictive policies, no answer/no action, was not an option, for the increasing numbers of individuals that could no longer even afford their employer based health insurance benefits, as well as those that had no potential of being covered per policy restrictions.

The result of no action would have certainly resulted in a much larger crisis not much further down the road, for those that could no longer afford insurance coverage, or for those that were not provided an opportunity to purchase it, because of policy restrictions.

As well as moving the US further and further into developing world status, per healthcare coverage for the totality of their citizens. Per that element there have already been 10's of millions of individuals already living in a third world country, some likely next door neighbors of those more advantaged or fortunate per the roulette wheel of health and historical policies on this issue in the US.

You misunderstand the methodology that the CIA uses in compiling the Factbook. It worth noting that the CIA does not rely uncritically on officially published data from source countries but also applies its own research. Generally speaking CIA Factbook data is more reliable than comparable data compiled by the UNO (as opposed to data that is the product of original reasearch by UN Agencies).



Moral hazard is an interesting problem of a health insurance system. One of the problems of a private market insurance system is that there is no single insurer that has the monopsony power to exercise control on costs. Health care providers have no incentive to compete on price, and so price increases. But since insurance companies will now be limited in their ability to pass on cost, there will be greater and greater incentive on health care providers to maintain pricing within the capacity of insurers to pay.

replied the boy who lied about the German pirates.

The exemptions are part of US code, that is already established per similar issues in regard to social security among certain religious groups. In my opinion some of the waivers provided in other instances where politically motivated, as political favors. There are many issues per this reform act, that obviously need refinement per the legislative process.

Reasonably, the government can't start issuing out waivers for everyone with personal spiritual beliefs, or anyone could request a waiver based on that potential exclusion. A similar issue applies to the vaccine issue, where one can get a waiver if they are part of an organized religion that is evidenced to have opposition per the traditional beliefs of that religion, however if anyone could get a waiver based on personal beliefs, there is the potential that many more individuals would not vaccinate their children, if their personal beliefs included not vaccinating children.

What could happen if enough people did that, would be the loss of community immunity among the population, and a much greater potential of those immune compromised individuals who could not be vaccinated for medical reasons to die from an illness. There is a similar issue already with health care, as a percentage of the population must be required to purchase health insurance, or those with preexisting conditions will not be allowed an opportunity to be covered and could potentially die as a result. Those statistical determinations had to be made when the law was written.

People don't get waivers not to pay their taxes because of financial hardships, it's part of the requirement of being a US citizen. The waiver for financial hardship is for those that cannot reasonably purchase an insurance policy. For some people owning a $60 a month cell phone subscription might be more important than a requirement to purchase a health insurance policy at about $40 per month, but the reality is there is a crisis of 10's of millions of individuals without health care coverage in the US, some whom are suffering without it.

The problem is much larger than the potential of giving up something like a more expensive cell phone subscription when there are options for $20 a month, that meet emergency requirements for cell phone usage.

I have no idea what the government requirements will be for financial hardship, but bankruptcy laws as they exist, might give someone an idea of what would be required. As strict as they are, I haven't come across many individuals whom have claimed bankruptcy that still don't have an expensive cell phone subscription. The government even provides a limited service for cell phone subscription free to those that get assistance from the government, who already receive many types of government assistance.

Some people against this health reform care act, are against it because they don't want to share in the expense of paying for other people's insurance policies, by being part of the requirement. However if the government had followed that policy individuals who didn't care to drive and share in the tax requirements to build roads, could have potentially prevented the construction of roads. As a society, everyone shares responsibility, in many ways, through paying taxes they are not aware of, and for the majority many programs that they will likely never participate in.

Once the requirements are put into place, there are likely going to be bumps in the highway, but it is another avenue of life provided by society for basic subsistence and survival needs. It's not a right, but it's a way of life, to make a society overall healthier and more productive.

I have no idea what your personal circumstances are, but the issue of health insurance can be an incredibly stressful one when it is a matter of life or death. That often becomes a much larger issue if one has the responsibility for a family. If I was in my early twenties, single and feeling invincible, not likely I would see it the same way as I do now.

That cell phone subscription might seem more important to me, as it likely does to some others that age now, that see it as more valuable commodity than health insurance coverage. Society as a whole, can't play by those rules, if it is going to continue to function in a reasonable manner.

There used to be a time when many were willing to give up their lives for the freedom that society provides. That time has passed for most. If society loses the ability to function, as a healthy one, those freedoms disappear. This new policy might require a little new sacrifice for some, but it is indeed a crisis that must be addressed, much larger than the potential negative impact of scaling down a cell phone subscription, no answers is no longer an option.

Cell phones is something most can identify with, per the issue and prices involved of the insurance coverage for someone that might make minimum wage, but $18 every two weeks is not an unreasonable accommodation by most individuals, considering that there is little to no federal tax required for many people in that tax bracket, per the many tax credits, that have been provided by the government in the last couple of decades.

The government could cut those tax cuts out when they do expire, for those in those income brackets, and the result would in most cases be more significant than this requirement to purchase subsidized health insurance. But it's not going to happen because it would be political suicide, just as calling this mandate what it is, would have been, as passed a couple of years ago, as a potential tax penalty for those in lower income brackets, that don't want to purchase heavily subsidized health insurance.

Nothing has really changed per that tax penalty, except for rhetoric, but the actual described effect of a rise of taxes on some the lower to middle classes that don't purchase insurance will be the rhetoric used against it from now until election day.

And there is obviously still a lot of anger by those that really do stand to benefit the most from this program, because they are going to be required to pay a part of this subsidized program, unless they are below 133% of the poverty level. I tend to forget at times what it felt like to be invincible, but it is obviously a part of the equation, for some, that don't see health insurance as an intelligent decision per the capricious nature of life.

HAI SO U HAPPY FOR OBAMACARE! GUES WUT: ONLY NON-RICH PAY TUXES SO YOU PAYIN FOR UR HEALTHCARE ERGO OBAMACARE IS EVIL

PWNED

SIGNED
~ PARTY BEHIND EXEMPTING THE RICH OF PAYING TAXES.

This will be the counterargument: the CIA is a government agency, and therefore stupid. The information that it provides is grossly unreliable.

This list has Cuba beating us at life expectancy, but only slightly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... expectancy

It is probably a virtual tie, particularly if margins of error in the statistics are considered.

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will help us to catch up with, and maybe one day even surpass Cuba.

On the other hand, we do have a lot more murders and executions than Cuba, plus a huge obesity epidemic, and a lot of people still smoking, so we may have some other factors to overcome.

Wait a tick. I see what's going on here. The bottom half of the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... expectancy

provides the CIA estimates, which downgrades Cuba's life expectancy by about a year, to make it appear that Cubans are worse off than Americans, obviously for political gain.

aghogday- ONCE AGAIN i will say that me and my family HAVE ALWAYS fallen in the crack between being qualified to receive help and being able to make ends me.

right now my mom pays electricity, phone, and rent as well as putting gas in the car for her to drive an hour away to work. if it wasn't for food stamps (and me lying to get them!! !) then we wouldn't eat. we are constantly re-negotiation with the bill collectors to get more time to pay the necessary bills we need to survive AND STILL EAT! if i can't even pay what i have to pay now and don't qualify HOW THE F*** AM I SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR HEALTH INSURANCE?!?!?!?! NOW my mom's income is CONSTANTLY going up and down because of what she does. so how am i going to accurately be able to asses what it will be at any given point in order to get an accurate account of weather i will need to pay for insurance and if i do how much that will be based on my income. MY income has been ZIP in the last 3 and a half years. i am living off my mom and that doesn't seem like it will change any time soon. it doesn't give an option for a family of 2 now does it?!?!?!

133% poverty rates in 2014 for a family of two would be approximately $21,000. If your mom makes less than $21,000, a year, you and your mom would likely qualify for medicaid, and pay nothing for insurance premiums.

Normally, with a few exceptions, households that make more than 130% over the poverty rates are not eligible for food stamps, so it's not likely that your family makes more than the 133% poverty rate required for medicaid under the act, since your family qualifies for food stamps.

If by chance your family does make over the 133% poverty line, and have been been eligible for food stamps, it's likely your family would be able to get a waiver to avoid purchasing health insurance, if it was necessary.

More to the point though, there are many people who do not qualify for medicaid, currently below that 133% poverty line, which is set right at a minimum wage job for a single person, that have no way to purchase health insurance whom are chronically ill and do not have access to treatments, whom are still having to work, because they do not meet the requirements of SSI, which would automatically allow them to be covered under medicaid, so they can receive medical treatment for a chronic health condition.

SSI benefits amount to less than $9,000 a year. A person making 15,000 a year working in a minimum wage job and able to get medical treatments that keep them working, is in a better financial position than someone forced into applying for SSI, because it is the only way they can hope to get medical coverage. It's very difficult for a person receiving SSI, to live independently unless they live in subsidized housing, for obvious reasons.

The worse possible scenario, for your family, would be that there was a requirement to purchase subsidized insurance that you could not afford, a waiver for a financial hardship was turned down, and your family could not afford to pay the tax penalty.

If so, the worse thing that could happen is for the IRS to attempt to sue, but they are not allowed to impose any criminal penalties, levies or liens or your personal property or bank accounts. It would not be of any benefit for the government to deny a reasonable case for financial hardship for a waiver, which from what you describe is an obvious scenario.

The best thing that could happen is that both you and your mother are covered, given the real potential that either of you could desperately need that coverage in the future. This is what many people are hoping for in circumstances like the one that you and your mother are in. One of the major reasons for the health care reform act.

That said Universal care would be a better option if there was any chance that the government could accomplish that feat, because people in your situation wouldn't have to sweat all of these details. The government does a miserable job in communicating with the general public. Some of your unwarranted concerns are evidence of this.

That is part of the reason why there are so many people that do not understand the real potential benefits of the plan, vs. potential unrealistic fears, particularly the still wide circulating myth that the IRS is going to round people up and put them in jail, if they can't afford the insurance and the tax penalty.

Let us make a marketplace out of healthcare.u

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/06/22/5-million-healthcare-jobs-created-by-2020-regardless-of-obamac/

5.6 million jobs are expected to be created in the health care industry in the next 8 years, even if health care reform wasn't upheld. However a significant increase in job opportunities in the Nursing profession are expected as a result of the bill being upheld. Nursing is one way to ensure one keeps a job, as long as one can handle the stress.

And of course, 16,000 jobs created in the IRS, to keep track of the new excise tax.

Seriously though, healthcare is the one area of the job market that is booming for the future.

And for those that were afraid that overall jobs would be cut as a result of the plan, a study done by the Urban Institute determined Romney's mandate in Massachusetts, determined as a reliable model of comparison to the Affordable Care Act, has led to almost Universal coverage in Massachusetts, with no significant job losses.

http://www.urban.org/publications/412583.html

That said, I wouldn't want to work in the health care field, and have never had a desire to do so. Thank goodness there are people out there that can handle the job and the stress, particularly doctors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/30/us/po ... h_20120630

So, Republicans will still have the joy of gleefully dancing on the graves of the poor in states where Republicans call the shots.

Not that the poor would necessarily be able to afford a grave.

And those republicans who love to oppress the poor by denying them healthcare call themselves Christians?