What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

When I first read Justice Roberts ruling "upholding" PPACA even though he found the mandate unconstitutional, I told people that it looked like a Trojan Horse to me: that what Roberts really did was undermine the law by making it unworkable. After all, if there is no mandate, there is merely a choice: either you pay a tax or you buy insurance (Roberts actually described the situation in exactly those terms). Since the tax was lower than premiums, the law could not possibly work; either the tax would have to be increased substantially or the law would collapse.

I pointed to this section of his ruling as evidence. He was telling Obama to go perform an auto-erotic act:

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
Click to expand...


Now, it looks like a few prominent conservative legal scholars are seeing the same thing:

The court's determination to preserve ObamaCare through "interpretation" has exacerbated the law's original flaws to the point that it has become palpably unworkable. By transforming the penalties for failing to comply with the law's requirements into a "tax," the court has given the public a green light to ignore ObamaCare's requirements when it is economically beneficial. Law-abiding individuals, who might otherwise have complied with the law's expensive purchase mandate to avoid being subjected to financial penalties, can simply now choose to pay a tax and not sign up for coverage. There is certainly no stigma attached to simply paying a tax, and noncompliance with the law's other requirements—such as those imposed on employers—is arguably made more attractive on the same basis.
Click to expand...


If enough states fail to set up state-run exchanges, then what? The Feds are not prepared and probably not capable of setting up and running the exchanges themselves.

"Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."
 
Last edited:
FreshFish said:
When I first read Justice Roberts ruling "upholding" PPACA even though he found the mandate unconstitutional, I told people that it looked like a Trojan Horse to me: that what Roberts really did was undermine the law by making it unworkable. After all, if there is no mandate, there is merely a choice: either you pay a tax or you buy insurance (Roberts actually described the situation in exactly those terms). Since the tax was lower than premiums, the law could not possibly work; either the tax would have to be increased substantially or the law would collapse.

I pointed to this section of his ruling as evidence. He was telling Obama to go perform an auto-erotic act:




Now, it looks like a few prominent conservative legal scholars are seeing the same thing:




If enough states fail to set up state-run exchanges, then what? The Feds are not prepared and probably not capable of setting up and running the exchanges themselves.

"Be careful what you wish for, you might get it."
Click to expand...

Because everyone will stop getting insurance to save money. Never mind they could not carry insurance today with $0 in tax liability. Yet I don't exactly see a rush of people dropping insurance
 
joecct said:
If a bill is so bad that it can't get a single vote from the minority, it should cause the majority to think that maybe it's not a good bill after all.

Apparently Harry can kill the filibuster by a simple majority vote at the first session of the 112th Congress. The Senate votes to suspend the rules via a majority vote (rules say 2/3 to kill the filibuster), then passes the kill with a simple majority vote. That's going to go over well. The Senate, which is in gridlock now, is going to look like an LA freeway in rush hour. Nothing is getting through b/c there will be no more unanimous consents. Think, Harry, think (if he can).

Will that consequence be MORE executive orders (government by decree)?

That's not the way to run a railroad, even a high speed one.
Click to expand...

You've got a far better view of the Republican in Congress than myself and the vast, vast majority of Americans. I take them as being whiny dinosaurs who don't like the fact that Reagan is no longer President even though he's been dead for almost 10 years, and are committed to obstructing ideas that they even once supported (immigration reform for example). Too bad if it got rammed down their throats.

Fishy, I hate to see you continually get humilated out here, and I think its time for you to think of the children and how there's going to be a permanent record on the internet of you getting embarassed regularly. The feds don't have the ability to set up exchanges? Ooookaaaayyyy...you just go on believing that Skippy!.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Rover said:
...[to paraphrase, said in his best pedantic pontificating voice: while there are plenty of examples of a double negative being used to represent a positive, we never see a double positive being used to represent a negative]...
Click to expand...

yeah, right. :p
 
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08 said:
"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." --Nancy Pelosi

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/10/obamacare-fee-of-63-per-person-to-begin-in-2014/
Click to expand...

ZOMG!!!! A temporary fee of $5.25 per month!!! CALLING ALL KNUCKLEDRAGGERS, WE'VE GOT A CODE RED HERE!

Why is it that when the gubmint passes an unfunded mandate, you righties are fine with it as long as its a Republican advocating it (prescription drug benefit, Iraq war, etc), but when the gubmint pays for the bill its implementing you go berserk?
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Rover said:
ZOMG!!!! A temporary fee of $5.25 per month!!! CALLING ALL KNUCKLEDRAGGERS, WE'VE GOT A CODE RED HERE!

Why is it that when the gubmint passes an unfunded mandate, you righties are fine with it as long as its a Republican advocating it (prescription drug benefit, Iraq war, etc), but when the gubmint pays for the bill its implementing you go berserk?
Click to expand...

Good question. I guess unfunded mandates don't actually get taxed and paid for somehow.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Rover said:
ZOMG!!!! A temporary fee of $5.25 per month!!! CALLING ALL KNUCKLEDRAGGERS, WE'VE GOT A CODE RED HERE!

Why is it that when the gubmint passes an unfunded mandate, you righties are fine with it as long as its a Republican advocating it (prescription drug benefit, Iraq war, etc), but when the gubmint pays for the bill its implementing you go berserk?
Click to expand...

We know the money isn't going to that. As prior evidence, I present Social Security.

Also, please show evidence where these were unfunded (evidence: deficit by year adjusted for inflation in 2002 and 2007, remember they started in 2003)?
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

FlagDUDE08 said:
We know the money isn't going to that. As prior evidence, I present Social Security.

Also, please show evidence where these were unfunded (evidence: deficit by year adjusted for inflation in 2002 and 2007, remember they started in 2003)?
Click to expand...

LOL. Holy Republican Talking Points Batman!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who do you work for? Hannity or O'Reilly?
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
We know the money isn't going to that. As prior evidence, I present Social Security.

Also, please show evidence where these were unfunded (evidence: deficit by year adjusted for inflation in 2002 and 2007, remember they started in 2003)?
Click to expand...

You know Flaggy, people like Hannity, Dick Morris, and Karl Rove are getting compensated to humiliate themselves every night, in some cases pretty well so at the end of the day becoming a laughingstock is a paying job. What exactly are you getting out of it?
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

One really big, serious problem one has when one constantly views things from a partisan perspective is that you can totally miss out on well-intentioned warnings from people who themselves are not partisan at all. They might disagree with you in a way that indicates you should pay attention to them just in case you overlooked something really important! But if you view every disagreement as an attack, you will lose out on that opportunity, and then later on come to regret it!

I had really hoped that health care reform would have been a bona fide objective; unfortunately the only objective appears to have been to pass something so that the perpetrators could then brag about their "legacy" no matter how flawed or tarnished it might be or how damaging the effects would be on real people in real life.

Unions are now finding out the hard way that their concerns really didn't matter, only their support did. Whether the bill might actually ever benefit them or not seems never to have occurred to them. :rolleyes:

...at least, until now....

Union leaders [now] say many of the law's requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive. Among other things, the law eliminates the caps on medical benefits and prescription drugs used as cost-containment measures in many health-care plans. It also allows children to stay on their parents' plans until they turn 26.

To offset that, the nation's largest labor groups want their lower-paid members to be able to get federal insurance subsidies while remaining on their plans. In the law, these subsidies were designed only for low-income workers without employer coverage as a way to help them buy private insurance.
Click to expand...

I found the following sentence particularly ironic:

A handful of unions say they already have examined whether it makes sense to shift workers off their current plans and onto private coverage subsidized by the government. But dropping insurance altogether would undermine a central point of joining a union, labor leaders say. [emphasis added]
Click to expand...

When unions, not employers, are thinking of dropping health coverage because the law's mandates makes it too expensive to maintain without subsidies, you know there is something seriously flawed in the law.

I really wish it were otherwise. :(
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

FreshFish said:
One really big, serious problem one has when one constantly views things from a partisan perspective is that you can totally miss out on well-intentioned warnings from people who themselves are not partisan at all. They might disagree with you in a way that indicates you should pay attention to them just in case you overlooked something really important! But if you view every disagreement as an attack, you will lose out on that opportunity, and then later on come to regret it!

I had really hoped that health care reform would have been a bona fide objective; unfortunately the only objective appears to have been to pass something so that the perpetrators could then brag about their "legacy" no matter how flawed or tarnished it might be or how damaging the effects would be on real people in real life.

Unions are now finding out the hard way that their concerns really didn't matter, only their support did. Whether the bill might actually ever benefit them or not seems never to have occurred to them. :rolleyes:

...at least, until now....



I found the following sentence particularly ironic:



When unions, not employers, are thinking of dropping health coverage because the law's mandates makes it too expensive to maintain without subsidies, you know there is something seriously flawed in the law.

I really wish it were otherwise. :(
Click to expand...

It all goes back to something I said back around 2006 when the left was complaining about our Middle Eastern actions: Sure they were protesting it, but I knew they weren't going to dump it, because they wanted to wait out until they were in control, and then finish the job, and claim all the credit. The same is true with this. They're attention whores. This is an issue that many western societies have with this whole celebrity status, where everyone must know your name, and your descendants must speak of you.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

I was thinking about the cost of "end of life" care, and had a great idea (or at least it seemed so at the time!). Too much of the debate is about compulsion and requirements and mandates and the like.

I may take this idea to some health insurance executives I know, and so if you hear about it in a year or two, great.


Suppose my health insurance plan covers cancer treatment or a debilitating illness. I can get really expensive treatment, and extend my life a few months. The progressive answer is to "encourage" me to accept large daily doses of morphine so that the money can be used for "more worthy" causes.

The market answer is much better for our civil liberties: the insurance company can say to me, "if you forego these expensive treatments that would cost us $350,000; we'll give your family $250,000." Then I can decide. Some people will say, "give me the treatment anyway" and others will say "give my family the money."


The single biggest problem by far in health care is that the person who pays the bills is not the person who receives the services. The PPACA fails to address this root cause, and actually makes it even worse. This idea goes directly toward that cause, and provides an option, not a "Procrustes' bed" solution.
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Why am I not surprised?

Executives at Medicaid- funded not-for-profits in New York are hauling in massive salaries, with one raking in $2.8 million and 14 others topping a half-million, an explosive congressional report has found.

And more than 100 other executives from Medicaid-funded agencies in New York are pulling in more than $200,000, according to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The report, titled Billions of Federal Tax Dollars Wasted Annually by New York’s Medicaid Program, called for a sweeping independent audit of the state’s bloated $54 billion in Medicaid spending, the nation’s highest.

It said the high-flying executive salaries it turned up are just the tip of the iceberg — and not “a comprehensive or exhaustive search of compensation packages.”
Click to expand...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/ny_medicaid_exec_pay_is_sickening_eIbSD2CpEsdyQlaDcbRVSM
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Hey, is this a good place to mention that hard core righty Ohio governor John Kasich as accepted the Medicare expansion in his state? You cons were going to mention that, right?
 
Re: The PPACA - Implementation Phase I

Rover said:
Hey, is this a good place to mention that hard core righty Ohio governor John Kasich as accepted the Medicare expansion in his state? You cons were going to mention that, right?
Click to expand...

Would you also like to add in Arizona, Nevada, and North Dakota? There's one other state as well, but I can't remember which one...

Contrary to popular belief, I don't spend all day on here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top