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 Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

FreshFish said:
Here's what Chief Justice Roberts had to say... the very last sentence of the quote seems pretty clear to me: Existing Medicaid funding is fully protected. Read for yourself and see if the English language means the same thing to you as to me:



Doesn't this last sentence seem pretty clear and unequivocable??



http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/scotushealth.pdf, starting on the page marked 45 in the upper right corner.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Existing medicaid funding says to me "some funding" in response to the portion of the law that took away ALL funding. He's not requiring that they keep funding at the same level. That's up to Congress, otherwise what you're saying in your interpretation that Congress can't close the budget deficit by reducing this program per Roberts order. That makes no sense.

Now to the extreme example of cutting a state's funding to a dollar, I'm sure that state would sue and then perhaps the Court would decide yet again if this is vindictive on the part of Congress or not. Can't get into the "what ifs" but I don't read this as Congress can't cut a penny from existing funding. That's stupid.
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Rover said:
No it doesn't. Existing medicaid funding says to me "some funding" in response to the portion of the law that took away ALL funding. He's not requiring that they keep funding at the same level. That's up to Congress, otherwise what you're saying in your interpretation that Congress can't close the budget deficit by reducing this program per Roberts order. That makes no sense.

Now to the extreme example of cutting a state's funding to a dollar, I'm sure that state would sue and then perhaps the Court would decide yet again if this is vindictive on the part of Congress or not. Can't get into the "what ifs" but I don't read this as Congress can't cut a penny from existing funding. That's stupid.
Click to expand...

I agree that Roberts is not requiring the feds to keep existing funding "at the same level as it is now for everyone," however, it does seem abundantly clear that Congress cannot single out particular states to adjust existing Medicaid funding based on whether they adopt the Medicaid expansion or not. If Congress is going to adjust funding for existing Medicaid, it must do so for all states in a proportionate manner, regardless of whether they accept the Medicaid expansion or not.
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

joecct said:
For want of a word......
http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/c....-cf88-11e1-a458-91b9512f10b0&cid=578815&spf=1
Click to expand...

Very amusing. While I usually tend to dismiss any article that uses the term "the smoking gun" after the bazillion times it was used by righties during the Clinton years, I got a kick out of how you define "the state". Do they mean they 50 states or the state as a euphemism for the government, as in "enemy of the state"? Regardless whatever gets neo-cons juices flowing only to be bitterly disappointed works for me!
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Rover said:
Very amusing. While I usually tend to dismiss any article that uses the term "the smoking gun" after the bazillion times it was used by righties during the Clinton years, I got a kick out of how you define "the state". Do they mean they 50 states or the state as a euphemism for the government, as in "enemy of the state"? Regardless whatever gets neo-cons juices flowing only to be bitterly disappointed works for me!
Click to expand...

Wow, the bill is a mess, it disrupts so many things for so many people, and all you can think about is how much you relish the disappointment of political opponents? that is one of the pettiest things I've ever heard from anyone, ever.
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

FreshFish said:
Wow, the bill is a mess, it disrupts so many things for so many people, and all you can think about is how much you relish the disappointment of political opponents? that is one of the pettiest things I've ever heard from anyone, ever.
Click to expand...

Dat's da facts Jack! Nothing is funnier than watching knuckledraggers desperately flee around for something, anything, to try and claim some morsel of victory out of this brutal beatdown at the SCOTUS. As you yourself have engaged in this practice, something unbecoming of you by the way, you have three choices: 1) Suffer, 2) Deal with it, or 3) Elect Mittens Romney President!
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Rover said:
Dat's da facts Jack! Nothing is funnier than watching knuckledraggers desperately flee around for something, anything, to try and claim some morsel of victory out of this brutal beatdown at the SCOTUS. As you yourself have engaged in this practice, something unbecoming of you by the way, you have three choices: 1) Suffer, 2) Deal with it, or 3) Elect Mittens Romney President!
Click to expand...

I don't recall ever taking delight in someone else's misery, but if you can point out a post in which I did so, I'll apologize to the appropriate person.

You'll not find me involved in very much name-calling either. I know such behaviors diminsh the person who engages in them more than the person toward whom they are directed....
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

FreshFish said:
I know such behaviors diminsh the person who engages in them more than the person toward whom they are directed....
Click to expand...

You just go on believing that sparky, although Karl Rove/Lee Atwater/Ed Rollins/etc may beg to differ with your expert analysis.
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

joecct said:
CNN weighs in:
http://money.cnn.com/2012/07/13/sma...aign=Feed:+rss/money_topstories+(Top+Stories)
Click to expand...

I often wonder about who goes into the reporting business nowadays. The guy is going to install self order kiosks at the KFC in rural Alabama and Georgia? Good luck with that. Were I interveiwing the guy, I'd ask if he's ever taken the time to notice who's frequenting his restaurants. Lets just say its not rocket scientists.
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Here's a more concrete example to illustrate how this ill-conceived, misguided law tries to "solve" the wrong problem....


During WWI, the British Army introduced an innovation to protect their soldiers. As a result of this innovation, head injuries increased by 500%. They were very pleased with this result.



[to be continued.....]
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

FreshFish said:
During WWI, the British Army introduced an innovation to protect their soldiers. As a result of this innovation, head injuries increased by 500%. They were very pleased with this result.
Click to expand...

no one up for brain teasers in August,eh? How is it that a 500% increase in head injuries is a favorable result?
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

ScoobyDoo said:
They lived instead of died?
Click to expand...

Bingo!

That's it. rather than have a 500% increase in head injuries be a problem, it meant that the introduction of steel helmets lead to survival rather than death.



The Congressional staffers who wrote the PPACA saw the same kind of result but thought it was a problem instead of a success.

Health costs have been increasing because people are living; health costs for the older end of the spectrum have been increasing because people are living longer.

Also, while some parts of healthcare are pretty basic; some parts of healthcare are somewhat of a convenience, and as people's incomes increase, they want to spend money on conveniences. Having a washer and dryer is more convenient than going to a laundromat; having a hip replacement or knee replacement is more convenient than limping and taking pain killers incessantly.

The solution to this part of the "problem" in healthcare cost is not to restrict access (which PPACA does), it should be to shift responsibility for choice: right now people don't see the price effects of their choices; make the costs visible and let people make their own choices within their own budget.
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

FreshFish said:
The solution to this part of the "problem" in healthcare cost is not to restrict access (which PPACA does), it should be to shift responsibility for choice: right now people don't see the price effects of their choices; make the costs visible and let people make their own choices within their own budget.
Click to expand...

Which is all well and good until someone makes a bad choice or is otherwise injured through no fault of their own.

Such a system only works if you're willing to let people die in the streets if they can't afford health care or make poor choices. Which if that's the kind of society you want, fine. But I don't think either the medical community or the majority of society would agree with that viewpoint.

And to cut off your next response, relying on "charity" to cover the above situations is not a rational solution.
 
Re: The Sad Case of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

unofan said:
Which is all well and good until someone makes a bad choice or is otherwise injured through no fault of their own.

Such a system only works if you're willing to let people die in the streets if they can't afford health care or make poor choices. Which if that's the kind of society you want, fine. But I don't think either the medical community or the majority of society would agree with that viewpoint.

And to cut off your next response, relying on "charity" to cover the above situations is not a rational solution.
Click to expand...

So you're not only rewarding bad choices with health care, you're practically encouraging bad choices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top