REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

ObamaCare Upheld!

POSTED BY: KWICKO
UPDATED: Saturday, June 30, 2012 19:39
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4587
PAGE 1 of 2

Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:26 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)




http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/Supreme-C
ourt-rules-on-Obama-health-care-plan-718037/1#.T-xoJJNPaME






"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:31 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


Hello,

How will this impact those various states who have had votes to nullify participation in the program?

--Anthony


Note to Self:
Raptor - women who want to control their reproductive processes are sluts.
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Never forget what these men are.
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -Thomas Szasz

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 4:42 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.


Good news.

I just read a good quote from a healthcare economist who helped draft the law, predicting that Obamacare will become popular if implemented: "I have a vision that if the Affordable Care Act takes place, twenty years from now in a town hall someone will rise and say, 'Keep the government's hands off my Affordable Care Act!'"

It's not personal. It's just war.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:08 AM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT


Oh, my, my!
I surely didn't see that result.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:09 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


"Basically, a bare majority of the justices said that the individual mandate -- the requirement that most Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine -- is constitutional as a tax.

"Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," write Chief Justice John Roberts."

So we're backing into a good thing in a bad way? Great?

"The key provision that 26 states opposing the law had challenged – known as the individual mandate – requires virtually all citizens to buy health insurance meeting minimum federal standards or to pay a fine if they refuse."

How can you pay a fine if you can't afford the insurance? I know that for the poor there are credits or some kind of voucher system, but who decides who's "the poor?" If I'm not one of them and still barely scraping by, do I drop my cable to pay for HC? This just feels wrong. Who'd a thunk the reps might actually be on the ethical side on this one (though it's not for ethical reasons).

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:18 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


I knew it had been upheld when I heard the loud popping sound of Rappy’s head exploding.

Quote:

Originally posted by ANTHONYT:
Hello,

How will this impact those various states who have had votes to nullify participation in the program?



They will have to participate. States are going to have to set up health care exchanges and follow the other provisions.


I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:21 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
How can you pay a fine if you can't afford the insurance?



If you can't afford the insurance with the provided subsities you will most likley be eligable for Medicaid.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:21 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Wow. I did NOT expect that!

Actually, in some ways I'm sad; if it had been defeated, work was already underway to go for single-payor, or "medicare for all", which I believe would have been far better.

Nonetheless, it's something. And I think Americans will like it, on the whole, once the entire thing is implemented. After all, if you don't want to join it, the "tax" isn't all that exhorbidant, AND appears virtually impossible to impose.

This is SO unexpected--by virtually anyone I think--that it has me wondering. I've been hearing a lot the past two days from several commentators on several stations abou the "partisan", "activist" Supreme Court...which of course it IS, far more so than any Supreme Court I'VE ever seen. Things about if they killed it, on top of Citizens United (and the most recent re-affirming of same in Montana), Bush v. Gore, etc., etc., these right-wing decisions were "destroying the faith in the Supreme Court". I wonder if that had anything to do with it...? After all, it's only Roberts who had to feel the pinch; we knew how everyone else would go. If he was hearing these rumblings and thought about it, might that have had any impact on how he chose to vote? Can't help wondering. (Personally, I think a lot of Americans--who are paying any attention--have already lost respect for the Supremes, given their action the past few years.) Just wondering.

I guess basically I have lost all faith in and respect for them, so that part of my "conspiracy theory" brain goes that direction...


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:23 AM

HERO


It's very difficult, but it means insurance for millions of poor, little change to millions of rich and no insurance for the middle class who also face diminished job prospects and much higher taxes.

Very sad.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:38 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
It's very difficult, but it means insurance for millions of poor, little change to millions of rich and no insurance for the middle class who also face diminished job prospects and much higher taxes.



The vast majority of the middle class, as well as everyone else, in the US have health insurance. Your comments show that you really don't understand the law as it was passed, nor the problem it looks to address.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:41 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Direct quote from Rand Paul, minutes ago:

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so."


I guess he missed that part of civics class where they explain how the Court works, eh? A "couple people" - often just ONE swing voter on the Court - *DO* make something constitutional or not by simply declaring it so.


They're not final because they're infallible; they're infallible because they're final.


John Roberts explained it pretty much the way I did a couple years ago: It's in the tax code as a fee, or a deduction you don't get to take if you don't have health insurance. Do homeowners get to take some deductions that renters aren't qualified for? Of course they do. I've yet to hear anyone here argue that such provisions mean the government is taxing renters, or forcing everyone to buy a home whether they want one or not.




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:48 AM

BYTEMITE


Quote:

"I have a vision that if the Affordable Care Act takes place, twenty years from now in a town hall someone will rise and say, 'Keep the government's hands off my Affordable Care Act!' "


Yeah, because Medicare is going to work SO WELL for my generation. There should never be any law that people feel they can't go back in and revise.

However... Affordable Care probably is more deserving of this reaction than Medicare is. But now we're also all now slaves to the insurance companies, everyone has to buy in against our will. Greedy bastards.

The good news is, I'm sure organ donations will continue to increase. Good news for me anyway, though I'm troubled by the possibility that these fools under this new program might actually try to administer treatment for me.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:48 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/Supreme-C
ourt-rules-on-Obama-health-care-plan-718037/1#.T-xoJJNPaME






I feel fine...

I'm sure I'll make a lot of friends standing in line for cheese 10 years from now lol....

Checkmate Dems.... good for you!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:54 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
How can you pay a fine if you can't afford the insurance?



If you can't afford the insurance with the provided subsities you will most likley be eligable for Medicaid.




Thx m52.
I'm more against the idea of the threat from my gov, especially if it's not necessary. If my reported income puts me in a certain eligibility group, then fine, check that box and pay with Medicaid.

Wonder how this will effect that option: "The decision did significantly restrict one major portion of the law: the expansion of Medicaid, the government health-insurance program for low-income and sick people, giving states more flexibility."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 5:54 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
They're not final because they're infallible; they're infallible because they're final.



I hope you don't mind me quoting you on this in the future Kwick, because now that we're officially a 3rd world country we'll probably need those gun rights.

When the same argument comes up for our final rights to gun ownership, they should say the same thing if not more. :)


In the mean time, expect to pay more for everything :)

It won't be just the "smokers" carrying the burden this time....

I don't even know how anybody even shops for food outside of Aldi today....

I work at the Mart and I'd have to work about an hour to buy 2 food items I liked.

I can get about 8 of the same at Aldi for as much man hours.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:00 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
It's very difficult, but it means insurance for millions of poor, little change to millions of rich and no insurance for the middle class who also face diminished job prospects and much higher taxes.

Very sad.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012



Yep....

I bet If I go online tomorrow my minimum wage 24 hour a week job will disqualify me for it, and might even legally make me pay for it out of my wages. As if my booze and cigarette taxes alone aren't paying for three of your idiot kid's educations already....

Sure Johnny Depp is weird....

But he's got something....

If I had more than 1M in the bank, I'd be shitting on America in earnest.

But.... we're not a country anymore. We're a slave state to higher powers now.


Have fun sucking the Emperor's cock, whoever's cock it is that Obama sucks!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:07 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

John Roberts explained it pretty much the way I did a couple years ago: It's in the tax code as a fee, or a deduction you don't get to take if you don't have health insurance. Do homeowners get to take some deductions that renters aren't qualified for? Of course they do. I've yet to hear anyone here argue that such provisions mean the government is taxing renters, or forcing everyone to buy a home whether they want one or not.



I definitely need to read more on this... from this description it sounds like if I can afford health ins. and have it, I get a deduction, but if I can't afford it I end up paying (in effect) more - that seems backwards.
Also, not everyone needs to own a house, but everyone needs health care - so I don't think that analogy works.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:13 AM

MAL4PREZ


Regarding subsidies, I posted this two years ago:


The cutoff level would be an income of four times the federal poverty level. For one person, that’s about $44,000 a year. For a family of four, the comparable figure is about $88,000.

Subsidies would be figured on a sliding scale, with those who make less getting a bigger boost and those nearer the top getting a smaller one.

The formula is pretty complicated. Basically, though, people who make three or four times the poverty level would get enough federal money so that they would not have to pay more than about 10 percent of their income for a decent health insurance package.

People who make less would have to pay a smaller slice of their income for coverage. For instance, individuals who make about $14,000, and four-person families with incomes of about $29,000, would not have to pay more than 3 to 4 percent of their incomes for insurance.

And those who make even less – under 133 percent of the federal poverty level – would be able to enroll in a newly expanded Medicaid program.

The federal subsidy would go straight to the insurer. It would look like a discount on the policy to the customer.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0320/Health-care-reform-bil
l-101-Who-gets-subsidized-insurance


http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=42391&mid=7
66223


I think that newly expanded Medicaid is not so solid now. I don't think it's gone, but it can't be taken away from states who reject other parts of the ACA or something... Sorry, haven't read it in full. Anyone know?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:13 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I definitely need to read more on this... from this description it sounds like if I can afford health ins. and have it, I get a deduction, but if I can't afford it I end up paying (in effect) more - that seems backwards.
Also, not everyone needs to own a house, but everyone needs health care - so I don't think that analogy works.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com



NOBODY needs healthcare...

We're only "cute" until 45 at max....

After that, if we don't pull our weight we're liabilities.....

That's not a Government standpoint, of course, because the Government thrives on old scared people...



It's great we got OBama Care

I can't wait to see 15% sales taxes and 85% taxes on booze and smokes.

fuck accountability....

Me.....Me...... Me..........


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:22 AM

BYTEMITE


If I'm not dead by 45 then I'll have failed in this life utterly, and will wander out into the wilderness in shame.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:24 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
If I'm not dead by 45 then I'll have failed in this life utterly, and will wander out into the wilderness in shame.




Give yourself at least 50 Byte... that's my self proposed life expectancy, and I am horrible to myself :)


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:26 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/Supreme-C
ourt-rules-on-Obama-health-care-plan-718037/1#.T-xoJJNPaME




After reading about this, it's all a "sky is falling" scenario....

Nothing is set in stone. It's likely to get knocked down still.

Enjoy the free healthcare off of my dime while you can... Oh... I forgot... you already were....


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:28 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Quote:

no insurance for the middle class
Where in hell does THAT come from?? Silly me, I read the first part before I realized the source, but that seems like an insane statement to me.

Pizmo, I think that is how it works; I'm not sure whether it's backwards or not, I don't see it that way. If it's a deduction you can take (supposedly to offset some of the cost of health insurance), isn't that like any other deduction? You have the choice whether to take it or not.

And yes, it's a boon for the health-insurance industry, dammit, which may be part of what swayed Roberts too? Given conservatives are in favor of for-profit everything, this is a pretty good for-profit deal. But we were FORCED into making it that way, as everything else was refused by the right, and even when Obama/Dems gave into virtually EVERY demand the Republicans made (then didn't vote for it anyway), it turned out to be a weak, illogical law. Again I can only hope that, like SSI and other things, to get it through you have to make it weak and have many flaws, then once it's in place you can refine it. I can hope; it's happened many times.

Nonetheless, as it stands now it's a gimme for the health-insurance industry in that it forces us to buy from them. There's some good stuff in there, like the return of premiums not used, the requirement that companies have to use (whatever percentage it was) toward medical costs, and a few other restrictions on how MUCH they can dun us for, but it's pretty damned imperfect.

Medicare for All would have been better--Medicare isn't perfect, either, and certainly those who could afford it would supplement it, but it WOULD mean that everyone has at least SOME coverage, and the rest of us aren't paying for super-expensive emergency-room visits as the only option people who can't afford coverage have. It's better than nothing in that respect.

As to the government "deciding" about our health care, don't insurance companies do that already? The biggest "death panels" I see as it is now, are health insurance companies wriggling out of covering stuff, pricing health insurance beyond reach, dumping people because they're too expensive, and having yearly, etc., limits on costs.

What I've heard from commentators, and fully agree with, is that Obama hasn't done nearly enough to tell the American public exactly WHAT "Obamacare" consists of, clearly and simply. I think that's why so many are against it; they don't know what it actually IS, and the right has done such a good job of propagandized it and screamed about the mandate as if it were some hugely onerous burden. From what I've read in trying to figure it out, the deduction isn't enforceable anyway, so in reality if people figure it out, they DON'T have to buy health insurance. I'm just as happy that's not been pointed out much, because if enough people don't buy, the whole thing falls apart, but the GOOD points haven't been explained cleary and simply enough for people to actually understand what it entails.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:29 AM

BYTEMITE


Fuck 50. Honestly, fuck 27. I only said 45 because that would be mortifying, but frankly it's embarrassing enough as it is I've lived this long.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:35 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:I think that newly expanded Medicaid is not so solid now. I don't think it's gone, but it can't be taken away from states who reject other parts of the ACA or something... Sorry, haven't read it in full. Anyone know?



The court decision said that the federal government can't take away existing Medicaid funding if sates do not go along with the Medicaid expansion. That being said the federal government is going to pay 100% of the expansion for the first two year and than 90% after that. Plus nothing says the government can't threaten to take other types of funding away if states do not go along with the expansion.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:40 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:the deduction isn't enforceable anyway, so in reality if people figure it out, they DON'T have to buy health insurance.


Where do you get this? It will be enforceable through the IRS. If you have insurance you will not have to pay the tax, if you don't you will. The IRS is just going to tack this on to people's income tax.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:40 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Fuck 50. Honestly, fuck 27. I only said 45 because that would be mortifying, but frankly it's embarrassing enough as it is I've lived this long.



Hehe...

I say the same at going on 33....

This is a planet for young people.....

When the Disney Channel has lost all attention from you, it's time to put an axe in your head, I say....

The only ones older than that are wrinkly and carmodugdendly...

Fuck old people...... including us....

Especially Niki. Anyone who lived through the Civil War and wears bloomers as sexy apparel today is a relic that has oulived their purpose.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:42 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:

People who make less would have to pay a smaller slice of their income for coverage. For instance, individuals who make about $14,000, and four-person families with incomes of about $29,000, would not have to pay more than 3 to 4 percent of their incomes for insurance.



Thx M4P. 3 to 4 percent sounds like just a little bit, but if you only make $14K, minus taxes, minus car insurance, minus food and essentials, it's a sh*t load, $560 at 4% - they can't afford that. It still seems like punishment - plus knowing that this will most likely be a boon for the already wealthy insurance companies... I can't believe this.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:44 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:


http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/Supreme-C
ourt-rules-on-Obama-health-care-plan-718037/1#.T-xoJJNPaME




After reading about this, it's all a "sky is falling" scenario....

Nothing is set in stone. It's likely to get knocked down still.

Enjoy the free healthcare off of my dime while you can... Oh... I forgot... you already were....




Not quite, Jack. You forget, of the two of us, I'm the one with a full-time job who hasn't been sponging off the taxpayers for the past several years.


But I'm all ears. Please lay out the exact method for how you think it's going to get "knocked down still".

I'll wait.



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:47 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Fuck 50. Honestly, fuck 27. I only said 45 because that would be mortifying, but frankly it's embarrassing enough as it is I've lived this long.



Hehe...

I say the same at going on 33....

This is a planet for young people.....

When the Disney Channel has lost all attention from you, it's time to put an axe in your head, I say....

The only ones older than that are wrinkly and carmodugdendly...

Fuck old people...... including us....

Especially Niki. Anyone who lived through the Civil War and wears bloomers as sexy apparel today is a relic that has oulived their purpose.




How old was your uncle?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:48 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by mal4prez:

People who make less would have to pay a smaller slice of their income for coverage. For instance, individuals who make about $14,000, and four-person families with incomes of about $29,000, would not have to pay more than 3 to 4 percent of their incomes for insurance.



Thx M4P. 3 to 4 percent sounds like just a little bit, but if you only make $14K, minus taxes, minus car insurance, minus food and essentials, it's a sh*t load, $560 at 4% - they can't afford that. It still seems like punishment - plus knowing that this will most likely be a boon for the already wealthy insurance companies... I can't believe this.


Yep.... for the poor and next to poor it's horrible...

Forgive my abrupt disppearance,but I'm going to leave and masturbate and meditate on this now.....

My property insurance was just increased 11 percent this year for no reason, why not pay for foreigner's health care when I haven't seen a doctor in over 7 years, right?

RWED sucks.... What I'm going to spend 20 minutes in now is so much better than the REAL RWED.... Thank God I'm not married!

Do this whenever I want.....

Please the John-son!

A monster....

Not no, white boy or asian boy pinky clitty...



Fuck politics everyone....

Gov's got us down and controls everything now.

Just cherish your unlisted firearms as a surprise....



Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:50 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
plus knowing that this will most likely be a boon for the already wealthy insurance companies... I can't believe this.



Until you considare that they now have to cover peopel with pre-existing conditions, can't impose lifetime cost limits, and have to use 80% of all premiums on health care cost....not really.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 6:52 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
How old was your uncle?



He was 52, and He was suffering. According to my grams, his first of 4 suicide attemtps was to try to drown himself in the bathtub when he was only 8



Guess he finally got it right when he used his 6 shooter to the dome....

but he at least had enough class to wrap the entire garage in plastic for an easy clean up.....







You want to go here son?

I'll smack my Johnson all up in your face if you're playing.....

Suicide runs up my family tree even stronger than Cancer, and that ain't no fucking joke.

Politely..... Take a step back or more if you've never been surrounded by that kind of thing.....


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:15 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


This is pretty hilarious.

One would hope they're being ironic, but who knows...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obam
acare




"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:19 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
This is pretty hilarious.

One would hope they're being ironic, but who knows...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/people-moving-to-canada-because-of-obam
acare



That is to damn funny.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:21 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
How old was your uncle?



He was 52, and He was suffering. According to my grams, his first of 4 suicide attemtps was to try to drown himself in the bathtub when he was only 8



Guess he finally got it right when he used his 6 shooter to the dome....

but he at least had enough class to wrap the entire garage in plastic for an easy clean up.....

You want to go here son?

I'll smack my Johnson all up in your face if you're playing.....

Suicide runs up my family tree even stronger than Cancer, and that ain't no fucking joke.

Politely..... Take a step back or more if you've never been surrounded by that kind of thing.....




You opened that door, Jack. You suggested people over a certain age should "bury an axe in their head", and suggested that Niki should be dead. Your uncle made it to 52, "but he was suffering" - Wow, you must hate him for waiting so long before doing himself in, right? I mean, 52 is *OLD*, isn't it, in your book?

Why do you think it's cool for you to be an asshole to everybody, but not for anyone else to return the treatment to you?

Want me to step back? Lead on. If you want to make absurd statements, don't start crying when I use absurdist statements to show how absurd you are being.





"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:31 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
plus knowing that this will most likely be a boon for the already wealthy insurance companies... I can't believe this.



Until you considare that they now have to cover peopel with pre-existing conditions, can't impose lifetime cost limits, and have to use 80% of all premiums on health care cost....not really.



I hope you are right - I'm going to hold onto my skepticism and distrust in this for a while longer. No plans for a northern migration though...

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:36 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
plus knowing that this will most likely be a boon for the already wealthy insurance companies... I can't believe this.



Until you considare that they now have to cover peopel with pre-existing conditions, can't impose lifetime cost limits, and have to use 80% of all premiums on health care cost....not really.



I hope you are right - I'm going to hold onto my skepticism and distrust in this for a while longer.



Probably the prudent position.

I have my doubts, too. But hearing idiots like "Hero" claim that it's a tax increase or that it will mean the middle class have no insurance is pretty goddam funny to me, especially since I've never once heard him argue against "sin taxes", which is in essence what the "mandate" part of ObamaCare amounts to. If you have coverage, you aren't "taxed" or "fined"; if it's a tax, it's a tax on the uninsured.

Would it be better just to turn people away from hospitals who aren't insured?



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:44 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57459511/health-care-ruling-wha
t-it-means-for-you
/

This article has a nice little summary of the law.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 7:52 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Would it be better just to turn people away from hospitals who aren't insured?



YES! Forced debtor labor camps! Work from your hospital bed to cover your bill! Pay for your sprained ankle by volunteering for experimental drug tests... take pride in knowing that your sacrifices will help (wealthy) people live longer! ;)

I remember being dead broke and what a bottomless pit it was, year after year, taking extra shifts, other lousy jobs, nothing seemed to work, no sense of light at the end of the tunnel... I know, "sob" - it's a broken record. It's simply a pretty overwhelming experience. Last thing those people need is any more burden.

I'm going to be a skeptic and think there's a better solution until it plays out and we have some feedback from a lot of different people.



Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:10 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The vast majority of the middle class, as well as everyone else, in the US have health insurance. Your comments show that you really don't understand the law as it was passed, nor the problem it looks to address.


I understand the law. It says that employers MUST provide health insurance...like they already do.

But if they choose not to they will pay a fine...which is less then the cost of insurance. So if it costs your employer $20,000 to pay your benefits, but $10,000 to pay the fine...which do you think they will choose?

Ok, so the middle class loses its health insurance meaning that either they pay the cost of the insurance or the penalty all of which is now a TAX.

So businesses pay less so they can hire more people...wrong becaue of the REST of the bill is full of regulations, mandates, and business tax increases so while saving money by dumping millions off their employer health coverage, its a net loss in revenue so that means holding off on hiring, expansions, and all the business growth kind of stuff that we otherwise would be seeing, not to mention layoffs and closings by businesses on the bubble. In other words...diminished job opportunities.

I find it disturing that the President says "I don't have the power to unilaterally rewrite immigration laws" and then unilaterally rewrites immigration laws, then the Court says the govt can't force you to buy something before saying (in the same opinion) that the govt can make you buy something.

This is trouble my friends...right here in River City. I know how conservatives feel, why are liberals not afraid...eventually we'll have control, do you really want this precendent?

How about the Affordible Gun Act which gives you a 'tax' penalty if you don't own a firearm. The Affordable Baby Act which gives you a tax penalty if you don't have your baby once you are pregnant (sure abortion is legal, but that baby is a potential tax payer and you should help make up the govt's lost revenue if you choose to abort it). Oh, the Affordable Rush Limbaugh Act which taxes people for not listening to at least 3 hours of conservative talk radio. The Affordable Meat Act...you Vegans will hate that one. The Affordable Church Act, The Affordable Smoking Act, the Affordable War For Oil Act, the Affordable Voter ID Act, the Affordable Fox News Act, the Affordable All the Crap You'd Never Do if You Had a Choice Act...

This decision does protect us from the Affordable Liberty Act and the Affordable Limitations of Governmental Power Act...which is too bad.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:15 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by m52nickerson:
The vast majority of the middle class, as well as everyone else, in the US have health insurance. Your comments show that you really don't understand the law as it was passed, nor the problem it looks to address.


I understand the law. It says that employers MUST provide health insurance...like they already do.

But if they choose not to they will pay a fine...which is less then the cost of insurance. So if it costs your employer $20,000 to pay your benefits, but $10,000 to pay the fine...which do you think they will choose?

Ok, so the middle class loses its health insurance meaning that either they pay the cost of the insurance or the penalty all of which is now a TAX.

So businesses pay less so they can hire more people...wrong becaue of the REST of the bill is full of regulations, mandates, and business tax increases so while saving money by dumping millions off their employer health coverage, its a net loss in revenue so that means holding off on hiring, expansions, and all the business growth kind of stuff that we otherwise would be seeing, not to mention layoffs and closings by businesses on the bubble. In other words...diminished job opportunities.

I find it disturing that the President says "I don't have the power to unilaterally rewrite immigration laws" and then unilaterally rewrites immigration laws, then the Court says the govt can't force you to buy something before saying (in the same opinion) that the govt can make you buy something.

This is trouble my friends...right here in River City. I know how conservatives feel, why are liberals not afraid...eventually we'll have control, do you really want this precendent?

How about the Affordible Gun Act which gives you a 'tax' penalty if you don't own a firearm. The Affordable Baby Act which gives you a tax penalty if you don't have your baby once you are pregnant (sure abortion is legal, but that baby is a potential tax payer and you should help make up the govt's lost revenue if you choose to abort it). Oh, the Affordable Rush Limbaugh Act which taxes people for not listening to at least 3 hours of conservative talk radio. The Affordable Meat Act...you Vegans will hate that one. The Affordable Church Act, The Affordable Smoking Act, the Affordable War For Oil Act, the Affordable Voter ID Act, the Affordable Fox News Act, the Affordable All the Crap You'd Never Do if You Had a Choice Act...

This decision does protect us from the Affordable Liberty Act and the Affordable Limitations of Governmental Power Act...which is too bad.

H

Hero...must be right on all of this. ALL of the rest of us are wrong. Chrisisall, 2012




Actually, the SCOTUS already ruled on the Affordable Liberty Act, and upheld the idea that rich people are entitled to more speech than poor people. It's called "Citizens United" in case you were wondering.

We also already have the Affordable Church Act, at least until every church pays as much in taxes as every citizen does.

Actually, most of the things you've listed are already covered - I had to pay for your stupid fucking wars, you want me to pay for your stupid voter ID laws, and more.

ETA: Look up Militia Act of 1792. I think you call it the "Affordable Gun Act".



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:16 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Would it be better just to turn people away from hospitals who aren't insured?



YES! Forced debtor labor camps! Work from your hospital bed to cover your bill! Pay for your sprained ankle by volunteering for experimental drug tests... take pride in knowing that your sacrifices will help (wealthy) people live longer! ;)




Did Mitt Romney e-mail that to you? ;)



"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero


"I've not watched the video either, or am incapable of intellectually dealing with the substance of this thread, so I'll instead act like a juvenile and claim victory..." - Rappy

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 8:39 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
I understand the law. It says that employers MUST provide health insurance...like they already do.

But if they choose not to they will pay a fine...which is less then the cost of insurance. So if it costs your employer $20,000 to pay your benefits, but $10,000 to pay the fine...which do you think they will choose?



The tax penalty on employers, who have over 50 employees, is $2,000 per employee. So that would mean the minimum tax would be $42,000. It will be far cheaper for employers to offer insurance, more so when you realize that the employers don't have to cover 100% of the premiums for their employees.

Even if an employer drops insurance coverage, people can buy through the exchanges and get subsidized to do it.

Plus you have the massive fact that the tax is just more incentive for employeers to keep insurance coverage. More incentive is good.

Also the court did not say the government can make you buy something. It said it can tax people who don't have insurance coverage. There is a difference between those two statements.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:41 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


Re: Unenforceability. I heard and read this several places quite some time ago, but I don't remember where. This will cover it sufficiently, however, I think:
Quote:

According to a report by Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the individual mandate in Obamacare lacks any real enforcement mechanism:
Quote:

The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner (Emphasis in original). http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/197046/mandate-unenforceable/dani
el-foster
: how much you pay,
Quote:

Tax credits to help the middle class afford insurance will become available for those with income between 100% and 400% of the poverty line who are not eligible for other affordable coverage. (In 2010, 400% of the poverty line comes out to about $43,000 for an individual or $88,000 for a family of four.) The tax credit is advanceable, so it can lower your premium payments each month, rather than making you wait for tax time. It’s also refundable, so even moderate income families can receive the full benefit of the credit. These individuals may also qualify for reduced cost-sharing (copayments, co-insurance, and deductibles).

Americans who earn less than 133% of the poverty level (approximately $14,000 for an individual and $29,000 for a family of four) will be eligible to enroll in Medicaid. States will receive 100% federal funding for the first three years to support this expanded coverage, phasing to 90% federal funding in subsequent years. http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/

There's what appears to be an excellent breakdown of the various aspects of Obamacare at that site, and after reading them, I'm kinda impressed; if it works, this isn't nearly as bad as even I was led to believe.

I love this:
Quote:

Enjoy the free healthcare off of my dime while you can... Oh... I forgot... you already were....
Who here is doing that? I'm covered by my husband's employer-provided health insurance, what about the rest of us?
Quote:

Especially Niki. Anyone who lived through the Civil War and wears bloomers as sexy apparel today is a relic that has oulived their purpose.
Interesting; he's really got a hard-on for me, hasn't he? Wonder why. He's getting to sound more and more like Kane in his determined focusing of his hatred on me...but he hasn't got nearly the imagination of Kane, and is far more obsessed with his own dick. I guess we gotta have one of them around, just to entertain us. Just amusing to notice (which I wouldn't have if you hadn't quoted him, Mike).

"Hero's" funny, too:
Quote:

I find it disturing that the President says "I don't have the power to unilaterally rewrite immigration laws" and then unilaterally rewrites immigration laws
He obviously bit whole hog on FauxNews' edited tape. We covered this one, "Hero", they cut it to look like that, but the rest of what Obama said explains what he eventually did. Check it out under "FauxNews strikes again". It simply ain't so.

The rest of what he wrote is just the usual bullshit from the right to make everyone paranoid. Besides, if it needed countering, Mike already did so quite nicely. "Affordable Church Act"--I love it! And of course, as he said, we do already have the Affordable War Act... We gotta pay for 'em whether we want 'em or not, right? Too bad that "act" doesn't have the same mandate as the Affordable Care Act, where you can opt out of paying for wars by paying a tax/not taking a deduction, which can't be enforced anyway. I'd LOVE such an act!

One of the things I find interesting is all this talk about it being a "tax". Let's see...is there a way in which this act makes one pay MORE taxes, or does it provide a tax DEDUCTION if you have health insurance? In other words, has anything been ADDED to our tax bill, or do we just have a new deduction--which millions of us get because we've already got health insurance? Are they actually adding a new tax? Does anyone know?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 10:59 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...


There's so much confusion, I decided to look up something readable to explain it all to me. This is what I found--it's long, but even at that, shorter than the actual act itself!:
Quote:

OVERVIEW OF THE HEALTH CARE LAW

2010
NEW CONSUMER PROTECTIONS

Putting Information for Consumers Online. The law provides for an easy-to-use website where consumers can compare health insurance coverage options and pick the coverage that works for them. Effective July 1, 2010.

Prohibiting Denying Coverage of Children Based on Pre-Existing Conditions. The health care law includes new rules to prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to children under the age of 19 due to a pre-existing condition. Effective for health plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010 for new plans and existing group plans.

Prohibiting Insurance Companies from Rescinding Coverage. In the past, insurance companies could search for an error, or other technical mistake, on a customer’s application and use this error to deny payment for services when he or she got sick. The health care law makes this illegal. After media reports cited incidents of breast cancer patients losing coverage, insurance companies agreed to end this practice immediately. Effective for health plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010.

Eliminating Lifetime Limits on Insurance Coverage. Under the law, insurance companies will be prohibited from imposing lifetime dollar limits on essential benefits, like hospital stays. Effective for health plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010.

Regulating Annual Limits on Insurance Coverage. Under the law, insurance companies’ use of annual dollar limits on the amount of insurance coverage a patient may receive will be restricted for new plans in the individual market and all group plans. In 2014, the use of annual dollar limits on essential benefits like hospital stays will be banned for new plans in the individual market and all group plans. Effective for health plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010.

Appealing Insurance Company Decisions. The law provides consumers with a way to appeal coverage determinations or claims to their insurance company, and establishes an external review process. Effective for new plans beginning on or after September 23, 2010.

Establishing Consumer Assistance Programs in the States. Under the law, states that apply receive federal grants to help set up or expand independent offices to help consumers navigate the private health insurance system. These programs help consumers file complaints and appeals; enroll in health coverage; and get educated about their rights and responsibilities in group health plans or individual health insurance policies. The programs will also collect data on the types of problems consumers have, and file reports with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to identify trouble spots that need further oversight. Grants Awarded October 2010.

IMPROVING QUALITY AND LOWERING COSTS

Providing Small Business Health Insurance Tax Credits. Up to 4 million small businesses are eligible for tax credits to help them provide insurance benefits to their workers. The first phase of this provision provides a credit worth up to 35% of the employer’s contribution to the employees’ health insurance. Small non-profit organizations may receive up to a 25% credit. Effective now.

Offering Relief for 4 Million Seniors Who Hit the Medicare Prescription Drug “Donut Hole.” An estimated four million seniors will reach the gap in Medicare prescription drug coverage known as the “donut hole” this year. Each eligible senior will receive a one-time, tax free $250 rebate check. First checks mailed in June, 2010, and will continue monthly throughout 2010 as seniors hit the coverage gap. .

Providing Free Preventive Care. All new plans must cover certain preventive services such as mammograms and colonoscopies without charging a deductible, co-pay or coinsurance. Effective for health plan years beginning on or after September 23, 2010..

Preventing Disease and Illness. A new $15 billion Prevention and Public Health Fund will invest in proven prevention and public health programs that can help keep Americans healthy – from smoking cessation to combating obesity. Funding begins in 2010.

Cracking Down on Health Care Fraud. Current efforts to fight fraud have returned more than $2.5 billion to the Medicare Trust Fund in fiscal year 2009 alone. The new law invests new resources and requires new screening procedures for health care providers to boost these efforts and reduce fraud and waste in Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP. Many provisions effective now.

INCREASING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE CARE

Providing Access to Insurance for Uninsured Americans with Pre-Existing Conditions. The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan provides new coverage options to individuals who have been uninsured for at least six months because of a pre-existing condition. States have the option of running this program in their state. If a state chooses not to do so, a plan will be established by the Department of Health and Human Services in that state. National program effective July 1, 2010.

Extending Coverage for Young Adults. Under the law, young adults will be allowed to stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26 years old (in the case of existing group health plans, this right does not apply if the young adult is offered insurance at work). Check with your insurance company or employer to see if you qualify. Effective for health plan years beginning on or after September 23.

Expanding Coverage for Early Retirees. Too often, Americans who retire without employer-sponsored insurance and before they are eligible for Medicare see their life savings disappear because of high rates in the individual market. To preserve employer coverage for early retirees until more affordable coverage is available through the new Exchanges by 2014, the new law creates a $5 billion program to provide needed financial help for employment-based plans to continue to provide valuable coverage to people who retire between the ages of 55 and 65, as well as their spouses and dependents. Applications for employers to participate in the program available June 1, 2010..

Rebuilding the Primary Care Workforce. To strengthen the availability of primary care, there are new incentives in the law to expand the number of primary care doctors, nurses and physician assistants. These include funding for scholarships and loan repayments for primary care doctors and nurses working in underserved areas. Doctors and nurses receiving payments made under any state loan repayment or loan forgiveness program intended to increase the availability of health care services in underserved or health professional shortage areas will not have to pay taxes on those payments. Effective 2010 .

Holding Insurance Companies Accountable for Unreasonable Rate Hikes. The law allows states that have, or plan to implement, measures that require insurance companies to justify their premium increases will be eligible for $250 million in new grants. Insurance companies with excessive or unjustified premium exchanges may not be able to participate in the new health insurance Exchanges in 2014. Grants awarded beginning in 2010.

Allowing States to Cover More People on Medicaid. States will be able to receive federal matching funds for covering some additional low-income individuals and families under Medicaid for whom federal funds were not previously available. This will make it easier for states that choose to do so to cover more of their residents. Effective April 1, 2010.
.
Increasing Payments for Rural Health Care Providers. Today, 68% of medically underserved communities across the nation are in rural areas. These communities often have trouble attracting and retaining medical professionals. The law provides increased payment to rural health care providers to help them continue to serve their communities. Effective 2010.

Strengthening Community Health Centers. The law includes new funding to support the construction of and expand services at community health centers, allowing these centers to serve some 20 million new patients across the country. Effective 2010.

2011
IMPROVING QUALITY AND LOWERING COSTS

Offering Prescription Drug Discounts. Seniors who reach the coverage gap will receive a 50% discount when buying Medicare Part D covered brand-name prescription drugs. Over the next ten years, seniors will receive additional savings on brand-name and generic drugs until the coverage gap is closed in 2020. Effective January 1, 2011.

Providing Free Preventive Care for Seniors. The law provides certain free preventive services, such as annual wellness visits and personalized prevention plans for seniors on Medicare. Effective January 1, 2011.

Improving Health Care Quality and Efficiency. The law establishes a new Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation that will begin testing new ways of delivering care to patients. These methods are expected to improve the quality of care, and reduce the rate of growth in health care costs for Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Additionally, by January 1, 2011, HHS will submit a national strategy for quality improvement in health care, including by these programs. Effective no later than January 1, 2011.
.
Improving Care for Seniors After They Leave the Hospital. The Community Care Transitions Program will help high risk Medicare beneficiaries who are hospitalized avoid unnecessary readmissions by coordinating care and connecting patients to services in their communities. Effective January 1, 2011.

Introducing New Innovations to Bring Down Costs. The Independent Payment Advisory Board will begin operations to develop and submit proposals to Congress and the President aimed at extending the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. The Board is expected to focus on ways to target waste in the system, and recommend ways to reduce costs, improve health outcomes for patients, and expand access to high-quality care. Administrative funding becomes available October 1, 2011.

INCREASING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE CARE

Increasing Access to Services at Home and in the Community. The Community First Choice Option allows states to offer home and community based services to disabled individuals through Medicaid rather than institutional care in nursing homes. Effective beginning October 1, 2011.

HOLDING INSURANCE COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE

Bringing Down Health Care Premiums. To ensure premium dollars are spent primarily on health care, the law generally requires that at least 85% of all premium dollars collected by insurance companies for large employer plans are spent on health care services and health care quality improvement. For plans sold to individuals and small employers, at least 80% of the premium must be spent on benefits and quality improvement. If insurance companies do not meet these goals, because their administrative costs or profits are too high, they must provide rebates to consumers. Effective January 1, 2011.

Addressing Overpayments to Big Insurance Companies and Strengthening Medicare Advantage. Today, Medicare pays Medicare Advantage insurance companies over $1,000 more per person on average than is spent per person in Traditional Medicare. This results in increased premiums for all Medicare beneficiaries, including the 77% of beneficiaries who are not currently enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. The law levels the playing field by gradually eliminating this discrepancy. People enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan will still receive all guaranteed Medicare benefits, and the law provides bonus payments to Medicare Advantage plans that provide high quality care. Effective January 1, 2011.


2012
IMPROVING QUALITY AND LOWERING COSTS

Linking Payment to Quality Outcomes. The law establishes a hospital Value-Based Purchasing program (VBP) in Traditional Medicare. This program offers financial incentives to hospitals to improve the quality of care. Hospital performance is required to be publicly reported, beginning with measures relating to heart attacks, heart failure, pneumonia, surgical care, health-care associated infections, and patients’ perception of care. Effective for payments for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2012.

Encouraging Integrated Health Systems. The new law provides incentives for physicians to join together to form “Accountable Care Organizations.” These groups allow doctors to better coordinate patient care and improve the quality, help prevent disease and illness and reduce unnecessary hospital admissions. If Accountable Care Organizations provide high quality care and reduce costs to the health care system, they can keep some of the money that they have helped save. Effective January 1, 2012.
.
Reducing Paperwork and Administrative Costs. Health care remains one of the few industries that relies on paper records. The new law will institute a series of changes to standardize billing and requires health plans to begin adopting and implementing rules for the secure, confidential, electronic exchange of health information. Using electronic health records will reduce paperwork and administrative burdens, cut costs, reduce medical errors and most importantly, improve the quality of care. First regulation effective October 1, 2012.

Understanding and Fighting Health Disparities. To help understand and reduce persistent health disparities, the law requires any ongoing or new federal health program to collect and report racial, ethnic and language data. The Secretary of Health and Human Services will use this data to help identify and reduce disparities. Effective March 2012.

INCREASING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE CARE

Providing New, Voluntary Options for Long-Term Care Insurance. The law creates a voluntary long-term care insurance program – called CLASS -- to provide cash benefits to adults who become disabled. Note: On October 14, 2011, Secretary Sebelius transmitted a report and letter to Congress stating that the Department does not see a viable path forward for CLASS implementation at this time.

2013
IMPROVING QUALITY AND LOWERING COSTS

Improving Preventive Health Coverage. To expand the number of Americans receiving preventive care, the law provides new funding to state Medicaid programs that choose to cover preventive services for patients at little or no cost. Effective January 1, 2013.

Expanding Authority to Bundle Payments. The law establishes a national pilot program to encourage hospitals, doctors, and other providers to work together to improve the coordination and quality of patient care. Under payment “bundling,” hospitals, doctors, and providers are paid a flat rate for an episode of care rather than the current fragmented system where each service or test or bundles of items or services are billed separately to Medicare. For example, instead of a surgical procedure generating multiple claims from multiple providers, the entire team is compensated with a “bundled” payment that provides incentives to deliver health care services more efficiently while maintaining or improving quality of care. It aligns the incentives of those delivering care, and savings are shared between providers and the Medicare program. Effective no later than January 1, 2013.

INCREASING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE CARE

Increasing Medicaid Payments for Primary Care Doctors. As Medicaid programs and providers prepare to cover more patients in 2014, the Act requires states to pay primary care physicians no less than 100% of Medicare payment rates in 2013 and 2014 for primary care services. The increase is fully funded by the federal government. Effective January 1, 2013.

Providing Additional Funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program. Under the law, states will receive two more years of funding to continue coverage for children not eligible for Medicaid. Effective October 1, 2013.

2014
NEW CONSUMER PROTECTIONS

Prohibiting Discrimination Due to Pre-Existing Conditions or Gender. The law implements strong reforms that prohibit insurance companies from refusing to sell coverage or renew policies because of an individual’s pre-existing conditions. Also, in the individual and small group market, the law eliminates the ability of insurance companies to charge higher rates due to gender or health status. Effective January 1, 2014.

Eliminating Annual Limits on Insurance Coverage. The law prohibits new plans and existing group plans from imposing annual dollar limits on the amount of coverage an individual may receive. Effective January 1, 2014.

Ensuring Coverage for Individuals Participating in Clinical Trials. Insurers will be prohibited from dropping or limiting coverage because an individual chooses to participate in a clinical trial. Applies to all clinical trials that treat cancer or other life-threatening diseases. Effective January 1, 2014.

IMPROVING QUALITY AND LOWERING COSTS

Making Care More Affordable. Tax credits to make it easier for the middle class to afford insurance will become available for people with income between 100% and 400% of the poverty line who are not eligible for other affordable coverage. (In 2010, 400% of the poverty line comes out to about $43,000 for an individual or $88,000 for a family of four.) The tax credit is advanceable, so it can lower your premium payments each month, rather than making you wait for tax time. It’s also refundable, so even moderate-income families can receive the full benefit of the credit. These individuals may also qualify for reduced cost-sharing (copayments, co-insurance, and deductibles). Effective January 1, 2014. \

Establishing Affordable Insurance Exchanges. Starting in 2014 if your employer doesn’t offer insurance, you will be able to buy it directly in an Affordable Insurance Exchange. An Exchange is a new transparent and competitive insurance marketplace where individuals and small businesses can buy affordable and qualified health benefit plans. Exchanges will offer you a choice of health plans that meet certain benefits and cost standards. Starting in 2014, Members of Congress will be getting their health care insurance through Exchanges, and you will be able buy your insurance through Exchanges too. Effective January 1, 2014. .

Increasing the Small Business Tax Credit. The law implements the second phase of the small business tax credit for qualified small businesses and small non-profit organizations. In this phase, the credit is up to 50% of the employer’s contribution to provide health insurance for employees. There is also up to a 35% credit for small non-profit organizations. Effective January 1, 2014.

INCREASING ACCESS TO AFFORDABLE CARE

Increasing Access to Medicaid. Americans who earn less than 133% of the poverty level (approximately $14,000 for an individual and $29,000 for a family of four) will be eligible to enroll in Medicaid. States will receive 100% federal funding for the first three years to support this expanded coverage, phasing to 90% federal funding in subsequent years. Effective January 1, 2014.

Promoting Individual Responsibility. Under the law, most individuals who can afford it will be required to obtain basic health insurance coverage or pay a fee to help offset the costs of caring for uninsured Americans. If affordable coverage is not available to an individual, he or she will be eligible for an exemption. Effective January 1, 2014.

Ensuring Free Choice. Workers meeting certain requirements who cannot afford the coverage provided by their employer may take whatever funds their employer might have contributed to their insurance and use these resources to help purchase a more affordable plan in the new health insurance Exchanges. Effective January 1, 2014

2015
IMPROVING QUALITY AND LOWERING COSTS

Paying Physicians Based on Value Not Volume. A new provision will tie physician payments to the quality of care they provide. Physicians will see their payments modified so that those who provide higher value care will receive higher payments than those who provide lower quality care. Effective January 1, 2015. http://www.healthcare.gov/law/timeline/full.html tons more at the site which goes into explicit detail of how much of that works, but I'll leave it to those who want to go there to find out for themselves. Now, if anyone finds anything incorrect in this, please speak up. If not, now we have something to work from, not just our individual impressions of what's what.

I'm pleasantly surprised, myownself, I thought it was much worse than what I read. Just shows to go 'ya how effective the right has been in demoizing it, and how little the left has managed to help people understand the details.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 11:00 AM

M52NICKERSON

DALEK!


Quote:

Originally posted by Niki2:
Unenforceability. I heard and read this several places quite some time ago, but I don't remember where. This will cover it sufficiently, however, I think:
Quote:

According to a report by Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, the individual mandate in Obamacare lacks any real enforcement mechanism:
Quote:

The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner (Emphasis in original).




Yes the IRS is limited on how it will be able to collect this tax, but that does not mean it is unenforcable. The IRC can still offset returns, use collection agencies, and if needed petition the courts for a final judgment under statitory regulations.



I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 12:04 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht


I'm opposed to the individual mandate. Because people who make just enough to not be covered by public insurance, who are self employed are going to have to pay wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much money on this and they won't be able to get away with foregoing it. That effects me and mine, so ergo I don't support this thing. That will eat up lots of money that could be spent on fun stuff. I would much prefer a Germany type system where people can either have private insurance or just get on the public option. I don't like this mandate at all.

I have Kathy Bates on speed dial, mwa ha ha ha (in exaggeratedly evil voice)

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 12:18 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


Quote:

Originally posted by kpo:
Good news.

I just read a good quote from a healthcare economist who helped draft the law, predicting that Obamacare will become popular if implemented: "I have a vision that if the Affordable Care Act takes place, twenty years from now in a town hall someone will rise and say, 'Keep the government's hands off my Affordable Care Act!'"



Absolutely horrible news.

And what yous say, 'Keep the govt's hands off MY Affordable Care Act!' ... truly sad.

You gleefully cheer as more and more Americans are shackled and bound under the yoke of an oppressive imperial federal govt. More people becoming ever more dependent on a 'womb to tomb' bureaucracy that robs us of the very freedoms on which this country was founded.


" We're all just folk. " - Mal

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 28, 2012 12:39 PM

WHOZIT


Title of the thread should be, "KWICKO GETS A BONER".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sat, November 23, 2024 07:41 - 943 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Sat, November 23, 2024 07:23 - 421 posts
Elections; 2024
Sat, November 23, 2024 06:28 - 4794 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Sat, November 23, 2024 06:14 - 7491 posts
Idiot Democrat Wine Mom
Sat, November 23, 2024 05:26 - 1 posts
Where is the 25th ammendment when you need it?
Sat, November 23, 2024 01:40 - 11 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Sat, November 23, 2024 01:33 - 41 posts
Biden admin quietly loosening immigration policies before Trump takes office — including letting migrants skip ICE check-ins in NYC
Sat, November 23, 2024 01:15 - 3 posts
RCP Average Continues to Be the Most Accurate in the Industry Because We Don't Weight Polls
Sat, November 23, 2024 00:46 - 1 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Fri, November 22, 2024 23:52 - 4752 posts
why does NASA hate the moon?
Fri, November 22, 2024 20:54 - 9 posts
Looks like Russians don't hold back
Fri, November 22, 2024 20:18 - 33 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL