Supreme Court to take on ACA subsidies (politician, elections, support)

[Seacove]

Originally Posted by Robeaux

Well boo hoo

That's what happens when you "pass the bill to find out what's in it"

Funny, you're blaming the Republicans - of which 0 voted for this pos bill btw - because it's not working...priceless.

No, I was responding to another poster regarding participation.

[tom1944]

I hope they end the subsidies in States without their own exchange. You watch how fast they set up an exchange once that happens.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by Seacove

And those that voted Tuesday were mostly elderly. That are on Medicare. I'll be curious to see how this turns out for Republicans in two years, especially if Republicans are successful in killing ACA.

It won't kill ACA. Assuming Roberts goes along with the shenanigans, then it will be like Medicaid. If you live in a state that participates you have it, otherwise not. In the case of Medicaid, it mostly affects profitability at hospitals in those states. But with everyday working people, millions are going to be locked out of insurance because of costs again depending on the state they live in. There will be immense suffering as people loose their health care - particularly the chronically ill who will lose their prescriptions and the doctors visits. The states that adopted Medicaid will likely also set up their own exchanges over the next few months. Some of the rest will do so as well. The political price of throwing millions off of their coverage with no alternative is too high to pay. Furthermore, the medical industry is raking it in with Obamacare and their stocks are all soaring. They have their lobbyists and those lobbyists pay for the ears of Republicans.

Healthcare stocks hit: Health insurers were hit after the news that President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare reform is heading back to the US Supreme Court. The Health Care Select Sector SPDR fund fell 1%.

Read more: MARKET SNAPSHOT: U.S. Stocks End Week Higher; S&P, Dow Hit New Records - NASDAQ.com

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by Seacove

This may be a case of the dog catching the car. I can guarantee you that if the GOP successfully kills Obamacare, they will be forever saddled as taking healthcare away from the lower and middle class. They've worked hard to do it. They say healthcare is a privilege, not a right yet the ones making the decisions get government health care for life.

I lived in Boston during the time Mitt Romney was governor. Trust me when I say Obamacare is Romneycare. And Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich were on every channel touting that Mitt Romney's plan was the GOP plan for the country after they killed attempts for Hillarycare. This is 100% pure politics. The GOP has no interest in healthcare for the country.

Tort reform already exists in many states and does absolutely nothing to lower the cost of healthcare. Texas has tort reform and it has one of the highest uninsured rates in the country.

This election was primarily decided by old people Where Are the Millennials? Midterm Voters Skew Old - NBC News

Isn't it nice the old people on Medicare get to vote away health care for those younger than they are?

Isn't it nice that the politicians working so hard to take away healthcare, get paid healthcare for life? It is rich with irony and hypocrisy.

I live in Washington State. If the Republicans are successful at killing Obamacare, I hope we come up with our own plan. And anyone moving to Washington State has to live there five years to qualify to be on our plan.

And if these old voters really think government healthcare (which Obamacare isn't) is so evil, let's see them give up Medicare.

When Medicare began in 1965, no one had paid a penny into it. The first beneficiaries just automatically qualified by virtue of their age. So don't tell me how all Medicare beneficiaries earned it. They didn't.

Democrats didn't vote in the numbers they should have this year. Yes, the GOP is trying to make it hard to vote, so make it impossible for them to take it from you. Sure 2016 is likely a different voting field but we have to put up with two years of the GOP.

I have good health care. But I believe in national healthcare. I am willing to pay an increase in taxes to know everyone can get treatment when they get sick. Health insurance is not like car insurance. If you can't drive, you can take the bus. If you get sick, that's it, you're done.

" I can guarantee" How much are you willing to wager on it?

" Trust me when I say Obamacare is Romneycare.' That myth has been soundly debunked.

Besides a STATE plan is vastly different then a federal plan.

[Ponderosa]

The decision will be rendered in June maybe of next year. If it goes against ACA it will throw a monkey wrench into the entire US health care system that has been restructured to reflect the landscape of the ACA. The ACA runs much deeper than subsidies and mandates into every nook and cranny of health care delivery. Who better to step into the breach and solve the problems than Hillary Clinton?

[Rakin]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

Who better to step into the breach and solve the problems than Hillary Clinton?

Maybe she WILL actually invite Republicans to give input into the process since they will own Congress.

Obama certainly didn't.

Dems didn't even know what was in it.

[Ponderosa]

Originally Posted by Rakin

Maybe she WILL actually invite Republicans to give input into the process since they will own Congress.

Obama certainly didn't.

Dems didn't even know what was in it.

It is highly unlikely that Republicans will "own" the senate after 2016. I would think they still would have the House, but if they kick 20-25 million Americans off of health care I would not count on that either.

[Rakin]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

It is highly unlikely that Republicans will "own" the senate after 2016. I would think they still would have the House, but if they kick 20-25 million Americans off of health care I would not count on that either.

I thought only about 8 million signed up? The same about 8 million that were kicked off their previous plan.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Jo48

Everything in our society must be PROFIT oriented?

Either show us the special ritual you perform to conjure up an MRI using magic, or show us the math how a new MRI can be purchased without having any profits.

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

Not to mention it will be hard to argue taking healthcare away from people who now have it.

The law doesn't care. Wrong is wrong.

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

Life expectancy in the US for those born around the turn of the 20th century was 48-49 years.

That's BS.

Although life expectancy at birth is the most widely used measure of length of life, data on life expectancy at different ages may give a better picture of changing mortality patterns within
a population. For example, life expectancy at age 65 is now increasing more rapidly than life expectancy at birth in most developed countries, largely because of the reduction of heart disease and stroke among middle-aged and older adults.

Why don't you us the data from life insurance companies used by the Social Security actuaries?

Originally Posted by middle-aged mom

The government got involved because the private sector would not, not too different than flood insurance.

No, that is completely false. Admit or deny....

"Introduced by various House and Senate sponsors and subject to extensive hearings, the basic framework of part A began to reflect accommodations between the sponsors, the Administration and the American Hospital Association (AHA).

It ranged all the way from principles of institutional reimbursement, which has been pretty thoroughly already worked out in a general way for their own purposes between Blue Cross and the Hospital Association over a period of several years

The American Hospital Association has already nominated the Blue Cross organization for its membership, although some member hospitals will undoubtedly elect out of this arrangement. We have proceeded very far in the development of working arrangements with Blue Cross, although no formal approval as a fiscal intermediary has yet been given them."

Source: Report to Social Security Administration Staff on the Implementation of the Social Security Amendments of 1965, Robert M. Ball Commissioner, November 15, 1965

Your own government and the American Hospital Association through its legislation, regulations and policies created an environment where people who did not work regardless of the reason were not allowed to purchased health insurance.

Worked out pretty good for the American Hospital Association.

Notice how the AHA heroically and selflessly sacrifices the Blue Cross to get a huge chunk of tax-payer dollars.

Originally Posted by HeyJude514

If they did, they would be attempting to solve this problem before throwing people off their plans with no other options.

And what is the problem?

Why do appendectomies cost $55,000 and why do assistant surgeons bill $117,000 for a single surgery?

Got response?

Nope.

Originally Posted by Jo48

Single Payer, in two words,...

Explain in detail how single payer will reduce costs and prevent the AHA from price-gouging you for appendectomies that cost $55,000 and assistant surgeons who bill $117,000 for a single surgery?

We will wait with great anticipation while you fumble about hopelessly trying to come with an answer.

Originally Posted by Seacove

Exactly. Yet we have public schools.

Which have been destroyed by Liberals and their Socialist agenda.

Got 5th Level Economy?

Nope.

Originally Posted by chucksnee

Prove the red part....

Not gonna happen.

Originally Posted by Seacove

The states that are participating have seen an increase. The states with Republican governors who chose not to participate obviously are not.

Elaborate on the caveats for the expanded Medicaid.

Oh, I'm sorry.....were you spouting nonsense about something which you know absolutely nothing?

Then I will be happy to educate you and dispel all of the misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and lies.


Here, I'll let the New Hampshire State Government explain it to you in their own words....

Fiscal and Federal Responsibility

Any decrease in percentage of federal support of NHAHP as outlined in the Affordable Care Act would trigger a requirement that the General Court reauthorize NHAHP within 6 months from the receipt of such notification. Failure to reauthorize would result in automatic discontinuation of the NHAHP at the end of that 6-month period.

[bold and underlined emphasis mine]

NHAHP is the New Hampshire Access to Healthcare Program.....their version of Medicaid.

http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/sme/docu...n-10152013.pdf


So, the moral of this story is, before people start flapping their flaps and getting diarrhea of the brain, they might want to actually read some of the laws and regulations that pertain to the subject matter at hand.

Originally Posted by Seacove

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones

Oh, yes, what a neutral unbiased accurate source that is.

Don't you know which federal government website to use?

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

Who began funding of those programs? Oh yeah, it was a Republican.

LBJ was a Republican?

Really?

In which universe did that happen?

Originally Posted by jeffrow1

Health care and insurance companies have no interest in containing or lowering cost to the consumer.

For those who do not understand: the price of medical care determines the price of health insurance. If you want to decrease the price of health insurance, then you will have to decrease the price of medical care, since health insurance companies have no input and nothing to do with the $55,000 appendectomies and the $117,000 assistant surgeons fees......which are really affordable for all Americans, right?

Gosh......I would hate to see the price of an appendectomy before the Obamney saved us with Obamacare.

Originally Posted by Seacove

Well you make me sick. Because the only way to get to universal health care is slowly. Republicans will never do it over night. Ever.

The US Constitution prohibits universal health care.

It's not my fault that English reading comprehension of people is so pathetic --- thanks to their unionized Liberal Socialist schools -- they can't understand the ruling in Sebelius.

Got Supreme Court?

Originally Posted by Seacove

And that's not what you said. If you take the combined red states, they take far more than they contribute.

Actually, they do not.

But if it bothers you so much, I'm sure the government can dislocate and relocate the population of Vermont so that Fort Hood, Texas, III Corps Headquarters and the LTA can be moved there.

Orienting....

Mircea

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

Why don't you back that up with some facts.

Originally Posted by lycos679

He can't.

Here's the real data.

//www.city-data.com/forum/37164747-post118.html

Your data proves Obamacare accomplished nothing.

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

And we weren't talking about getting under 30 million uninsured,....

The whole point of Obamacare was to get the 50 uninsured insured.

You failed.

Period.

Badly.

Originally Posted by lycos679

His claim is the uninsured rate is increasing. My links show the opposite is occurring. The basis for his claim is that: "Well Obama said...". My basis is the actual recorded data.

And if you graphed that and found the slope, what would you find?

Originally Posted by lycos679

Originally posted by lycos679 10-15-2014:

41 million were uninsured in 2001.
47 million were uninsured in 2006.
49.9 million were uninsured in 2010.
48.6 million were uninsured in 2011
48 million were uninsured in 2012
I don't see any hard numbers for 2013, but it appears to be greater than 47 million uninsured.

And it was claimed by Obama and the Left-Wing and Liberals that 50 Million were uninsured.

If 47 Million are still uninsured, then you have wasted $Billion trying to get 3 Million people insured.

3 Million / 50 Million = 6%

That is a massive fail.

I could have repealed 3 federal laws, or did like Obama and issued an Executive Order over-riding Congress' 3 federal laws and cut the number of uninsured by 80% without hiring 60,000 IRS and without wasting $Billions on web-site that didn't even work.

Legislatively....

Mircea