OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[NorthSideSox72]

Incorrect.

I'm overwhelmed by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort.

 

[Cknolls]

Let me try asking a different way...how is it a purchase mandate if you can choose not to make the purchase?

 

 

Isn't that the main argument against this bill. The gov't is taxing people for not doing something. How is that legal?

[Iwritecode]

Isn't that the main argument against this bill. The gov't is taxing people for not doing something. How is that legal?

 

I thought it was explained pretty well here.

[bmags]

I'm overwhelmed by the staggering profundity of your artfully crafted retort.

 

You're implication that everyone has figured out what balta hasn't is incorrect. This isn't set in stone, so don't speak for everyone.

[Jenksismyhero]

You're implication that everyone has figured out what balta hasn't is incorrect. This isn't set in stone, so don't speak for everyone.

 

I think in this situation its highly appropriate. I can make the moon=the earth if i just choose to ignore the meaning of words and fundamental aspects of the two systems we're talking about.

[southsider2k5]

I think in this situation its highly appropriate. I can make the moon=the earth if i just choose to ignore the meaning of words and fundamental aspects of the two systems we're talking about.

 

Well technically they are the same if you believe the latest theories on the origin of the moon...

[bmags]

I think in this situation its highly appropriate. I can make the moon=the earth if i just choose to ignore the meaning of words and fundamental aspects of the two systems we're talking about.

 

Considering how this law is going to come down to the mind of 1 justice and nobody knows how he'll decide makes it a lot less cut and dry than you make it out to be. You may really really believe that this is something unconstitutional but i've seen nothing of the sort from you that's convincing. You just don't like the bill. And that's fine. But don't act like you've proven any case here.

[Balta1701]

Things that have currently changed:

Medicare payment rates for prescription drugs increased

Research institute focused on comparative effectiveness of differing treatments established

Temporary high-risk pool for adults with serious illnesses established

Lifetime insurance caps prohibited

Dependents can stay on insurance plans until age 26

Insurers banned from exclusions for pre-existing conditions for anyone under age of 19

Co-payments and deductible charges for preventative care (i.e. flu shots) prohibited

50% of the "donut hole" in prescription drugs for seniors on medicare is closed. (eliminated by 2012)

Restrictions on insurers annual spending caps (eliminated by 2014)

Recissions (dropping policyholders who have become sick) are banned

Insurers are required to begin spending 85% of their revenue on patient care

A program is established to help companies pay for health care costs of people who retire early

A temporary credit program is established to encourage private investment in new therapies for disease treatment and prevention

Chronic disease prevention grants established in Medicare

5 year grants to employers that establish wellness organizations

Grants to states to evaluate tort reform proposals

Nutrition labels required at chain restaurants

Prohibits medicaid from paying states for treating preventable infections that occur within a hospital

Increased number of graduate medical education slots

Medicare advantage program phase-out begun

[lostfan]

Y2HH really has a point and that's why the left was lukewarm to this bill at best.

[Rex Kickass]

If this goes to the supreme court, it loses 5-4.

 

And this thread should be renamed Insurance Bill (Law), since that's what it is. As I predicted from the start, nothing in healthcare has changed because of this bill. Same high cost drugs, service, and bills rolling on in.

 

If it goes to the Supreme Court, odds are it stays law. Because of two things, as the bill stays in place longer, it has been getting less onerous to the public, if not more popular. And if the Supreme Court is really that partisan, by the time the Supreme Court hears this, in 2012 or 2013 at the earliest, do you really think they want to be responsible for taking away preexisting condition protection and increased funding for medication for the elderly? As this becomes more apparent a benefit, the law becomes less palatable to repeal on bulls*** grounds.

 

But the real reason that this would be likely to stay A-OK, and probably by a 6-3 margin too, is that it protects money to keep this law in place. And I firmly believe that the Supreme Court in its current formation is most concerned with protecting profits first.

[Texsox]

I am liking the states studying the 10th Amendment and attempting to nullify the law. I like the law, I like even more a legal challenge like this.

[Y2HH]

I am liking the states studying the 10th Amendment and attempting to nullify the law. I like the law, I like even more a legal challenge like this.

 

There are good portions of this law, and those SHOULD remain law, and I hope through all of this they DO remain law. But as for a blanket statement like, "I like the law", all I can say is: no, you don't...you like the few portions of the law everyone likes...and you don't understand anything else about it (just like everyone else), so stop pretending you "like it all". Aside from the key points the law covers, which happen to be the only bullet points of this law anyone ever talks about, I guarantee now, the rest of it's a bunch of garbage designed to siphon money from the system.

 

Insurance reform (and take this from a person working in health insurance) was necessary.

 

But in the end, this bill fails on almost all other fronts...it does nothing to lower the cost of care/drugs/etc (despite people claiming it does, just knock it off, because it doesn't)...so it fails on almost all necessary fronts.

Edited February 3, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

There are good portions of this law, and those SHOULD remain law, and I hope through all of this they DO remain law. But as for a blanket statement like, "I like the law", all I can say is: no, you don't...you like the few portions of the law everyone likes...and you don't understand anything else about it (just like everyone else), so stop pretending you "like it all". Aside from the key points the law covers, which happen to be the only bullet points of this law anyone ever talks about, I guarantee now, the rest of it's a bunch of garbage designed to siphon money from the system.

 

Insurance reform (and take this from a person working in health insurance) was necessary.

 

But in the end, this bill fails on almost all other fronts...it does nothing to lower the cost of care/drugs/etc (despite people claiming it does, just knock it off, because it doesn't)...so it fails on almost all necessary fronts.

 

 

[Texsox]

There are good portions of this law, and those SHOULD remain law, and I hope through all of this they DO remain law. But as for a blanket statement like, "I like the law", all I can say is: no, you don't...you like the few portions of the law everyone likes...and you don't understand anything else about it (just like everyone else), so stop pretending you "like it all". Aside from the key points the law covers, which happen to be the only bullet points of this law anyone ever talks about, I guarantee now, the rest of it's a bunch of garbage designed to siphon money from the system.

 

Insurance reform (and take this from a person working in health insurance) was necessary.

 

But in the end, this bill fails on almost all other fronts...it does nothing to lower the cost of care/drugs/etc (despite people claiming it does, just knock it off, because it doesn't)...so it fails on almost all necessary fronts.

 

You say the bill fails on all fronts, is that based on the portions you understand, the portions you don't understand, or the portions that affect your employer?

[Y2HH]

You say the bill fails on all fronts, is that based on the portions you understand, the portions you don't understand, or the portions that affect your employer?

 

Like I've said, repeatedly, from the very beginning, there are some parts of this law (it's not a bill anymore), that ARE and will continue to be good. Things like pre-existing conditions not affecting your ability to get insurance, lifetime maximums, etc. These are the same bullet points everyone talks about when discussing this law. These are good things.

 

What I can say, with certainty, is that the bills we receive from doctors, hospitals, and drug companies have gone up (not down), and continue to do so. Therefore, it's of my opinion that the bill failed, in every way/shape/form, to lower costs, which was the bulk of the entire point in doing this. It did nothing but implement some admittedly necessary reforms on health insurance, but that's all it did. The followup did nothing to curtail the increasing costs of care.

 

Among the key GOOD points: Insurance companies can no longer kick you off their insurance or say no to pre-existing conditions.

 

Meanwhile, doctors, hospitals, and drug companies can CONTINUE to charge whatever they please...and increase what they charge, because they feel like it...therefore the costs of care continue to rise, and the insurance companies have the right to raise premiums to match, which is what they've been doing. The only thing that law prevents them from doing is unjustly raising premiums for no reason...but they have a reason...because the costs keep rising in every other facet of the game.

 

If you can't understand this, stop asking me. I've BEEN telling all of you this from the START, before the bill was even written...and I continue to be right about everything that's happening, whether you like it or not.

[Jenksismyhero]

Like I've said, repeatedly, from the very beginning, there are some parts of this law (it's not a bill anymore), that ARE and will continue to be good. Things like pre-existing conditions not affecting your ability to get insurance, lifetime maximums, etc. These are the same bullet points everyone talks about when discussing this law. These are good things.

 

What I can say, with certainty, is that the bills we receive from doctors, hospitals, and drug companies have gone up (not down), and continue to do so. Therefore, it's of my opinion that the bill failed, in every way/shape/form, to lower costs, which was the bulk of the entire point in doing this. It did nothing but implement some admittedly necessary reforms on health insurance, but that's all it did. The followup did nothing to curtail the increasing costs of care.

 

Among the key GOOD points: Insurance companies can no longer kick you off their insurance or say no to pre-existing conditions.

 

Meanwhile, doctors, hospitals, and drug companies can CONTINUE to charge whatever they please...and increase what they charge, because they feel like it...therefore the costs of care continue to rise, and the insurance companies have the right to raise premiums to match, which is what they've been doing. The only thing that law prevents them from doing is unjustly raising premiums for no reason...but they have a reason...because the costs keep rising in every other facet of the game.

 

If you can't understand this, stop asking me. I've BEEN telling all of you this from the START, before the bill was even written...and I continue to be right about everything that's happening, whether you like it or not.

 

Agreed.

 

Also, I still want to know why/how Obama can just exempt certain companies from complying with this law. What's the point if he can do that?

 

[StrangeSox]

Agreed.

 

Also, I still want to know why/how Obama can just exempt certain companies from complying with this law. What's the point if he can do that?

 

I can understand the need for that sort of power to give temporary exemptions to companies that may suffer an inordinate amount of financial harm if forced to comply all at once, sort of following the "too big to fail" argument. My understanding is that these are 1-year exemptions for a small part of the bill, not total exemptions. Not sure if they are renewable or extendable.

 

edt: forgot to say I understand the reservations of the executive having this power, there's potential for abuse just like the pardon system.

 

edit2: here's an article that contains a response from the Department of Health and Human Services explaining their rationale. It also seems that it was DHHS's call, not Obama or the White House.

Edited February 3, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

edit2: here's an article that contains a response from the Department of Health and Human Services explaining their rationale. It also seems that it was DHHS's call, not Obama or the White House.

Ok dude...technically, Housing and Human Services is a cabinet office...and the Cabinet is subservient to the Executive office of the President. So it might not be President Obama sitting there and manually stating "i like this company and I don't like this one", but it's still an executive branch decision.

[StrangeSox]

Ok dude...technically, Housing and Human Services is a cabinet office...and the Cabinet is subservient to the Executive office of the President. So it might not be President Obama sitting there and manually stating "i like this company and I don't like this one", but it's still an executive branch decision.

 

That's a good clarification, as I was distinguishing more from the signing-statement type exemptions Presidents make vs. decisions from executive branch departments, but that wasn't really clear.

[Balta1701]

The good people at Remote Area Medical are running a camp in downtown Knoxville this weekend.

 

Every time we get into this debate, this is the thing that baffles me. There are hundreds of uninsured people lined up starting before sunset last night for a clinic that opened at 6 a.m. today, to see doctors who really ought to be setting up camps in Pakistan, for the most basic treatment possible (pulling half a dozen teeth because a woman hasn't seen a dentist in a decade, mammograms, heart checkups, eyeglasses, things that need long-term care, the whole list).

 

In 5 years, these camps will not be necessary any more with this bill. The people can legitimately go to Pakistan, an actual war zone, and not "everyday United States", a war-zone by choice.

 

Argue all you want about how evil the process was, how the waivers for certain businesses are inappropriate, how it could have been a better bill.

 

But the fact that this type of camp happens in the U.S. is total and complete bulls***.

[lostfan]

If it was this difficult to do a half-ass overhaul of the insurance system then what this whole 2-year ordeal has taught me is that it's virtually impossible to overhaul the actual healthcare system, even a little. it's never going to happen.

[Y2HH]

If it was this difficult to do a half-ass overhaul of the insurance system then what this whole 2-year ordeal has taught me is that it's virtually impossible to overhaul the actual healthcare system, even a little. it's never going to happen.

 

It's not impossible. It's just impossible when you consider the source attempting to do it, which completely politicizes the entire process. And therein lies the problem: Politicians talk a big game about making "tough choices", but none of them ever actually make these "tough choices", because it would mean a one-and-done term for them, and possibly end their "career". The taxpayers don't want the tough decisions either, and they'd kick anyone out of office that makes them. Being a politician has become a career, which is the source of the entire problem...if you finally got elected to a power position after years of glad handing, favors, etc., making the changes necessary to overhaul this system would get you removed from office, and possibly end your "career" with it, something no politician will ever do.

[Balta1701]

It's not impossible. It's just impossible when you consider the source attempting to do it, which completely politicizes the entire process. And therein lies the problem: Politicians talk a big game about making "tough choices", but none of them ever actually make these "tough choices", because it would mean a one-and-done term for them, and possibly end their "career". The taxpayers don't want the tough decisions either, and they'd kick anyone out of office that makes them. Being a politician has become a career, which is the source of the entire problem...if you finally got elected to a power position after years of glad handing, favors, etc., making the changes necessary to overhaul this system would get you removed from office, and possibly end your "career" with it, something no politician will ever do.

So, it's impossible.

[NorthSideSox72]

So, it's impossible.

He's saying its impossible in the current political environment. And contrary to what we may sometimes believe, these things do change over time.

 

[lostfan]

The current political environment isn't going to change any time soon. I know a lot of people on the right cynically lol'd at people on the left who bought into the Obama "new kind of politics" movement and found out it was business as usual, then they bought totally into the Tea Party movement and swore it was going to be different and change everything. Politics is politics.