310 replies to this topic

[tq2000]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the same people who advocate individual responsibility and that people need to take responsibility for themselves by having health insurance have such a hard time with the government saying if you don't take responsibility for yourself by buying health insurance, we will penalize you financially. How is it any different than the penalties imposed by not doing the responsible thing and filing your taxes?

I'm having a hard time understanding why the government doesn't impose an obesity tax on fat people who don't take personal responsibility for their weight and burden our health care system with diabetes, heart disease, etc.

Our deficit would disappear in a heartbeat if we would only create legislation that would allow the IRS to tax us for anything and everything the Gov't. felt was irresponsible behavior.

I'm not a major opponent or proponent of health care reform. My concern is the intrusion on my constitutional freedoms by my Gov't.

We should all share that concern. Why is it that that dems are evil when they want to tell us what to do with our money and reps are saints when they tell us who we can marry and what we can do with our bodies?

Aren't both equally totalitarian?

I'm not suggesting dems are evil. I'm sure most of them mean well, but I'm consistent in my support of the concept that we are a nation of laws, not men.

I don't have a problem with a woman's right to choose, as long as men have the ability to obtain the same benefits by signing a document (before aborting a fetus is illegal) that frees them from any financial responsibility for the baby they fathered. A woman can choose to have a baby against the will of the sperm donor, but he should be able to opt out. Equal protection under the law.

I was also in favor of gay marriage way before Obama.

You can't have 100% equal treatment if you don't have the same rigging. I think the best way to think about it as a guy, is the same way you have to view firing a weapon. Once the bullet leaves the barrel, you are responsible for anything it does. There is no calling it back.

[Occams Razor]

For most the ruling won't make that much difference. those with insurance will still have it, those without insurance who can afford it will need to get it or pay a fine, er I mean tax... those who can't afford it will be covered under medicade. I for one am stoked that the commerce clause went down. the rest can be figued out, repealed or forgotten.

but no one still has answered the question about how we pay for the people who choose to NOT buy insurance and pay the penalty? There is no freaking way in hell that the tiny amount of tax collected will offset the cost of that person's cancer treatments or coronary bypass surgery when they present at the hospital without insurance. If the penalty is too low, as it is now - you've just incentivized further the idea of not buying insurance until it's needed. Especially with pre-existing conditions removed off the table.

IMHO, this act just INCREASED the cost of HC rather than decreased it.

Not sure that this is anything but a massive balloon squeeze. Even the CBO is estimating only moderate cost increase because, wait for it, these folks are already getting healthcare today. They get it in the most expensive fashion, through the emergency room, but they get it.

Face it, the folks who have "insurance" today are subsidizing both the poor, and the folks taking the no-insurance risk. That's why it's working in Mass, and why it will work for the US.

Does it try to address overall cost and bring it down? No, unfortunately, but overall system cost shouldn't increase much.

[mr_fabulous]

I agree too. The Act is a POS, yet it "moves the chains".

"If you can't solve a problem, enlarge it." -Ike.

Now, will our "leaders" work to fix it or will we just see clenched fists, stamping feet and pouting on one side, and gloating on the other?

It's not like there wasn't precedent. Link.

I think we'll have another significant difference between the candidates - the Rs will run on Repeal, the Ds will run on "fear of Repeal"

This election could come down to this single issue - and therefore one of the 2 parties will have a mandate. Unless of course there is a split decision, which I think is likely.

The whole idea of repeal now is a complete political farce. Begin legislative action to fix the problems. Congress should get to work, or I swear, I'll put in the first dollar in the collection hat for the congressional member pepper spray line up proposition described earlier. (If their popularity is an index, I'm long on pepper spray futures).

[Sol Rosenberg]

The whole idea of repeal now is a complete political farce. Begin legislative action to fix the problems. Congress should get to work, or I swear, I'll put in the first dollar in the collection hat for the congressional member pepper spray line up proposition described earlier. (If their popularity is an index, I'm long on pepper spray futures).

There are parts of this law that are good. Prohibiting insurance companies from taking someone's premiums for however long, and then dumping them when they get sick is just plain common sense. Even turds have peanuts and corn. Build on the positives. Repeal only plays well to the PartyBots, who would vote for, well... someone who enacted the same type of health insurance mandate but has an R behind his name, before voting for a democRAT.

[Saorsa]

For most the ruling won't make that much difference. those with insurance will still have it, those without insurance who can afford it will need to get it or pay a fine, er I mean tax... those who can't afford it will be covered under medicade. I for one am stoked that the commerce clause went down. the rest can be figued out, repealed or forgotten.

but no one still has answered the question about how we pay for the people who choose to NOT buy insurance and pay the penalty? There is no freaking way in hell that the tiny amount of tax collected will offset the cost of that person's cancer treatments or coronary bypass surgery when they present at the hospital without insurance. If the penalty is too low, as it is now - you've just incentivized further the idea of not buying insurance until it's needed. Especially with pre-existing conditions removed off the table.

IMHO, this act just INCREASED the cost of HC rather than decreased it.

Not sure that this is anything but a massive balloon squeeze. Even the CBO is estimating only moderate cost increase because, wait for it, these folks are already getting healthcare today. They get it in the most expensive fashion, through the emergency room, but they get it.

Face it, the folks who have "insurance" today are subsidizing both the poor, and the folks taking the no-insurance risk. That's why it's working in Mass, and why it will work for the US.

Does it try to address overall cost and bring it down? No, unfortunately, but overall system cost shouldn't increase much.

The CBO adds up the numbers that congress gives it. There are way, way too many ambiguities in the form of "the secretary shall decide ..." until the secretary decides what to do and then puts it in the budget request. Then, the total cost is invisible and you are talking about a few hundred millions or a billion here or there.

Since it doesn't do shit to make healthcare any cheaper, then in the end, it's still a matter of who pays. Incidentally, insurance pays ER costs so that doesn't mean that ER costs are going to go down.

[movable ballast]

The whole idea of repeal now is a complete political farce. Begin legislative action to fix the problems. Congress should get to work, or I swear, I'll put in the first dollar in the collection hat for the congressional member pepper spray line up proposition described earlier. (If their popularity is an index, I'm long on pepper spray futures).

There are parts of this law that are good. Prohibiting insurance companies from taking someone's premiums for however long, and then dumping them when they get sick is just plain common sense. Even turds have peanuts and corn. Build on the positives. Repeal only plays well to the PartyBots, who would vote for, well... someone who enacted the same type of health insurance mandate but has an R behind his name, before voting for a democRAT.

With all that horse shit, there must be a pony in there somehwere?

The healthcare law can be fixed, In November we as a country will decide who will be tasked to do it.

[Sol Rosenberg]

The whole idea of repeal now is a complete political farce. Begin legislative action to fix the problems. Congress should get to work, or I swear, I'll put in the first dollar in the collection hat for the congressional member pepper spray line up proposition described earlier. (If their popularity is an index, I'm long on pepper spray futures).

There are parts of this law that are good. Prohibiting insurance companies from taking someone's premiums for however long, and then dumping them when they get sick is just plain common sense. Even turds have peanuts and corn. Build on the positives. Repeal only plays well to the PartyBots, who would vote for, well... someone who enacted the same type of health insurance mandate but has an R behind his name, before voting for a democRAT.

With all that horse shit, there must be a pony in there somehwere?

The healthcare law can be fixed, In November we as a country will decide who will be tasked to do it.

Do you think that your health insurance carrier should be able to take your premiums for any number of years, and then cancel your policy when you get sick?

[Saorsa]

The whole idea of repeal now is a complete political farce. Begin legislative action to fix the problems. Congress should get to work, or I swear, I'll put in the first dollar in the collection hat for the congressional member pepper spray line up proposition described earlier. (If their popularity is an index, I'm long on pepper spray futures).

There are parts of this law that are good. Prohibiting insurance companies from taking someone's premiums for however long, and then dumping them when they get sick is just plain common sense. Even turds have peanuts and corn. Build on the positives. Repeal only plays well to the PartyBots, who would vote for, well... someone who enacted the same type of health insurance mandate but has an R behind his name, before voting for a democRAT.

With all that horse shit, there must be a pony in there somehwere?

The healthcare law can be fixed, In November we as a country will decide who will be tasked to do it.

When I buy a car that 'needs to be fixed' I should get it for a lot less than the brand new price.

Why pass a law with 3000+ pages of shit and bribes for votes to get something on the books that you can 'fix' later?

Do you buy goods for yourself on the same basis or, do you bitch about the manufacturer or vendor when you buy a piece of shit?

It's a damn good thing for them that congress made themselves immune from prosecution under consumer lemon laws.

[Occams Razor]

For most the ruling won't make that much difference. those with insurance will still have it, those without insurance who can afford it will need to get it or pay a fine, er I mean tax... those who can't afford it will be covered under medicade. I for one am stoked that the commerce clause went down. the rest can be figued out, repealed or forgotten.

but no one still has answered the question about how we pay for the people who choose to NOT buy insurance and pay the penalty? There is no freaking way in hell that the tiny amount of tax collected will offset the cost of that person's cancer treatments or coronary bypass surgery when they present at the hospital without insurance. If the penalty is too low, as it is now - you've just incentivized further the idea of not buying insurance until it's needed. Especially with pre-existing conditions removed off the table.

IMHO, this act just INCREASED the cost of HC rather than decreased it.

Not sure that this is anything but a massive balloon squeeze. Even the CBO is estimating only moderate cost increase because, wait for it, these folks are already getting healthcare today. They get it in the most expensive fashion, through the emergency room, but they get it.

Face it, the folks who have "insurance" today are subsidizing both the poor, and the folks taking the no-insurance risk. That's why it's working in Mass, and why it will work for the US.

Does it try to address overall cost and bring it down? No, unfortunately, but overall system cost shouldn't increase much.

The CBO adds up the numbers that congress gives it. There are way, way too many ambiguities in the form of "the secretary shall decide ..." until the secretary decides what to do and then puts it in the budget request. Then, the total cost is invisible and you are talking about a few hundred millions or a billion here or there.

Since it doesn't do shit to make healthcare any cheaper, then in the end, it's still a matter of who pays. Incidentally, insurance pays ER costs so that doesn't mean that ER costs are going to go down.

I suck at getting ideas across sometimes. What I meant is not that anyones individual costs would go down. Rather - total system costs "could" decline as we move "uninsured" from Emergency Room service as first choice, to preventative care. I've already seen some of the large muni hospitals start talking about consolidation/shutting down emergency services as they expect their "customers" (the uninsured) to go to primary care physicians instead of hitting the emergency room.

[Mark K]

seems someone kicked a hornets nest.

We have one of those. Just ID'd the critters.

http://en.wikipedia....ld-faced_hornet

High enough in a tree that it's not really a problem. Have an apple tree and they seem to like it. They tell us that these critters like to eat other bugs so we are going to leave them be for now.

If something hits the hive they swarm out and all fly in a clockwise circle around the tree about 20 feet in diameter. In about 5 minutes they are all back inside.

We had a nest of them that decided to build a whole community on the trailer last summer. They had to be evicted though, I needed to move the boat. Midnight with commercial grade hornet spray, no flashlights, no outside lights at all, spray nest liberally. If they see light, some will come back out and you will miss them. Just in case you decide to remove them.

Been watching them for a couple of weeks, and I think they are keeping the squirrels out of their tree too. Haven't seen a single one running the branches since they set up the nest.

[Mark K]

For most the ruling won't make that much difference. those with insurance will still have it, those without insurance who can afford it will need to get it or pay a fine, er I mean tax... those who can't afford it will be covered under medicade. I for one am stoked that the commerce clause went down. the rest can be figued out, repealed or forgotten.

but no one still has answered the question about how we pay for the people who choose to NOT buy insurance and pay the penalty? There is no freaking way in hell that the tiny amount of tax collected will offset the cost of that person's cancer treatments or coronary bypass surgery when they present at the hospital without insurance. If the penalty is too low, as it is now - you've just incentivized further the idea of not buying insurance until it's needed. Especially with pre-existing conditions removed off the table.

IMHO, this act just INCREASED the cost of HC rather than decreased it.

I see no negative incentive, paying the fine doesn't mean you get coverage.

Considering that there is no fine now, there is even less incentive in the status quo, and less revenue.

[Saorsa]

For most the ruling won't make that much difference. those with insurance will still have it, those without insurance who can afford it will need to get it or pay a fine, er I mean tax... those who can't afford it will be covered under medicade. I for one am stoked that the commerce clause went down. the rest can be figued out, repealed or forgotten.

but no one still has answered the question about how we pay for the people who choose to NOT buy insurance and pay the penalty? There is no freaking way in hell that the tiny amount of tax collected will offset the cost of that person's cancer treatments or coronary bypass surgery when they present at the hospital without insurance. If the penalty is too low, as it is now - you've just incentivized further the idea of not buying insurance until it's needed. Especially with pre-existing conditions removed off the table.

IMHO, this act just INCREASED the cost of HC rather than decreased it.

Not sure that this is anything but a massive balloon squeeze. Even the CBO is estimating only moderate cost increase because, wait for it, these folks are already getting healthcare today. They get it in the most expensive fashion, through the emergency room, but they get it.

Face it, the folks who have "insurance" today are subsidizing both the poor, and the folks taking the no-insurance risk. That's why it's working in Mass, and why it will work for the US.

Does it try to address overall cost and bring it down? No, unfortunately, but overall system cost shouldn't increase much.

The CBO adds up the numbers that congress gives it. There are way, way too many ambiguities in the form of "the secretary shall decide ..." until the secretary decides what to do and then puts it in the budget request. Then, the total cost is invisible and you are talking about a few hundred millions or a billion here or there.

Since it doesn't do shit to make healthcare any cheaper, then in the end, it's still a matter of who pays. Incidentally, insurance pays ER costs so that doesn't mean that ER costs are going to go down.

I suck at getting ideas across sometimes. What I meant is not that anyones individual costs would go down. Rather - total system costs "could" decline as we move "uninsured" from Emergency Room service as first choice, to preventative care. I've already seen some of the large muni hospitals start talking about consolidation/shutting down emergency services as they expect their "customers" (the uninsured) to go to primary care physicians instead of hitting the emergency room.

I sincerely doubt that that is going to happen. People do what is convenient for them. Here is a report on one study on the subject.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-05-20-emergency20_st_N.htm

If people had any interest in preventive care and a healthy lifestyle, McDonalds would be out of business along with most of the rest of the fast food industry. Even with free WiFi.

[Occams Razor]

All I can say is that there are muni hospitals trying to figure out how to retain their "clientele"

[VwaP]

OBAMA TO SOLDIERS: PAY UP
THREATENS TO VETO BILL UNLESS IT HIKES HEALTH CARE FEES FOR SERVICE MEMBERS

AP

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff - June 29, 2012 10:22 amThe Obama administration on Friday threatened to veto a defense appropriations bill in part because it does not include higher health care fees for members of the military.

"The Administration is disappointed that the Congress did not incorporate the requested TRICARE fee initiatives into either the appropriation or authorization legislation," the White House wrote in an official policy statement expressing opposition to the bill, which the House approved in May.

President Obama's most recent budget proposal includes billions of dollars in higher fees for members of TRICARE, the military health care system, and is part of the administration's plan to cut nearly $500 billion from the Pentagon's budget.

[Adolph Soapdish (R)]

OBAMA TO SOLDIERS: PAY UP
THREATENS TO VETO BILL UNLESS IT HIKES HEALTH CARE FEES FOR SERVICE MEMBERS

AP

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff - June 29, 2012 10:22 amThe Obama administration on Friday threatened to veto a defense appropriations bill in part because it does not include higher health care fees for members of the military.

"The Administration is disappointed that the Congress did not incorporate the requested TRICARE fee initiatives into either the appropriation or authorization legislation," the White House wrote in an official policy statement expressing opposition to the bill, which the House approved in May.

President Obama's most recent budget proposal includes billions of dollars in higher fees for members of TRICARE, the military health care system, and is part of the administration's plan to cut nearly $500 billion from the Pentagon's budget.

http://www.newsmax.c...06/29/id/443975

[Occams Razor]

compared to the cost a civilian needs to pay for insurance - these are pretty minor. Of course, Socialized healthcare is ok for Congress and the Military - but not for the folks paying the bills


Enrollment Fees
<br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: auto; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; ">Active duty service members, their families and transitional survivors do not have to pay annual enrollment fees to enroll in TRICARE Prime. All others are required to pay enrollment fees.

On October 1, 2011, there was a modest increase in TRICARE Prime enrollment fees. The fee increase applies only to new enrollees whose TRICARE Prime applications are received on or after October 1, 2011.

Annual Fees

• $260/year for individuals
• $520/year for families

Quarterly Fees

• $65/quarter for individuals
• $130/quarter for families

Monthly Fees

• $21.66/month for individuals
• $43.33/month for families

Annual enrollment fees for beneficiaries enrolled before October 1, 2011 remain at $230 and $460 until October 1, 2012.

Paying Enrollment Fees<br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: auto; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; ">You will pay a one-month initial enrollment fee and after that, you can opt to pay your fees annually, quarterly or monthly. Before deciding to pay annually, please keep in mind that in most cases, enrollment fees are non-refundable. Click on your region to learn more about your payment options:

• North
• South
• West<br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: auto; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; ">

Annual Increases<br style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: auto; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px; ">TRICARE Prime enrollment fees are subject to increase each fiscal year. Beneficiaries who are classified as "survivors of active duty deceased" or "medically-retired uniformed service members and their dependents" are exempt from enrollment fee increases. The fee remains frozen as long as at least one family member remains enrolled in TRICARE Prime and there is not a break in enrollment

• If enrolled before October 1, 2011, the annual enrollment fee is frozen at the current rate of $230 per individual and $460 per family.
• On or after October 1, 2011, the fee is frozen at the rate in effect at the time they are classified in either category and enrolled.

[MoeAlfa]

There are no Tricare enrollment fees for active duty families and I've never heard of any being proposed. The fees are for retirees and reserve. Congress gets the same menu of non-free, non-socialized, plans available to vast majority of the federal workforce.

[Sol Rosenberg]

There are no Tricare enrollment fees for active duty families and I've never heard of any being proposed. The fees are for retirees and reserve. Congress gets the same menu of non-free, non-socialized, plans available to vast majority of the federal workforce.

Facts are stupid things.

[TornadoCAN99]

There are no Tricare enrollment fees for active duty families and I've never heard of any being proposed. The fees are for retirees and reserve. Congress gets the same menu of non-free, non-socialized, plans available to vast majority of the federal workforce.

Facts are stupid things.

Speaking of stupid things, where has our local bloviating arse-hole HJ been since yestereday? Seems awfully quite...is he recovering in hospital from the SCOTUS ruling? Do we need to start a Death Watch thread on him?

[craigiri]

When I buy a car that 'needs to be fixed' I should get it for a lot less than the brand new price.

Do you buy goods for yourself on the same basis or, do you bitch about the manufacturer or vendor when you buy a piece of shit?

It's a damn good thing for them that congress made themselves immune from prosecution under consumer lemon laws.

I just love it when you try to liken public policy and lawmaking for 310 million people to you farting or stuff like that......it's so.....damn intelligent! And Relevant!

Tell you this much. I've had 300 pages of documents related to one small condo purchase. So, is 10X that much for 310 million people and a complex subject excessive? Well, only if you print it on thick paper and hit me over the head.

If you give me it on a PDF, I could fit thousands of them on a $4 jump drive. That's small. I say if you can't fit the bill on a jump drive, it must be too big.

[craigiri]

The healthcare law can be fixed, In November we as a country will decide who will be tasked to do it.

Not quite accurate. The basic odds say that no matter what, it will be "fixed" or improved very slowly. Sure, you can elect Romney if you want to make certain more babies are born to teens who don't want them......but in terms of the big picture, there is unlikely to be one party control after Nov.

[Saorsa]

When I buy a car that 'needs to be fixed' I should get it for a lot less than the brand new price.

Do you buy goods for yourself on the same basis or, do you bitch about the manufacturer or vendor when you buy a piece of shit?

It's a damn good thing for them that congress made themselves immune from prosecution under consumer lemon laws.

I just love it when you try to liken public policy and lawmaking for 310 million people to you farting or stuff like that......it's so.....damn intelligent! And Relevant!

Tell you this much. I've had 300 pages of documents related to one small condo purchase. So, is 10X that much for 310 million people and a complex subject excessive? Well, only if you print it on thick paper and hit me over the head.

If you give me it on a PDF, I could fit thousands of them on a $4 jump drive. That's small. I say if you can't fit the bill on a jump drive, it must be too big.

Both of your examples, the condo purchase and the healthcare bill are excessive.

What media is used for storage is equally irrelevant. If nobody reads it, why bother storing it at all?

But, when somebody tells be a bill is a piece of shit that has to be fixed, one wonders why it was passed in the first place.

[VwaP]

There are no Tricare enrollment fees for active duty families and I've never heard of any being proposed. The fees are for retirees and reserve. Congress gets the same menu of non-free, non-socialized, plans available to vast majority of the federal workforce.

"The administration urged the House to “reconsider” to fee increase, arguing they are “essential for DOD to successfully address rising personnel costs."

[Jon Eisberg]

There are no Tricare enrollment fees for active duty families and I've never heard of any being proposed. The fees are for retirees and reserve. Congress gets the same menu of non-free, non-socialized, plans available to vast majority of the federal workforce.

"The administration urged the House to “reconsider” to fee increase, arguing they are “essential for DOD to successfully address rising personnel costs."

And yet, your side cheers that Wisconsin-Governor-Whose-Name-Ends-With-an-® for wanting to do the same thing to the state's teachers...

Go figure...

[badlatitude]

There are no Tricare enrollment fees for active duty families and I've never heard of any being proposed. The fees are for retirees and reserve. Congress gets the same menu of non-free, non-socialized, plans available to vast majority of the federal workforce.

Facts are stupid things.

Speaking of stupid things, where has our local bloviating arse-hole HJ been since yestereday? Seems awfully quite...is he recovering in hospital from the SCOTUS ruling? Do we need to start a Death Watch thread on him?

Jack was at the Supreme Court yesterday and caught Fox News telling it's audience that the mandate was struck down. He then called Mean Jean Schmidt and told her the news, now he is too embarrassed to show his face.

[MoeAlfa]

There are no Tricare enrollment fees for active duty families and I've never heard of any being proposed. The fees are for retirees and reserve. Congress gets the same menu of non-free, non-socialized, plans available to vast majority of the federal workforce.

"The administration urged the House to "reconsider" to fee increase, arguing they are "essential for DOD to successfully address rising personnel costs."

Your point being...

[JBSF]

For most the ruling won't make that much difference. those with insurance will still have it, those without insurance who can afford it will need to get it or pay a fine, er I mean tax... those who can't afford it will be covered under medicade. I for one am stoked that the commerce clause went down. the rest can be figued out, repealed or forgotten.

but no one still has answered the question about how we pay for the people who choose to NOT buy insurance and pay the penalty? There is no freaking way in hell that the tiny amount of tax collected will offset the cost of that person's cancer treatments or coronary bypass surgery when they present at the hospital without insurance. If the penalty is too low, as it is now - you've just incentivized further the idea of not buying insurance until it's needed. Especially with pre-existing conditions removed off the table.

IMHO, this act just INCREASED the cost of HC rather than decreased it.

I would imagine the vast majority of people woud happily by health insurance if they qualified and if they could afford it, and those are the people that will be particularly helped by this.

No, sadly you're wrong. They won't go out and buy insurance if they can get away with a smaller penalty. It's just human nature. And yes, my beef is the penalty is not big enough and enforcement is a joke. Why buy HC if you can pay a smaller amount and get free HC at the ER???

[JBSF]

For most the ruling won't make that much difference. those with insurance will still have it, those without insurance who can afford it will need to get it or pay a fine, er I mean tax... those who can't afford it will be covered under medicade. I for one am stoked that the commerce clause went down. the rest can be figued out, repealed or forgotten.

but no one still has answered the question about how we pay for the people who choose to NOT buy insurance and pay the penalty? There is no freaking way in hell that the tiny amount of tax collected will offset the cost of that person's cancer treatments or coronary bypass surgery when they present at the hospital without insurance. If the penalty is too low, as it is now - you've just incentivized further the idea of not buying insurance until it's needed. Especially with pre-existing conditions removed off the table.

IMHO, this act just INCREASED the cost of HC rather than decreased it.

Not sure that this is anything but a massive balloon squeeze. Even the CBO is estimating only moderate cost increase because, wait for it, these folks are already getting healthcare today. They get it in the most expensive fashion, through the emergency room, but they get it.

Face it, the folks who have "insurance" today are subsidizing both the poor, and the folks taking the no-insurance risk. That's why it's working in Mass, and why it will work for the US.

Does it try to address overall cost and bring it down? No, unfortunately, but overall system cost shouldn't increase much.

Yes, I totally get that the rest of us subsidize both the poor and the risk takers. That's why I'm not totally opposed to this plan. My point was that because the Dem congress was so completely and utterly spineless - this is a joke of a bill with ZERO teeth to actually force people into the pool. I listened to NPR just a few mins ago where they were explaining the enforcement mechanisms and there really ARE NONE unless you're getting a tax refund. Congress built so many loopholes and exemptions into this this POS that it's not only worthless, but will increase costs to those of us who are already subsidizing everyone else because because it increases services without corresponding revenue mechanisms.

The other area that I hate the most about it is that it forces and further entrenches US business into healthcare. Rather than begin to decouple US business from Providing HC, it forces them to now if they employ 50+. Guess what, I would stop at exactly 49 if I were an small business employer. That's a good idea to further cripple business owners by making them also HC providers. FUCK THAT.

[Mark K]

For most the ruling won't make that much difference. those with insurance will still have it, those without insurance who can afford it will need to get it or pay a fine, er I mean tax... those who can't afford it will be covered under medicade. I for one am stoked that the commerce clause went down. the rest can be figued out, repealed or forgotten.

but no one still has answered the question about how we pay for the people who choose to NOT buy insurance and pay the penalty? There is no freaking way in hell that the tiny amount of tax collected will offset the cost of that person's cancer treatments or coronary bypass surgery when they present at the hospital without insurance. If the penalty is too low, as it is now - you've just incentivized further the idea of not buying insurance until it's needed. Especially with pre-existing conditions removed off the table.

IMHO, this act just INCREASED the cost of HC rather than decreased it.

I would imagine the vast majority of people woud happily by health insurance if they qualified and if they could afford it, and those are the people that will be particularly helped by this.

No, sadly you're wrong. They won't go out and buy insurance if they can get away with a smaller penalty. It's just human nature. And yes, my beef is the penalty is not big enough and enforcement is a joke. Why buy HC if you can pay a smaller amount and get free HC at the ER???

People generally find they only get emergency care that way, and that if they have a condition that requires anything like one of those expensive drugs, they will be told to find a nice place to die way too late, don't they? Ah well...

It's better than the status quo, and at least we are trying to do something.... I'm not sure we can ask the government we have for anything more intrusive. Barely survived the seance session with the "Founders" as is.

[Regatta Dog]

For most the ruling won't make that much difference. those with insurance will still have it, those without insurance who can afford it will need to get it or pay a fine, er I mean tax... those who can't afford it will be covered under medicade. I for one am stoked that the commerce clause went down. the rest can be figued out, repealed or forgotten.

but no one still has answered the question about how we pay for the people who choose to NOT buy insurance and pay the penalty? There is no freaking way in hell that the tiny amount of tax collected will offset the cost of that person's cancer treatments or coronary bypass surgery when they present at the hospital without insurance. If the penalty is too low, as it is now - you've just incentivized further the idea of not buying insurance until it's needed. Especially with pre-existing conditions removed off the table.

IMHO, this act just INCREASED the cost of HC rather than decreased it.

Not sure that this is anything but a massive balloon squeeze. Even the CBO is estimating only moderate cost increase because, wait for it, these folks are already getting healthcare today. They get it in the most expensive fashion, through the emergency room, but they get it.

Face it, the folks who have "insurance" today are subsidizing both the poor, and the folks taking the no-insurance risk. That's why it's working in Mass, and why it will work for the US.

Does it try to address overall cost and bring it down? No, unfortunately, but overall system cost shouldn't increase much.

Yes, I totally get that the rest of us subsidize both the poor and the risk takers. That's why I'm not totally opposed to this plan. My point was that because the Dem congress was so completely and utterly spineless - this is a joke of a bill with ZERO teeth to actually force people into the pool. I listened to NPR just a few mins ago where they were explaining the enforcement mechanisms and there really ARE NONE unless you're getting a tax refund. Congress built so many loopholes and exemptions into this this POS that it's not only worthless, but will increase costs to those of us who are already subsidizing everyone else because because it increases services without corresponding revenue mechanisms.

The other area that I hate the most about it is that it forces and further entrenches US business into healthcare. Rather than begin to decouple US business from Providing HC, it forces them to now if they employ 50+. Guess what, I would stop at exactly 49 if I were an small business employer. That's a good idea to further cripple business owners by making them also HC providers. FUCK THAT.

The 50 employee threshold will be a boon to outsourcing. I imagine there are more than a few small/medium business owners who aren't large enough or politically connected enough to get waivers who are looking for ways to cut staff.

I thought liberals were all about taking care of Main Street instead of lining the pockets of those big insurance folks on Wall.

[zzrider]

I sincerely doubt that that is going to happen. People do what is convenient for them. Here is a report on one study on the subject.

http://www.usatoday....ency20_st_N.htm

If people had any interest in preventive care and a healthy lifestyle, McDonalds would be out of business along with most of the rest of the fast food industry. Even with free WiFi.

Exactly!

Virtually all of these healthcare related debates focus on the supporters' argument that putting the federal government in charge of things will somehow magically make people take more responsibility for their own health, thereby lowering overall systemic costs due to preventative care.

I call bullshit on that - in fact, "universal coverage" and this obscene notion of the healthcare as a "right" will have the OPPOSITE effect. Why worry about behaviorally influenced health issues when you can't be denied care regardless of ability to pay?

Look, I work in health care and I see this stuff every day. Improving access to primary care is going to do exactly nothing so long as so many people still can't figure out that it's a bad idea to smoke, pickle their livers, ignore high blood pressure, overeat to obesity, remain sedentary, and have babies they can't afford. None of this is news to anyone, and all of these voluntary behaviors lead to astronomical healthcare costs which "primary care" will have absolutely no effect on.

"Insurance" is supposed to be risk-based, and in all other areas, it is. If you are a risky driver, you pay more on your car insurance. If you live in a flood plain or in an area prone to hurricanes, you pay more for your house insurance. Boat insurance costs more depending on where you choose to sail. This is the only way to make health insurance work, but we won't do that.

You know, I could actually get behind a universal coverage plan that provides basic care, exclusive of chronic conditions brought on by voluntary behavior. Then, you could allow private insurance company to sell additional policies to cover chronic care stemming from personal choice: smokers insurance, obesity insurance, alcoholic insurance, etc.

The overall costs of our healthcare system are completely disconnected from causation and personal responsibility for behaviors. Until we address that, nothing is going to change.

[kmccabe]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the same people who advocate individual responsibility and that people need to take responsibility for themselves by having health insurance have such a hard time with the government saying if you don't take responsibility for yourself by buying health insurance, we will penalize you financially. How is it any different than the penalties imposed by not doing the responsible thing and filing your taxes?

Its called free will and self-determination. Some people don't like having others making decisions for them.

[Spatial Ed]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the same people who advocate individual responsibility and that people need to take responsibility for themselves by having health insurance have such a hard time with the government saying if you don't take responsibility for yourself by buying health insurance, we will penalize you financially. How is it any different than the penalties imposed by not doing the responsible thing and filing your taxes?

Its called free will and self-determination. Some people don't like having others making decisions for them.

your free will and self-determination not to have health insurance costs me money.

[kmccabe]

and the tax that's about to be imposed on this country will cripple it for decades - but that's ok.

[Spatial Ed]

and the tax that's about to be imposed on this country will cripple it for decades - but that's ok.

Really? Boy we sure dodged a bullet when we rejected the Heritiage Foundation plan in 1993 didn't we?

[Saorsa]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the same people who advocate individual responsibility and that people need to take responsibility for themselves by having health insurance have such a hard time with the government saying if you don't take responsibility for yourself by buying health insurance, we will penalize you financially. How is it any different than the penalties imposed by not doing the responsible thing and filing your taxes?

Its called free will and self-determination. Some people don't like having others making decisions for them.

your free will and self-determination not to have health insurance costs me money.

Yeah, at about the 6th derivative.

Is it going to be free now?

[zzrider]

Free will and self-determination are wonderful things - so long as you don't force others to pay for the consequences of your chosen actions. That's the problem with healthcare - we want the freedom, but expect others to help pay for the consequences of poor choices.

[badlatitude]

and the tax that's about to be imposed on this country will cripple it for decades - but that's ok.

Wow, those 4 million individuals must wield uncanny power over the rest of us.

Citing CBO, the Court noted “it is estimated that four million people each year will choose to pay the IRS rather than buy insurance. … It suggests instead that the shared responsibility payment merely imposes a tax citizens may lawfully choose to pay in lieu of buying health insurance.”

[Mark K]

and the tax that's about to be imposed on this country will cripple it for decades - but that's ok.

Really? Boy we sure dodged a bullet when we rejected the Heritiage Foundation plan in 1993 didn't we?

You don't understand. The healthcare industry is about the only thing we have with revenues growing in the double digits year in and year out, and OBAMA wants to shrink it! I swear I am not making this up!

Treason, really.

[NautiGirl]

For most the ruling won't make that much difference. those with insurance will still have it, those without insurance who can afford it will need to get it or pay a fine, er I mean tax... those who can't afford it will be covered under medicade. I for one am stoked that the commerce clause went down. the rest can be figued out, repealed or forgotten.

but no one still has answered the question about how we pay for the people who choose to NOT buy insurance and pay the penalty? There is no freaking way in hell that the tiny amount of tax collected will offset the cost of that person's cancer treatments or coronary bypass surgery when they present at the hospital without insurance. If the penalty is too low, as it is now - you've just incentivized further the idea of not buying insurance until it's needed. Especially with pre-existing conditions removed off the table.

IMHO, this act just INCREASED the cost of HC rather than decreased it.

I would imagine the vast majority of people woud happily by health insurance if they qualified and if they could afford it, and those are the people that will be particularly helped by this.

No, sadly you're wrong. They won't go out and buy insurance if they can get away with a smaller penalty. It's just human nature. And yes, my beef is the penalty is not big enough and enforcement is a joke. Why buy HC if you can pay a smaller amount and get free HC at the ER???

Um, because perhaps they like having access to a family doctor? Because you can't get your anti0hypertensive drugs or insulin at an ER? Because they don't give you eyeglasses at the emergency department? Because when you're feeling depressed, or anxious, or having problems sleeping, an ER isn't going to do much for you? Because it's not worth waiting hours on end to be seen for a refill on your losec?

[NautiGirl]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the same people who advocate individual responsibility and that people need to take responsibility for themselves by having health insurance have such a hard time with the government saying if you don't take responsibility for yourself by buying health insurance, we will penalize you financially. How is it any different than the penalties imposed by not doing the responsible thing and filing your taxes?

Its called free will and self-determination. Some people don't like having others making decisions for them.

The fact of life is the government makes lots of decisions for people that are in the interest of the collective. Can a 12 year old buy cigarettes? Can a 16 year old buy beer?

The same people who complain about having to pick up the tab for the uninsured are the same ones complaining because the uninsured are being mandated to take responsibility for their own health care. The funny thing is, the people who are the most vocally opposed already have health insurance, and won't be subject to these "taxes" they are so offended by. I would think it's the people who can't afford insurance that would be up in arms for being penalized.

[Saorsa]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the same people who advocate individual responsibility and that people need to take responsibility for themselves by having health insurance have such a hard time with the government saying if you don't take responsibility for yourself by buying health insurance, we will penalize you financially. How is it any different than the penalties imposed by not doing the responsible thing and filing your taxes?

Its called free will and self-determination. Some people don't like having others making decisions for them.

The fact of life is the government makes lots of decisions for people that are in the interest of the collective. Can a 12 year old buy cigarettes? Can a 16 year old buy beer?

The same people who complain about having to pick up the tab for the uninsured are the same ones complaining because the uninsured are being mandated to take responsibility for their own health care. The funny thing is, the people who are the most vocally opposed already have health insurance, and won't be subject to these "taxes" they are so offended by. I would think it's the people who can't afford insurance that would be up in arms for being penalized.

If somebody shows up at the ER, somebody is going to pay. What is so difficult to understand about that?
The individual pays -or-
The insurer pays - or-
The government pays -or-
The hospital writes it off as a loss.

Except for the individual payment, the cost is spread across a large number of people

[Jon Eisberg]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the same people who advocate individual responsibility and that people need to take responsibility for themselves by having health insurance have such a hard time with the government saying if you don't take responsibility for yourself by buying health insurance, we will penalize you financially. How is it any different than the penalties imposed by not doing the responsible thing and filing your taxes?

Its called free will and self-determination. Some people don't like having others making decisions for them.

The fact of life is the government makes lots of decisions for people that are in the interest of the collective. Can a 12 year old buy cigarettes? Can a 16 year old buy beer?

The same people who complain about having to pick up the tab for the uninsured are the same ones complaining because the uninsured are being mandated to take responsibility for their own health care. The funny thing is, the people who are the most vocally opposed already have health insurance, and won't be subject to these "taxes" they are so offended by. I would think it's the people who can't afford insurance that would be up in arms for being penalized.

Yup, those were the ones who reacted affirmatively to the moderator's question - "should we let them die?" - put to Ron Paul in one of the debates...

So, then, for those who object to both a single payer system, AND some sort of mandate, what is your alternative solution? Seems to me if you dismiss both of those means of bringing everyone into the system, there is no other workable solution...

Short of barring entry to emergency rooms to those without proof of insurance, that is...

I'm all ears to anyone who can offer a realistic alternative, beyond the usual blather about "accepting personal responsibility", blah, blah, blah...

[TornadoCAN99]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the same people who advocate individual responsibility and that people need to take responsibility for themselves by having health insurance have such a hard time with the government saying if you don't take responsibility for yourself by buying health insurance, we will penalize you financially. How is it any different than the penalties imposed by not doing the responsible thing and filing your taxes?

Its called free will and self-determination. Some people don't like having others making decisions for them.

The fact of life is the government makes lots of decisions for people that are in the interest of the collective. Can a 12 year old buy cigarettes? Can a 16 year old buy beer?

The same people who complain about having to pick up the tab for the uninsured are the same ones complaining because the uninsured are being mandated to take responsibility for their own health care. The funny thing is, the people who are the most vocally opposed already have health insurance, and won't be subject to these "taxes" they are so offended by. I would think it's the people who can't afford insurance that would be up in arms for being penalized.

If somebody shows up at the ER, somebody is going to pay. What is so difficult to understand about that?
The individual pays -or-
The insurer pays - or-
The government pays -or-
The hospital writes it off as a loss.

Except for the individual payment, the cost is spread across a large number of people

A major plus of having insurance is that you can go to a doc and get preventative healthcare, with the intent to reduce/eliminate the much more expensive ER visit when your condition get really bad. That's what drive cost way up...insurance is a good thing. It actually FREES people to make better health choices in their lives...and if it's not tied to your employer, you never have to worry about it if you switch jobs...that is freedom!

[Saorsa]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the same people who advocate individual responsibility and that people need to take responsibility for themselves by having health insurance have such a hard time with the government saying if you don't take responsibility for yourself by buying health insurance, we will penalize you financially. How is it any different than the penalties imposed by not doing the responsible thing and filing your taxes?

Its called free will and self-determination. Some people don't like having others making decisions for them.

The fact of life is the government makes lots of decisions for people that are in the interest of the collective. Can a 12 year old buy cigarettes? Can a 16 year old buy beer?

The same people who complain about having to pick up the tab for the uninsured are the same ones complaining because the uninsured are being mandated to take responsibility for their own health care. The funny thing is, the people who are the most vocally opposed already have health insurance, and won't be subject to these "taxes" they are so offended by. I would think it's the people who can't afford insurance that would be up in arms for being penalized.

If somebody shows up at the ER, somebody is going to pay. What is so difficult to understand about that?
The individual pays -or-
The insurer pays - or-
The government pays -or-
The hospital writes it off as a loss.

Except for the individual payment, the cost is spread across a large number of people

A major plus of having insurance is that you can go to a doc and get preventative healthcare, with the intent to reduce/eliminate the much more expensive ER visit when your condition get really bad. That's what drive cost way up...insurance is a good thing. It actually FREES people to make better health choices in their lives...and if it's not tied to your employer, you never have to worry about it if you switch jobs...that is freedom!

Yeah, there are just thousands sitting at Dunkin' Donuts every morning wishing they had preventative health care.

[zzrider]

A simple question: to what degree do I as an individual have the right to force other people at gunpoint to pay for the consequences of my own voluntary behavior?

[Saorsa]

I'm all ears to anyone who can offer a realistic alternative, beyond the usual blather about "accepting personal responsibility", blah, blah, blah...

You don't have a personal responsibility to pay taxes?

[kmccabe]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the same people who advocate individual responsibility and that people need to take responsibility for themselves by having health insurance have such a hard time with the government saying if you don't take responsibility for yourself by buying health insurance, we will penalize you financially. How is it any different than the penalties imposed by not doing the responsible thing and filing your taxes?

Its called free will and self-determination. Some people don't like having others making decisions for them.

The fact of life is the government makes lots of decisions for people that are in the interest of the collective. Can a 12 year old buy cigarettes? Can a 16 year old buy beer?

The same people who complain about having to pick up the tab for the uninsured are the same ones complaining because the uninsured are being mandated to take responsibility for their own health care. The funny thing is, the people who are the most vocally opposed already have health insurance, and won't be subject to these "taxes" they are so offended by. I would think it's the people who can't afford insurance that would be up in arms for being penalized.

Look, let's be clear, I get it. I understand the fact that you want others making decisions for you. I mean life is sooo complicated - People magazine, Entertainment Tonight. are far more important. Besides when you suck at making personal decisions sometimes it really is better to have the government do it for you.

[kmccabe]

and the tax that's about to be imposed on this country will cripple it for decades - but that's ok.

Really? Boy we sure dodged a bullet when we rejected the Heritiage Foundation plan in 1993 didn't we?

You don't understand. The healthcare industry is about the only thing we have with revenues growing in the double digits year in and year out, and OBAMA wants to shrink it! I swear I am not making this up!

Treason, really.

Cool - I really like the fact that government is there to make my decisions for me. I like the fact that I'll be paying the same rate for insurance as someone who smokes a pack or two a day and drinks a fifth of vodka every single night. I think that's great. Thanks for helping me give up the burden of personal choice. It really is such a chore.

Its like working for Uncle Sam. You're just part of the Green Machine.

[Dawg Gonit]

Why couldn't they have just instituted a National Sales Tax to pay for National Health care.

Starting with a 1% take on Dairy, Meat and Breads.....then going up from there. Then even the poor would have to pay a little...and yes they can afford 1%.

National Health Care would pay for things like broken bones and more serious injuries or aliments.

A doctor visit for a runny nose you would have to pay for. This would make doctors compete for your $$$ and Office visits would get cheaper.

Private Insurance would still be available for those who wanted extra coverage.


Basically I think that forcing people to buy insurance when the states control which companies can sell insurance is a total scam for the Insurance Lobby.

Our Federal Govt and Insurance companies SUCK

[Mark K]

and the tax that's about to be imposed on this country will cripple it for decades - but that's ok.

Really? Boy we sure dodged a bullet when we rejected the Heritiage Foundation plan in 1993 didn't we?

You don't understand. The healthcare industry is about the only thing we have with revenues growing in the double digits year in and year out, and OBAMA wants to shrink it! I swear I am not making this up!

Treason, really.

Cool - I really like the fact that government is there to make my decisions for me. I like the fact that I'll be paying the same rate for insurance as someone who smokes a pack or two a day and drinks a fifth of vodka every single night. I think that's great. Thanks for helping me give up the burden of personal choice. It really is such a chore.

Its like working for Uncle Sam. You're just part of the Green Machine.

Well, at least you will still have the ability to make shit up to be outraged about. They can never take that away.

[Olsonist]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the same people who advocate individual responsibility and that people need to take responsibility for themselves by having health insurance have such a hard time with the government saying if you don't take responsibility for yourself by buying health insurance, we will penalize you financially. How is it any different than the penalties imposed by not doing the responsible thing and filing your taxes?

Its called free will and self-determination. Some people don't like having others making decisions for them.

Democracy might not be working out for you. Have you thought about Somalia?

[zzrider]

Democracy is 3 wolves and 2 sheep voting on what's for dinner. The USA is not (or more accurately, was not intended to be) a democracy.

[Regatta Dog]

and the tax that's about to be imposed on this country will cripple it for decades - but that's ok.

Really? Boy we sure dodged a bullet when we rejected the Heritiage Foundation plan in 1993 didn't we?

You don't understand. The healthcare industry is about the only thing we have with revenues growing in the double digits year in and year out, and OBAMA wants to shrink it! I swear I am not making this up!

Treason, really.

There are many players in the healthcare industry. The top health insurers are operating on very tight margins. I live in CT, the birth place of American insurance. The insurance companies may get more money when more people are forced to buy their product (Go the 1%!), but they will have to up the price when preexisting conditions come into play for everyone. Obamacare is corporate welfare.

This law does nothing to reduce the cost of health care.

[Mark K]

and the tax that's about to be imposed on this country will cripple it for decades - but that's ok.

Really? Boy we sure dodged a bullet when we rejected the Heritiage Foundation plan in 1993 didn't we?

You don't understand. The healthcare industry is about the only thing we have with revenues growing in the double digits year in and year out, and OBAMA wants to shrink it! I swear I am not making this up!

Treason, really.

There are many players in the healthcare industry. The top health insurers are operating on very tight margins. I live in CT, the birth place of American insurance. The insurance companies may get more money when more people are forced to buy their product (Go the 1%!), but they will have to up the price when preexisting conditions come into play for everyone. Obamacare is corporate welfare.

This law does nothing to reduce the cost of health care.

http://www.politifac...company-profit/

http://www.bloomberg...enue-boost.html

[Saorsa]

You don't understand. The healthcare industry is about the only thing we have with revenues growing in the double digits year in and year out, and OBAMA wants to shrink it! I swear I am not making this up!

Treason, really.

There are many players in the healthcare industry. The top health insurers are operating on very tight margins. I live in CT, the birth place of American insurance. The insurance companies may get more money when more people are forced to buy their product (Go the 1%!), but they will have to up the price when preexisting conditions come into play for everyone. Obamacare is corporate welfare.

This law does nothing to reduce the cost of health care.

http://www.politifac...company-profit/

http://www.bloomberg...enue-boost.html

Do you know how numbers work.?

Your first cite shouts out that profit margins QUADRUPLED!!!!!

Your second cite said

Still, the companies saw their average operating profit margins expand to 8.24 percent in the six quarters since the overhaul became law, compared with 6.88 percent for the 18 months before it was passed.

That means they quadrupled from 2.06%

So, the 400% that you seem to find significant is actually 6.18 percent of actual revenue. except that that doesn't compute for the 6.88% reported in the first cite

Wherever you live, there is a state insurance commission, run by the government, which set permissible rate caps for insurance companies. If they deem these profits excessive, the cap will be reduced.

You might consider that the potential impact of the Affordable (BWAHAHAHAHA) Care Act could well have convinced the local insurance commission that greater reserves or charges were merited.

By comparison, AT&T stock at the price at Fridays close would give you a 5% rate of return.

[zzrider]

A simple question: to what degree do I as an individual have the right to force other people at gunpoint to pay for the consequences of my own voluntary behavior?

Hmm. Wonder why nobody wants to tackle this question. We can't have an honest discussion about health care without approaching this subject.

[kmccabe]

and the tax that's about to be imposed on this country will cripple it for decades - but that's ok.

Really? Boy we sure dodged a bullet when we rejected the Heritiage Foundation plan in 1993 didn't we?

You don't understand. The healthcare industry is about the only thing we have with revenues growing in the double digits year in and year out, and OBAMA wants to shrink it! I swear I am not making this up!

Treason, really.

Cool - I really like the fact that government is there to make my decisions for me. I like the fact that I'll be paying the same rate for insurance as someone who smokes a pack or two a day and drinks a fifth of vodka every single night. I think that's great. Thanks for helping me give up the burden of personal choice. It really is such a chore.

Its like working for Uncle Sam. You're just part of the Green Machine.

Well, at least you will still have the ability to make shit up to be outraged about. They can never take that away.

Outraged??

You got me all wrong brother - I'm glad.

Happy, Ecstatic that I no longer have to make decisions.

I am one with the state.

[Tom Ray]

A simple question: to what degree do I as an individual have the right to force other people at gunpoint to pay for the consequences of my own voluntary behavior?

Hmm. Wonder why nobody wants to tackle this question. We can't have an honest discussion about health care without approaching this subject.

To the degree that we all decide you have that right. Of course, they can leave, and so can you or I.

[JBSF]

Virtually all of these healthcare related debates focus on the supporters' argument that putting the federal government in charge of things will somehow magically make people take more responsibility for their own health, thereby lowering overall systemic costs due to preventative care.

I call bullshit on that - in fact, "universal coverage" and this obscene notion of the healthcare as a "right" will have the OPPOSITE effect. Why worry about behaviorally influenced health issues when you can't be denied care regardless of ability to pay?

Look, I work in health care and I see this stuff every day. Improving access to primary care is going to do exactly nothing so long as so many people still can't figure out that it's a bad idea to smoke, pickle their livers, ignore high blood pressure, overeat to obesity, remain sedentary, and have babies they can't afford. None of this is news to anyone, and all of these voluntary behaviors lead to astronomical healthcare costs which "primary care" will have absolutely no effect on.

"Insurance" is supposed to be risk-based, and in all other areas, it is. If you are a risky driver, you pay more on your car insurance. If you live in a flood plain or in an area prone to hurricanes, you pay more for your house insurance. Boat insurance costs more depending on where you choose to sail. This is the only way to make health insurance work, but we won't do that.

You know, I could actually get behind a universal coverage plan that provides basic care, exclusive of chronic conditions brought on by voluntary behavior. Then, you could allow private insurance company to sell additional policies to cover chronic care stemming from personal choice: smokers insurance, obesity insurance, alcoholic insurance, etc.

The overall costs of our healthcare system are completely disconnected from causation and personal responsibility for behaviors. Until we address that, nothing is going to change.

Logic, reason and common sense will NOT be tolerated here in PA!

[JBSF]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the same people who advocate individual responsibility and that people need to take responsibility for themselves by having health insurance have such a hard time with the government saying if you don't take responsibility for yourself by buying health insurance, we will penalize you financially. How is it any different than the penalties imposed by not doing the responsible thing and filing your taxes?

Its called free will and self-determination. Some people don't like having others making decisions for them.

your free will and self-determination not to have health insurance costs me money.

Yep, this is where I have to side with lefties on this issue. Im ALL for free will.... Right up to the point where It costs ME money! If free will and self determination to NOT buy insurance resulted in you being turned away at the ER and left to die - then I'm all for it. That's exactly how free will and self-determination SHOULD work. However, YOUR free will to be a slacker shouldn't result in me having the responsibility to pay FOR your stupid decisions. I've long said that if we, as a society, are ok with people dying because they didn't buy HC when they could have afforded it but chose not to - then we don't need abc reform, mandates or any of e other stuff. As long as we won't do that, the gov't has the right to tell us what to do. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

[MoeAlfa]

A simple question: to what degree do I as an individual have the right to force other people at gunpoint to pay for the consequences of my own voluntary behavior?

Hmm. Wonder why nobody wants to tackle this question. We can't have an honest discussion about health care without approaching this subject.

To the degree that we all decide you have that right. Of course, they can leave, and so can you or I.

Exactly. To wit, if my neighbor's house catches fire he cannot compel me to help him put it out, but it might make sense to lend a hand. Even if I know he smokes in bed, it might be very inconvenient, if theoretically possible, for me to move. Ideologues have a tendency to confuse rights and laws with the principles underlying what people and societies do.

[Saorsa]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the same people who advocate individual responsibility and that people need to take responsibility for themselves by having health insurance have such a hard time with the government saying if you don't take responsibility for yourself by buying health insurance, we will penalize you financially. How is it any different than the penalties imposed by not doing the responsible thing and filing your taxes?

Its called free will and self-determination. Some people don't like having others making decisions for them.

your free will and self-determination not to have health insurance costs me money.

Yep, this is where I have to side with lefties on this issue. Im ALL for free will.... Right up to the point where It costs ME money! If free will and self determination to NOT buy insurance resulted in you being turned away at the ER and left to die - then I'm all for it. That's exactly how free will and self-determination SHOULD work. However, YOUR free will to be a slacker shouldn't result in me having the responsibility to pay FOR your stupid decisions. I've long said that if we, as a society, are ok with people dying because they didn't buy HC when they could have afforded it but chose not to - then we don't need abc reform, mandates or any of e other stuff. As long as we won't do that, the gov't has the right to tell us what to do. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

How does this law actually save you money?

[NautiGirl]

After last night's sail, I am once again grateful for our single payer system. Our crew mate is resting comfortably in the ICU. Sucks that he'll miss our ocean race, but it sure sunk in as I hugged his wife and daughter when they arrived at the ER that the only thing they had to think about last night (or today or tomorrow) is his well being. No paper work. No co pay. No stress because we took him to the wrong hospital. Just themselves. Can't imagine it any other way.

[craigiri]

A simple question: to what degree do I as an individual have the right to force other people at gunpoint to pay for the consequences of my own voluntary behavior?

Hmm. Wonder why nobody wants to tackle this question. We can't have an honest discussion about health care without approaching this subject.

Because it's a looney question and if I address it, I also have to address why they extract property tax from me at the point of a gun to pay for other people not using condoms (schools) and hundreds of other such things.

[Regatta Dog]

and the tax that's about to be imposed on this country will cripple it for decades - but that's ok.

Really? Boy we sure dodged a bullet when we rejected the Heritiage Foundation plan in 1993 didn't we?

You don't understand. The healthcare industry is about the only thing we have with revenues growing in the double digits year in and year out, and OBAMA wants to shrink it! I swear I am not making this up!

Treason, really.

There are many players in the healthcare industry. The top health insurers are operating on very tight margins. I live in CT, the birth place of American insurance. The insurance companies may get more money when more people are forced to buy their product (Go the 1%!), but they will have to up the price when preexisting conditions come into play for everyone. Obamacare is corporate welfare.

This law does nothing to reduce the cost of health care.

http://www.politifac...company-profit/

http://www.bloomberg...enue-boost.html

GM posts $1 billion Q1 profit, dragged down by Europe (link)

Corporate profits are bad.....sometimes.

[Regatta Dog]

After last night's sail, I am once again grateful for our single payer system. Our crew mate is resting comfortably in the ICU. Sucks that he'll miss our ocean race, but it sure sunk in as I hugged his wife and daughter when they arrived at the ER that the only thing they had to think about last night (or today or tomorrow) is his well being. No paper work. No co pay. No stress because we took him to the wrong hospital. Just themselves. Can't imagine it any other way.

Good on Canada. Please let us know if his condition warrants a trip to the US for treatment like Danny Williams.

That was a political jab. On a personal level, I hope he recovers from whatever ailment he has. My thoughts are with him and his family.

[JBSF]

I'm having a hard time understanding why the same people who advocate individual responsibility and that people need to take responsibility for themselves by having health insurance have such a hard time with the government saying if you don't take responsibility for yourself by buying health insurance, we will penalize you financially. How is it any different than the penalties imposed by not doing the responsible thing and filing your taxes?

Its called free will and self-determination. Some people don't like having others making decisions for them.

your free will and self-determination not to have health insurance costs me money.

Yep, this is where I have to side with lefties on this issue. Im ALL for free will.... Right up to the point where It costs ME money! If free will and self determination to NOT buy insurance resulted in you being turned away at the ER and left to die - then I'm all for it. That's exactly how free will and self-determination SHOULD work. However, YOUR free will to be a slacker shouldn't result in me having the responsibility to pay FOR your stupid decisions. I've long said that if we, as a society, are ok with people dying because they didn't buy HC when they could have afforded it but chose not to - then we don't need abc reform, mandates or any of e other stuff. As long as we won't do that, the gov't has the right to tell us what to do. Sorry, that's just the way it is.

How does this law actually save you money?

It doesn't IMHO.

But that was not my point.... I was adressing KM's assertion that free will and self-determination trumps everything. I was simply pointing out that in cases where YOUR free will impacts on MY obligations - then I also have the ability (through my gov't) to tell you to do something so it stops impacting me. It was not in direct context to this particular bill other than to say that the gov't DOES have the ability to intrude into your lives wrt to HC anytime it impacts other citizen's lives. Its a great principle in theory to say "free will and self-determination" trumps all. I say fine to that and whole-heartedly agree AS LONG AS you (and our society) are willing to accept the consequences of those choices. Since our society is NOT willing to turn you away from the ER to die, therefore certain intrusions into your life will be imposed on you. Until that happens (letting you die), I am ok with forcing everyone to be covered by some sort of health care plan - whether it be a tax or whatever.

[Bull Gator]

After last night's sail, I am once again grateful for our single payer system. Our crew mate is resting comfortably in the ICU. Sucks that he'll miss our ocean race, but it sure sunk in as I hugged his wife and daughter when they arrived at the ER that the only thing they had to think about last night (or today or tomorrow) is his well being. No paper work. No co pay. No stress because we took him to the wrong hospital. Just themselves. Can't imagine it any other way.

Yup it's how it should be. Interesting to note that the country with the strongest model of Capitalism (Switzerland) also has a individual mandate.

[Jon Eisberg]

Cool - I really like the fact that government is there to make my decisions for me. I like the fact that I'll be paying the same rate for insurance as someone who smokes a pack or two a day and drinks a fifth of vodka every single night. I think that's great. Thanks for helping me give up the burden of personal choice. It really is such a chore.

Its like working for Uncle Sam. You're just part of the Green Machine.

Well, at least you will still have the ability to make shit up to be outraged about. They can never take that away.

Yeah, but just imagine IF that was true...

Health Plan Costs For Obese And Smokers Could Rise After Supreme Court Ruling

Posted: 06/29/2012 6:54 pm


A little-discussed ramification of Thursday's landmark Supreme Court health care decision is that it could make things harder for the nation's heaviest workers.

The decision upholding the Affordable Care Act has cleared the way for a planned increase in the penalties that employers can impose on workers who don't participate in company wellness programs and, in some cases, who don't meet certain health targets such as an appropriate body mass index. In other words, the obese may wind up paying penalties for being overweight. Smokers, too, may get hit.

The language of the penalties under corporate health plans is often written in terms of "incentives," where the "absence of a surcharge" on health care premiums is an "incentive" for employees to agree to take part in a wellness program. Read another way, that means workers who don't agree to participate have to pay a fine. President Barack Obama's health care law raises the limit on how high a penalty employers can set to "incentivize" participation in the programs, which typically consist of health risk assessments (often including blood tests), fitness classes, disease management plans and nutrition education.

Those most likely to be affected by the increase are cigarette smokers and obese people, two groups who studies show account for a disproportionately high percentage of health care spending.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/health-plans-obese-smokers-supreme-court_n_1636139.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2FBusiness+%28Business+on+The+Huffington+Post%29

[Mark K]

Cool - I really like the fact that government is there to make my decisions for me. I like the fact that I'll be paying the same rate for insurance as someone who smokes a pack or two a day and drinks a fifth of vodka every single night. I think that's great. Thanks for helping me give up the burden of personal choice. It really is such a chore.

Its like working for Uncle Sam. You're just part of the Green Machine.

Well, at least you will still have the ability to make shit up to be outraged about. They can never take that away.

Yeah, but just imagine IF...

Health Plan Costs For Obese And Smokers Could Rise After Supreme Court Ruling

Posted: 06/29/2012 6:54 pm


A little-discussed ramification of Thursday's landmark Supreme Court health care decision is that it could make things harder for the nation's heaviest workers.

The decision upholding the Affordable Care Act has cleared the way for a planned increase in the penalties that employers can impose on workers who don't participate in company wellness programs and, in some cases, who don't meet certain health targets such as an appropriate body mass index. In other words, the obese may wind up paying penalties for being overweight. Smokers, too, may get hit.

The language of the penalties under corporate health plans is often written in terms of "incentives," where the "absence of a surcharge" on health care premiums is an "incentive" for employees to agree to take part in a wellness program. Read another way, that means workers who don't agree to participate have to pay a fine. President Barack Obama's health care law raises the limit on how high a penalty employers can set to "incentivize" participation in the programs, which typically consist of health risk assessments (often including blood tests), fitness classes, disease management plans and nutrition education.

Those most likely to be affected by the increase are cigarette smokers and obese people, two groups who studies show account for a disproportionately high percentage of health care spending.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/29/health-plans-obese-smokers-supreme-court_n_1636139.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+HP%2FBusiness+%28Business+on+The+Huffington+Post%29

Please refrain from introducing facts, and thereby compromising our God given and Constitutional right to have a hissy-fit over imaginary offenses to our fee-fees.

[Regatta Dog]

I'm a skinny smoker who always get's a cup of water with my big mac and fries instead of a Coke, I walk at least a mile a day, I don't drink much red wine, and have never taken it up the ass (besides taxes)..

What's my monthly rate?

[Jon Eisberg]

I'm all ears to anyone who can offer a realistic alternative, beyond the usual blather about "accepting personal responsibility", blah, blah, blah...

You don't have a personal responsibility to pay taxes?

Of course I do... But perhaps I didn't make myself clear, that is not the question I'm asking...

For those who don't believe in a single payer system, OR in a mandate, what other alternative is there to encouraging, or making it possible, for those 30 million or so Americans not currently participating in our healthcare system, to do so, without those of us who do having to take up the slack?

What other solution exists? (Short of "letting them die", of course) Do the Republicans - or anyone else, for that matter - who want to repeal the law have the solution to this, a way of achieving a universality to American healthcare, and ensuring that EVERY American has some skin in the game, and that none of the rest of us will wind up footing the bill for those who walk into an ER without any insurance?

Well, there WAS talk of a Public Option, of course... but hell would freeze over before the GOP is gonna let THAT one fly...

[Regatta Dog]

After last night's sail, I am once again grateful for our single payer system. Our crew mate is resting comfortably in the ICU. Sucks that he'll miss our ocean race, but it sure sunk in as I hugged his wife and daughter when they arrived at the ER that the only thing they had to think about last night (or today or tomorrow) is his well being. No paper work. No co pay. No stress because we took him to the wrong hospital. Just themselves. Can't imagine it any other way.

Yup it's how it should be. Interesting to note that the country with the strongest model of Capitalism (Switzerland) also has a individual mandate.

How are their schools? I won't get into lack of punctuation at the beginning ....

GO UF!!!!! Fuck yeah, bitches!!! We be less stupider than some other tards!

UF is part of the problem.

[kmccabe]

I'm a skinny smoker who always get's a cup of water with my big mac and fries instead of a Coke, I walk at least a mile a day, I don't drink much red wine, and have never taken it up the ass (besides taxes)..

What's my monthly rate?

your rate is the same as everyone else's quit your bitchin' and pay up. Hey its not your money - its ours - you should be thankful we've been smart enough to do this for you.

Wanna crack pipe? We'll be giving that to you next. Just like Canada.

[kmccabe]

After last night's sail, I am once again grateful for our single payer system. Our crew mate is resting comfortably in the ICU. Sucks that he'll miss our ocean race, but it sure sunk in as I hugged his wife and daughter when they arrived at the ER that the only thing they had to think about last night (or today or tomorrow) is his well being. No paper work. No co pay. No stress because we took him to the wrong hospital. Just themselves. Can't imagine it any other way.

Yup it's how it should be. Interesting to note that the country with the strongest model of Capitalism (Switzerland) also has a individual mandate.

How are their schools? I won't get into lack of punctuation at the beginning ....

GO UF!!!!! Fuck yeah, bitches!!! We be less stupider than some other tards!

UF is part of the problem.

No actually its what they mainline -errr- mainstream - that's the problem.

[Jon Eisberg]

I'm a skinny smoker who always get's a cup of water with my big mac and fries instead of a Coke, I walk at least a mile a day, I don't drink much red wine, and have never taken it up the ass (besides taxes)..

What's my monthly rate?

I'd suggest you ask your insurance company... Just like you would have prior to the passage of "Obamacare"...

C'mon, don't come off sounding like some member of a Frank Luntz focus group...

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/

[Sol Rosenberg]

After last night's sail, I am once again grateful for our single payer system. Our crew mate is resting comfortably in the ICU. Sucks that he'll miss our ocean race, but it sure sunk in as I hugged his wife and daughter when they arrived at the ER that the only thing they had to think about last night (or today or tomorrow) is his well being. No paper work. No co pay. No stress because we took him to the wrong hospital. Just themselves. Can't imagine it any other way.

Our laws have provided for emergency care regardless of ability to pay since 1986. Some folks just like to pretend that we don't have socialized medicine already.

[Mark K]

After last night's sail, I am once again grateful for our single payer system. Our crew mate is resting comfortably in the ICU. Sucks that he'll miss our ocean race, but it sure sunk in as I hugged his wife and daughter when they arrived at the ER that the only thing they had to think about last night (or today or tomorrow) is his well being. No paper work. No co pay. No stress because we took him to the wrong hospital. Just themselves. Can't imagine it any other way.

What happened?

[jimbot]

http://www.cbsnews.c...ealth-care-law/

[Jon Eisberg]

A simple question: to what degree do I as an individual have the right to force other people at gunpoint to pay for the consequences of my own voluntary behavior?

Hmm. Wonder why nobody wants to tackle this question. We can't have an honest discussion about health care without approaching this subject.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question, but it seems to be implying that everyone who succumbs to the failings of our healthcare system in America is somehow to blame for their circumstances...

Not every illness is the result of "unhealthy" behavior, nor is every inability to afford health insurance necessarily a personal failing... People sometimes actually lose jobs due to no real fault of their own, and with said employment, often goes their healthcare coverage... To use the automobile insurance analogy, not everyone who dies on a highway does so as a result of their own actions, innocents actually are sometimes the victims of other drunk or reckless behavior, etc... Hate to break the news to you, but sometimes people who live exemplary, healthy lives actually do wind up catching cancer...

One of the most compelling aspects of Michael Moore's film on American healthcare, is that he begins with horror stories of people who were actually insured...

Roughly 60 percent of personal bankruptcies in America today are due to overwhelming medical bills... Even more stunning, however, is the fact that in roughly 75% of those cases, those people HAD SOME FORM OF HEALTH INSURANCE...

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH

America stands virtually alone among the world's developed nations, in our failure to provide some degree of universal health care... That's shameful, IMHO, but as long as we continue to couch our individual obligations as a member of a civilized society in such terms as "having a gun held to our head", there's little reason to expect we will ever move forward to becoming the sort of "Kinder, Gentler Nation" that President GHW Bush spoke of all those years ago...

[Jon Eisberg]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

So, then - are you ready to blame Bush, for choosing one of them "Activist Judges"?

I'm gonna guess not...

[jimbot]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/

So, then - are you ready to blame Bush, for choosing one of them "Activist Judges"?

I'm gonna guess not...

Wrong again. Bush wasn't the best man for president, but he was the best available at the time. I'm more wondering if John Roberts took the "Chicago Way" more literally than just bad press.

[NautiGirl]

After last night's sail, I am once again grateful for our single payer system. Our crew mate is resting comfortably in the ICU. Sucks that he'll miss our ocean race, but it sure sunk in as I hugged his wife and daughter when they arrived at the ER that the only thing they had to think about last night (or today or tomorrow) is his well being. No paper work. No co pay. No stress because we took him to the wrong hospital. Just themselves. Can't imagine it any other way.

Good on Canada. Please let us know if his condition warrants a trip to the US for treatment like Danny Williams.

That was a political jab. On a personal level, I hope he recovers from whatever ailment he has. My thoughts are with him and his family.

He was in the cath lab within 2 hours of us activating EMS. He's doing ok. Just very sad to be missing the race. We are very grateful it happened at the dock instead of while we were out. Our crew acted PERFECTLY to handle the emergency. Very proud of them all and confident to be heading offshore with them. We'll miss JH though. Really breaks our heart he won't be with us. His family is doing fine.

Thank you for your much appreciated kind thoughts. Sailor to sailor.







k

[NautiGirl]

After last night's sail, I am once again grateful for our single payer system. Our crew mate is resting comfortably in the ICU. Sucks that he'll miss our ocean race, but it sure sunk in as I hugged his wife and daughter when they arrived at the ER that the only thing they had to think about last night (or today or tomorrow) is his well being. No paper work. No co pay. No stress because we took him to the wrong hospital. Just themselves. Can't imagine it any other way.

Our laws have provided for emergency care regardless of ability to pay since 1986. Some folks just like to pretend that we don't have socialized medicine already.

how'd that work out for msg?

[JBSF]

I'm a skinny smoker who always get's a cup of water with my big mac and fries instead of a Coke, I walk at least a mile a day, I don't drink much red wine, and have never taken it up the ass (besides taxes)..

What's my monthly rate?

Dunno, it depends on how much you bribe your local PHRF committee.

[JBSF]

Our laws have provided for emergency care regardless of ability to pay since 1986. Some folks just like to pretend that we don't have socialized medicine already.

how'd that work out for msg?

Ouch, You HAD to go there, didn't you?

[Sol Rosenberg]

Not everyone is bummed about the mandate.

[Spatial Ed]

GM posts $1 billion Q1 profit, dragged down by Europe (link)

Corporate profits are bad.....sometimes.

If Obama had lost, GM would be dead and Osama alive.

[Mark K]

Not everyone is bummed about the mandate.

Pick up that monitor, hold it screen down, and give it a thorough shake.

[NautiGirl]

Our laws have provided for emergency care regardless of ability to pay since 1986. Some folks just like to pretend that we don't have socialized medicine already.

how'd that work out for msg?

Ouch, You HAD to go there, didn't you

FUCK THAT.

In my opinion she did a diservice bynot discussing it. And she chose to make it non political while she asked for people to donate funds

She was very specific in her desires, and helping others wasn't part of that. I never saw a post encouraging help for those battling the same cancer.

she could have done so much more....but you all gave to her or her bills were paid by medicare so you all choose to ignore it

[Mike G]

Not everyone is bummed about the mandate.

Not everyone is bummed about the mandate.

[By the lee]

June 28, 2012

Roberts & Dems Deliver a Grand Slam for the Right

Obamacare Wins, We Lose

by JOHN STAUBER
It was a brilliant move by far Right (but oh so likable) Chief Justice Roberts to side with the Dem-appointed Justices and uphold ObamaCare. After all, this is a massive victory for corporate power, forcing citizens to buy an expensive insurance product that won’t serve our needs very well but will profit industry, in lieu of receiving real health care.

Obamacare and its corporate mandate were born on the Right (as in Heritage Foundation) as a way to destroy the political prospects of any single payer system that would cover all Americans with a tax-funded system of guaranteed medical care. This is the way all other industrial societies protect the right to health care, by taking it out of the hands of the giant insurance industry. The right to health care is like the right to not be enslaved – there are no half measures, and the insurance industry is the slave master.

Roberts may have brilliantly scored a “4-fer” victory:

1.) He now has an interesting historic legacy.

2.) He and his Dem-appointed colleagues have given huge new powers to corporations, and further reduced the rights of citizens.

3.) Any real reform — call it single payer, or medicare for all — is doomed in bipartisan fashion. The “pragmatists” who are for Obamacare are duped if they think it is going to be expanded to single payer. From this point on, it will only be picked over and further reinvented to empower the insurance and drug industries.

4.) Roberts siding with Dems has probably bounced Obama right out of office. The public overwhelmingly hates Obamacare, and this pours gas on the electoral fire.

No wonder Roberts delivered the goods! What a great Right Wing Justice he is.

John Stauber is an independent author and activist. He founded the Center for Media and Democracy in 1993, retiring in 2009. He lives in Madison, Wisconsin.

[Tom Ray]

2.) He and his Dem-appointed colleagues have given huge new powers to corporations, and further reduced the rights of citizens.

Will insurance companies decide what to sell us and at what price?

Because whoever makes those decisions surely does have huge new powers.

[Olsonist]

Gosh, John Stauber just sounds really independent. Tea Party Independent.

As for insurance companies deciding what to sell and at what price, that sounds like the free market. Works for me. The improvement for me is that ACA says that insurance companies have to sell to me at that price. No cherry picking. Yes, I'm forced to do what I want to do anyways.

Single Payer would be better. Maybe this and the election will be enough of a kick in the teeth for the Republicans to contribute something useful. Oh, wait. They already did.

HeritageCare -> RomneyCare -> ObamaCare.

[Saorsa]

Gosh, John Stauber just sounds really independent. Tea Party Independent.

As for insurance companies deciding what to sell and at what price, that sounds like the free market. Works for me. The improvement for me is that ACA says that insurance companies have to sell to me at that price. No cherry picking. Yes, I'm forced to do what I want to do anyways.

Single Payer would be better. Maybe this and the election will be enough of a kick in the teeth for the Republicans to contribute something useful. Oh, wait. They already did.

HeritageCare -> RomneyCare -> ObamaCare.

No, the insurance companies DON'T decide what to sell and at what price. You might want to look at your state insurance commission to see the list of mandated coverage if an insurance company wants to sell insurance in that state. They also control what the insurance companies can charge. So, as usual, you are completely wrong on that score.

The insurance company's choice is whether or not to sell a policy to an individual or group. If you are a member of the group, they have to pick you up but. The deal there is that they will maintain the current state of your health or take care of new problems after the date you signed up.

[Olsonist]

Out here in CA, Anthem sets its price; the CA Insurance Commissioner doesn't. After the ACA was passed, Anthem jacked their prices for individual plans. Because they could. There was an outcry and Anthem backed off. This didn't happen because the IC told them to.

As for mandated benefits, that CA mandates some coverage is not the same as specifying everything about a plan.

You overstate to the point of saying nothing.

[Tom Ray]

As for insurance companies deciding what to sell and at what price, that sounds like the free market. Works for me. The improvement for me is that ACA says that insurance companies have to sell to me at that price.

Congress will decide whether a plan qualifies to fulfill the mandate or not, meaning they will decide what to sell.

In other news, I finished reading all the opinions this morning. The "that penalty is a tax" argument is absurd, which is why it has not won in any court on the way up to the Supremes. I can't believe they adopted it. The commerce power case is more persuasive and did win on the way up. I'm stunned that Kennedy rejected it and was amused that Ginsburg shoved some of Scalia's words from the Raich case up his ass sideways. I figured (before oral arguments) he might uphold for the same reasons she offered. As you all might expect, my views on the commerce issue are similar to those of the minority.

As for Thomas, what a disappointment. This was an opportunity for an epic rant and he stuck out his tongue and said, "Told ya so!" Reading his opinion was a waste of the tiny amount of time it took.

[zzrider]

A simple question: to what degree do I as an individual have the right to force other people at gunpoint to pay for the consequences of my own voluntary behavior?

Hmm. Wonder why nobody wants to tackle this question. We can't have an honest discussion about health care without approaching this subject.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question, but it seems to be implying that everyone who succumbs to the failings of our healthcare system in America is somehow to blame for their circumstances...

Not every illness is the result of "unhealthy" behavior, nor is every inability to afford health insurance necessarily a personal failing... People sometimes actually lose jobs due to no real fault of their own, and with said employment, often goes their healthcare coverage... To use the automobile insurance analogy, not everyone who dies on a highway does so as a result of their own actions, innocents actually are sometimes the victims of other drunk or reckless behavior, etc... Hate to break the news to you, but sometimes people who live exemplary, healthy lives actually do wind up catching cancer...

Yes, you are completely misunderstanding my question, which is odd because it was very clearly and carefully worded. Of course not every illness is the result of willful unhealthy behavior, this wasn't even remotely implied in my question. I specifically said, "voluntary behavior". There is nothing voluntary about childhood diabetes, or leukemia, or breast cancer, or alot of other unfortunate human frailties. I work in health care and I understand these things with great clarity.

But to pretend that voluntary behavior has little or no impact on the overall cost of our healthcare, or to act like we can fix the problems with our system without addressing it, is willful ignorance.

Also, I never said I supported the employer-based health insurance system, so I'm not sure why you assumed I did. It's a stupid, artificial construct intended to restrict the free market and freedom of choice, and I think it ought to be dismantled.


So, again, to what extent do I an an individual have the right to shove a gun up your nose and force you to bear the cost of my voluntary behavior?

[Saorsa]

Out here in CA, Anthem sets its price; the CA Insurance Commissioner doesn't. After the ACA was passed, Anthem jacked their prices for individual plans. Because they could. There was an outcry and Anthem backed off. This didn't happen because the IC told them to.

As for mandated benefits, that CA mandates some coverage is not the same as specifying everything about a plan.

You overstate to the point of saying nothing.

You need to look into the California Department of Insurance to see what they are doing. Insurers file their rates with the department who leaves them open for comment before permitting the rate to be charged. Insurers don't need to charge the maximum rate filed but, your local bureacrats approved them.