Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] upheld by Supreme Court Health Care Decision Today...

[firstandten]

Tax credit tax credit tax credit. Who do you think is going to pay for these tax credits?


No chance to the people who currently have insurance? Do you really believe that? I have a bridge I can sell you.

Tax credits aren't government funded programs. Tax credits are the mantra of the Repubs so now that a Dem president is talking about using them its now a bad thing. The hypocrisy is staggering

At this point I have no reason not to believe that there won't be a change to existing insurance policies, if I'm wrong sell me that bridge, just make sure it isn't the Nerds bridge.

BTW I'm still waiting for an answer from all the right-wing folks as to why they think people with no insurance should go to ER and as a result put the cost burden on people who do have insurance.

[rb336]

Tax credits aren't government funded programs. Tax credits are the mantra of the Repubs so now that a Dem president is talking about using them its now a bad thing. The hypocrisy is staggering
.

it's not hypocrisy! these tax credits would benefit the poor! can't have that!

[coracle]

"BTW I'm still waiting for an answer from all the right-wing folks as to why they think people with no insurance should go to ER and as a result put the cost burden on people who do have insurance."

Don't hold your breathe too long for an answer or worry too much about it or else you might end up in ER yourself [[if you don't have Insurance).

[[Advice from a right wing folk)

[Whitehouse]

Hahaha!!! I had to laugh at Romney's Etch-a Sketch spin doctor. He got himself in a sticky situation when he was asked if there was any difference between Obamacare and the Massachusetts Romneycare. That's a lot of hypocricy to say that the Romney sanction is a penalty and with Obamacare it would be a Tax. Needless to say Republicans are livid with this guy! Here's some footage. Classic!

Watch.

[oladub]

Whitehouse, Obama called the provision a 'penalty' as did everyone else, including Romney, until the Supreme Court called it a tax. Since then, most people have been referring to it as a 'tax' because that is how the Court defined it. The word 'penalty' would not have allowed this provision, so the Court had to call it a tax. The Supreme Court also called it an 'indirect tax' even though it is paid directly to the government. A direct tax would have been unconstitutional so they called a "penalty" an "indirect tax".

[rb336]

Hahaha!!! I had to laugh at Romney's Etch-a Sketch spin doctor. He got himself in a sticky situation when he was asked if there was any difference between Obamacare and the Massachusetts Romneycare. That's a lot of hypocricy to say that the Romney sanction is a penalty and with Obamacare it would be a Tax. Needless to say Republicans are livid with this guy! Here's some footage. Classic!

Watch.

The logic of theirs determining that Willard doesn't want to be prez is priceless. wasn't Willard a rat?

[Papasito]

IF Romney gets elected
and
IF he does repeal Obamacare,

he NEEDS to create an alternate solution/bill to replace Obamacare with.

This would show he has plan and vision and isn't just mouthing off he is going to repeal Obamacare simply to repeal it, and let health care slip back into the mess it was before [I'm not implying that Obamacare's passage isn't a mess either with new sweeping taxes to fund it, penalties if you don't buy insurance, and estimates turning out to be immensely more expensive than originally estimated, and taxes/penalties that are cheaper for employers to pay rather than offering plans for employees....ect...] .

Republicans could have reformed health care during Bush I and Bush II, they KNEW Democrats wanted to do something massive to modify the health care in this country. The leave it alone philosophy backfired.

Obama needed to get something passed, and Democrats were going to vote on it, on ANYTHING, right or wrong, good or bad, to change health care in America.

SO, my primary point in this post is:
Show us the alternative, Mr. Romney.

[TKshreve]

IF Romney gets elected
and
IF he does repeal Obamacare,

he NEEDS to create an alternate solution/bill to replace Obamacare with.

This would show he has plan and vision and isn't just mouthing off he is going to repeal Obamacare simply to repeal it, and let health care slip back into the mess it was before [I'm not implying that Obamacare's passage isn't a mess either with new sweeping taxes to fund it, penalties if you don't buy insurance, and estimates turning out to be immensely more expensive than originally estimated, and taxes/penalties that are cheaper for employers to pay rather than offering plans for employees....ect...] .

Republicans could have reformed health care during Bush I and Bush II, they KNEW Democrats wanted to do something massive to modify the health care in this country. The leave it alone philosophy backfired.

Obama needed to get something passed, and Democrats were going to vote on it, on ANYTHING, right or wrong, good or bad, to change health care in America.

SO, my primary point in this post is:
Show us the alternative, Mr. Romney.

Good post Papasito.

Only thing I would comment on; you start by saying IF he is elected and IF he repeals ACA ....... THEN he needs to come up with something. By the end of your post I am starting to believe you meant he should propose this now, instead of after.

I would give the Romsters a little more credit if he actually put something on the table which the American people could actually hold him to. But for now all we have is shady, unamerican offshore accounts and his blind reiteration of his hatred for Obama. Oh, and all the departments he would bare bone.

I don't expect him to do anything further to my liking either. Just more pandering, posturing and finger pointing. That there is his platform.

But we can Hope Papa........ we can hope.

[firstandten]

Good post Papasito.

Only thing I would comment on; you start by saying IF he is elected and IF he repeals ACA ....... THEN he needs to come up with something. By the end of your post I am starting to believe you meant he should propose this now, instead of after.

I would give the Romsters a little more credit if he actually put something on the table which the American people could actually hold him to. But for now all we have is shady, unamerican offshore accounts and his blind reiteration of his hatred for Obama. Oh, and all the departments he would bare bone.

Here's the problem. Romney has no replacement for Obamacare. The concept was developed by the Heritage foundation and Romney used it in Mass. The individual mandate was considered to be a sign of personal responsibility of which Repubs are highly fond of.

Obamacare with a few minor exceptions is the same plan that came out of the Heritage foundation.

When Obama flipped the script it was only then that the Repubs started to demonized the concept.

Thats why you will hear a lot of repeal, replace and reform on Repubs bumper stickers but you won't get the "how" and "with what" that must go along with it.

[firstandten]

If you listen to Mitt on the campaign trail his stump speech against the ACA will consist of three claims all of which are highly suspect

1) Medi-scare ACA will cut Medicare by 500 million according the Romney. The ACA tries to rein in costs and the Ryan plan[[which Romney supports) will cut just as much from Medicare.

2) Deficit-bomb- According to Mitt ACA adds trillions to the deficit.
Actually the CBO scored the ACA as reducing the deficit by 100 billion over the next 10 years

3) Obamacare comes between you and your doctor. A purely emotional argument with no basis in fact. There is no public option.
Theres no single payer.

A couple other minor points he might throw in is

Only the states should do health care
Tort reform


None of this of course answers the question of what he would replace Obamacare with and how would it work.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-rhetoric.html

[Gistok]

IF Romney gets elected
and
IF he does repeal Obamacare,

he NEEDS to create an alternate solution/bill to replace Obamacare with.

This would show he has plan and vision and isn't just mouthing off he is going to repeal Obamacare simply to repeal it, and let health care slip back into the mess it was before [I'm not implying that Obamacare's passage isn't a mess either with new sweeping taxes to fund it, penalties if you don't buy insurance, and estimates turning out to be immensely more expensive than originally estimated, and taxes/penalties that are cheaper for employers to pay rather than offering plans for employees....ect...] .

Republicans could have reformed health care during Bush I and Bush II, they KNEW Democrats wanted to do something massive to modify the health care in this country. The leave it alone philosophy backfired.

Obama needed to get something passed, and Democrats were going to vote on it, on ANYTHING, right or wrong, good or bad, to change health care in America.

SO, my primary point in this post is:
Show us the alternative, Mr. Romney.

Papasito... generally I don't see eye-to-eye on many of your posts... but this one deserves a standing ovation.....

[oladub]

-Papasito, "Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on Middle and Low Class Americans...

Well after yesterday, he just did."

-rb, "nope. he just raised taxes on people who choose not to get healthcare."

Raising taxes on the people who chose not to buy health care insurance is a subset of middle and lower class Americans. Papasito point.

OBAMACARE: SEVEN NEW TAXES ON CITIZENS EARNING LESS THAN $250,000


This doesn't include the cost of rapidly escalating health insurance policies responding to Obamacare and court mandates about what extra provisions should be included in our health insurance policies. The average health insurance policy has increased 14% in price since Obamacare was passed. This is a hidden tax.

[Papasito]

People who think that they are getting something for nothing are living in a dream. These are the same people who thought after Obama was elected REALLY BELIEVED Obama would "take care" of their "energy needs".

Everything costs something.
Everyone with a job will be paying, with or without buying health insurance.

[jiminnm]

People who think that they are getting something for nothing are living in a dream. These are the same people who thought after Obama was elected REALLY BELIEVED Obama would "take care" of their "energy needs".

Everything costs something.
Everyone with a job will be paying, with or without buying health insurance.

Apparently, some folks still think Obama will take care of their energy needs.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...-Metro-Detroit

[rb336]

Everyone with a job will be paying, with or without buying health insurance.

everyone with a job is already paying via increased insurance costs, etc.

[Detroitej72]

SO, my primary point in this post is:
Show us the alternative, Mr. Romney.

He already did, Romneycare, which Obamacare borrowed heavily from.

[oladub]

Because of Obamacare,"we expect the cost of premiums to go up anywhere from 50 to 70 percent. Staggering amounts, and I can build that up for you this way.
“Our most popular plan in the market is our WiseEssentials Rx plan. It is a catastrophic plan with an actuarial value of 0.48. The minimum in the market allowed under the ACA is 0.6. So just on that basis it is a 25 percent increase.
“We expect the uninsured to add 15 percent in additional costs, because we know that they are less healthy than those in the system today, and if we get entrants from the high-risk pool, we can expect costs to go up another 11 percent.
“And then there is the insurer tax, which is 2 ½ percent. There is the exchange assessment, which could be as much as 5 percent. There is the Rx [drug] and device tax, which is 1 percent.
“So put that all together, compound it, and you are easily at 55, 60, maybe even 70 percent. Those are enormous increases."

-Jeff Roe, senior vice president for employer and individual markets at Premera Blue Cross and CEO of its affiliated company, LifeWise Health Plan of Washington. He is talking about individual plans in which, typically, there is a high deductable. He says that better plans covering more things will not be as affected. It looks like only 8.5% of this increase will new taxes passed along to those making les than $200,000/year and most of the rest of the increases will be to meet new coverage requirements. He does make a couple of suggestions toward the end.
http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/...ice-president/

[TKshreve]

Because of Obamacare,"we expect the cost of premiums to go up anywhere from 50 to 70 percent. Staggering amounts, and I can build that up for you this way.
“Our most popular plan in the market is our WiseEssentials Rx plan. It is a catastrophic plan with an actuarial value of 0.48. The minimum in the market allowed under the ACA is 0.6. So just on that basis it is a 25 percent increase.
“We expect the uninsured to add 15 percent in additional costs, because we know that they are less healthy than those in the system today, and if we get entrants from the high-risk pool, we can expect costs to go up another 11 percent.
“And then there is the insurer tax, which is 2 ½ percent. There is the exchange assessment, which could be as much as 5 percent. There is the Rx [drug] and device tax, which is 1 percent.
“So put that all together, compound it, and you are easily at 55, 60, maybe even 70 percent. Those are enormous increases."

-Jeff Roe, senior vice president for employer and individual markets at Premera Blue Cross and CEO of its affiliated company, LifeWise Health Plan of Washington. He is talking about individual plans in which, typically, there is a high deductable. He says that better plans covering more things will not be as affected. It looks like only 8.5% of this increase will new taxes passed along to those making les than $200,000/year and most of the rest of the increases will be to meet new coverage requirements. He does make a couple of suggestions toward the end.
http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/...ice-president/

Not sure where to begin oladub.

Are you really surprised that an Insurance Giant CEO is not only agianst the ACA but is also spreading fear that it is bad legislation? Are you seriously trying to pass this off as a balanced opinion?

Wonder what his solution to health reform is........crickets with a splash or status quo.

[oladub]

Not sure where to begin oladub.

Are you really surprised that an Insurance Giant CEO is not only agianst the ACA but is also spreading fear that it is bad legislation? Are you seriously trying to pass this off as a balanced opinion?

Wonder what his solution to health reform is........crickets with a splash or status quo.

I'm trying to pass this off as the opinion of the person quoted. He uses numbers such as mentioning three new taxes that will be passed along. Are you suggesting those taxes don'e exist or that insurance companies won't pass them along? He states that these figures are for a certain type of policy and that additional costs would probably be less for better policies. What specifically do you think he is lying about? We already have the pied pipers of Obamacare extolling it's virtues. This constitutes balance.

Had you read carefully, your last crickets point would have been partially addressed. "Roe called for more transparency in medical costs, mechanisms that would make consumers responsible for their medical-care choices, and rules that would penalize customers who drop insurance when they don’t need it and try to re-obtain it when they do". The latter is another big problem which he did not even address in the article. To expand on that last point; Some religious groups including Amish and Muslims do not have to contribute to the IM. Can they buy a policy when expedient after exempting themselves for religious reasons?

[rb336]

Not sure where to begin oladub.

Are you really surprised that an Insurance Giant CEO is not only agianst the ACA but is also spreading fear that it is bad legislation? Are you seriously trying to pass this off as a balanced opinion?

Wonder what his solution to health reform is........crickets with a splash or status quo.

Ola picks and chooses his sources regardless of their motivation as long as they feed his Obamahate

[firstandten]

One thing that people choose to ignore when it relates to cost of health care is the cost of doing nothing. There would be no need to reform the present system if the cost of health care was not becoming unsustainable.

[Big Dog]

good post, 1st&10.

[oladub]

Ola picks and chooses his sources regardless of their motivation as long as they feed his Obamahate

Confronted with numbers [[post #67) and unable to argue the point, rb again retreats to name calling. Criticism of Obama is "hate" in rb's world.

[ghettopalmetto]

Because of Obamacare,"we expect the cost of premiums to go up anywhere from 50 to 70 percent. Staggering amounts, and I can build that up for you this way.
“Our most popular plan in the market is our WiseEssentials Rx plan. It is a catastrophic plan with an actuarial value of 0.48. The minimum in the market allowed under the ACA is 0.6. So just on that basis it is a 25 percent increase.
“We expect the uninsured to add 15 percent in additional costs, because we know that they are less healthy than those in the system today, and if we get entrants from the high-risk pool, we can expect costs to go up another 11 percent.
“And then there is the insurer tax, which is 2 ½ percent. There is the exchange assessment, which could be as much as 5 percent. There is the Rx [drug] and device tax, which is 1 percent.
“So put that all together, compound it, and you are easily at 55, 60, maybe even 70 percent. Those are enormous increases."

-Jeff Roe, senior vice president for employer and individual markets at Premera Blue Cross and CEO of its affiliated company, LifeWise Health Plan of Washington. He is talking about individual plans in which, typically, there is a high deductable. He says that better plans covering more things will not be as affected. It looks like only 8.5% of this increase will new taxes passed along to those making les than $200,000/year and most of the rest of the increases will be to meet new coverage requirements. He does make a couple of suggestions toward the end.
http://washingtonstatewire.com/blog/...ice-president/

For those of us who aren't insurance policy wonks, could you translate this into English? For example, what does "An actuarial value of 0.48" mean for us lay people?

With that said, my health insurance premium has more-than-doubled in the past ten years. You can't blame any of that on the Affordable Care Act.

[oladub]

One thing that people choose to ignore when it relates to cost of health care is the cost of doing nothing. There would be no need to reform the present system if the cost of health care was not becoming unsustainable.

Or people could recognize the collusion of government and big business interests which have resulted in health care costs being unsustainable. Instead, too many present symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome and insist that their captors be given more power over them. Why, for instance, have medical costs been skewed preposterously higher because of lawyers allowed at the health care trough? Transferring the high costs to underneath another pod does not make health care more affordable in any shell game. Massachusetts, under Romney, Did something. Vermont is trying to do something. Why do statists instead insist that their salvation be procured from the politicians and lobbyists who made health care so unaffordable in Washington.?