New bid to topple Obamacare in court:

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, May 8, 2014.

  1. jkcerda, May 8, 2014
    Last edited: May 8, 2014

    jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    interesting, wonder how far it will get.


    EDIT. adding link
    http://news.yahoo.com/bid-topple-ob...2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDM0N18x?.tsrc=tmobustoday
     
  2. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #2
    I didn't know the bill had the purpose of raising revenue.

    :|

    Seriously, get over it guys. You lost the legal side, you lost the public opinion side. You lost. Move on to actually doing something that might help the country along.
     
  3. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
    1.what are taxes for? ACA was passed because it was a "tax".

    2. I just hate the mandate part of it.

    3 Ha, it will never happen.
     
  4. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #4
    I believe it stems from the Supreme Court upholding the ACA seeing it as a tax.

    Though it wasn't passed as a tax. The Supreme Court made it one.
     
  5. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #5
    a) The taxes are for paying for the ACA, I would imagine.
    b) A lot of people do, but it's here to stay.
    c) You're probably right, they really don't like doing their job.

    ----------

    Yeah, but I doubt it's actual revenue. If they're smart, they'll just use that to help fund the ACA. Then it isn't new revenue, it's just part of paying for it. They can even say this helps to make sure they don't raise the deficit.
     
  6. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    A) that counts as "revenue"
    B) hope that part is repealed
    C) congress? nope, the "parties" only care about making their "party" look good, they both "oppose" each other IF it BENEFITS the people they are supposed to represent. shame really, this could be a hell of a better country.
     
  7. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #7
    It won't get repealed, though. It's been taken to the SCotUS, so there's not that. Then it's been taken to vote in congress over 40 times. The Mandate is there for good, as much as some people would rather it wasn't.
     
  8. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #8
    A) Remember it wasn't a tax until the Supreme Court ruled it was. Don't think this lawsuit will get anywhere since the ACA was passed( and argued in court) under the commerce portion if I am remembering correctly.

    B) Get rid of the mandate, the rest of the law falls apart. I hate it too, but it is what funds the program. Increase the money pool, costs should be contained. Decrease the money pool and allow people with pre-existing conditions to still sign up, costs will go up as insurance companies will need to protect their profit.
     
  9. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    the only part I really hate.

    A) that is because Obama lied to the people, SCOTUS saw it for what it was, a tax.

    B) disagree, there are plenty of requirements HC insurers must meet in order to operate , taking people with pre-existing conditions can be one of them.
     
  10. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #10
    A) Maybe. Not going to argue if it was or not a tax. But I don't think the lawsuit has a chance because of that technicality.

    B). But now the costs for insurance companies have risen because they have to take care of the people with pre-existing conditions. Companies will need to raise the costs of others to make up for their increase costs of covering people with pre-existing conditions. If they just increase the costs to people with pre-existing conditions, you probably just have made health insurance for them unaffordable. So the cost is spread out in order to keep as many customers as possible. If you have more people paying into the pool, this theoretically should keep health insurance costs down. That is why the mandate is there.
     
  11. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #11
    except the cost are up, mandate has done nothing to lower cost.
     
  12. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #12
    That is why it sucks. But, also believe that is because with some of the new plans have to provide coverage for more items than pre-ACA plans.

    Then again I haven't seen the breakdown of an equivalent pre-ACA plan and the new plans( with the items covered being the same). Everything has become talking points I just sort of tune out.... :eek:


    Why I don't often participate in PRSI discussions. I read them in an attempt to stay informed, but when threads turn into right vs left talking points, it's when I leave.
     
  13. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #13
    not trying to turn it into a R VS L, I just read in another forum that the ACA IS working for them :eek:.

    if we go R VS L, the left does make an amazing point, the R's have no back up plan, NOTHING, no solution at ALL when it comes to helping people.
     
  14. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #14
    Not saying you were, so I apologize for that misunderstanding. I would love to see an apples vs apples comparison between the two plans that cover the exact same items. To my understanding, the price of the plans have gone up because companies are required to cover more items compared to Pre-ACA plans.

    But because the ACA has become a L vs R issue, I tune out and admit I'm not in the loop of things. That's because like the Benghazi issue, it's become an issue filled with talking points( that have half-truths in them, etc that suit each others side) and has become a political tool than discussing it in a meaningful way.
     
  15. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #15
    One of the reasons plan prices are up is simple business economics.

    Insurers can't accurately predict what the enrollment profile will look like, they can't predict exactly what medical payouts will be for people who were previously denied, and so on. With those unknowns, the safest course for the insurer is to raise the rates until things stabilize over time.

    The insurers also know that if 80% of the premiums paid in by individual customers isn't paid out in medical treatments (the medical loss ratio), then the insurer must issue refunds to its customers (the figure is 85% for large group plans). This aspect of the ACA has been in effect for several years, so insurers already know how it works. That means they know that if they overcharged, they'll pay it back. But if they undercharged, that's a serious financial problem for the insurer.

    Personally, I got a check from my insurer the last 2 years. It was roughly the same amount as my monthly premium (i.e. 8.3% of total annual premium).
     
  16. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #16
    Well, when you put into the LAWS OF THE LAND, that the government has no right to negotiate drug prices WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN??

    Why the GOP and righties can't see this simple profit scheme for what it is, is frankly beyond me. It should be outrageous to every American that their healthcare system is being plundered via a profiteering scheme simply to further subsidize Big Pharma profits.
     
  17. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #17
    Then why didn't we try and fix the costs instead of this 2800 page monstrosity of a bill?
     
  18. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #18
    The costs are high because the system itself is almost irredeemably broken. The ACA, flimsy band-aid on a gaping wound though it is, is at least an attempt to try and correct some of those inherit problems.
     
  19. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #19
    Because the ACA, since day one, has been the corporate handout that the Heritage Foundation has been pushing since the mid 90's. Money to be made off of people's lives, thats all this ever was.

    The point was never to fix the system, just tweak the edges so it's not so blatantly offensive (EX. kicking cancer patients off for not knowing their allergies are considered a preexisting condition) as to keep it limping along leeching $$$ for another decade before we finally switch to a real single payer system.
     
  20. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #20
    Side question: Why does 2800 pages automatically = monstrosity? It's a huge overhaul of our health insurance system.

    How long *should* it be? I mean, how long is the technical manual and engineering docs for Apollo XI? How long is too long?
     
  21. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #21
    2,800 is a huge piece of legislation. I know that it may do a lot but it takes a lot of effort and expense to be in compliance. Truthfully, do you think anyone knows everything that is in it? I doubt it.
     
  22. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #22
    Do you think it's necessary for any one person to know everything in it?

    I've worked on a lot of software projects where no one person knew everything in it. That's really the norm, not the exception.

    Even on projects where I wrote everything, I don't necessarily remember every little thing. Instead, if I have a question I go and look at the source code.

    If printed out, 2800 pages of software code would probably be an average small to medium project. And that's just the actual source code, not including specs, design docs, user guides, etc.
     
  23. ugahairydawgs macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #23
    OP.....do you have a link to an original article where you pulled your quoted text from?
     
  24. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #24

    Republicans have said they want bills to be 3 pages or less. Pretty sure it's a reading comprehension thing.
     
  25. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #25
     

Share This Page