The Future of US Healthcare

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Tempester

I fail to see the problem Americans have with an additional tax when it is supposed to fund something as paramount as healthcare. It's not like the United States is getting a 40% tax on par with some European countries.

you are talking about a country founded by people who started a rebellion over taxes.

[Xagzan]

Well, over being taxed without actual representation in the governing Parliament. But over the centuries that seems to have mutated to "taxes = Satan."

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

you are talking about a country founded by people who started a rebellion over taxes.

Specifically, it was over not being *consulted* about taxes (no representation). It didn't help that the taxes were primarily manipulations by the mega-corporate interests of the time (e.g., East India Company, etc).

Sorry, we can't help it half our country appears to have no fucking clue as they lock-step into oblivion Over 40% of our country believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old and yes I think that's a relevant indicator

[synaesthetic]

Lots of people seem to forget it wasn't taxes, but taxation without representation that added fuel to the revolutionary fire.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

Well, over being taxed without actual representation in the governing Parliament. But over the centuries that seems to have mutated to "taxes = Satan."

People always want things for free. Government projects and services included.

[monir]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

But don't you know, Obama said it wasn't a tax.


Now that it is a tax (according to Roberts) Obama has raised taxes via the individual mandate.

The only question now is--politically speaking--how will this all pan out by November?

Talking point aside, how exactly the "tax" is going to be enforced? There is NO penalty for not paying the tax. When you don't pay your tax, you can go to jail. When you don't pay your tax for this, you go to ______? For GOP, they can still manipulate this particular issue to their advantage with elections on the horizon.

By ruling it a tax, Obamacare can now be overturned with only a reconcilliation vote of 51 in the senate rather than the required 60 for normal legislation.
This would make it much easier to repeal should the Republicans win this year.
Considering the hatred of the mandate by Americans (in addition to other issues), it is quite possible the Republicans will win congress and the presidency.
They didn't have an issue to run on prior to this, now they do.
It doesn't matter if they're lying through their teeth, perception in politics is nine-tenths of reality and now they have a major campaign slogan to run with "Repeal and Replace."
If it sticks, the Democrats will be out of power for at least 2 years and Obamacare will be history.

Even in a perfect scenario for GOP where they take the presidency, control House, and win majority in the Senate, they will still require a significant assent from the Senate Democrat for a repeal to the definition of that word. Considering how polarized each party is with their respective views, it will be a cold day in hell before this bill is repelaed. GOP will be able to strip away few things and block the funding with that perfect scenario in place (and perhaps starts calling the bill GOPcare), but as far as repeal goes, that's going to be a pipe dream just because majority of these provisions will stay put. There is no way to "replace" them.

Originally Posted by flying ^

Savor it while it lasts!

I intend to! You, on the other hand, shouldn't get carried away just yet. Remember, we all get sick sometime.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by monir

Talking point aside, how exactly the "tax" is going to be enforced? There is NO penalty for not paying the tax. When you don't pay your tax, you can go to jail. When you don't pay your tax for this, you go to ______? For GOP, they can still manipulate this particular issue to their advantage with elections on the horizon.

That is a darn good question Monir.
I wish I had a concrete answer for you.
However, the only things that are being talked about with regard to this on the main stream circuits of news is that the IRS will garnish wages, keep your tax return (or the amount to cover the tax), or take the tax out of your bank account.
Under what authority the IRS does this is not yet known.

Even in a perfect scenario for GOP where they take the presidency, control House, and win majority in the Senate, they will still require a significant assent from the Senate Democrat for a repeal to the definition of that word. Considering how polarized each party is with their respective views, it will be a cold day in hell before this bill is repelaed. GOP will be able to strip away few things and block the funding with that perfect scenario in place (and perhaps starts calling the bill GOPcare), but as far as repeal goes, that's going to be a pipe dream just because majority of these provisions will stay put. There is no way to "replace" them.

If the mandate were not a "tax" then I would agree with you.
However, now that is has been ruled a tax, this law is subject to the rules of reconcilliation.
That means only 51 votes are needed in the senate.
If the GOP were to make a clean sweep this election cycle they would have enough votes to make the 51 number they would need to repeal it.

This article explains the GOP strategy pretty well.

The Republican recipe for repeal
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/78002.html

My own opinion is that this law is DOA.
States can now opt out completely, the medicare portion was struck down as unconstitutional, so paying for this law to get implemented is going to require more legislation that simply will not get passed with a GOP controlled house.
Add to that the inherent hatred of this law (it is a really bad one IMHO), and I can see it getting repealed.
Besides, what the US needs is a medicare/medicaid style program for the poor, not some mandate/tax to buy corporate insurance.
As Vexx said here somewhere buried in this thread, insurance companies should be forced to become non-profit companies that survive off both premiums from those who can afford to pay, and government subsidies for those who cannot pay.
This mandate crap that Roberts has supported is just more corporatist nonsense to force people to buy a product they cannot afford.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

I am watching a Romney spokesman talking about how he wants market forces to cover those with pre-existing conditions...

How?

Market forces made it clear after all these years; the only way to maximise profit in health insurance is NOT to cover everyone, and give the least health cover to those who need it most. "Market" can't help people here... The sick and the frail are not profitable to make money from.

Health insurance doesn't profit from having more customers; health insurance profit from not covering sick customers. And yet the Romney spokesman pretended that this isn't the case. I guess he assumes his supporters are too stupid to notice.

[monir]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

If the GOP were to make a clean sweep this election cycle they would have enough votes to make the 51 number they would need to repeal it.

This article explains the GOP strategy pretty well.

The Republican recipe for repeal
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/78002.html

Read the last paragraph. The beauty of this bill when it was passed in 2010 is that it will never go away. All GOP will ever be able to do is to rebrand with their own marking and give it a new name and stop the flow of the money (the budget) to fund this bill. That's it.

The strategy here is pretty obvious for the taking: It's to test the waters to see how much uproar can be rekindled so people will vote for Romney/GOP out of spite for Obama/Democrat. We will see how far this strategy can take GOP. I'll put down my money on not-too-far. I give them about a month before the talking points turn to bigger and better things like the economy, jobs etc.

Besides, what the US needs is a medicare/medicaid style program for the poor, not some mandate/tax to buy corporate insurance.
As Vexx said here somewhere buried in this thread, insurance companies should be forced to become non-profit companies that survive off both premiums from those who can afford to pay, and government subsidies for those who cannot pay.
This mandate crap that Roberts has supported is just more corporatist nonsense to force people to buy a product they cannot afford.

Vexx needs to catch up....

Robert's take has pretty much nullified for any such duplicity in the future when he stated that Government cannot mandate people to buy insurance under the Commerce Law. Before this ruling, the danger was that government (Congress) can pretty much create a product and then will force the people to be its consumer. This ruling effectively limits Commerce Law. And then when Robert said that the bill cannot be imposed on the states to expand their program, it pretty much reinforces and strengthen the above notion.

I think we can all agree that this bill has a lot of room for improvement before it wins over the hearts of people. It, however, has opened the door for the idea what Healthcare should be about. Whoever is in power won't be able to close that door. The repeal won't happen. Even if GOP manages to get as close to a repeal to the definiton of that word (which is highly improbable), the idea of "Repeal" will sound as hollow just as when Bush Jr. famously declared "Mission Accomplished."

Sorry, I could not resist.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by monir

Read the last paragraph. The beauty of this bill when it was passed in 2010 is that it will never go away. All GOP will ever be able to do is to rebrand with their own marking and give it a new name and stop the flow of the money (the budget) to fund this bill. That's it.

By last paragraph, were you referring to this:

“They paved the way for that,” said Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), a physician, referring to Democrats in 2009. “They’ve already set the precedent for utilizing reconciliation on a piece of legislation where it’s never been used before. So tit for tat, in regard to that. Absolutely, if we need to use reconciliation to get rid of this monstrosity, we will. I’ll be for that.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1zIRdWBX8

The Republicans are making this into a political crusade, if they win the majorities they need and the WH, they will repeal this law.
What they replace it with is what has me worried.
I'm willing to bet the GOP will give us something even worse.

The strategy here is pretty obvious for the taking: It's to test the waters to see how much uproar can be rekindled so people will vote for Romney/GOP out of spite for Obama/Democrat. We will see how far this strategy can take GOP. I'll put down my money on not-too-far. I give them about a month before the talking points turn to bigger and better things like the economy, jobs etc.

They've got the uproar, that started yesterday.
The Tea Party is now winding up and getting support, as is Mitt Romney.

Vexx needs to catch up....

Robert's take has pretty much nullified for any such duplicity in the future when he stated that Government cannot mandate people to buy insurance under the Commerce Law. Before this ruling, the danger was that government (Congress) can pretty much create a product and then will force the people to be its consumer. This ruling effectively limits Commerce Law. And then when Robert said that the bill cannot be imposed on the states to expand their program, it pretty much reinforces and strengthen the above notion.

I think we can all agree that this bill has a lot of room for improvement before it wins over the hearts of people. It, however, has opened the door for the idea what Healthcare should be about. Whoever is in power won't be able to close that door. The repeal won't happen. Even if GOP manages to get as close to a repeal to the definiton of that word (which is highly improbable), the idea of "Repeal" will sound as hollow just as when Bush Jr. famously declared "Mission Accomplished."

Sorry, I could not resist.

Roberts did more than just that, he limited government power considerably since he deemed a mandate an overreach.
How this plays out in the future remains to be seen, but it in no way prevents or restricts a repeal of this law.

[ogon_bat]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

I'm willing to bet the GOP will give us something even worse.

I take your bet and raise you 20 >_< The neo-cons are not that creative (they are destructive, which ain't the same), their wet dream is returning the status quo to what it was before (and destroying medicare completely if posible, which is returrnig everything to an even prior state). But receving something (anything) from the neo-cons is like saying Santa brought you coal as a present.

[Mr. DJ]

Some seem to have this fantasy that the GOP will repeal it and put in some real healthcare reform.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by mangamuscle

I take your bet and raise you 20 >_< The neo-cons are not that creative (they are destructive, which ain't the same), their wet dream is returning the status quo to what it was before (and destroying medicare completely if posible, which is returrnig everything to an even prior state). But receving something (anything) from the neo-cons is like saying Santa brought you coal as a present.

I'm willing to bet it's worse than that mangamuscle.
The Neo-Con plan for the healtcare system looks more like this:

The Neoconservative “Health Care” Bill: How Dumb Do They Think We Are?

http://www.populistdaily.com/general...nk-we-are.html

[monir]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

By last paragraph, were you referring to this:

Sorry about that... I had to pause three times before I could hit submit for that post and then had to run. Anyway, I was referring to the last paragraph from the first page of that article where it says:

"On top of that, some budget experts believe not every part of the health care law could be repealed using the simple-majority rules of reconciliation — only the parts that have a direct budget impact. Still, major portions, including the individual mandate, could be targeted by reconciliation."

With that said, I don't know if you had the pleasure of watching Face the Nation yesterday (Sunday) where John Boehner braves a few questions about the aftermath of a successful "repeal." There seems to be no planning for what they will "replace" it with other than reverting the clock to how it used to be. Power to the insurance companies.

Roberts did more than just that, he limited government power considerably since he deemed a mandate an overreach. How this plays out in the future remains to be seen, but it in no way prevents or restricts a repeal of this law.

Unfortunately, there is always two sides of the coin. It might be a good thing to an extent, but in the same breath, the negative aspect is also out there for the taking. SeijiSensei posted briefly about it above from one point of view.

[Vexx]

Cue spotlights on "what will you replace it with, GOP? Be specific because we *have* specifics on the current now-vetted plan."

Problem is, the GOP has already *said* what they've want repeatedly and by many different members/leaders -- total destruction of the community safety net, "screw you, I've got mine", tax revenues redirected directly to certain corporations rather than back to the community,... shall I go on?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by monir

Sorry about that... I had to pause three times before I could hit submit for that post and then had to run. Anyway, I was referring to the last paragraph from the first page of that article where it says:

"On top of that, some budget experts believe not every part of the health care law could be repealed using the simple-majority rules of reconciliation — only the parts that have a direct budget impact. Still, major portions, including the individual mandate, could be targeted by reconciliation."

With that said, I don't know if you had the pleasure of watching Face the Nation yesterday (Sunday) where John Boehner braves a few questions about the aftermath of a successful "repeal." There seems to be no planning for what they will "replace" it with other than reverting the clock to how it used to be. Power to the insurance companies.

Yes and Boner was practically speechless with regard to what he and his fellow Neo-Cons want to replace it with.
It's obvious that they want people to have to buy insurance from corporations, what they don't want is what I want: a health care cushion for the poor that is payed by taxes, preferably by taxing Wall Street on its dividens.

Unfortunately, there is always two sides of the coin. It might be a good thing to an extent, but in the same breath, the negative aspect is also out there for the taking. SeijiSensei posted briefly about it above from one point of view.

I agree, this whole situation has become a mess of legislative-juggling and judicial showmanship.
It looks like a 3-ring circus at this point and in my humble opinion the poor are the ones who are going to get the shaft in all of this.