or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality - Page 46

post #1801 of 2360


無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #1802 of 2360
'Obamacare' tackles health care costs. Will Congress?
By David R. Francis / October 27, 2010

The president's health care reform plan includes tools to restrain rising health-care costs, but they may not survive future political battles.

Quote:
The United States spends far more on health care than any other nation. Those high costs pinch American consumers, but they're a boon to providers of those medical goods and services.

General practitioners, for example, made about $161,000 a year in 2004, about twice the average among the 30 democracies in the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Registered nurses with two years of college make roughly twice what teachers with a four-year degree make. The US spends roughly twice as much on prescription drugs ($572 per person) as the average OECD nation.

That's one reason Uwe Reinhardt, an expert on health-care economics at Princeton University in New Jersey, sounds so gloomy about prospects for reining in medical costs. "Every dollar of health-care spending is someone's health-care income," he notes.

With so much money sloshing around, the health-care industry has the cash to pay K Street lobbyists "to buy the hearts and minds" of senators and representatives in Congress, he says. To help offset the costs of expanding health insurance to most Americans by 2014, the "Obamacare" law would redeploy $500 billion from Medicare over 10 years, or 6 percent of a total of $3.7 trillion. Professor Reinhardt doubts the provision will survive future partisan battles in Washington.

There are more tools in Obamacare aimed at restraining rising health-care costs. But Reinhardt suspects Washington will "not have the guts to use them," considering the "incredible resistance" from the health-care industry and the politics of such action.

Those opposed to Obamacare, usually Republicans, have likened the Medicare diversion to "killing Granny." The conservative Liberty Counsel calls it a "euthanasia bill." The demagoguery "makes it almost impossible to do anything without having Hitler [and Nazi-style death panels] rubbed in your face," says Reinhardt.

The Obama administration calculates a crackdown on Medicare fraud and fee reductions to private insurance companies providing Medicare Advantage programs will offset the 6 percent cut.

If Republicans and Democrats can't agree on expanding health-insurance coverage, the US will go back to rationing health care by price.

The US spends slightly more than 17 percent of gross domestic product on health care. That's more than $6,000 per capita per year, more than double the OECD average. Without cost restraints, US health-care spending could absorb close to 20 percent of GDP by 2020 and 50 percent by 2050, Reinhardt figures.

Do Americans get their money's worth? Three years ago, the Congressional Research Service concluded that US quality of care is not superior to that of other OECD nations overall and US life expectancy is shorter than average; it's 77.5 years. In Canada, with a single-payer system and half the cost, it is 2.5 years longer.

Under Canada's system, governments negotiate pay with health-care providers. Physicians bill for their service by swiping a plastic card like a credit card, whereas American doctors may employ two or three clerks to bill insurance firms.

If the US returns to the old system, fewer Americans would have health insurance, and insured people would pay more directly from their own pockets. Lower-paid Americans the gas station attendant, the waitress would be able to afford only minimal health care. Reinhardt says such a system is unlikely to cut health-care costs.



無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #1803 of 2360
ObamaCare and Voters: Clinton and Obama told Democrats it would be popular. Whoops.

Quote:
All this is particularly striking given that the President Obama, Bill Clinton and so many others assured the backbenchers that health care would be a political winner. Now even they have given up trying to spin that false promise, blaming voter hostility on TV ads and, er, the insurance industry that the public supposedly despises. The reality is that voters who oppose ObamaCare are far more knowledgeable about the law and its consequences than most Congressmen who voted for it.

Of course, that's not saying much.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #1804 of 2360
Insurance Commissioners Loom Large In Health Law
by SARAH VARNEY

Quote:
Voters in four states, including Georgia and California, will directly elect an insurance chief on Tuesday. And in nearly three dozen other states, whoever is elected governor will name the commissioner.

Fame does not come easy to even the most heroic insurance commissioner. California's current chief forced health plans to scale back double-digit rate hikes, and still he's the white knight no one can name.

Steve Poizner is the California insurance commissioner, and whoever replaces him and other insurance chiefs around the nation could change your life.

Quote:
"With the insurance market reforms, it's really going to be important for states to take a proactive role in responding to any problems that come up and making sure plans are complying with the law," says Sabrina Corlette, a health policy researcher at Georgetown University.

State Impact On Federal Health Overhaul

All of which means state insurance chiefs could very well play a key role in whether the federal health overhaul flies or flops. Laurie Sobel, a senior attorney with the consumer advocacy group Consumers Union, says it matters how the insurance commissioners view the new federal health law.

Quote:
"If you have one that really doesn't want to enforce it, then consumers are going to need to fight it every step of the way," Sobel says.

The two candidates vying to become California's chief regulator have starkly different views on how best to protect consumers. Assemblyman Mike Villines, the Republican in the race, is a skeptic about whether the government can fix a system he admits is broken.

Quote:
"When you start to get into mandating behavior and you have to tell the insurance companies there are these for-sure things in here that you have to do I think that Californians and the nation is not quite ready for that," Villines says.

His opponent, Democratic Assemblyman Dave Jones, says the federal overhaul will offer critical protections and new choices to consumers.

Quote:
"I plan to use the office both formally and informally, to take a very assertive role in terms of health insurance reform," Jones says.

Bad News For Reformers?

Overseeing the national rule-writing effort is Kansas Insurance Commissioner Sandy Praeger. She's up for re-election a Republican in a solidly red state and running unopposed. With no challenger, she's instead spending her time worrying about all the details her group must decide.

Quote:
"I don't want to get thrown under the bus," Praeger says. "We don't want to be blamed if this isn't working. So we've got a huge responsibility to try to get it right.

But many Republican candidates for governor think the law is just wrong. And in some states, those candidates who could end up appointing new insurance chiefs want to repeal the federal health overhaul.

With Democrats on the ropes nationwide, that could be bad news for reformers.


無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #1805 of 2360
No clear path for GOP on health care repeal
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press 1 hr 6 mins ago

Quote:
WASHINGTON Republicans say they'll repeal and replace President Barack Obama's health care law, but tinker and tweak is as far as they're likely to get.

And that might not be a bad thing if you're a GOP strategist. It keeps the issue Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell calls the "tipping point" in the midterm elections alive for 2012, when they'll try to unseat Obama himself.

Republicans will control the House in January, but they don't have the votes to overcome a Senate filibuster, much less Obama's veto on repeal. Plan B, denying funds to carry out the law, could backfire if it escalates to a government shutdown.......

Quote:
GOP lawmakers may be able to pick off unpopular provisions. Obama has already said he's willing to "tweak" an IRS reporting requirement that small businesses find burdensome. Another target is a yet-to-be-named board with the power to make Medicare cuts. And look for a move to tighten restrictions on abortion coverage.

"It would be foolish to expect that Republicans will be able to completely reverse the damage Democrats have done as long as a Democrat holds the veto pen," McConnell said, outlining the GOP agenda Thursday. "There's just no getting around it."......

Americans are split on whan should be done with health care repeal:

Quote:
The repeal slogan energized big-government foes in the midterm elections, helping turn out Republican voters. However, trying to deliver on it could stir up a backlash. Exit polls on Election Day found voters divided. Forty-eight percent said they supported repealing the overhaul, but 47 percent said it should be expanded or kept as it is.

Quote:
Mindful that some of the new benefits are popular, House Republican leader John Boehner has stressed that a "replace" measure preserving some aspects of Obama's overhaul would go with legislation to repeal it. But not all his followers agree. Some conservatives want a straight vote on repeal that would leave the "replace" part for later.

"There is a critical difference whether the first fight is a repeal fight or it's repeal and replace," said Michael Needham, CEO of Heritage Action for America. "A straight repeal vote would go through the House with every Republican on it and a number of Democrats," increasing pressure on the Senate.

And then there's the wild card: federal budget politics.
If Obama and the Republicans can strike a grand bargain to reduce government deficits, it could open a path for GOP ideas such as curbs on malpractice lawsuits. Subsidies for the uninsured could be slowed or pared back, since the big coverage expansion under the law doesn't start until 2014.

"It will be far easier to scale back an entitlement nobody has received than a program that people are already on," said economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who served as a top policy adviser for 2008 GOP presidential candidate John McCain.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #1806 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Republican Hypocrisy on Obamacare

Come on, PO "progressives"...you know you want to read it.

Republicans=bad. Democrats=incredibly worse. I think we saw that in the last 4 years. It's funny...people always see it, then forget in about 10 years. They saw it with Carter. He was elected, and then four years later people said "Wow...this SUCKS....this isn't what I want!"

In 1992, they voted for Clinton because of the recession (that was ending at election time, just not fast enough) and because Bush 41 was "out of touch." Then in 1994 they said, "Wow...this SUCKS...this isn't what I want!"

In 2006, they elected a Democratic Congress because they were sick of Bush 43's wars, deficits, and presumably...speech patterns. In 2008 they voted for Hope and Change and For The Guy That Wasn't White and/or Bush.

Four years later, they woke up..rubbed their eyes, and said: "What the FUCK has happened to our country? Screw this...put the GOP back in charge." The point is this: Democrats always do this. They always go FULL RETARD and overreach on everything. Then they see they're going to lose, and start lashing out at the moderates that voted for them. Rinse. Repeat.



Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Insurance Commissioners Loom Large In Health Law
by SARAH VARNEY





Stop. I beg you. Stop post bombing.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #1807 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Republicans=bad. Democrats=incredibly worse. I think we saw that in the last 4 years.

If anything, the Pelosi/Reid/Obamanation served to illustrate a corollary to Murphy's law: Never assume things can't possibly get worse.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #1808 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post


Stop. I beg you. Stop post bombing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

Insurance Commissioners Loom Large In Health Law

Quote:
State Impact On Federal Health Overhaul

All of which means state insurance chiefs could very well play a key role in whether the federal health overhaul flies or flops. Laurie Sobel, a senior attorney with the consumer advocacy group Consumers Union, says it matters how the insurance commissioners view the new federal health law.

Then you don't think the impact that the state insurance commissioners have on the Health Care Reform Act is important?
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #1809 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

No clear path for GOP on health care repeal

It took over a year of contentiousness among a popular President and an unopposed Democrat - controlled Congress who had carte blanche to pass the ill-titled "Affordable Care Act" - despite raging public opposition and without a single Republican's support. The result is an unmitigated disaster, an atomic bomb that will slowly unleash its fallout over an agonizingly long period of years, a bill that even its authors confess they don't understand.

Anyone who thinks this abortion of a law can be repealed, or even meaningfully diminished given a divided Congress and without the White House's support is suffering from mental impairment. Various State referendums seeking to block the "individual mandate" - though I support those attempts to focus public opinion - amount to feel-good-isms that will likely prove impotent. Finally, hoping for judicial nullification is as much of a plan as "hope and change" was in 2008.

It will be at least two more years before Congress can unify itself sufficiently to unscramble this rotten egg.

One thing is certain - two years from now, much will have occurred. The world will be a different place. The seeds sown during the Obamanation will sprout. Will it bear fruit, or some flesh-eating fungus that can't be killed?

Given what government's done to us over the years, which do you think is more likely?

Elections have consequences.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #1810 of 2360
HHS falls short of pre-existing coverage prediction by 97.8%

Quote:
255 million: The number of Americans with existing health insurance coverage.

20 million: The number of Americans without any health coverage at all due to economic circumstances.

375,000: The number of Americans with pre-existing conditions HHS said would apply for coverage in the first year of ObamaCare, one of the main political arguments for its implementation.

8,011: The number that actually did.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1811 of 2360

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1812 of 2360

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1813 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


If you changed Andy's label to "the Democratic Message" and added in Otis with the label "the Republican Message", that would be dead-on.
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #1814 of 2360
Republican senators file brief supporting health care reform challenge
Julia Zebley at 11:59 AM ET

Quote:
[JURIST] Thirty-three Republican senators filed an amicus curiae brief on Thursday supporting state attorneys general in their legal effort ; JURIST report to have the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) HR 3590; JURIST news archive declared unconstitutional. The brief, filed in the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida supports the suit's proposed arguments that the PPACA violates the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. In making their argument, the senators attacked the individual mandate, arguing:
Indeed, in more than 200 years of debate as to the proper scope of the Commerce Power, the Supreme Court has never suggested that the Commerce Power allows Congress to impose affirmative obligations on passive individuals, or to punish individuals for failing to purchase a particular product. To the contrary, every landmark Commerce Clause case has dealt with congressional efforts to regulate different kinds of activity under the Commerce power. In every significant Commerce Clause case the Supreme Court has always had to decide whether Congress may regulate a given form of activity......
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #1815 of 2360
Deficit commission: What ObamaCare needs is … death panels

Quote:
The good news for Barack Obama: the Associated Press reports today that Obama’s deficit commission wants to keep most of ObamaCare in place. The bad news: they pronounce it unsustainable — unless it includes hard caps on c0verage and decisions made to stop care. Doesn’t this sound a little familiar?

Quote:
For the first time, the government would set — and enforce — an overall budget for Medicare, Medicaid and other federal programs that cover more than 100 million people, from Alzheimer’s patients in nursing homes to premature babies in hospital intensive care.

Palin attracted wide attention by denouncing nonexistent “death panels” in Obama’s overhaul, but a fixed budget as the commissioners propose could lead to denial of payment for medical care in some circumstances.

Overall, the nation will spend about $2.6 trillion this year on health care, and there’s evidence that a significant share of that is for procedures and tests that are of little benefit to patients. There seems to be room enough to cut, but no consensus on what should go.

Also, ObamaCare stripped resources from Medicare Advantage to fund coverage for the uninsured under Medicaid. The deficit commission would go even further, forcing an end to Medigap plans that help seniors and the disabled pay for better coverage. That would save $38 billion, but the move would force people on limited incomes to foot a large part of their medical bills out of pocket while living on fixed incomes. That choice would make sense if the government hadn’t drained their pockets for decades to pay for Medicare and other entitlement programs.

Sarah Palin aroused the ire of critics for mentioning “death panels” as part of ObamaCare, but that is the end stage of health-care rationing. The IPAB created by ObamaCare has a specific mission to reduce per capita spending in Medicare, using either explicit end-of-care decisions or indirectly influencing those by denying reimbursements, as I explained in December (when IPAB was IMAB):

Quote:
All health care gets rationed in one manner or another, as does every commodity (except air, although with cap-and-trade, that would change). Insurers ration, and so do consumers in a fully free-market system such as the Lasik or cosmetic-surgery industries. The difference is that those systems involve free choice, especially the latter. With insurers as third-party payers, there is less free choice, but the solution to that is more competition and better ability to be completely portable — or better yet, the removal of third-party payers for normal health care services.

When government rations commodities, it does so with the force of law. Considering the power it would have had in a completely government-run system to make the kind of decisions now left to insurers in a competitive market, people are correct to be worried about how exactly IMAB would bend the cost curve. Their mission in the ObamaCare bill is to “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending.” The way ObamaCare is structured, the only way to hold down costs would be to start denying more treatments, or to cut compensation to the point where long wait times take care of the rationing by discouraging access to a dwindling number of providers. Will that prevent more deaths and make Americans healthier?

With insurers, consumers have the option to find another insurer or self insure. Those options won’t exist in a government-run system, and are seriously limited in ObamaCare, even in the latest incarnation. Without those options, the IMAB’s decisions will be inescapable — and thanks to Harry Reid’s language, citizens won’t even have the opportunity to challenge IMAB actions in Congress. It’s an abomination.

In fact, that’s the very process the deficit commission says will be needed to make ObamaCare viable. Peter Orszag made it clear how IPAB would become one of the most powerful agencies in the federal government, and how its decisions would mainly be out of reach of Congress as part of its design. That was clear early in the process, as was how that power would be used. Now the deficit commission has not only recognized it but argues that without a “death panel,” ObamaCare simply won’t work.

Which is what Sarah Palin argued all along.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1816 of 2360
I am sick and tired of hearing how Germany's health care system is the greatest. I recently traveled there and have several anecdotes regarding this wonderful system that I hear so much about.

One relative (24 years old) had some kind of growth under his eyelid. He was scheduled for surgery but the wait time was several weeks but he was very uncomfortable and couldn't wait that long. He flew to NY to get it done. The surgery cost about $3000 for which he paid cash.

Another relative (64 years old) was diagnosed with stomach cancer. He was scheduled for stomach removal surgery in two months and given limited counseling - they said his quality of life won't be so good but don't worry they'll remove the cancerous stomach. He was sent home with a cocktail of drugs that he took for several days. They made him feel worse and worse so he went back to the krankenhaus where doctors told him he had to stay on the drugs and surgery was still several weeks away. He said f*ck that, he was miserable on the medication so he stopped taking it. He started to feel better so he returned to the hospital and was examined. They said he doesn't have cancer and sent him home. He's felt fine ever since and appears to have recovered completely. He still doesn't know what the hell happened and is thinking of coming to the US for an accurate diagnosis.

Another relative broke his hip, he was about 68. Hip replacements are very common in the US, but the German Federal health ministry told him due to his age there was nothing they could do. He was placed in a hospital bed, basically neglected and ridden with bedsores. No one came to turn or bathe him for days, so his family does that now. His son would like to take him to the US for surgery since that is simply not an option in Germany. Since he can't walk or even travel in a wheelchair he's fighting with the health ministry for transportation arrangements but doesn't think any will be forthcoming. Without this he may die of a simple broken hip. The message from the German health care ministry is "hurry up and die."

While I'm at it, several years ago a colleague of mine (US citizen) tore the tip of his finger in an minor mishap. It didn't seem all that bad to him and he went to the local clinic in Frankfurt. A doctor told him they would amputate back to the first knuckle. He thought he was joking, it was a deep cut but... amputate? That's the standard of care, they told him. No joke. He said f*ck that and walked out. He bandaged the injured finger and returned to the US, where they told him it was too late to save the damaged skin, but they were able to perform a simple skin graft. No amputation necessary.

Some years ago my niece was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. She was scheduled for a hysterectomy to happen in about six months - waiting periods are established by age. How did that work out for her? She died waiting for the simple surgery that would have saved her life. She was 57.

No, the German health care system does not have "death panels" per se, but that's they way it works.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #1817 of 2360
What if the Obama health-care proposal turned out to be the biggest public-policy mistake in 125 years?

The Stressed German Model: It took the Germans 125 years to figure out that their health-care system doesn't work

Quote:
Chancellor Merkel, something of a political acrobat, was previously allied in coalition with leftist Social Democrats. She's now resisting calls from the Free Democrats to get off the state-pulled health-care train. The FDP's spokesman on health, Daniel Bahr, wants a "shift in direction away from state-run medicine." Why? Because "the current financial figures have showed us that the health-care fund doesn't work."

And this was before Germany's recent obligation to bail out the growing list of European failed economies.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #1818 of 2360
By now everyone has received their policy updates going into affect Jan 1, 2011:
Quote:
• Elimination of lifetime limits on essential benefits
• Over-age dependent coverage increased from age 18 to age 26 for a family plan
.....
III. The definition of pre-existing condition is deleted ....
IV. All referneces to Lifetime Medical Benefit Maximums is deleted in it's entirety ....
V. The section titled Term Of Policy And Termination is deleted in its entirety ....
VI. The section eligibility and enrollment is deleted in it's entirety ....
Children older than 26 are eligible if the following conditions apply:
• The child is incapable of self-sustaining employment by reason of a physically or mentally disabling injury, illness, or condition; and
• The child is chiefly dependent upon the Policyholder for support and maintenance.
.....
VIII. Outpatient Prescription Drug Benefits
1. Prior authorization process deleted in it's entirety ....

That's some evil shit.....
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #1819 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

By now everyone has received their policy updates going into affect Jan 1, 2011:


That's some evil shit.....

Yes, and I imagine there will be no costs or negative side-effects associated with these mandates. They'll just happen.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1820 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Yes, and I imagine there will be no costs or negative side-effects associated with these mandates. They'll just happen.


The mandates already happened .... what are the side-effects you encountered so far?
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #1821 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

The mandates already happened .... what are the side-effects you encountered so far?

We won't know until they go into effect until next year and even then they might not be immediate. Are you implying there will not be any negative side-effects or costs at all as a result of these mandates?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1822 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

We won't know until they go into effect until next year and even then they might not be immediate.

Would you say it might take as long as 2012?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #1823 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Would you say it might take as long as 2012?

Maybe. Maybe sooner. Maybe longer.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1824 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Maybe. Maybe sooner. Maybe longer.

I'd vote for longer.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #1825 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'd vote for longer.

Good for you. You're probably right, but does that make a difference. If there are negative side-effects and other costs not being considered, shouldn't those be discussed as soon as possible and weighed against the (alleged) benefits of the policy? It seems that all any Obamapologist wants to talk about is all the good things that may come from ObamaCare without any regard for either a) the probabilities of those happening, or b) any negative side-effects or additional costs that are not immediately obvious.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1826 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Good for you. You're probably right, but does that make a difference. If there are negative side-effects and other costs not being considered, shouldn't those be discussed as soon as possible and weighed against the (alleged) benefits of the policy? It seems that all any Obamapologist wants to talk about is all the good things that may come from ObamaCare without any regard for either a) the probabilities of those happening, or b) any negative side-effects or additional costs that are not immediately obvious.

What I meant is the GOP will probably be saying this until after the next election.

As far as negative side effects we'll see. I don't think there's a way to tell fully as this has never been tried in this country before.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #1827 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

As far as negative side effects we'll see. I don't think there's a way to tell fully as this has never been tried in this country before.

No and large systems are complex. But we can use logic and deductive reasoning combined with past historical experiences to make some pretty good educated guesses. That's how some folks predicted that Obamanomics would likely lead to economic stagnation and higher unemployment.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1828 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

No and large systems are complex. But we can use logic and deductive reasoning combined with past historical experiences to make some pretty good educated guesses. That's how some folks predicted that Obamanomics would likely lead to economic stagnation and higher unemployment.

Quote:
educated guesses

That's all they are.

Quote:
That's how some folks predicted that Obamanomics would likely lead to economic stagnation and higher unemployment

They were very high before so a no brainer that it would go that way for at least a long awhile. This downturn is not like any we've seen in our lifetimes so it's not one of those recessions ( like we've experienced ) that are over in a couple of years.

Some people don't seem to get that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #1829 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

They were very high before so a no brainer that it would go that way for at least a long awhile.

You should tell Obama's economic advisors.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #1830 of 2360
More Health Waivers

Quote:
The Obama Administration has quietly granted even more waivers to one provision of the new federal health reform law, doubling the number in just the last three weeks to a new total of 222.

One of the more recognizable business names included on the newly-expanded list of waivers issued by the feds is that of Waffle House, which received a waiver on November 23 for health coverage that covers 3,947 enrollees.

Another familiar name was that of Universal Orlando, which runs a variety of very popular resorts in the Orlando, Florida area. Universal was given a waiver for plans that cover 668 workers.

These waivers deal with limited health benefit plans, sometimes referred to as "mini-med" policies, which companies as large as McDonald's use for some its employees.

The plan have limits on how much can be paid out in coverage, limits which would be phased out under the new health reform law.

The feds though have granted waivers from that law, amid concern that certain groups would drop their health insurance programs entirely. Those waivers are good for one year, and can be considered for renewal.

A spokeswoman for Waffle House refused to explain the need for the waiver, saying "because Waffle House is a private company, we are going to decline to comment."

As for Universal Orlando, a spokesman defended the waiver in an email on Monday evening.

"The new legislation would have left our part-time workers without their medical coverage," said Tom Schroder of Universal Orlando Public Relations.

"We sought the waiver so that we could continue to provide them with the coverage they need and deserve," Schroder added.

The information on the waivers, which is buried deep on the web site of the U.S. Health & Human Services Department, shows that since it was last updated in mid-November, the number of waivers issued has gone from 111 to 222, covering organizations as diverse as the "Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Ogdensburg" to the "Pearson Candy Company."

You can find a list of all of the 222 waivers at http://is.gd/iiw3u

I wasn't sure whether to post this in the "Obama Caves In" thread or in here...

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1831 of 2360

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1832 of 2360

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1833 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law

Obama's Health-Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional Over Insurance Requirement

Wait, what's that? Obamacare is unconstitutional? You don't say!

Dang, reality rears it's ugly head again.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #1834 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post

Dang, reality rears it's ugly head again.

Much to Pelosi's dismay...

FLASHBACK: When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?'

Is it too much to ask that those we put in office have a basic understanding and appreciation for our Constitution?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1835 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Much to Pelosi's dismay...

FLASHBACK: When Asked Where the Constitution Authorizes Congress to Order Americans To Buy Health Insurance, Pelosi Says: 'Are You Serious?'

Is it too much to ask that those we put in office have a basic understanding and appreciation for our Constitution?

The Supreme Court will decide it. Right now, there are four solid conservatives (Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Scalia) and three solid liberals (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor). Kennedy is usually considered conservative on most issues. Kegan is generally liberal. Given her background at Harvard, I would consider her on the Obama Admin's side on this issue. If the case were presented today, I believe the mandate would be declared unconstitutional by a 5-4 margin.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #1836 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

... Kennedy is usually considered conservative on most issues. ... If the case were presented today, I believe the mandate would be declared unconstitutional by a 5-4 margin.

I'm not as confident in Kennedy's conservative stance as you SDW. He has been a wild card on many issues: Justice Anthony Kennedy Has Cast Deciding Votes in High Court's 6 5-4 Decisions This Term

Since that article he's been the deciding vote in several more cases, most notably Heller and Chicago's 2A challenges.

I find it uncomfortable that many crucial decisions have come to rest upon one individual.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #1837 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

I find it uncomfortable that many crucial decisions have come to rest upon one individual.

I find it uncomfortable that the Supreme Court has become the most powerful branch of government. Thomas Jefferson saw this coming.

Quote:
"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Monsieur A. Coray, Oct 31, 1823

Quote:
"The great object of my fear is the federal judiciary. That body, like gravity, ever acting, with noiseless foot, and unalarming advance, gaining ground step by step, and holding what it gains, is engulfing insidiously the special governments into the jaws of that which feeds them."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Mar 9, 1821

Quote:
"The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Ritchie, December 25, 1820

Quote:
"[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, September 11, 1804

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #1838 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I find it uncomfortable that the Supreme Court has become the most powerful branch of government. Thomas Jefferson saw this coming.

No doubt. It's one of the biggest considerations in a Presidential election. I didn't like McCain (in fact I hated him) but I doubt he would have nominated liberal justices.

Other than declaring never-ending wars to end all wars, most of the damage a President can inflict upon us can be undone. The Supremes stay with us for decades.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #1839 of 2360
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

... Thomas Jefferson saw this coming.

By the way he might have helped by explaining what was meant by "... To regulate Commerce ... among the several States, "

Of course, no reasonable person could have envisioned how the Supremes would bastardize the meaning of that simple clause.

I'd welcome an Amendment clarifying it. Right now such luminaries as our outgoing Speaker (as well as my own soon-to-be-former Rep) have interpreted it to mean Congress can do whatever it damn well pleases.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #1840 of 2360
This one is almost like poetry: Coercion isn't commerce

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › The Biggest Threat to Obama's Health Care "Reform" - Reality