Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care - Page 29

ricks1948 · #**421** Jul 5, '12, 1:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

You're not alone in that. I think 99% of the population would say the same thing. Certainly, I would. It almost seems that some new, weird, thing gets unearthed in the morass every day. There are also questions that don't seem to have answers at all.

I truly think it's going to take years for people to have any kind of comprehensive grasp of what the effects of Obamacare really are. Not the least of the unknowns is what additional mandates Obama has in mind. Such things can change the cost for everybody, particularly those who are not going to get subsidies.

I truly don't see how an employer of more than 50 people will be able to project his costs. At any time, one or more of his employees could go from an unsubsidized employee to a subsidized employee, which could greatly affect the fines he will pay or even more, the cost of trying to subsidize his own employees' healthcare so generously that nobody will be subsidized. The employer can't control whether somebody is subsidized or not unless he adopts a "Cadillac" plan for everybody. But if he does that, all the employees will pay the 40% tax on those plans, and won't be too happy about it, especially if they were okay with what they had before. The uncertainty might, at some point, make it economically more feasible just to stop providing health insurance and pay the fine for everyone. That, of course, will affect hiring decisions and possibly the structure of the business or even its location. But I think it would likely take years of experience in any given industry before any of this can be projected into the future at all reliably. In the meantime, the uncertainty is simply baffling.

The only certain way to avoid unforeseen consequences would simply be for the employer to locate in another country where he doesn't have to deal with obamacare. Some can't, some won't, some will.

Does anybody know if anybody has read the complete law (all over 2000 pages)? I heard it was passed by our legislatures without reading it, and the SCOTUS upheld it without reading it, is this Democracy?

qui est ce · #**422** Jul 5, '12, 1:41 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

You're not alone in that. I think 99% of the population would say the same thing. Certainly, I would. It almost seems that some new, weird, thing gets unearthed in the morass every day. There are also questions that don't seem to have answers at all.

This is the scariest part of the Act. Anyone who holds the position of HHS or the President can decide what's mandated. It's completely arbitrary.

qui est ce · #**423** Jul 5, '12, 1:43 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by mary bobo

That's because the particulars have been left for another time, many of them at the discretion of Kathleen Sibelius.

You beat me to it. This is a MAJOR problem.

**Ridgerunner** · #**424** Jul 5, '12, 1:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by qui est ce

This is the scariest part of the Act. Anyone who holds the position of HHS or the President can decide what's mandated. It's completely arbitrary.

Well, Obama promised "change" didn't he? He just didn't tell us what all changes he had in mind. Nor do we know right now what he has in store for us in 2013 through 2016.

But since we know he discounted faithful Catholics politically when he adopted the "Mandate" for contraceptives and abortifacients even when facing re-election, we can be pretty sure he'll care even less about Catholic conscience if he's re-elected. By 2016, we'll be paying for abortions, guaranteed. Possibly for infant abandonment and euthanasia.

Jeanne S · #**425** Jul 5, '12, 1:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ridgerunner

Well, Obama promised "change" didn't he? He just didn't tell us what all changes he had in mind. Nor do we know right now what he has in store for us in 2013 through 2016.

But since we know he discounted faithful Catholics politically when he adopted the "Mandate" for contraceptives and abortifacients even when facing re-election, we can be pretty sure he'll care even less about Catholic conscience if he's re-elected. By 2016, we'll be paying for abortions, guaranteed. Possibly for infant abandonment and euthanasia.

You can count on it!

Mickey Finn · #**426** Jul 5, '12, 2:47 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by He Man

Proof the provider overbiils?

How do you quanitfy the services rendered from a cardiologist? It isn't an ounce of gold, or some other quantifiable metal.

We know FOR A FACT they take a loss on what the government pays them. But you'll need some proof that they are overcharging up front.

Proof? Medicare decides what it will pay. Just like any other customer.

If a single payer pays more than medicare will pay. They are in fact over paying.

When the Cardiologist, or whom ever, claims to take a loss. They are simply stating that they would like more.

Which by the way is a big part of our problem.

ATB

Mickey Finn · #**427** Jul 5, '12, 2:50 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamH

The fact the government is losing 60 billion a year (they actually estimate it between 80 and 160 billion) on fraud alone should tell you something. Why not fix their own problems first before making a mess of the rest of the system?

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20...0-million?lite

You want the government to rid the country of criminals?

Jeffrey · #**428** Jul 5, '12, 2:54 pm

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commenta...point-by-point

TheRealJuliane · #**429** Jul 5, '12, 2:56 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricks1948

Does anybody know if anybody has read the complete law (all over 2000 pages)? I heard it was passed by our legislatures without reading it, and the SCOTUS upheld it without reading it, is this Democracy?

No, it's not even a Constitutional Republic, which is what we were supposed to have.

Mickey Finn · #**430** Jul 5, '12, 2:59 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott_Lafrance

Ya, God forbid people complain about government overreach.

And you do realize that the "for profit insurance industry" was born out of a response to government meddling in the health care industry, and your solution to the problem that the government created is to have the government solve the problem?

The very definition of causing a problem that you have the "only" solution to is racketeering, you know, the thing that the RICO statutes were created to fight..... So, who is going to protect us from the government racketeering if the government is the one who has the only "legal" recourse to implement it? So racketeering is only illegal if it is performed by anyone but the government?

If we are not going to be a nation of laws, then we by our natural rights, should dissolve the current government and reform it so that it properly performs its natural ends, to protect the rights of the citizenry. Government exists to serve people, not the other way around. If you want to live as a serf in a tyrannical government, then that's fine! I wish you luck. But you have no right to force ME to live under that system. In fact, if you try, I have my own natural recources to correct that injustice.

I thought health insurance started as a cheap perk for workers in the Kaiser ship yards.

Kaiser incidentally, is now well established in the health industry out west.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaiser_Permanente

As for the rest of your post. You'll like this one.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles...t-Does-It.aspx

**SamH** · #**431** Jul 5, '12, 3:00 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mickey Finn

You want the government to rid the country of criminals?

No. Just quit giving the criminals billions of dollars.

Mickey Finn · #**432** Jul 5, '12, 3:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Abyssinia

Obama campaign is in a complete muddle

WOW we agree on something.

Compared to the Obama campaign. Romney looks like he's catching his stride.

ATB

Mickey Finn · #**433** Jul 5, '12, 3:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamH

No. Just quit giving the criminals billions of dollars.

Two in a row. I'm logging off.

**ProVobis** · #**434** Jul 5, '12, 3:10 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by RACJ

At least Bush is gone, but now we've got a mendacious sort who fancies himself as an imperial dictator. There are always guys out there suffering from delusion, but the shock is that so many American people refuse to discern the obvious about him--- that he flouts the limitations of the executive branch at every turn. Maybe people WANT a tyrant who makes all their decisions for them.

It seems the U.S. founders intended to set up a government which paralleled that of the Roman Empire. (Senate, two parties, cabinet, three branches, Roman law, etc.) They ended up adopting the Caesar government instead. Why the two-consul government, which had worked for many years BC, was ever abandoned is the question people never ask.

**SamH** · #**435** Jul 5, '12, 4:05 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricks1948

Does anybody know if anybody has read the complete law (all over 2000 pages)? I heard it was passed by our legislatures without reading it, and the SCOTUS upheld it without reading it, is this Democracy?

Just the 2000 pages? HHS is up to 13,000 of regulations based on the 2,000 page law and they are nowhere near done.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...-obamatax-law/

document.write(bcv);