TradeTheBeal! Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 The whole concept that I, as a medium sized business owner, must facilitate and provide coverage for my employees is beyond assbackwards! Man, I'm just trying to sell some horses round here. I literally spend 15-20 percent of my time dealing with health care issues. It was hardly any better before the ACA. The whole system is ****ed beyond belief and all in the name of medicine for profit. In this context, we are the embarrassment of the industrialized world. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Serious question ... how complex is the ACA that something needs 900 pages to describe it? Given the intellect and attention span of our elected representatives, and the partisan brinkmanship in the legislative process, it's ludicroous to have them voting on 900 page documents. If, due to partisan politics, four poorly written or considered words in those 900 pages could cause millions to lose health coverage, there needs to be a better way. Maybe they could vote on an "executive summmary" that makes the intent of a law clear, and alllows detailed legal language to be refined in that framework. Well, healthcare is complicated. Always has been, likely will be until we move to a completely different system. Probably would need single payer for that, frankly. As for "executive summaries" that's sort of what the Chevron doctrine, which was a part of this decision, does. Where there are ambiguities, you leave it to the agency, generally. Of course, Congress likes to hold the reins, so of course they couldn't make it easy and just let some agency do it, they needed to specify everything. But that's not unreasonable, considering healthcare is very complicated. The bill sought to have exchanges, subsidies, mandates, etc. etc., not something they could leave to the agencies, at least not without a lot of people complaining about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 The whole concept that I, as a medium sized business owner, must facilitate and provide coverage for my employees is beyond assbackwards! Man, I'm just trying to sell some horses round here. I literally spend 15-20 percent of my time dealing with health care issues. It was hardly any better before the ACA. The whole system is ****ed beyond belief and all in the name of medicine for profit. In this context, we are the embarrassment of the industrialized world. agreed. the whole ingrained idea that healthcare HAS to be entwined with employment is absurd. It sumultaneusly makes our businesses less competitive and more bogged down, and out healthcare worse and more expensive. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) Ironically, huge victory for Republicans. The worst kept secret in Washington is that is many Republicans were terrified of the subsidies being gutted. Today they can just release a press release attack ACA and not have to do anything. This. This is going to be great for them at the polling booth. "That Obamacare thing that most people don't really understand but is probably the reason why you had to wait in line at the doctor's office last week for 45 minutes just got saved by an activist court. Betrayed again, the fix was in. Get out and vote for change!" It's fine republicans would have just gone to the heritage foundation to see what solution they would recommend for health care. They would have pushed it through and solved the crisis. Nicely done there. Edited June 25, 2015 by Predicto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 agreed. the whole ingrained idea that healthcare HAS to be entwined with employment is absurd. It sumultaneusly makes our businesses less competitive and more bogged down, and out healthcare worse and more expensive. I don't know if it even made sense 50 years ago where many people stayed with the same company for life, pensions were the norm, and healthcare costs weren't such a high portion of GDP requiring every business to invest heavily in healthcare research in order to remain compeitive. But in modern times it is ludicrous. I wonder how many businesses spend more on yearly healthcare anaylsis than on researching the markets they serve? Imagine if politicians proposed some new legislation that required businesses to engage in the level off administration that the current healtcare situation in the US requires? It's anti-competitive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I wish I could be confident that the court ruled the way they did, because they thought that was the proper legal ruling, and not because that's the way the Republican Party, who actually brought this case to court in the first place, decided that it would be to their political advantage for the court to not give them what they publicly claim they want. OTOH, the fact that I have that feeling probably says something about me, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 agreed. the whole ingrained idea that healthcare HAS to be entwined with employment is absurd. It sumultaneusly makes our businesses less competitive and more bogged down, and out healthcare worse and more expensive. You selfish ****. It's not about your health, or about business competitiveness. I wish I could be confident that the court ruled the way they did, because they thought that was the proper legal ruling, and not because that's the way the Republican Party, who actually brought this case to court in the first place, decided that it would be to their political advantage for the court to not give them what they publicly claim they want. OTOH, the fact that I have that feeling probably says something about me, too. I may not like this current iteration of the Supreme Court, but I can guarantee you that it doesn't work that way. Those guys are political animals (we all are) but they are pretty much immune from that kind of obvious political pressure. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I wish I could be confident that the court ruled the way they did, because they thought that was the proper legal ruling, and not because that's the way the Republican Party, who actually brought this case to court in the first place, decided that it would be to their political advantage for the court to not give them what they publicly claim they want. OTOH, the fact that I have that feeling probably says something about me, too. I think they helps the GOP who had no plan for all the folks who would lose coverage at the same time. But, between now and Election '16. That many more people who sign-up via the ACA are going to be the targets of the GOP. The reason this country is so awful. Those folks if they vote aren't going to vote for the people who want to dump their insurance now. The general election debates, it'll be "Obamacare sucks and is awful and we should repeal it" vs. "its the law of the land and what specifically will your replace it with?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExoDus84 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 The new term is now 'Scotuscare." This is the new way to refer to it by Justice Scalia. Scalia is the ghost of judiciary past. He's a relic. We need some justices whose opinions and persuasions aren't rooted in the 1960's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 If GOP ran on repealing ACA and replacing it with a real universal health plan, single payer, no insurance companies, I'd vote for them this election. Course, they'd probably never do that, but judging by their fanatical ACA opposition, those *******s really just want to put their name on something. The bill can be called "2016 GOP grand health coverage extravaganza, everyone covered, even black people but don't tell our voters!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExoDus84 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 (edited) A single payer system is the route we should go. Major insurance companies, and thus Republicans, would never go that route. I'm all for making improvements to the ACA, or for the creation of a system that's better. Unfortunately, Republicans don't have a plan. They just want to derail the ACA because Obama did it, and Obama=EVIL. They have a better system in mind, unless you consider the pre-ACA status quo as a good system. Edited June 25, 2015 by ExoDus84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 If GOP ran on repealing ACA and replacing it with a real universal health plan, single payer, no insurance companies, I'd vote for them this election. Aye. And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 You selfish ****. It's not about your health, or about business competitiveness. I may not like this current iteration of the Supreme Court, but I can guarantee you that it doesn't work that way. Those guys are political animals (we all are) but they are pretty much immune from that kind of obvious political pressure. Which is why they don't have term limits 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Scalia is the ghost of judiciary past. He's a relic. We need some justices whose opinions and persuasions aren't rooted in the 1960's. No. Those old guys were a lot more honest about their prejudices and agendas. They actually believed what they said. Scalia is an incredibly brilliant, incredibly deceitful, result oriented jurist. He is a perfect biased manipulator for the vile and dishonest times we live in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Jeb Bush @JebBush If you agree we need to fully repeal and replace ObamaCare, pitch in $5 now → Where am I'm supposed to get $5, Jeb? Obamacare has made me broke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I believe several posters pointed out that, this way, the Republicans can rage about the tragedy of this ruling, not mention anything whatsoever to replace it, and close with "so elect us"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I believe several posters pointed out that, this way, the Republicans can rage about the tragedy of this ruling, not mention anything whatsoever to replace it, and close with "so elect us"? Yep. This ruling is a blessing for GOP front runners Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogofWar1 Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 I believe several posters pointed out that, this way, the Republicans can rage about the tragedy of this ruling, not mention anything whatsoever to replace it, and close with "so elect us"? With the added bonus that they don't have to delve into, or really even know, the details of the law. Not that they would delve into it, but it's a lot harder to avoid getting into the nitty gritty with voters when the Supreme Court does something with a bit of nuance like "close exchanges in 34 states," leaving 16 states with them and some other states swiftly establishing them thereafter. If 16M people lost healthcare tomorrow, and maybe 4 or 5 million got it back because of newly created state exchanges between now and 2016, people might throw more complex questions about specifics of new exchanges, or how to deal with the 10M gap the SCOTUS ruling made. With this ruling, the law can remain this evil, monolithic, thing, and they can play off that (even if there are positive results). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Yep. This ruling is a blessing for GOP front runners Not sure, they ran pretty hard against nationalized healthcare two presidential elections in a row. The voters have been pretty strongly for it, the Supreme Court is for it, FOX News and the Tea Party are against it. Mind you, I've been thinking about the potential three strikes the Republicans are facing. With a Right leaning SCOTUS as umpire they've gotten swung and missed on the ACA (a couple of times), Abortion, and perhaps today, gay marriage. Those are the three tent poles that Conservatism rests on.... well, that and tax cuts. Do they stand for anything else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Not sure, they ran pretty hard against nationalized healthcare two presidential elections in a row. The voters have been pretty strongly for it, the Supreme Court is for it, FOX News and the Tea Party are against it. Mind you, I've been thinking about the potential three strikes the Republicans are facing. With a Right leaning SCOTUS as umpire they've gotten swung and missed on the ACA (a couple of times), Abortion, and perhaps today, gay marriage. Those are the three tent poles that Conservatism rests on.... well, that and tax cuts. Do they stand for anything else? That's still the biggest question to me. Will this electorate look more like those that showed up to elect Obama? Or more like the two midterms that the Dems got smashed because of obamacare. And more specifically, how does it look in fla,va,oh This ruling allows the GOP to fight against the whole thing. If they had ruled the other way, the GOP would have been forced to fight against pieces of it, which are far more popular than the overall idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dallasfan Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 That's still the biggest question to me. Will this electorate look more like those that showed up to elect Obama? Or more like the two midterms that the Dems got smashed because of obamacare. And more specifically, how does it look in fla,va,oh This ruling allows the GOP to fight against the whole thing. If they had ruled the other way, the GOP would have been forced to fight against pieces of it, which are far more popular than the overall idea. Typically, the turn out for presidential elections looks about the same, and the mid terms typically look the same. And fwiw, while I don't think it would happen again, Obama would have won the white house even if he lost Florida, Virginia and Ohio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted April 20, 2016 Share Posted April 20, 2016 UnitedHealthcare to exit most Obamacare exchanges http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/19/investing/unitedhealthcare-obamacare-exchanges-aca/index.html UnitedHealthcare, the biggest health insurer in the United States, said Tuesday that it plans to exit most of the Affordable Care Act state exchanges where it currently operates by 2017.The health insurer had already indicated that it was dropping coverage of the plans, more commonly known as Obamacare, in Arkansas, Georgia and Michigan. But during a conference call with analysts Tuesday, CEO Stephen Hemsley noted that "next year we will remain in only a handful of states." It shouldn't come as a huge surprise. UnitedHealth had previously said that it lost $475 million on the ACA exchanges last year and could lose another $500 million this year. Rest at link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted May 23, 2016 Share Posted May 23, 2016 Anecdotal update: Had my yearly physical today with zero co-pay, zero charges. I even almost argued, but had 3 women telling me it's completely free now. I am super happy, to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now