Poll

Who wins from the decision?

Only registered users are allowed to vote for this poll.
31 votes were received.

Obama	14		45%
Romney	1		3%
It's a wash	5		16%
Talk Radio hosts	11		35%

---

Who will this help in November?

Obama, who can point to the success and warn complacent supporters that if he isn't reelected they lose it.

Romney, who can point to the "tax" aspect and tell folks to elect him or be stuck with the "tax" increase?

---

You can tell a lot about a woman by her hands...
- For example, if they are wrapped around your throat she's probably slightly upset.

I don't think Romney can keep from shooting himself in the foot trying to be first out of the reaction starting gate with every event, but it is one hell of an opportunity for spin.

---

[www.freethegrapes.org]

norwegian wood reality TV

[www.youtube.com]

I just feel a slight sense of progress, which is appealing in and of itself.

I think it may have turned the momentum around a bit in Obama's favor. A big touchdown can often make the rest of the team gain some steam, which his campaign needs.

Also, ultimately Romney is going to have a tough time with this one because it's virtually the same thing as Romneycare, and if the Democrats are smart they will pound on him as a Flip Flop -- a term I hate and detest and think quite stupid, but to which the American public responds like Pavlov's dogs.

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

Who wins?

Sleazy insurance companies selling cheap plans through the pools with no real coverage to poor slobs who are making just enough money not to be covered under the poverty exemptions, but who aren't covered from work.

And who loses? My guess is about 40% of the middle class.

Forcing people to buy insurance without also specifying minimum benefits is criminal abuse. (Just telling insurance companies that they must adhere at a minimum to Medicare benefits/schedules would have been sufficient.)

Quote
Chakravartin
Who wins?

Sleazy insurance companies

hey, that wasn't a choice in the poll, but I bet the yacht builders are getting orders today

---

[www.freethegrapes.org]

norwegian wood reality TV

[www.youtube.com]

Now, how about mandating that all buy Volts?

Quote
Avenger
Now, how about mandating that all buy Volts?

To see you having to buy one would almost make that a worthwhile mandate.

---

You can tell a lot about a woman by her hands...
- For example, if they are wrapped around your throat she's probably slightly upset.

Big win for Obama. Every bit of Republican whining will look like sour grapes to the voters. At this point, the best strategy for the Dems is to talk about the advantages that the ACA will provide, beginning with the fact that the insurance companies can no longer turn you down for having a history of chicken pox when you were 5 or being 8 pounds overweight.

What it means in the long run is that federal control over health care coverage will expand, perhaps eventually evolving into something like universal Medicare or perhaps something a little more like the Canadian system. What cannot survive is the dinosaur of a system we have now, in which 30% of your healthcare dollars go into overhead, insurance company profits, and extra costs to doctors in terms of billing. Medicare for all is a lot more efficient and considerably cheaper. An alternative would be something like the German or Swiss systems -- universal coverage with a strong component of private sector medical performance, but according to a negotiated price schedule.

My personal hope is that the Republicans in congress will be blamed for leaving the entire design to the Democrats -- they could have negotiated a different system, but they chose simply to be obstructive. As the ACA becomes entrenched in American life, perhaps a few of us will remember this ugly fact.

The people won more than they had in general. And if the Government covers 95% of my Volt payments, I'll get one of those too.

Who wins?
children with pre-existing conditions, adults with pre-existing conditions such as being old, young adults, people who get cancer or need transplants and could outspend the former "lifetime limits," people who were in the future going to be bankrupted by medical bills.
Actually, all of us, because even though this bill is far from perfect it's a very good start in the right direction. And we really needed to get started. It took a couple of decades to get social security right, and now that's the world's strongest social safety net. A decade to get healthcare more close to right is about what I expect.
Onward.

Another winner is Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., whose performance people will probably have to stop mocking.

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

Just got an interesting letter from my health care cooperative about the mandatory rebate they have to give if they spend more than 20% of my premiums on things other than health care. They don't, so I don't get a rebate. Nice to know somebody's watching that now.

Oh while we're on the topic of needing to teach critical thinking, Michele Bachmann has weighed in:

"This was an activist court that you saw today," Tea Party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) told reporters. "Anytime the Supreme Court renders something constitutional that is clearly unconstitutional, that undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court. I do believe the court's credibility was undermined severely today," she said, later adding that Congress could now force you to buy Ikea furniture.

Your healthcare "cooperative"? What the heck is that? Do they have communal farms they can send you to cultivate the land and pay for your premiums?

Quote
Avenger
Your healthcare "cooperative"? What the heck is that? Do they have communal farms they can send you to cultivate the land and pay for your premiums?

It's a not for profit health care cooperative. They charge premiums.

I know you prefer to pay as much as you can for administrative overhead and profits unrelated to your healthcare, and like the for-profit model. That's certainly available to you and not going anywhere. Enjoy!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2012 07:09PM by Lemon Drop.

Quote
$tevie

Yes, but Avenger or swampy will be reporting it as fact before the night is up.

Who wins? My daughter who has spent almost one of her 10 years in casts following operations to fix hip problems. She would have been un-insurable before this. Okay, not quite true. She has (had) cover until she was 18, but after that...
Oh, she is American. I have learned to deal with having no healthcare, but she is a born citizen. About time the govt gave a damn.

health wise the American public has won. in terms of election politics this is a wash. the dems can claim victory; the repubs now have a target issue to galvanize whomever will listenn. now more than ever progressives need to get out the vote for Obama and the democratic congressional reps. the reps more so than Obama as the repubs have show us how a stonewalling congress can debilitate any presidentcy.

---

"Success isn't about how much money you make. It is about the difference you make in people's lives."--Michelle Obama

Say, Manlove, can you tell us your experience with the NHS is Britain? What would happen to a politician who swore to dismantle it and privatize health insurance?

Quote
Manlove
Who wins? My daughter who has spent almost one of her 10 years in casts following operations to fix hip problems. She would have been un-insurable before this.

Yeah, but how much is she gonna have to pay for individual coverage?

Quote
Chakravartin

Quote
Manlove
Who wins? My daughter who has spent almost one of her 10 years in casts following operations to fix hip problems. She would have been un-insurable before this.

Yeah, but how much is she gonna have to pay for individual coverage?

Same as everyone else. Rates are determined by your age and by the benefits in your plan, not by what condition you have. Now sick people, children and women can't be discriminated against.
Thank you health care reform bill.

---

"Ditch the terrier and get yourself a proper dog. Any dog under 50 pounds is a cat, and cats are pointless." - Ron Swanson, Parks & Recreation

In case you haven't see this yet, this is a pretty good breakdown of just what IS the PPACA. (complete with links/cites to the actual text of the bill)

[www.reddit.com]

Quote
Dennis S
Say, Manlove, can you tell us your experience with the NHS is Britain? What would happen to a politician who swore to dismantle it and privatize health insurance?

Not so easy Dennis as I left England when I was 27 to see the world...and ended up here!
I can only relate personal experience and that is mainly that if I became ill I would go to the doctors, for free and if I needed a hospital stay I went, for free.
By 'free' I mean that it was rolled into the general tax rate.
Here's a good example from recent times.
My daughter needed a filling in the States, which cost us around $400. The year before, we were in England when one of my old fillings cracked and fell out necessitating a new one. I called the dentist and made an appointment for 2 weeks (earliest availability), went to the office and within 20 minutes walked out with a new filling and around $27 (edit- pounds ) less in my pocket.

My sister needed an emergency appendicitis whilst she was visiting our parents in a different County to the one she lives in. Ambulance picked her up took her the 30 mins to the hospital where she stayed for around 10 days (can't remember precisely) post op. For free.

Dozens of family examples like this.
It might have changed since I left (but the dental work was about 5 years ago), so other forumites could weigh in, but it worked for me.

What would happen to a politician who swore to dismantle it and privatize health insurance? They wouldn't be a politician for very long!

Again, the present Conservative coalition might be changing things slowly, but I am not the one to ask.

Hope this helps.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2012 08:33PM by Manlove.

>>Same as everyone else. Rates are determined by your age and by the benefits in your plan, not by what condition you have. Now sick people, children and women can't be discriminated against.<<

Then this is not insurance anymore. Someone who is already sick needs healthcare, not insurance. You are confusing the two.

Quote
Avenger
>>Same as everyone else. Rates are determined by your age and by the benefits in your plan, not by what condition you have. Now sick people, children and women can't be discriminated against.<<

Then this is not insurance anymore. Someone who is already sick needs healthcare, not insurance. You are confusing the two.

Agreed. Obama could have had an easy win if the goal had simply been to take care of those with pre-existing conditions.

Such as: make those folks eligible for medicare...

It would have easily passed...

Of course those who advance the idea are well aware of the difference. They just don't care because ultimately they want free healthcare, insurance or not.

Quote
Avenger
>>Same as everyone else. Rates are determined by your age and by the benefits in your plan, not by what condition you have. Now sick people, children and women can't be discriminated against.<<

Then this is not insurance anymore. Someone who is already sick needs healthcare, not insurance. You are confusing the two.

you only need insurance if you can't afford the treatment.

you are confused.

---

Quote
Avenger
>>Same as everyone else. Rates are determined by your age and by the benefits in your plan, not by what condition you have. Now sick people, children and women can't be discriminated against.<<

Then this is not insurance anymore. Someone who is already sick needs healthcare, not insurance. You are confusing the two.

"Sick people don't need health insurance."

Who pays their bills? Oh, that's right, people with insurance.

Have you heard of any existing private health insurance plan that rates customers according to what illness they have? I haven't. They either take you or they reject you, and you pay according to age and benefits levels. That is not new.

Quote
freeradical

Quote
Avenger
>>Same as everyone else. Rates are determined by your age and by the benefits in your plan, not by what condition you have. Now sick people, children and women can't be discriminated against.<<

Then this is not insurance anymore. Someone who is already sick needs healthcare, not insurance. You are confusing the two.

Agreed. Obama could have had an easy win if the goal had simply been to take care of those with pre-existing conditions.

Such as: make those folks eligible for medicare...

It would have easily passed...

Eventually everyone has a "pre-existing condition." Ironically what you're suggesting is universal, single payer care. Something Republicans and many Democrats have fought against with all they've got, and which had no chance in hell of passing in 2010.

Who wins?

Those who are most successful at capping the vote, they win.

Obama, it's an effective distraction from a domestic economy far worse than that under Carter.

Private insurance companies - people are forced to pay far more than if they were simply enrolled in Medicare.

Losers are the taxpayers - health care costs are drastically increased on the front end via the new mandates, and many will be eligible for subsidies (someone has to pay).

Any savings are far into the future and rely on drastic measures like slashing Medicare payments to doctors (never will happen).

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Avenger
>>Same as everyone else. Rates are determined by your age and by the benefits in your plan, not by what condition you have. Now sick people, children and women can't be discriminated against.<<

Then this is not insurance anymore. Someone who is already sick needs healthcare, not insurance. You are confusing the two.

"Sick people don't need health insurance."

Who pays their bills? Oh, that's right, people with insurance.

Have you heard of any existing private health insurance plan that rates customers according to what illness they have? I haven't. They either take you or they reject you, and you pay according to age and benefits levels. That is not new.

If you are saying that your rate is not affected by the potential costs you might incur in the future, one of us doesn't understand the concept insurance.

"The 25 Funniest ObamaCare Tweets"

[www.buzzfeed.com]

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Avenger
>>Same as everyone else. Rates are determined by your age and by the benefits in your plan, not by what condition you have. Now sick people, children and women can't be discriminated against.<<

Then this is not insurance anymore. Someone who is already sick needs healthcare, not insurance. You are confusing the two.

"Sick people don't need health insurance."

Who pays their bills? Oh, that's right, people with insurance.

Have you heard of any existing private health insurance plan that rates customers according to what illness they have? I haven't. They either take you or they reject you, and you pay according to age and benefits levels. That is not new.

I am not sure what you are referring to or thinking about, and this is a complicated issue and it could vary state by state or by situation. However, private insurance is "individually rated" here and I think most places meaning that insurance companies do look at the health history of the individual in setting the rate and accepting the person. this is true for individual coverage and for group coverage through employers. This is one of the huge issues that is addressed by the ACA.

Under the exchanges in the ACA, premiums are set based on "community rating" which means that pools the risk for the entire population in the state, so rates are comparable and would not vary based on the individuals unique history.

This is a very good thing and from a consumer perspective, there is almost no downside to this approach. In theory, health insurance companies could now give discounts to younger healthy people, but I am not sure that is true, ie, they jack up the price of insurance on everyone. Also, at least in this state, the rates will be set publically through a rate setting process, so increases in the rates over time will be controlled, and will be subject to public scrutiny and challenge. Totally differently then now, when insurance companies have unlimited discretion to raise rates on you all they want (other than market competition, which has proven to be a complete failure at limiting rate increases).

Quote
Avenger

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Avenger
>>Same as everyone else. Rates are determined by your age and by the benefits in your plan, not by what condition you have. Now sick people, children and women can't be discriminated against.<<

Then this is not insurance anymore. Someone who is already sick needs healthcare, not insurance. You are confusing the two.

"Sick people don't need health insurance."

Who pays their bills? Oh, that's right, people with insurance.

Have you heard of any existing private health insurance plan that rates customers according to what illness they have? I haven't. They either take you or they reject you, and you pay according to age and benefits levels. That is not new.

If you are saying that your rate is not affected by the potential costs you might incur in the future, one of us doesn't understand the concept insurance.

Send me a link to a private health insurance company that sets fees for benefit programs based on what illness or condition you have, other than your age or gender. I'd like to see that.

Quote

People buy insurance to obtain help with future costs. Unless restricted by regulation, insurers generally charge higher health insurance premiums to individuals who are more likely to incur higher health care expenses. An individual with a preexisting condition is generally considered “high risk” because that condition may make him or her more likely to need high-cost health care services. Such a person may face higher premiums than a person who is not known to have a preexisting condition simply because the insurer knows more about the former’s probable future health care costs.

[www.healthaffairs.org]

Quote

A 2009 report by the Commonwealth Fund found that 36% of people who tried to buy insurance in the private market were denied coverage or charged more because of a preexisting condition or had the condition excluded from their coverage.

[articles.latimes.com]

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

Quote
Lemon Drop

Send me a link to a private health insurance company that sets fees for benefit programs based on what illness or condition you have, other than your age or gender. I'd like to see that.

See Stevie's. Besides, do you really believe insurance premiums are detached from risk? Try this. Start an insurance company and charge people based on their age and gender only. See how long you will stay in business.

Quote
Bill in NC
Obama, it's an effective distraction from a domestic economy far worse than that under Carter.

Healthcare costs are a long term threat to our economy.

---

Quote
Avenger

Quote
Lemon Drop

Send me a link to a private health insurance company that sets fees for benefit programs based on what illness or condition you have, other than your age or gender. I'd like to see that.

See Stevie's. Besides, do you really believe insurance premiums are detached from risk? Try this. Start an insurance company and charge people based on their age and gender only. See how long you will stay in business.

OK, I see I've been protected from this discrimination by laws in my state plus the fact that I'm in a not for profit health care group that does not charge anyone a different rate based on a condition (although pre-ACA they could deny for pre-existing conditions.)

The ACA has corrected the problems that Stevie points out. That behavior by insurance companies will be illegal.
That's why we have to have the individual mandate. No more free rides.

No more free rides?

Does this mean that people without coverage will have to pay if they go to a hospital emergency room (where currently, by law, they must be treated) ?

It will be interesting to see how many individuals and employers opt out of coverage and pay the tax ( assuming the IRS can find them).

---

If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.

Quote
swampy
No more free rides?

Does this mean that people without coverage will have to pay if they go to a hospital emergency room (where currently, by law, they must be treated) ?

It will be interesting to see how many individuals and employers opt out of coverage and pay the tax ( assuming the IRS can find them).

Not by my understanding. The point I think, is that there will be no people without coverage. If you provably, can't afford to pay for coverage, the govt will pay up to 95% of it, if I read correctly.
Going into it (which we are) with the intention of f$%&*^g it up, will ensure that it will be f#$&ed up.
You haven't shown that the new system doesn't work, only that intentionally f#^%#@g something up works. And that's just stupid.

Quote
Lemon Drop

The ACA has corrected the problems that Stevie points out. That behavior by insurance companies will be illegal.
That's why we have to have the individual mandate. No more free rides.

You go in insurance business and insure anyone who walks in for the same premiums and see how long you last. I see you conveniently avoided this in my post. Not surprising.

Quote
Lemon Drop

Quote
Avenger

Quote
Lemon Drop

Send me a link to a private health insurance company that sets fees for benefit programs based on what illness or condition you have, other than your age or gender. I'd like to see that.

See Stevie's. Besides, do you really believe insurance premiums are detached from risk? Try this. Start an insurance company and charge people based on their age and gender only. See how long you will stay in business.

OK, I see I've been protected from this discrimination by laws in my state plus the fact that I'm in a not for profit health care group that does not charge anyone a different rate based on a condition (although pre-ACA they could deny for pre-existing conditions.)

The ACA has corrected the problems that Stevie points out. That behavior by insurance companies will be illegal.
That's why we have to have the individual mandate. No more free rides.

It's true that insurance varies so much from state to state that we are all like the blind men "looking" at the elephant when it comes to this topic.

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

Quote
swampy
No more free rides?

Does this mean that people without coverage will have to pay if they go to a hospital emergency room (where currently, by law, they must be treated) ?

It will be interesting to see how many individuals and employers opt out of coverage and pay the tax ( assuming the IRS can find them).

I think it could very well mean that. It also means that an emergency won't have to cost $600 just to peek in the door, because our charges for ER visits won't have to pay for all the folks who can't/don't pay.

---

"You can believe me because I never lie and I'm always right."

"It also means that an emergency won't have to cost $600 just to peek in the door, because our charges for ER visits won't have to pay for all the folks who can't/don't pay." - $tevie

There you go.

Quote
$tevie


I think it could very well mean that. It also means that an emergency won't have to cost $600 just to peek in the door, because our charges for ER visits won't have to pay for all the folks who can't/don't pay.

How do you know that's the reason? TIny fraction of ER users are uninsured.

Quote
Avenger

Quote
$tevie


I think it could very well mean that. It also means that an emergency won't have to cost $600 just to peek in the door, because our charges for ER visits won't have to pay for all the folks who can't/don't pay.

TIny fraction of ER users are uninsured.

When in doubt, just pull something out of your a__.

---

"So be proud to be a decent American instead of just a w'anker whipping up fear!" - Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland