Just saw that the IRS will require an additional influx of agents. I wonder how many people will have to be added to the Dept of Health/Interior in order to process the paperwork for the influx of 30 million people...particularly since the law is so complicated, so many people will have to be supported by additional government employees.

This will bankrupt us...

---

All I ever really needed to know, I learned from watching Star Trek.
Nassau County, NY

So be it.

Sounds like good jobs to me.

I am still pondering how this is going to be enforced. You need a new line item on Form 1040. What does it say? And since this has boiled down to a tax issue, COngress needs to approve it. Good luck with that. Why do you think they were running around denying it is a tax in the first lace? Oh, the last thing this side is worried about is going bankrupt, so revise your punch lines for the future.

Haha, I predicted what vision was going to say as he was typing it.

I am predictable. Yes.

I'm gonna take wild guess and assume you heard that on Fox news or Rush...

What a bunch of baloney. There's no point in even responding to the ridiculousness of it.

---

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

Heard what? I haven't listened or watched anything all day. Anyone who is willing to think has to come up with similar questions. Why don't you take a stab at it?

Quote
davester
What a bunch of baloney. There's no point in even responding to the ridiculousness of it.

Half of your posts are whining about other people posts.

link plz

---

[forums.macresource.com]

Quote
Avenger
I am still pondering how this is going to be enforced. You need a new line item on Form 1040. What does it say? And since this has boiled down to a tax issue, COngress needs to approve it. Good luck with that. Why do you think they were running around denying it is a tax in the first lace? Oh, the last thing this side is worried about is going bankrupt, so revise your punch lines for the future.

Don't worry. Smarter people than you are all over it.

Quote
Dennis S
Smarter people than you are all over it.

Has the IRS hired Batboy?

Ah --- I have to repeat myself once again. Some things are a little complicated.

The fact that the Supreme Court decided that Congress had (note the tense I use) the right to pass the ACA means exactly that. Congress had the right to do so. Congress did, and the president signed it. The Supreme Court decision does not mean that the congress has to go back and pass it again, or that the congress has to rewrite it as a tax per se, or any of that nonsense. The court simply referred to very broad authority the congress has, and obviously had when it passed the ACA.

The fact that the right wing is desperately trying to make political lemonade out of this (in their view) lemon is amusing, but you shouldn't take what they say as literal truth in the sense of Constitutional law or in the sense of actionable new requirements.

I can't help but chuckle a little over the revelation that Romney made clear that his state health care bill included a tax, and that he supported it. You can read about it over at talking points memo.

Of course the tax, such as it is, is fairly minimal (like one percent) and is limited to those who don't have health insurance. My prediction is that the mandated penalty will eventually be raised to a more realistic level, and as it does, will eventually be replaced by some sort of universal but minimal insurance, perhaps something that includes things like emergency room care and catastrophic coverage. We could do most of that right now simply by federalizing care for cancer and heart conditions. Toss in truly debilitating chronic conditions like multiple sclerosis and kidney failure, and we're almost there.

This is what Fox "news" does: "some say (something wildly incorrect) about someone we do not like". This manner of reporting is no better than how Dakota/Avenger posts; factless statements do not mean squat.

No links = no proof.

---

Quote
wowzer
Just saw that the IRS will require an additional influx of agents. I wonder how many people will have to be added to the Dept of Health/Interior in order to process the paperwork for the influx of 30 million people...particularly since the law is so complicated, so many people will have to be supported by additional government employees.

This will bankrupt us...

Where did you hear that? And if it's true: so what?

It seems to me that if the IRS needs more agents (read: clerks) to handle this caseload, it is an indication that we're moving AWAY from bankruptcy.

Do you have health insurance? If so, this doesn't apply to you anyway.

ps You are much, much more likely to be bankrupted by a lack of health insurance (if the premiums don't do it first) than anything the Gummint comes up with.

---

[www.flickr.com] [picasaweb.google.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2012 07:55PM by Uncle Wig.

[www.washingtontimes.com]

While I have insurance, I am more concerned about how much this will bankrupt AMERICA...not individuals.


The singular truth in America is that when something is 'free' (or nearly so), it is abused and wasted. If you already 'spend' money on healthcare, then you are more likely to use it (i.e. since you paid for it, you may as well get something). When that happens, the convergence of an additional 30 million people will result in over usage, therefore increasing costs. In New York (and other socially minded states), the cost of Obamacare wont necessarily increase costs, as these states already cover their residents over the 150% poverty line. What will happen is that in states where medicaid has not been generous, people will be coming in droves to get healthcare.

Having worked in the ER of a New York City hospital for over 15 years, I can tell you about the multitudes of waste and abuse...people calling 911 to 'go to the hospital' just because we are located closer to shopping. They then refuse all medical care, and sign out of the hospital. How in the world are you going to curb abuses like that? On top of those abuses, people come into the hospital with, 'asthma' because they can sell the albuterol canisters on the corner for $30 because if you pre-spray albuterol before smoking crack, it gives you a higher high. How in the world are you going to stop that abuse? Then, of course, there is the prescription pain killers for low back pain--several years ago, The Joint Commission (which accredits hospitals) stated that the Pain Scale is the 5th vital sign (of course, I never learned that in medical school). TJC hammered hospitals and doctors for years and years--now we have an epidemic of prescription pain medication over use/abuse. With an additional 30 million low income people with health insurance, are you telling me that there wont be extra abuse and sale of these prescription medications on the black market? These are only a small handful of abuses that I've come to know--I'm certain that universal health care will be fraught with abuse and over-use. It will drive up cost at the same time as decreasing reimbursement to our hospitals and providers. In the end, many institutions will simply go bankrupt (just look at the number of hospital closures in New York City if you don't believe me), while the entire country goes bankrupt too.

I am very concerned about where we are headed...

---

All I ever really needed to know, I learned from watching Star Trek.
Nassau County, NY

I am not surprised that you source is highly questionable.

The singular truth in America is that when something is 'free' (or nearly so), it is abused and wasted.

I don't disagree with this statement, but it tells me you do not have a clear understanding of the Affordable Care Act.

people will be coming in droves to get healthcare.

That would be just awful. How dare they!

---

[www.flickr.com] [picasaweb.google.com]

I'm not reading anything from the Moonie Times.

Quote
Uncle Wig
I am not surprised that you source is highly questionable.

The singular truth in America is that when something is 'free' (or nearly so), it is abused and wasted.

I don't disagree with this statement, but it tells me you do not have a clear understanding of the Affordable Care Act.

people will be coming in droves to get healthcare.

That would be just awful. How dare they!

I am not saying that it is wrong for them to do so--only that that is the consequence of the law. As for having a clear understanding of ACA, I would agree. But then again, I doubt anyone clearly understands all 2700+ pages of the law.

---

All I ever really needed to know, I learned from watching Star Trek.
Nassau County, NY

Quote
Dennis S
I'm not reading anything from the Moonie Times.

Okay...just because you are not reading it, doesn't mean that you wont have to pay for it when your taxes have to increase (or other services from the Federal government decreases) because of additional IRS agents.

If you think about how many permutations are possible under ACA, you've got to admit that there will be a lot more need to have specialized agents to handle 170 million tax returns (personal and business) to scrutinize if they have health insurance. Then you'll need additional agents to 'go after' any businesses which don't pay for insurance...then you'll need additional tax audits....and etc, and etc.

---

All I ever really needed to know, I learned from watching Star Trek.
Nassau County, NY

>>The singular truth in America is that when something is 'free' (or nearly so), it is abused and wasted.

you know what they say about free prostate exams...

>>How in the world are you going to curb abuses like that?

uh...i thought abusing 911 was already against the law.

---

funny how there isn't this worry when tax loophole are added.

My healthcare costs have been going up, every 6 months, for the last 11 years (this is as far back as I have been working for myself). Yet, at the same period, my level of coverage has been decreasing and my co-pays are going up (they started at $5 per visit and are now at $30). I now pay almost $8500 for insurance for my family, where in 1999, I was paying a whopping $1300 -- a 650% increase in premiums and a 600% increase in our co-pays.

Regardless of what the right-wing talking points, THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN and it is reprehensible that the main thrust of the GOP is to keep it intact. Why do you think that is? It could not possibly be enormous amounts of money that are lining their pockets, could it? These people are putting greed before the well being of the country, but no reporting from you about that.

The source you are bringing into this thread is VERY slanted: do you have any other sources to substantiate your claims? Sure, if you look hard enough, you will find corruption everywhere, like how health care companies are making record profit, year after year, but again, no outrage about that from the righties.

---

Quote
Ca Bob
Ah --- I have to repeat myself once again. Some things are a little complicated.


==========As far as Dakota will read===============

The fact that the Supreme Court decided that Congress had (note the tense I use) the right to pass the ACA means exactly that. Congress had the right to do so. Congress did, and the president signed it. The Supreme Court decision does not mean that the congress has to go back and pass it again, or that the congress has to rewrite it as a tax per se, or any of that nonsense. The court simply referred to very broad authority the congress has, and obviously had when it passed the ACA.

The fact that the right wing is desperately trying to make political lemonade out of this (in their view) lemon is amusing, but you shouldn't take what they say as literal truth in the sense of Constitutional law or in the sense of actionable new requirements.

I can't help but chuckle a little over the revelation that Romney made clear that his state health care bill included a tax, and that he supported it. You can read about it over at talking points memo.

Of course the tax, such as it is, is fairly minimal (like one percent) and is limited to those who don't have health insurance. My prediction is that the mandated penalty will eventually be raised to a more realistic level, and as it does, will eventually be replaced by some sort of universal but minimal insurance, perhaps something that includes things like emergency room care and catastrophic coverage. We could do most of that right now simply by federalizing care for cancer and heart conditions. Toss in truly debilitating chronic conditions like multiple sclerosis and kidney failure, and we're almost there.

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2012 10:43PM by Black.

As for having a clear understanding of ACA, I would agree. But then again, I doubt anyone clearly understands all 2700+ pages of the law.

If you don't understand what the law will do, then you don't get to predict the unintended consequences.

---

[www.flickr.com] [picasaweb.google.com]

How does this change now?

What stops your private insurance company from raising your premiums & co-payments even more?

After all, your health plan is now required to take all comers, with no limit to the cost of their care.

Not exactly a recipe for lower health insurance premiums.

There are also thornier questions - are we as a society really willing to pay unlimited benefits for unrecoverable conditions like this:

[www.cnn.com]

Quote
john dough
My healthcare costs have been going up, every 6 months, for the last 11 years (this is as far back as I have been working for myself). Yet, at the same period, my level of coverage has been decreasing and my co-pays are going up (they started at $5 per visit and are now at $30). I now pay almost $8500 for insurance for my family, where in 1999, I was paying a whopping $1300 -- a 650% increase in premiums and a 600% increase in our co-pays.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2012 05:57AM by Bill in NC.

Quote
Bill in NC
How does this change now?

What stops your private insurance company from raising your premiums & co-payments even more?

After all, your health plan is now required to take all comers, with no limit to the cost of their care.

Not exactly a recipe for lower health insurance premiums.

There are also thornier questions - are we as a society really willing to pay unlimited benefits for unrecoverable conditions like this:

[www.cnn.com]

Quote
john dough
My healthcare costs have been going up, every 6 months, for the last 11 years (this is as far back as I have been working for myself). Yet, at the same period, my level of coverage has been decreasing and my co-pays are going up (they started at $5 per visit and are now at $30). I now pay almost $8500 for insurance for my family, where in 1999, I was paying a whopping $1300 -- a 650% increase in premiums and a 600% increase in our co-pays.

At least 2 ways; forcing insurance companies to spend 80% of your premiums on care and increasing the pool of insured paying into the system.

No that won't help.

The millions brought in are the poorer, sicker ones - they aren't paying the premiums (initially 100% subsidized, then 90%), and they will use a lot more health care than the average.

Rising premiums are primarily driven by the cost of the care, not any adminstative fees.

Since there are no limits to the increase, I wouldn't be surprised to see a $100 office co-pay (and $750 for the ER) in the near future.

Quote
Bill in NC
No that won't help.

The millions brought in are the poorer, sicker ones - they aren't paying the premiums (initially 100% subsidized, then 90%), and they will use a lot more health care than the average.

Rising premiums are primarily driven by the cost of the care, not any adminstative fees.

Since there are no limits to the increase, I wouldn't be surprised to see a $100 office co-pay (and $750 for the ER) in the near future.

You have to chip away everywhere. The largest expense goes to profits which no one is willing to touch outside of the 80%. Getting people out of the ER and into primary care saves money. Getting preventative care saves money. Getting people, especially the young, who aren't poor but choose not to have insurance saves money. Managing diseases like asthma, high blood pressure, and diabetes in a primary care setting over ER visits saves money.

Eventually something will have to be done about profits. The whole FDA-pharma-medical equipment symbiosis has got to be reeled in.

>>The millions brought in are the poorer, sicker ones

oh, that is a problem. we should leave them without treatment instead.

---

This is the kind of thinking that actually believes that the members of congress who voted on ACA actually read the law, understood it and can "predict" what its consequences will be.

Quote
Uncle Wig
As for having a clear understanding of ACA, I would agree. But then again, I doubt anyone clearly understands all 2700+ pages of the law.

If you don't understand what the law will do, then you don't get to predict the unintended consequences.

Quote
Bill in NC
No that won't help.

The millions brought in are the poorer, sicker ones - they aren't paying the premiums (initially 100% subsidized, then 90%), and they will use a lot more health care than the average.

Rising premiums are primarily driven by the cost of the care, not any adminstative fees.

Since there are no limits to the increase, I wouldn't be surprised to see a $100 office co-pay (and $750 for the ER) in the near future.

There are also millions who will be brought in who self-selected to not have health insurance because they are young, healthy or otherwise feel they do not need it. The system gets to pays 100's of thousands dollars to care for them when they get in an accident or have a serious illness.

As for rising premiums being primarily driven by cost of care, the biggest increases have been from the carriers with the highest portion going to administrative costs and executive salaries. The lowest increases have generally been with the non-profit organizations and the few mutual insurers left in the market.

The new mandates (e.g. no cap on benefits) load costs onto the front end.

Savings are theoretical, and on the back-end, several years from now at the earliest.

And some savings come from such politically unworkable ideas as "slash Medicare payments to doctors 25%" (never going to happen)

You're also assuming we can compel people to choose primary care over an ER - but if they choose to go to the ER instead, we are required by law to treat them there.

So again, my point is that there is no evidence that health care premiums or co-pays will have their meteoric pace of increase slowed under the new law.

That doesn't address the merits of adding more people to the insurance rolls.

But we certainly have chosen the most expensive way to do so, as opposed say to allowing everyone to pay to enroll in Medicaid.

Quote
Pam

Quote
Bill in NC
No that won't help.

The millions brought in are the poorer, sicker ones - they aren't paying the premiums (initially 100% subsidized, then 90%), and they will use a lot more health care than the average.

Rising premiums are primarily driven by the cost of the care, not any adminstative fees.

Since there are no limits to the increase, I wouldn't be surprised to see a $100 office co-pay (and $750 for the ER) in the near future.

You have to chip away everywhere. The largest expense goes to profits which no one is willing to touch outside of the 80%. Getting people out of the ER and into primary care saves money. Getting preventative care saves money. Getting people, especially the young, who aren't poor but choose not to have insurance saves money. Managing diseases like asthma, high blood pressure, and diabetes in a primary care setting over ER visits saves money.

Eventually something will have to be done about profits. The whole FDA-pharma-medical equipment symbiosis has got to be reeled in.

"You're also assuming we can compel people to choose primary care over an ER - but if they choose to go to the ER instead, we are required by law to treat them there."
This may well be true, as things stand at the moment. But it is conceivable that people without coverage go to the ER precisely because they have no coverage and hence cannot go to their local doctor. Once everyone has coverage then they can go to a doctor's office instead of waiting for the traumatic to happen, and the high costs associated with the visit to the ER will vanish.

Ladies and gents, I read all your posts and even understand some of them. I can't help but feel that the average American (if you lot count as a sample) feels that every other American is a stupid bastard who is only out for himself and is unable to consider the consequences of his actions and drifts through life upon a series of knee-jerk reactions to circumstances that he is unable to foresee and entirely unable to comprehend!

There are individuals who seem less inclined to view others as obstructive fools, but they are the minority.

This is the souring of the cult of the individual.

If you are not one of these who basically hate others, then I am not aiming this at you.

Quote
Manlove

Ladies and gents, I read all your posts and even understand some of them. I can't help but feel that the average American (if you lot count as a sample) feels that every other American is a stupid bastard who is only out for himself and is unable to consider the consequences of his actions and drifts through life upon a series of knee-jerk reactions to circumstances that he is unable to foresee and entirely unable to comprehend!

There are individuals who seem less inclined to view others as obstructive fools, but they are the minority.

This is the souring of the cult of the individual.

If you are not one of these who basically hate others, then I am not aiming this at you.

That wasn't quite condescending enough. Can you try again?

---

[www.flickr.com] [picasaweb.google.com]

Quote
Manlove
"You're also assuming we can compel people to choose primary care over an ER - but if they choose to go to the ER instead, we are required by law to treat them there."
This may well be true, as things stand at the moment. But it is conceivable that people without coverage go to the ER precisely because they have no coverage and hence cannot go to their local doctor. Once everyone has coverage then they can go to a doctor's office instead of waiting for the traumatic to happen, and the high costs associated with the visit to the ER will vanish.

Ladies and gents, I read all your posts and even understand some of them. I can't help but feel that the average American (if you lot count as a sample) feels that every other American is a stupid bastard who is only out for himself and is unable to consider the consequences of his actions and drifts through life upon a series of knee-jerk reactions to circumstances that he is unable to foresee and entirely unable to comprehend!

There are individuals who seem less inclined to view others as obstructive fools, but they are the minority.

This is the souring of the cult of the individual.

If you are not one of these who basically hate others, then I am not aiming this at you.

that is THE most trollerific post of all time

I really didn't mean to come across like that.
You must be reading it in a different voice than mine.

If this doesn't apply to you then don't be insulted. If it does apply to you then you need to stop being so solipsistic.

Which words so deeply offend?
Is it 'you lot', which I used as an alternative to 'fellow forum members'. It is not a term of insult.

"I can't help but feel that the average American (if you lot count as a sample) feels that every other American is a stupid bastard who is only out for himself and is unable to consider the consequences of his actions and drifts through life upon a series of knee-jerk reactions to circumstances that he is unable to foresee and entirely unable to comprehend!"
This doesn't seem entirely wrong, especially given the massive cultural and political rift in the country.

Are you super sensitive or something? I suppose I am used to people saying something and then someone else responding and then following the conversation.
Americans (and this will really rile those who want to be riled) tend to have one person say something, then there is a break, then another person says something, in a series of endless soundbites that never really gets very far.

I know, you want facts and numbers, but these are opinions and we all have 'em and they all smell like @#$%& if they don't tally with our own.

It seems so condescending because I am not speaking to one person and therefore make broader generalisations than I would if this was a one on one conversation.

Is it condescending because it is so obviously and trivially true?

There are definitely people like these on this forum and plenty in society at large.

Sorry if I pointed out what I see.

It's obvious that no one here really has the right answer to anything, at least, not one that is so blindingly obvious that everyone can easily see the truth of it.
I learn loads about all sorts of things form reading your posts, and for that I thank you all. However, none of us is right. We are all transient.

You already had the best healthcare in the world; universal, free healthcare in England and still wasn't enough to keep you there. Now that you are in, this country isn't good enough for you now.

Try hanging around some forums on UK sites for awhile, Manlove. You seem to be a real noob when it comes to the way people act on the internet. ALL people.

---

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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2012 04:22PM by $tevie.

Quote
Manlove
BS snipped

Up until now I've avoided getting involved with your posts, but man, you are completely full of @#$%&.

---

[www.flickr.com] [picasaweb.google.com]

Single payer.

---

Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.

That's you.

"Now that you are in, this country isn't good enough for you now." - Dakota

I think that applies to you, paleface.

Quote
Uncle Wig

Quote
Manlove
BS snipped

Up until now I've avoided getting involved with your posts, but man, you are completely full of @#$%&.

Ignoring what I may be full of for a moment, what does 'BS snipped' mean?
Really, I don't know. Bull @#$%& snipped (snipped?)?
(I just read the above back to myself and in my voice with my intention, it was a clear and simple question. I can see how, if one wanted to, one could read it as being snarky and less than genuine, but that is entirely up to you.)
Obviously you misunderstood my post. It wasn't insulting you, unless you chose to be insulted, in which case you are part of the problem with this country.
I really tried to ask you how you felt that I was being condescending. But I got not even a close approximation to an answer.

And yes stevie, I am fairly noobish at this 'speaking to people as if we have a real conversation going even though we have never met and know practically nothing about each other' internet forum thing.

So many people seem insulted by what I feel for the most part are fairly innocuous sentiments.
@#$%&, I should actually start trying to be offensive like so many here are and see where that gets me. Because I can't imagine the reaction being much worse.

And yes, I do think that most (i.e. more than half) do have an "I'm alright Jack" attitude about healthcare and many other issues.
"As long as there is enough for me then you can just sort yourself out."

That is hardly a cutting edge sentiment.
Not everybody, just most.

Avenger- "You already had the best healthcare in the world; universal, free healthcare in England and still wasn't enough to keep you there. Now that you are in, this country isn't good enough for you now."
So one should stay in a place because it has healthcare? Is that like staying in a job because if you left you'd lose coverage? You seem to have a chip on your shoulder about "your" country (which as many have pointed out, is not the same country that they are living in, even though they are geographically synonymous!). Why the hell should I not comment about what I see? That's all you are doing except that you've lived here longer than me. So what? And no, it could be far better, which I suppose means that it's not good enough. If it were we'd all be doing something else instead of posting pointless @#$%& on random internet forums.

I am new to this side of the forum, but I've watched you all for years, learning bits and pieces about Macs and Apple and even the American political system to some extent.
"If you don't like it, you can leave..." I know I can, but I'm not. I live here. My family is here. We pay taxes and my child is educated here. So Mr. Murrica's for the Murricans, you will have to adjust. I already have.

Folks, the whole point of this post is that Obamacare will have hidden costs in so many ways that we wont know where it all goes. These hidden costs are part of my concern over Obamacare.

---

All I ever really needed to know, I learned from watching Star Trek.
Nassau County, NY

Quote
Uncle Wig
As for having a clear understanding of ACA, I would agree. But then again, I doubt anyone clearly understands all 2700+ pages of the law.

If you don't understand what the law will do, then you don't get to predict the unintended consequences.

Does this mean that you clearly understand all 2700 pages of the new law? If not, then you don't get to predict the unintended consequences either. However, since it makes sense that the IRS will have to increase their staff (by exactly how much, I'm more than willing to adjust), I'd say that my prediction is on much firmer grounds than yours.

---

All I ever really needed to know, I learned from watching Star Trek.
Nassau County, NY

Quote
wowzer
Folks, the whole point of this post is that Obamacare will have hidden costs in so many ways that we wont know where it all goes. These hidden costs are part of my concern over Obamacare.

No kidding. Obviously tweaking, improving, and modifications are needed. If only we could start with what we have and move on from here. The plan has already helped those previously denied coverage, seniors, and parents with early 20 kids. If only partisan crap could be left out and meaningful discussion take place in Washington.

Quote
wowzer
Folks, the whole point of this post is that Obamacare will have hidden costs in so many ways that we wont know where it all goes. These hidden costs are part of my concern over Obamacare.

I'm more outraged by the hidden benefits.

---