11.14.2011

Obamacare Gets The Big Stage


Some are talking about how a decision before the November, 2012 election could alter the political landscape. But even though Anthony Kennedy the Court could hand down a decision by June (before its summer recess), it doesn't have to.

And stupid question: Have any of you been directly impacted by the health care law? Or have its most significant provisions not gone into effect yet? Edit: Some big brain legal scholars think that because no one will been forced to purchase insurance under that law until 2014, that no one has "standing" to bring the law suit yet.  And the Supreme Court did mention the question of "jurisdiction" today when it agreed to hear the case. That would be a way to punt the case without a real resolution.

26 comments:

Goober said...

I guess the Conservative Republicans read a different bible than I do. Why is it that "The Right" is so opposed to poor people having access to proper health care? To my knowledge, there is only one MD in Wise county willing to accept new medicare patients (those of limited means over 65). If the insurance/medical industry were so capable of solving this issue, why did it take an act of congress to make it happen. Perhaps this is just another indicator of why the "99%" feel a need to occupy something.

Anonymous said...

I hate it when I will been forced.

KatyDid said...

They do tend to punt when they can.

However, maybe it will be a landmark decision on standing...

Anonymous said...

God wordkyle, are you saying you and the right will stand behind a different version of SOCIALIZED MEDICINE?

/point proven

Also, hasn't the court extrapolated the "likely to occur again" exception to the mootness doctrine to cover cases where laws have not kicked in but will affect people in the future? Many of the political issues of our time have been challenged and ruled upon before they were to take effect.

Rage

Anonymous said...

I am glad the Supremes remained busy after Diana Ross departed. Amazing how many court cases they hear as opposed to concert dates.

My Other Brother Darryl

Anonymous said...

Goober,
The message in my Bible, both testaments, speaks of for whom believers should provide support, and for whom believers should not provide support. Paul, in particular, mentions specific groups of people in both regards. Both testaments also repeatedly use the figure of 10% as to the amount believers should give. Neither testament makes any reference as to Cesar or the govt. forcing 1/2 of the people to provide for the other 1/2 "cradle-to-grave" by threat of prison. Is that what you are finding in the Bible you read?
I didn't realize that the insurance/medical industry was responsible for "solving the issue" of providing free services to 1/2 the population. It seems that those that have chosen to invest and work in those industries continue to be, selfishly of course, resistant to the idea. I bet you don't do that, either. And I bet you just snorted at the mere mention of you doing that. You want someone else to do it.
It is too bad the "99%" feel a need to occupy other people's property, and in fact, righteously demand that even more be given to them with no expectation of any effort on their part. It's too bad the "99%" don't feel a need to occupy a job. I bet you just snorted at that idea, also.
Good handle, by the way. Seriously.

Anonymous said...

We have all begun to pay for Obamacare, even though benefits don't kick in 'till later. That's how Obama and Pelosi and Reid, et al, understated the cost so that it wouldn't sound as bad as it is. They spoke about the cost over 10 years, but that includes tax revenues collected over 10 years, but benefits payed out over 6 of those 10 years. The second 10 years will cost MUCH more when 10 years of benefits are payed for by 10 years of taxation.

The Devil said...

I have been impacted by the new health care law, just not exactly sure to what extent yet. I will see a 17% increase per paycheck on premiums in 2012 as well as various other minor changes. I am not sure how much of this increase is tied to Obamacare but I am working on deciphering that.

I recently completed a health "self assesment" required by my provider for 2012. They scored me as a 88% based solely on my BMI, which is high, but they do not take into account my body fat percentage which is under 10%. All other health factors, diet, excercise are excellent. The only way to meet my "goals" for 2012 is to lose 35lbs of muscle.

I really do not know what they will do with this information, if it will be used to set future premiums, but my guess if it is passed on to the government it can't be good.

Anonymous said...

Why is it my responsibility to enable and bail people out who make bad choices.

Signed,
Conservative

Anonymous said...

If you personally want to pay for someone's healthcare then go for it. Don't expect me to.

I know too many people milking the system because I have eyes and ears. You Democrats and Liberals could sure learn a thing or two is you would use yours.

Anonymous said...

I'm against socialized medicine, but given that so much medicine is paid for by the public tab already, we'd better figure out a way to pay for that stuff. It's more expensive than the military. (But at least there's a specific Constitutional mandate for the military.)

Standing might be argued from the TaxPayer perspective: they're assuredly going to use dollars that they've already taxed me on. But that sure is the thin end of a wedge.

Anonymous said...

I don't know how anyone could give Obama and Pelosi and Reid any sort of credibility!

Anonymous said...

Goober,

I don’t think “The Right” is opposed to poor people having access to proper health care. How are you arriving at that conclusion? Because they don’t support Obamacare? That’s quite a jump.

I think what “The Right” is opposed to is government getting involved in every detail of citizens’ lives. I think they are also generally opposed to indiscriminate handouts and entitlements.

wordkyle said...

Not sure of the thought process that goes "Obamacare hasn't affected me yet, so it won't affect me in the future." For one thing, it's likely going to get much harder to find a doctor. A 2010 survey of physicians found that as Obamacare kicks in over the next few years, more than half plan to either see fewer patients, find non-clinical jobs in the healthcare industry, leave healthcare completely, or retire. 56% of the doctors in the survey said that Obamacare will diminish the quality of care they are able to provide.

Didn't hear much about this possibility when Democrats were forcing through Obamacare, did we?

Anonymous said...

100% of plaintiff's think tort reform is a bad thing. Not sure what your point is, wordkyle.

Rage

Anonymous said...

In the abscence of personal responsibility, forcing everyone to pitch in to help everyone collectively consume health care simply cannot work.

Example: You're morbidly obese and smoke, do drugs etc. If i'm fit, eat correctly, and live right our health care needs are miles apart. Why should I subsidize your poor habits? In fact I would be doing you a disservice by not requiring you to better yourself as part of any bargain to help you.

Anonymous said...

Rage, don't want to speak for wordkyle, but what I know from the body of info to which he refers is that reimbursement to physicians and other providers is being reduced further, which has already begun to have a negative effect on young people's career choices regarding entering health care field. Obamacare reduces tests and treatment currently received by Americans. People already in the healthcare field will react to changes in the way and amount they are compensated for their work, and access to care will be reduced for all.

Anonymous said...

I have been directly impacted by being able to switch to a higher premium and more extensive health insurance package with a pre-existing condition. Prior to "Obamacare" I was stuck with my previous, less expensive premium that would have bankrupted me later. Once I heal, I will still be paying the higher premium.

I don't know much about the rest of "Obamacare" but that was a good thing.

Anonymous said...

Relatives without healthcare now qualify. At an affordable price. It's not perfect but neither is mine.
I do not remember all this when car insurance became required but it is and we pay it.

KatyDid said...

3:47: General taxpayer standing is pretty well dead.
There needs to be a concrete, specified harm beyond "I paid taxes and some of my taxes were used for X"...
I think the idea is that the courts would be buried under suits to stop the war otherwise.

Anonymous said...

@ Goober,
Because the government ALWAYS screws everything up, that's why!

Let private charities handle that sort of thing!

Anonymous said...

2:26 - Well played!!!! I'm sick of liberals reading what they want into the Bible and/or twisting the message to try to indict conservatives. Cowards... every one of them.

Anonymous said...

It has had one positive outcome for my family. We are now able to have our kids covered while they attend college. One is in grad school and one has been working 30 hours / week while attending school, so it is taking her 6 years to complete her degree.

Anonymous said...

I have been harmed because I have absolutely no idea what my employee health care costs are going to be in future. Also, energy and taxes, etc.

So I am not expanding my business. No effective cost estimates, no effective models. No jobs.

Anonymous said...

Paid my own for 50 years and will continue: Medicare cost me about 3600 a yr, roughly the yearly premiums I paid the last ten I worked.

Most willing to continue pay as long as insurance industry is regulated.....no cherry picking, doocumented need to premium increases......

In my circle there are several incredibly sad story, people out of work, cannot afford COBRA, delaying life saving surgeries.

The number of people who will be subsizded is relative small.

The New Health Care law is a considerable improvement over status quo.

Anonymous said...

I will email a form for Barry to post if he sees fit. There is a time table to which each step takes effect.

Every healthcare policy has already been impacted. Children under the age of 19 pre-existing conditions have already been eliminted. This means the insurance companies(private business) is required to accept all children no matter the health status. The insurance companies response is to not write policies for children under 19 on permanent insurance. At this time the majority of the companies(all of them that I know about)are only writing temporary major medical plans which are good for up to 6 months at a time.

Also all lifetime maximum limits of benefits paid has been removed. So what used to be a 1 to 5 million dollar lifetime maximum policy benefit is now unlimited. You are paying for that.

There are changes that need to be made in the healthcare industry regarding insurance and many other issues. But the government can't run what is on their plate currently, much less fund any further projects, especially one of this magnitude.

The easiest way to solve the healthcare crisis is to stop treating people who can't afford to pay for the services. Whether privately funded or through their healthcare insurance.