patrick.net

turtledove says

Can you imagine tax rates going up 20% in a single year?

The penalty for NOT buying the insurance went up more than 200% for next year.

So Yep, ACA is indeed a tax... it's the loophole treating it as such that allowed it to pass constitutional muster.

You sure speak for we quite often. How many of you are there?
===================

We isn't everyone. Obviously, I'm talking about like-minded individuals. If you're in a different we, that's okay, too.

That's what they could get through

---------------

This is a lie

Ppaca is what the democrats decided to give us, and for good reason. Follow the money

Obama was for single payer, before he was against it. Those lobbyists know, everyone has their price.

errc says

This is a lie

Ppaca is what the democrats decided to give us, and for good reason. Follow the money

Obama was for single payer, before he was against it. Those lobbyists know, everyone has their price.

Er, and why did they decide to give you that? Single payer wouldn't have gone through, so they went with some other (compromised) proposal, naturally juggling all the interested parties - that's the system you've created in your country.

Thunderlips Licks Shill Tears says

turtledove says

Can you imagine tax rates going up 20% in a single year?

The penalty for NOT buying the insurance went up more than 200% for next year.

So Yep, ACA is indeed a tax... it's the loophole treating it as such that allowed it to pass constitutional muster.

A tax you are required to pay to private "insurance " companies

What are they insuring, anyways?

Just FYI: Trump won Ohio by more people (~450,000) than Hillary won over Trump in the Entire Country (~350,000).

Just to give you an idea of how slim her national "popular vote win" is.

errc says

What are they insuring, anyways?

Well, they're ensuring they get well paid in many cases.

Rashomon says

errc says

This is a lie

Ppaca is what the democrats decided to give us, and for good reason. Follow the money

Obama was for single payer, before he was against it. Those lobbyists know, everyone has their price.

Er, and why did they decide to give you that? Single payer wouldn't have gone through, so they went with some other (compromised) proposal.

I'm assuming because it was the most profitable course of action.

I cannot think of any other reason

The penalty for NOT buying the insurance went up more than 200% for next year.

So Yep, ACA is indeed a tax... it's the loophole treating it as such that allowed it to pass constitutional muster.
======================

Seriously, the most fucked up thing ever. And some say it's an accomplishment because we forced everyone to participate. I pay $13k/year (family of four) in premiums. Let's see... what did we consume this year? Kids' well checks... Flu shots... The kids are twelve, so they got some boosters. That's it. All for the bargain price of $13k! But that's not all, folks! Since there's still a deductible... I also paid for the services. So really, I paid $13k for pretty much the hell of it. Well not really. I get to say I'm compliant with the law. Maybe someday, the whole family will need heart, lung, liver transplants and we'll get our money's worth. The new American Dream!

If Health is Wealth, you couldn't assure a people be any poorer than they are with Heritage Foundation Care (Obamacare).

errc says

If Health is Wealth, you couldn't assure a people be any poorer than they are with Heritage Foundation Care (Obamacare).

I think there were plenty of people 'poorer' off with what they had (didn't have) before the ACA.

Rashomon says

errc says

If Health is Wealth, you couldn't assure a people be any poorer than they are with Heritage Foundation Care (Obamacare).

I think there were plenty of people 'poorer' off with what they had (didn't have) before the ACA.

How do you figure?

How does having insurance make one less poor?

turtledove says

Seriously, the most fucked up thing ever. And some say it's an accomplishment because we forced everyone to participate. I pay $13k/year (family of four) in premiums. Let's see... what did we consume this year? Kids' well checks... Flu shots... The kids are twelve, so they got some boosters. That's it. All for the bargain price of $13k! But that's not all, folks! Since there's still a deductible... I also paid for the services. So really, I paid $13k for pretty much the hell of it. Well not really. I get to say I'm compliant with the law. Maybe someday, the whole family will need heart, lung, liver transplants and we'll get our money's worth. The new American Dream!

The cost and what you get for that is the issue, not what you consume in any given year. You pay too much in the US and you get a healthcare system that still doesn't serve the whole population even with the ACA. Is any new system going to lower the coverage levels back to what they used to be? That to me should be the major focus of attention. Having so many people with limited access to good healthcare is simply shocking.

errc says

How do you figure?

How does having insurance make one less poor?

You had something like 50m uninsured people before the ACA, did you not? Not having access to a good healthcare system makes you 'poorer' off.

smaulgld says

the concept of local control UNLESS it subverts the constitution (ROE vs Wade) would act as a protection in your example.

Doesn't work for the Second Amendment. There should be no federal laws regarding arms according to that. Yet our government uses the grotesque guise of the interstate commerce provision to regulate weapons big time. And this is an obvious deliberate misinterpretation of the provision that is beyond ridiculous.

Prior to ACA, my sister didn't have health insurance

After the ACA, she still doesn't have health insurance. However, she now pays a fine when she files her income taxes.

She is paying a fine/tax penalty, for being young and healthy, and smart enough a freedom loving capitalist, to not purchase private health insurance.

this is exactly why Republicans now hold all branches of government. Because democrats are either stupid or incompetent

This is the problem with too much power having transferred over decades from the states to the federal government: THERE IS NO ONE SIZE FITS ALL. We're trying to please everyone, and it's not working. The beauty of the USA model (as it was originally intended) was to leave the bulk of the power to state and local governments. The federal government is supposed to have limited power and set the general framework (Constitution) within which the states must operate...that's it, except for anything with interstate implications. No Department of Education for example. No national healthcare system. No national welfare system.

If we let the states and municipalities have more power, we let them operate closer to the citizens electing their officials and making laws. Then, there's more diversity of ideas and greater competition. If Texas fails and California succeeds, people will move if Texas doesn't shape up. Let diversity and competition drive excellence and weed out the loser ideas.

Sent from 30,000ft, so sorry for bad grammar/typos.

Rashomon says

errc says

How do you figure?

How does having insurance make one less poor?

You had something like 50m uninsured people before the ACA, did you not? Not having access to a good healthcare system makes you 'poorer' off.

You are conflating health insurance with healthcare.

Are you saying that having insurance is leading to people having better access to better health (care)?

Because the opposite seems to be true

The cost and what you get for that is the issue, not what you consume in any given year. You pay too much in the US and you get a healthcare system that still doesn't serve the whole population even with the ACA. Is any new system going to lower the coverage levels back to what they used to be? That to me should be the major focus of attention. Having so many people with limited access to good healthcare is simply shocking.
==================

And that's what ACA missed. Health insurance isn't healthcare... nor is it a guarantee of access to healthcare. People get turned away from doctors all the time: "I'm sorry, but we aren't in network with your insurance plan. Have a nice day."

You beat me to it errc.

errc says

Because the opposite seems to be true

What, $8000 bronze plan family deductibles for $1000/month isn't good healthcare? :)

errc says

You are conflating health insurance with healthcare.

Are you saying that having insurance is leading to people having better access to better health (care)?

Because the opposite seems to be true

I'm saying that you had a system where 50m people had their access to good (prevention-based) healthcare severely limited because they weren't covered by health insurance. That makes them 'poorer.' And quite obviously people with healthcare insurance have better access to healthcare than those who don't even if you can't necessarily go to your first choice medical practitioner.

As anyone educated knows, having a straight democracy leads easily to a tyranny of the majority, whereby the wishes and desires of the minority are disregarded and subsumed in the voting prowess of the majority. On issues this is fine, but as a referendum on a minority Group it's a quick step to fascism. So keeping Constitutional limits on straight democracy is important for The preservation of minority rights.

Rashomon says

errc says

You are conflating health insurance with healthcare.

Are you saying that having insurance is leading to people having better access to better health (care)?

Because the opposite seems to be true

I'm saying that you had a system where 50m people had their access to good (prevention-based) healthcare severely limited because they weren't covered by health insurance. That makes them 'poorer.' And quite obviously people with healthcare insurance have better access to healthcare than those who don't even if you can't necessarily go to your first choice.

Prove it. Why do you expect me to just take your word for it?

You claim to not even be a citizen, it's quite obvious that you know not that of which you speak. But please, prove me wrong. I would love that

Prove you're right.

errc says

Prove it. Why do you expect me to just take your word for it?

You claim to not even be a citizen, it's quite obvious that you know not that of which you speak. But please, prove me wrong. I would love that

Prove what? That the uninsured have worse health care than the insured? Seriously? And I'm not claiming I'm not a citizen. I'm not. I am, however, a Green Card holder and have health care insurance in the US.

Rashomon says

Prove what? That the uninsured have worse health care than the insured? Seriously? And I'm not claiming I'm not a citizen. I'm not. I am, however, a Green Card holder and have health care insurance in the US.

Welcome to America.

Prove what? That the uninsured have worse health care than the insured? Seriously?

----------------

Yea. Seriously.

errc says

Yea. Seriously.

Let me get this clear, you think the uninsured have equally good healthcare as those who are insured. That is what you are claiming and that is what you want me to disprove? Good grief. Spoken like a true Bernie supporter.

http://kff.org/report-section/the-uninsured-a-primer-2013-4-how-does-lack-of-insurance-affect-access-to-health-care/

Yes. Because by the time most people are done paying the private health insurers, they cannot afford to pay their deductible for said healthcare. It's unaffordable.

It's quite telling that you cannot answer the simple question, though.

errc says

Yes. Because by the time most people are done paying the private health insurers, they cannot afford to pay their deductible for said healthcare. It's unaffordable.

The issue of affordability is a separate matter to whether the uninsured get as good healthcare as the insured. There's plenty of research that shows they don't.

errc says

It's quite telling that you cannot answer the simple question, though.

Eh? It's quite telling that you ignored the fact that I did answer it. I posted a link demonstrating that you're wrong FFS.

Rashomon says

errc says

It's quite telling that you cannot answer the simple question, though.

Eh? It's quite telling that you ignored the fact that I did answer it. I posted a link proving you wrong FFS.

You didn't answer my question. You did post a link, but it doesn't answer the question.

Remember rule #1: First, do no harm

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/astounding-number-of-medical-procedures-have-no-benefit-even-harm-jama-study/

errc says

You didn't answer my question. You did post a link, but it doesn't answer the question.

Remember rule #1: First, do no harm

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/astounding-number-of-medical-procedures-have-no-benefit-even-harm-jama-study/

What has that got to do with anything? You're just playing stupid games now.

Any quick google search shows you to be wrong. This one is for Medicaid vs private insurance:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/11/studies-show-medicaid-patients-have-worse-access-and-outcomes-than-the-privately-insured

This one for the difference coverage could make for the uninsured:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220633/

And on and on it goes...

errc says

How does having insurance make one less poor?

Like inventory, insurance is an asset but only if used

Government equipment must be made in america.
What you hear is the clatter of our advanced manufacturing capabilities...

turtledove says

Off topic: Listening to Obama talk about meeting with Trump... What's with the dot-matrix sounding printers in the background?

They are still used in a lot of places.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_matrix_printing#Advantages_and_disadvantages

Legitimacy of any American government depends entirely on the perception that that government was voted in by the people. We've now had two elections where the will of the people was ignored

-------------

How was the will of the people ignored?

Strategist says

The same could have happened to Trump. Trump won fair and square, and Hillary conceded.

A change in how we elect President's can always be debated for the future.

The Republicans have only won the popular vote once in the last 28 yrs (1988). Ironically, it was a year after they went adventuring in Iraq. This is likely to remain a big issue going forward for a number of reasons. It will only be on people's minds after an election, so there's no good time. There will probably be a lot of talk about it this cycle, because it bothers people, but also because it reminds Republicans that they may suffer in the mid-term elections. I don't expect a big stink, though.