D.C. Circuit guts ObamaCare

Well, it's not an either/or thing. It's more a question of which charity you spend some time canvassing for. I just like people to be cognizant of where the solution lies, while we're jury-rigging fixes. And especially to keep an eye on the relative costs. When it comes to dementia research, the average person is barely trying.

In the meantime we argue about whose party is pushing whose gramma off of a cliff.
 
Dementia is a ten dollar word for outliving your mental capacity, in my opinion. It's growing frequency is an inevitable consequence of extending lifespan. But that's just me.
 
Err these millions who got health insurance under Obamacare got Medicaid, not Medicare. Medicaid is a rotten health plan that physicians are reticient to take new patients because the government negotiates down the repayment abysmally. As such, physicians can't afford to take on several new Medicaid patients.
http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obamacare-enrollment-numbers/
•In 2014 about 8 million enrolled in Medicaid, in 2015 about 10 million did.
•Millions more, who would otherwise not be insured, enrolled due to expanded coverage under the ACA and new requirements. This includes those enrolled under expanded employer coverage, and those who got covered outside of the Marketplace.


The reason so many millions got this Medicaid was because of extreme poverty because the country is IMPLODING. These folks have no jobs and no Hope. What good is insurance under those circumstances? It's a benefit only if sick, if you get a physician to take you on, and then and only then does it help you.

And where is the tax money to pay for this?

It's not like Obama promised whatsoever? No wonder people are up in arms. Just wait when you're told you need to quit smoking and lose weight to cut down on the costs and still be covered. Just wait until costs rise astronomically.

You do realize there is no magic wand suddenly producing physicians and rgistered nurses, right? That we can sign up impoverished people with Medicaid but unless we actually have more medical schools to train doctors (we haven'td any new ones created forever) and that we've been in a nursing shortage since the late seventies while maintaining a terrible attrition rate for those same nurses.

That adding more and more patients to the tiny handful of these medical staff leads to tons of medical record errors and misprescribing their medications, right?

OK, where are the new staff who will service them? Oh wait, there aren't any. The whole thing is a fiasco.

Should people have access to healthcare? Sure. Should it be a basic benefit? Sure. Doesn't that mean they have FREAKIN' Jobs? Nope, we let millions of illegals in because hey, they'll vote Democrat for more handouts. Yeah!

Say you're a business owner. The government tells you, "We want you to provide health care for these 8 million new patients. When you bill us for $200, we'll repay you $50." How long can you do that and keep the doors open to your business? How many of those millions can you reasonably handle when you're already full of patients? How can you afford to pay more office staff when the repayment is so abysmal?

Show me the math and the logic?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterub...cians-are-reluctant-to-see-medicaid-patients/
Medicaid only pays 61% of what Medicare pays in terms of reimbursement, and that's nothing compared to the actual bill. They government demands that only a tiny portion is paid on the bill. Sometimes it's a ruinous situation where the repayment is WORSE based upon the case, but not only this, say it's the birth of a child. A physician can be sued for some error for that might have happend 20 years ago on a delivery under Medicaid in which they netted less than $100. Can you imagine that? Do you realize that this is the most common lawsuit? Why are obstetricians leaving in droves? What obstetricians will there be, and what will it be like for patients under these rotten condition to see what few remain?

In the interests of deescalation I went back to your first entry in the thread.

The difficulty with your idea about 'having a discussion about solutions' is that any sort of discussion of solutions would be an apparent acknowledgement that you have correctly identified the problem here, in what is essentially a common 'well of course the problem is Obama' screed.

It is apparent that the only 'solution' to the problem as defined by you is 'rewind history to 2008 and elect McCain'. Since that isn't workable you need to redefine the problem if you really want to talk about solutions.

Not that I'm having anything less than a roaring good time here, but just so you know that you have an option.
 
Let's play this out. Assume the DC Circuit's holding wins over the opposite holdings from other circuits. 36 States are free from Obamacare's mandate and any tax subsidies. That also means these States face huge increases in premiums without any tax assistance. I believe many of these States are also among the poorest states with high incidences of healthcare related bankruptcies. Since the ruling does not gut provisions covering things like minimum deductibles or pre existing condition restrictions or other coverage issues that providers say are leading to rate hikes, I doubt you see the "free market" of premium rates bend to match this stark reality and make individual rates more affordable. So even younger healthy residents of these states are highly likely to wind up with much, much less affordable coverage and thus more financial risk in case of health issues. And getting out of that hole involves...setting up a State exchange.

Does this, in the long run, spur these States to adopt the exchanges they vigorously oppose anyway?

I love climbing in the way-back machine for these threads. Kennedy and the four liberal justices apparently picked up on this and took it a bit further, wondering aloud at the hearing if this would in fact make the law unconstitutionally coercive. From Kaitzilla's article:

Kennedy, who could be the decisive vote, acknowledged a rigid reading of the law seemed to bolster opponents' argument that tax credits can flow only to 16 states operating their own health insurance exchanges. But if that's the case, he said, the law might be unconstitutionally coercive.

"Perhaps you will prevail in the plain words of the statute," Kennedy said. But he added, "There's a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument."

"We're going to have the death spiral that this system was created to avoid," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said. "Tell me how that is not coercive in an unconstitutional way."
 
I love climbing in the way-back machine for these threads. Kennedy and the four liberal justices apparently picked up on this and took it a bit further, wondering aloud at the hearing if this would in fact make the law unconstitutionally coercive. From Kaitzilla's article:

The extrapolation of that to the general case is:

1) We have a problem

2) Congress passes law to fix problem

3) Since by design conditions are improved by the law, refusal to acceptance the law is a penalty, thus people are effectively 'coerced' to accept it.

4) Supreme court strikes down 'coercive' law and reinstates problem.

And we thought we had governmental gridlock before.
 
If the SCOTUS makes the "right" decision we can stop that train at step 2. (Obviously, whether the ACA "fixed" the problem is up for debate, I think most of us will agree it stopped well short of adequately fixing our broken healthcare system.)
 
But I think it was rather a step in the right direction. Certainly it could be better and I think the country as a whole would be better off if our politicians could focus on 'how to make this better' rather than 'must kill Obamacare'. I know I'm asking for the moon though...
 
It was a step in the only direction that was really politically feasible, I guess you could say.
 
That's true and one could say the same about SS as well considering how limited it was at the outset. As with SS, there is room to make this better.
 
Dementia is a ten dollar word for outliving your mental capacity, in my opinion. It's growing frequency is an inevitable consequence of extending lifespan. But that's just me.

You're mostly incorrect. It's a disease that hits a subset of elderly people that drastically increases the cost of their care. Would everyone eventually classify as 'demented' if we cured all other diseases? Sure, maybe.

But the demented 92 year old who dies of kidney failure was vastly more expensive than the non-demented 92 year old who dies of kidney failure.
 
You're mostly incorrect. It's a disease that hits a subset of elderly people that drastically increases the cost of their care. Would everyone eventually classify as 'demented' if we cured all other diseases? Sure, maybe.

But the demented 92 year old who dies of kidney failure was vastly more expensive than the non-demented 92 year old who dies of kidney failure.

Oh, no question. But the demented 92 year old who would have died of heart, kidney, lung, liver, or other failure years before if they hadn't been gotten past it would never have been demented at all. So effectively the increased frequency of dementia is a function of making the other body parts last longer than the brain, which one could theorize was originally designed to be the longest lasting part.
 
Yep. And the smokers that suffocate on clean air in their 70s are vastly cheaper too. But rather than take these expenses in stride as progress, people flip it around and prevaricate so they can find somebody to blame for ''too high'' healthcare expenses. The greater issue is quite the pickle.
 
I think prolonging the healthy productive human lifespan as long as possible is a worthy public policy goal.
 
I think prolonging the healthy productive human lifespan as long as possible is a worthy public policy goal.

Me too. When are we going to start working on that?

For decades we have been primarily focused on extending the misery span of the no longer healthy and the expense span of the no longer productive...and we show no signs that we intend to change.
 
Not much really, I was following another line in the thread, or at least what I thought was another line. I may have misunderstood. :twitch:
 
Back
Top Bottom