ObamaCare Upheld.



crackp0t said:
If that is true what Justice Roberts did makes a lot more sense.
Click to expand...
That's what I was just thinking... It's as if he was pressured into voting for obombacare but realized that this verdict would still screw over those pressuring him in the long run. :thumbsup:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyLU9-VqVxY]Reality Check: If Healthcare Law Is A Tax Is It Now Invalid? - YouTube[/ame]
 
Will this be obama's No New Taxes Read My Lips?

But remember its more then just more taxes, more then just the straight up payments.

What about all the new people to come into the system? The system is already in stress, so the doctors etc... this is not in place.. so quality will suffer, longer waits for x y z

Services will have to be cut, at some point for whatever service. I think this will work for a while until it really starts to bit down......... then the suffering will begin

More Debt, we already have a system that is unsustainable..... this just ads to the problem.
 
Someone tell me this, will this lower premiums in general as the carriers would have a mass increase of members...?
 
Just saw this

Trump_on_Obamacare.jpg
 
Trump is such a hot air talking bloated fuck who lives in his own little imaginary world. The guy does boom and bust better than anyone else out there. Just what you need a fucking big time speculator giving financial advice to a country. Bravo Trump you fucking chump
 
guerilla said:
If you have to insure the uninsurable, how can you lower premiums?
Click to expand...

Everyone is already "insured" in that anyone can get treatment when needed and the cost gets absorbed by the system. A lot of the uninsured are people who could pay for it if they had to, such as younger healthy people if they bought less Xbox games or whatever. Forcing these people to pay puts more money into the system, BUT :

How Obamacare Dramatically Increases the Cost of Insurance for Young Workers - Forbes

"The biggest drivers of the increase, according to Gruber, are the new insurance regulations (especially the ones forcing upward a plan’s minimum actuarial value and mandating minimum essential benefits), and also the law’s insurance subsidies, which will incentivize “individuals [to choose] richer insurance with their tax credits.”

That is to say, Obamacare forces insurers to offer more benefits, requires them to spend more money on health expenses, and subsidizes the consumption of richer insurance packages. The laws of economics dictate that these costs will get passed down to consumers. It shouldn’t take a microsimulation from MIT to know there’s no such thing as a free lunch—but now you have one for good measure."
 
tjewsky said:
My limited understanding was that this, in effect, would lower premiums sort of like the walmart high volume low margin model...
Click to expand...
I struggle to think of one aspect of America's health care system that reminds me of Walmart.

Maybe the provision of medicine and hospital care are analogous to selling pepsi and pillow covers, but I don't see it myself.

I'd like to remind you, there is only one Walmart.

Also, I am not sure you understand supply and demand. Walmart is the result of decades of optimization and capital investment in the most efficient management structures. What Obamacare does is increase demand without increasing supply. Now, over time, supply could increase and maybe some of the efficiency of Walmart could creep into healthcare, but that's probably not likely, because the USG competes with the free market in healthcare, has introduced tons of regulatory burdens and hurdles, and collaborates with monopolistic organizations like the AMA which prevent competition.

So not only will you not be able to realize Walmart benefits now, the way the US healthcare system operates, creates an environment where a Walmart can pretty much never appear.
 
tjewsky said:
My limited understanding was that this, in effect, would lower premiums sort of like the walmart high volume low margin model...
Click to expand...

Insurance spreads the cost across the risk pool.

In theory if all drivers are insured, everyone is contributing to cover the loss when an accident happens. It makes economic sense that if only 50 drivers are insured of the 100 that drive - insurance is going to be more expensive than spreading the same risk across 100.

The problem is this is lost when the government steps in and forces insurance to be compulsory, along with a mountain of regulation in providing it.

The efficiency is lost in the extra cost added by bureaucracy and in the reduced market competition. You're going to have to buy it, so we'll only do a half arse job on competing.

At the end of the day though the policy isn't about making things cheaper or better. It's progressive taxation muddled with bureaucratic nonsense.

The smarter thing in my opinion would be to forget the compulsory insurance and start looking at why health care is so expensive in the first place...

Healthcare can be Walmart without the Government.
 
d_diggler said:
The problem is this is lost when the government steps in and forces insurance to be compulsory, along with a mountain of regulation in providing it.
Click to expand...

You can blame Sarah Palin and her death panels for ruining any chance of a single payer system. Now this is what you're left with.
 
pfgannon said:
I'm interested to hear why you presumably disagree.
Click to expand...

They're in bed with Uncle Sam and have been for years. They're essentially an intelligence machine and competition killer.

Yes, their company has a history of successful business practice.

No, they would not be who they are today without being a staple of the corporate fascist state.

Similar applies to Google.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom