RE: Constitutionality of ACA

RE: Constitutionality of ACA (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 1:14:48 PM)
at present it looks to be 95 bucks our end, and forgiveness for corporations.

tazzygirl -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 1:49:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail at present it looks to be 95 bucks our end, and forgiveness for corporations. For just this... is there any other way that could penalize someone? Say in loans or such?

mnottertail -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 1:51:48 PM)
Universal healthcare --- and that would penalize the teabaggers and neo-cons. I am ok with that.

farglebargle -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 1:56:29 PM)
No reason that we need to keep subsidizing insurance companies when we have the infrastructure in place already. The "Public Option" should be the only option. Those 'deductions' for health and dental? Now they go to the government like any other tax. Problem solved.

SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 4:10:51 PM)
Medicare is "going broke," is it mismanaged? I would say no, their administrative costs are 2%. However, they are paying the lion's share of health care costs in this nation with a 1.45% tax on earnings and a matching tax on employers. Aetna is raking in the profits, they have about a 20% administrative cost, large portions of which are spent to deny care or delay care (in hopes the patient dies before they can get the care). They collect more money (well, the health insurance companies collectively) than Medicare, and provide less service. Raise the medicare tax to 2% and pay for everyone over 55!!!

farglebargle -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 4:29:38 PM)
Don't get me fucking started on Aetna...

xssve -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 7:32:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: There is not enough money in the world to cover everyone that cannot or will not buy insurance. Actually, there is. And then some. Even if you bought it out of pocket, with no savings from increasing the pool, $400 billion would cover the 30,000,000 uninsured at the going rate of $13,000/year. Or to put it another way, for less than what the US government spends on Medicare and the VA, it could have a health care system equal to Canada's, with money left over. We pay $7000 per body per year in the US, and Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, etc. pay about $3000 per body per year. $3000 times 300 million people=900 billion. Medicare costs in 2011=835 billion. VA costs in 2009 (only year I could find without real work)=87 billion. Oh, it will cost us three times that much after congress stuffs pork into every crack and crevice.

xssve -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 7:37:35 PM)
quote: Do you feel insurance companies should not make money for their management and their stockholders? No, we just don't feel it should be a mandate, that puts profit ahead of the service they are supposed to provide. And don't even pretend it's about making "a profit", they make a fucking profit, it's how much profit, i.e., margins. And the margins in the insurance industry right now are like, surreal.

Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 8:20:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: It's because we are broke, we are very broke and we will be broke for a long time. Hardly. U.S. assets top $188 trillion. Which means what?

Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 8:24:25 PM)
quote: I don't believe the delivery of necessary services should be profitized. Insurance companies don't do anything except add layers of inefficiency to healthcare delivery. Ah. So you think they should deliver necessary services for a hobby since they will not make a profit?

Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 8:28:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Do you feel insurance companies should not make money for their management and their stockholders? Not if it's a choice between their profit margins and providing their customers with the service that they're paying for, no. perzackerly!!! Agree. Republicans agree. That is part of their Health Plan. Reduce insurance profit and our premiums by allowing competition and purchase of insurance across state lines. This is not part of Obamacare. So, I see you should be against Obamacare and for Mit. Go Mit.

Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 8:33:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle No reason that we need to keep subsidizing insurance companies when we have the infrastructure in place already. The "Public Option" should be the only option. Those 'deductions' for health and dental? Now they go to the government like any other tax. Problem solved. quote: The "Public Option" should be the only option. But what about us Free Americans who want private insurance and are happy with it? Shall we reduce our coverage and options we pay to the lowest common coverage, "just because" it would benefit some? I am thinking this is not what America is about. It is about "choice" and free enterprise and free commerce regulated only to keep things legal, not to control commerce or the private citizen. Nor will it be. We saw that a few weeks ago. We will see it in November.

Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 8:42:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Universal healthcare --- and that would penalize the teabaggers and neo-cons. I am ok with that. Fortunately, the Supreme Court thinks otherwise. Ain't the Consitution and freedom great? It's what America is all about and it ain't being transformed by this President in this, his last term, and "No you couldn't" ! Freedom. It's what we have. Freedom to succeed. Freedom to fail. Freedom to take care of ourselves. Freedom to not take care of ourselves. Freedom from the Mandate.

Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 8:49:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve quote: Do you feel insurance companies should not make money for their management and their stockholders? No, we just don't feel it should be a mandate, that puts profit ahead of the service they are supposed to provide. And don't even pretend it's about making "a profit", they make a fucking profit, it's how much profit, i.e., margins. And the margins in the insurance industry right now are like, surreal. I agree margins for private insurance companies are too high at the moment. However, mutual and self insurance entities are a large part of our insurance industry and they are not by design making these profits and keeping them as (since)they are returned to the insured. I suspect you mean profits are Ok as long as they are not crazy. Most feel four percent profit after expenses is a good target but profits are all about cost versus income except when insurance companies have a monopoly as many do. The Republican Health plan removes the reason these insurance companies make such monopolistic profits. So, if I were to agree with you I would vote Republican.

Arturas -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 9:01:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve quote: ORIGINAL: SoftBonds quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: There is not enough money in the world to cover everyone that cannot or will not buy insurance. Actually, there is. And then some. Even if you bought it out of pocket, with no savings from increasing the pool, $400 billion would cover the 30,000,000 uninsured at the going rate of $13,000/year. Or to put it another way, for less than what the US government spends on Medicare and the VA, it could have a health care system equal to Canada's, with money left over. We pay $7000 per body per year in the US, and Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Australia, etc. pay about $3000 per body per year. $3000 times 300 million people=900 billion. Medicare costs in 2011=835 billion. VA costs in 2009 (only year I could find without real work)=87 billion. Oh, it will cost us three times that much after congress stuffs pork into every crack and crevice. Agree. And, don't forget that Obama's minions have been granting friendly entities "waviers" which would make it more expensive for the Goverment run insurance pool since all these auto workers and such are keeping their insurance without any Government controls, um, the controls in the plan the most wonderful Supreme Court declared Un-Constitutional (very soon, Obama already got the memo). I suppose any effort to go to a one payer system would require Americans to buy only from a Government specified entitiy and I'm pretty certain that won't fly either. I suppose they could try and tax Americans extra for "the common good" and get away with it legally but not politically. catch-22. Funny how this system does keep the extreme left and right under control eventually, and so I'd say those Founding Fathers were wiser than any of us realized.

SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 10:41:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas Do you feel insurance companies should not make money for their management and their stockholders? Not if it's a choice between their profit margins and providing their customers with the service that they're paying for, no. perzackerly!!! Agree. Republicans agree. That is part of their Health Plan. Reduce insurance profit and our premiums by allowing competition and purchase of insurance across state lines. This is not part of Obamacare. So, I see you should be against Obamacare and for Mit. Go Mit. Um, so what are the insurance exchanges that are a huge part of Obamacare again???

SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 10:49:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: ORIGINAL: xssve quote: Do you feel insurance companies should not make money for their management and their stockholders? No, we just don't feel it should be a mandate, that puts profit ahead of the service they are supposed to provide. And don't even pretend it's about making "a profit", they make a fucking profit, it's how much profit, i.e., margins. And the margins in the insurance industry right now are like, surreal. I agree margins for private insurance companies are too high at the moment. However, mutual and self insurance entities are a large part of our insurance industry and they are not by design making these profits and keeping them as (since)they are returned to the insured. I suspect you mean profits are Ok as long as they are not crazy. Most feel four percent profit after expenses is a good target but profits are all about cost versus income except when insurance companies have a monopoly as many do. The Republican Health plan removes the reason these insurance companies make such monopolistic profits. So, if I were to agree with you I would vote Republican. Funny, when I looked at the list of mutual insurance companies, only one (a blue cross/blue shield) was a company I associate with health insurance. State Farm was the other big name, and they are obviously more car/home. I saw a lot of life insurance and homeowner insurance companies, but as I said, just one health insurance company. But heck, lets talk about your idea. How about a simple rule, health insurance companies have to return 90% of premiums collected to the purchasers in the form of medical care, or put the excess in a trust fund that cannot be used for non-medical expenses or profits. You know, let them have 5 times the administrative costs of medicare. Oops, they can't afford that, can they?

xssve -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 11:02:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: I don't believe the delivery of necessary services should be profitized. Insurance companies don't do anything except add layers of inefficiency to healthcare delivery. Ah. So you think they should deliver necessary services for a hobby since they will not make a profit? Go live under a bridge, we're not talking about pain here, we' talking about the difference between healths insurance and food for your kids. The difference between a Maserati and a Land Rover. You aren't defending profits you're enabling sociopaths, it only sustainable conditional to sustainable Malthusian correction. Probably gives you a hard on, the arms and the legs are the most popular, I"m a big fan of ribs though.

xssve -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 11:03:46 PM)
I'm guessing insurance execs are the softest though.

SoftBonds -> RE: Constitutionality of ACA (4/5/2012 11:15:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xssve quote: ORIGINAL: Arturas quote: I don't believe the delivery of necessary services should be profitized. Insurance companies don't do anything except add layers of inefficiency to healthcare delivery. Ah. So you think they should deliver necessary services for a hobby since they will not make a profit? Go live under a bridge, we're not talking about pain here, we' talking about the difference between healths insurance and food for your kids. The difference between a Maserati and a Land Rover. You aren't defending profits you're enabling sociopaths, it only sustainable conditional to sustainable Malthusian correction. Probably gives you a hard on, the arms and the legs are the most popular, I"m a big fan of ribs though. I keep thinking that the rich in the US will keep grasping, keep overreaching, and feel safe in their dominance of politics and business and finance-until the mob burns down the mansions with the doors nailed shut so the rich can't escape the flames. So many of the statements I hear from the rich about the 99%'s remind me of the (fabricated) quote "Let them eat cake."

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.699707E-02