How does it feel to now be a taxpayer?
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
To date, the neocon/teabagger driven GOP offer NO alternative to the AHA beyond an expansion of the old system that put the country's citizens in the current predicament in the first place. You've got to be a new type of fool to advocate for the system that Wendell Potter warned you about, and to what Dr. Peelo testified about.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
In my opinion, an even BIGGER fool would be someone who wants to keep the ineffective system we have now, dare anyone to even THINK about touching it, AND... add another much larger massively ineffective system that does virtually the same thing, just so they can "punish the rich!"
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
What's the GOP alternative to ACA?
Why didn't the Republicans enact it when they controlled Congress and the White House?
Why didn't the Republicans enact it when they controlled Congress and the White House?
EKG is a chick? Why didn't someone tell me?
Helllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooo, Honey.
Hiya!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Nothing in our opinion precludes Congress from offering
funds under the Affordable Care Act to expand the availability of health care, and requiring that States accepting
such funds comply with the conditions on their use. What
Congress is not free to do is to penalize States that choose
not to participate in that new program by taking away
their existing Medicaid funding. Section 1396c gives the
Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority to do just that. It allows her to withhold all “further [Medicaid] payments . . . to the State” if she determines that the
State is out of compliance with any Medicaid requirement,
including those contained in the expansion. 42 U. S. C.
§1396c. In light of the Court’s holding, the Secretary
cannot apply §1396c to withdraw existing Medicaid funds
for failure to comply with the requirements set out in the
expansion.
....
The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and
unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot
be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the
Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to
regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to
engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those
who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go
without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax.
As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Affordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening
existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to
order the States to regulate according to its instructions.
Congress may offer the States grants and require the
States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the
States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the
offer. The States are given no such choice in this case:
They must either accept a basic change in the nature of
Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy
for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal
Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy
does not require striking down other portions of the Affordable Care Act.
The Framers created a Federal Government of limited
powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing
those limits. The Court does so today. But the Court does
not express any opinion on the wisdom of the Affordable
Care Act. Under the Constitution, that judgment is reserved to the people.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
It is so ordered.
------------
Now, I haven't posted actual text from the ruling before now, because Liberals are too profoundly dumb to understand most of these words and legal terms, and don't comprehend stuff like "constitutional violation." So I am not really sure what the point would be for me to post this, but it was asked for, so here it is.
The Feds can't use Medicare or Medicaid to fund this thing... they thought they could... they wanted to pass a chunk of the cost off to states... the court ruled the COULD NOT DO THIS! Again... a concept Liberals have trouble understanding.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Why does the GOP need an alternative to something they didn't think we needed to begin with? Stupid logic.
We already have "affordable health care" for millions of Americans who can't afford it otherwise... We call it MEDICAID!
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
apple0154
MEOW
I said the tax would be collected for ObamaCare INSTEAD of for Medicare. In other words there would be no net increase in taxes. Read what I write instead of just rambling on.
OK. Stop playing stupid. Instead of you paying taxes for Medicare you would be paying taxes for ObamaCare. Congress simply changes where the tax money will go. They do that all the time. That's what a budget is. Got it?
Ahhh, you want to know the reason? Watch that video I posted.
You want to know why they aren't doing that now? Watch the video.
You're already funding a resource? Wrong guess. Watch the video.
Watch the video.
You would know the answer to that and the rest of your questions if you had watched the video.
Ahhh, that's where you're really wrong. Have you ever heard of someone getting in an ambulance and asking the driver to wait until they had a chance to call around for estimates so they can let the driver know where to take them (which hospital)? Have you ever had major medical? Did you shop around for estimates? Do you know how much an operation should cost? Do you know if the cost of a hospital room is the same price at all hospitals? Is there a hospital room service like they have for hotels? (http://www.priceline.com/) If you require a new roof on your home and the first guy tells you it will be 8 grand do you say, "Fine", or do you get a few estimates. (Yes, I need a new roof. The tiles are starting to curl.)
So,instead of Joe Public crawling in his back door and phoning around for the best deal right after he fell off the ladder and broke his leg, assuming he has any idea what a good deal would be, all he would have to do is call an ambulance knowing the government has already found the best deal for broken legs. The doctor can not arbitrarily charge Joe any price he wants because the price has already been negotiated and settled between doctor and government. No doctor is going to rip of Joe because the government is paying for Joe's medical costs.
Then we get into drugs. Now it's what the market will bear. Do you know what it costs to produce a certain medication? Do you know how long it took to develop? Do you know anything pertaining to the cost of a specific medication?.....Well, do you?
When the government gets involved the drug company has an option. It can explain how much a drug costs to produce, how much it cost to develop, etc. and the government and the drug company can negotiate a reasonable price. Or the drug company can refuse. With a government drug plan the government decides which drugs it will cover at, say, 80% of the cost to the consumer. If the drug company refuses to cooperate the government doesn't subsidize it. So, Joe Public can pay $100+ for his medication from a company that refused to cooperate or he can pay $20 for a similar drug (with the government paying the other $80) from a company that played ball. Which drug company do you think is going to sell more medication?
You see, Dix, government medical is a better deal for everyone. Well, everyone except the drug companies and other health professionals who think it's OK to rip off ill people.
apple0154
MEOW
I guess I'm the eternal optimist but eternity is coming to an end. LOL
apple0154
MEOW
And then the Blue Fairy made Pinochio a real boy.
The uninformed tend to see things as magic.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
She's only 1/3 of the way there.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
I thought Somalia was a perfect paradise for Teabaggers like Doublewide Dick-see. Small government, no taxes, open-carry guns everywhere...
that... does not say
what you just posted says only that the mandate is allowed and the gov't cannot penalize states for not expanding medicaid..
it says nothing about what you said..
but it also says that it's only a 'tax' if you can, but don't get health insurance.. in other words, it won't affect anyone who has insurance now..
so much for that whole 'largest tax increase in history' mantra going on..
LOL... try me..
is that what you get from what you posted? because that's not what it says.. at all.
can you made highlight the part that says that? because it doesn't, over here.. over here its says..
meaning, Congress can offer Obamacare, what it can't do is penalize the states that won't expand medicaid, which is a part of Obamacare..The idea was to expand medicaid since it's cheaper to cover people under medicaid.. to force their hands, they threatened to penalize the states that wouldn't do this by taking away their medicaid funds.. SCOTUS said they can't..
nothing about medicare and nothing about not using the money for one to the other..
here's the law in Obamacare talking about the penalty for not expanding medicaid, and here is SCOTUS saying, you can't do that.
blah blah blah.. mandate is legal..
I don't know where your talking point came from, but it didn't come from that section you posted.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Oh sure, apple, if a super-majority of Congress up and decides to tell the old people of America they want to kick them to the curb so they can fund Obamacare, that's FINE... I hope they can roll this idea out before November, that would be terrific! Medicaid is a part of Medicare... Medicaid funding can not be used for Obamacare. If you want to introduce legislation to cut Medicare, be my guest... it usually doesn't end well for politicians.
The budget has nothing to do with the Social Security program, and the money that has been paid into it. We've paid into the system under the assumption our money was going to fund a certain thing... Congress can't "decide" they want to use the money for something entirely different. It would be like, if Congress passed a law at the behest of the people, to raise taxes by 50%, but send every American $1 million... THEN, after the tax passed overwhelmingly by Congress, they come back and decide to send everyone a boiled egg instead, and use the money to have a big party and get stoned. Congress can't do that, they don't have that power. Once they passed the Medicaid bill under the auspices of helping specific poor an needy families, they can't come back later and lay claim to the funds for some other purpose, even if they claim it still helps some poor and needy families. They have to go back, and CHANGE the Medicare law... they won't touch this, trust me.
Sorry... I do not support propaganda outlets and their internet presence, it's a thing I have. We've discussed this before.
You can DREAM all you want to, the Federal government has NEVER found us "the best deal" on any goddamn thing, and they won't start here. But this has nothing to do with what I said, or the fact that all you've done is shift the burden of cost from individuals to government. The "cost" remains unchanged, the burden of paying it, now rests with the taxpayers. And since you are going to offer it for nothing to certain people, they will use it more, and it will eventually cost us more. You din't pass a law that says Doctors get paid less, or any other medical service will cost less. You are increasing the demand for these services without adding new doctors or medical infrastructure, so the cost will necessarily rise and availability will decrease, as well as levels of quality. Insurance companies won't take the blow, they figure their rates based on payouts, and their CEOs and agents will still make the exact same amounts as always. Hospital administrators will still get their bonuses are raises, fountains in the lobby, leather chairs and painting in the halls... etc. Nothing changes with regard to the COST of health care. You've merely changed who is to PAY for it.
thank you... and yes, yes I am.. HA!