It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ACA Subsidies ruled illegal

page: 8
39
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Cloward-Piven is just the latest propaganda term being used in certain circles....just like Saul Alinsky, chicago-style politics and illegal alien invader. It's hard to take people seriously when they keep parroting the MSM talking points.

a reply to: windword



I don't think health care should be a for profit business.


I would have to agree with you on that.




posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: windword
The problem is, enough "tweaking" without following the proper channels has gone in already. There are proceedures to follow for any law that has already been passed, that has errors. It must be brought back before the House and Senate, and voted on again. It is meant to flow through the proper legal channels.

The issue at hand right now is, there are likely not even enough Democrat votes to get any changes passed! It has been rather newsworthy of late that a large number of Dems not only have been distancing themselves from Obama, but also feel that the entire ACA has been a debacle from the start.

This puts the administration in a quandry, having had to be forced already to bribe some for the votes to pass it the first time, they do not believe they have the support to legislate any major changes.

This is why the backroom, illegal changes are being made, and why challenges to the law are likely going to force it to be withdrawn, or large portions of it being rescinded.

Already, many parts have been. As I stated in another post, it matters not what they claim their "intent" was. What matters is the text of the law, and seeing as that particular portion, illegal or not, was written BY the SCOTUS, I don't see them ruling against themselves.

If it wasn't fot SCOTUS overstepping their boundaries, that portion of the law that reads "voluntary" may not have been there.

You would expect that, taken back to the SC, the SC will reverse that portion of the law? Especially when Federal Taxes, though enforced, are called "voluntary"?

Quite the conundrum they have on their hands.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
www.cms.gov...


Other policies that are not being finalized as proposed
include:
Delayed implementation of new Part D Risk Adjustment
Model.
Not implementing some proposed changes to the Star
Ratings.
Not implementing the proposal to require additional
coverage in the gap for generic and brand drugs in
Enhanced Alternative plans.


This is just a portion of cuts done to Medicare by Democrats since the passage of the ACA, and signed into law by Obama. Who'da thunk it? We were all told it was Republicans trying to cut Medicare and defund certain aspects.

But, Harry Reid hasn't allowed but 4 Republican bills to even get to the floor, let alone passed.

This is all Dems work.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal

I thought those cuts were part of a compromise that the Republican demanded.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal


Still, this particular legal problem can be solved, before it goes to the Supreme Court, by (going through the proper channels) and tweaking the law to specifically include those citizens of non-participating states, if they were so inclined.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Majic
They should have read the bill.


Nobody outside of committee had enough time to read much of
any of it, much less give it the discussion time it deserved:
except for Harry Reid's Golden Ramrod again. Cloture Man strikes again.
And I keep hearing how "the Republicans " are being deliberately
confrontational. But everybody was a mushroom on this one.

EDIT: Sometimes when you fail, and just let the failure lay there---
lo and behold it may not disappear by itself. Let the record
briefly show my roommate used to be a chef. now he watches TV.
I took a snap of it two days before, but you could see beans in it then.
Trust me, this had demiglas and pork shoulder bone. It WAS NOT chili.



IMHO the Affordable Care Act must by now and as doctored be carefully
removed by trained HazMatters with forced air bunny suits... because
that legislation is much worse than this cooking. I stayed away until the
pall seemed ready to make the dove succumb off in the BR with me.
edit on 23-7-2014 by derfreebie because: It's dead. A lot of times. KICKS DOOR

edit on 23-7-2014 by derfreebie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
All liberals live in some kind of fantasy that the poor can no longer get health care. They have always had it just ask any illegal in California, they know the law better than anyone they have better advocates. The solution as you say remains, they made a law telling hospitals they can't turn down anyone that walks into ER. Thats why the wait is so long in CA. the ER are over crowded from BS colds and flu by illegals.


Emergency health care and adequate health care are very different things. I need to see a dentist but can't afford dental coverage... I go without and try to numb my tooth each night so the pain subsides and I can fall asleep. I also have a back injury that hasn't healed yet which prevents me from standing/walking for a long period of time, it's going on a year now. It needs physical therapy and some surgery. An emergency room visit doesn't fix that either.

There is no such thing as medical coverage for the poor.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 03:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

ya there is it's called medicaid. you just aren't poor and needy enough.
but more than likely your tax money is paying for it.


edit on 23-7-2014 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy


You can blame the greedy insurance companies, protecting their precious bottom line, for that. I don't think health care should be a for profit business.

Wow.
When the President was pushing for the ACA to pass through Congress, he was telling us that this would save us a whole lot of money. Either he was lying, or he was very naive.
Either way it is a huge fail for him. The bill (now law of the land) didn't perform as promised, and it is so bad that the really painful parts have been delayed until after two sets of elections.
Most of even the stupidest Americans can see through this.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy

he wasn't lying or naive.
He was just like all of us!
We had to pass the bill to see what's in it!!

in other words he didn't read the danged thing either!!!

And well how long ago did this get passed??
And we are still discovering bits and pieces about it.

If these people lived in the same world as us they would be fired for incompetence and direliction of duty!

if a law is so big and massive that they have to pass it to see what's in it
it more than likely should be broken down into smaller parts and passed one at a time???



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar



if a law is so big and massive that they have to pass it to see what's in it it more than likely should be broken down into smaller parts and passed one at a time???

That is certainly part of the problem.
Another would be the Congress passing a law mandating that we buy a commercial product, and a Supreme Court that upholds the travesty of a law.
When Obama told us that we could keep our doctor if we liked our doctor and keep our insurance policy if we liked our insurance policy, he was doing one of two things... if he knew the truth about it, he was lying. If he didn't know the truth, he was being naive.
Before the ACA was passed into law, I asked how we could take the system that we had and add a huge layer of federal bureaucracy to it, mandate that people carry coverage that they didn't want or need.... AND SAVE MONEY???? The answer that I kept getting was that there would be more people in the insurance pool, so costs would go down. The only people we added were people that couldn't afford it anyway... how does that make any sense???




If these people lived in the same world as us they would be fired for incompetence and direliction of duty!

No doubt about that!
edit on bu312014-07-23T06:37:28-05:0006America/ChicagoWed, 23 Jul 2014 06:37:28 -05006u14 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   
I don't know why Bill Gates doesn't buy a law mandating that we all buy a Microsoft based computer for our homes, a laptop for vacations, a pad for going to the park and a top of the line smart phone for use in between those places.

I mean it is communication. Isn't that a basic right???

If you don't buy all of these things... well, you will be fined. Not taxed.

Coca-Cola ought to be able to afford a law too...



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: crankyoldman
When this was enacted I was STUNNED by the stupidity of the entire populace, even those who claim to have been educated in some way.

Subsidies: Discounts that are NOT permanent.
Tax Credits: Rebates that are NOT permanent.

I am truly shocked at how stupid the population is. They signed on for something that they could not afford only because the government offered then a handout to afford it - they do not do this with food, or water, or even energy. What the ignorant population failed to see clearly is that the government can REVOKE those inducements at any time. Yes, the tax credits can go away, overnight, and then what? The subsidies, coupons, could be revoked overnight...

Consider going to a car lot and buying car with the dealer saying, "gee, we'll subsidize your payment at 100 dollars a month so you can afford this car you cannot afford, but, in the fine print we reserve the right to stop that 100 dollar payment at any moment." What happens in month three when the dealer stops sending you a 100 dollar check?

If the government was truly in the business of helping people, and they wanted to help people get insurance, the could have written a one page law: "Those who are NOT covered by the myriad of protections now, AND need insurance can pay into Medicare by paying 150 dollars a month or 2 percent of your net income."

That law already had viable Medicare structure in place, would be easy to understand and deal with and would have little to know effect on the economy. The government did not want this, it wanted the ACA for a reason, that reason is the population is stupid and actually believe things are "free."

Consider that NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE believed this to be a tax but Roberts. It is as if men went to the moon and reported back, "yep cheese." The law had to be saved by a magic trick espoused by ONE MAN!

This is not and never has been about health care.


Subsidies "were" based on being a good fortune teller too. To get your bottom line health care cost you needed to estimate what your gross income will be on your tax return for the following year. So they were also forcing people to gamble. What if Jo Smith lost his job during the year. He is paying based on an income of X amount but actually makes Y amount. He gets to pay all subsidies back with a big IRS bill.

This entire thing is about the dumbest thing this Country has ever tried to enact. I can't think of one thing as poorly thought out. Forcing people, via threat, to purchase something they cannot afford or do not want/need.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   
remember when they first began working on this law?
not only were there people complaining they couldn't afford the healthcare but the employers were complaining that they could no longer afford to provide the benefit. The states were complaining about the cost of medicare and medicaid. and the taxpayers were complaining about the rising taxes!!

This law has done nothing to ensure the people can have affordable healtlhcare!! Just because you have insurance does not mean you can afford healthcare! It just assure that if you run up bills over your deductable that the healthcare provider will get some of their money! It basically tells businesses to shut up and provide the insurance (not even sure is there even a way for the business to get assistance if they really afford it?? And well the taxpayer's taxes are bound to go up since it's taxpayer's fund that will be used to help SOME of those who can 't afford the insurance.

Remember when some of the doctors were experimenting with the idea of just not accepting the insurance and using the money that they were spending on filing all those forms to make the insurance companies happy to cut the costs to the patients?? I believe they were finding that it was a very feasible option!
I guess that they can't do any more experiments in that area???



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
remember when they first began working on this law?
not only were there people complaining they couldn't afford the healthcare but the employers were complaining that they could no longer afford to provide the benefit. The states were complaining about the cost of medicare and medicaid. and the taxpayers were complaining about the rising taxes!!

This law has done nothing to ensure the people can have affordable healtlhcare!! Just because you have insurance does not mean you can afford healthcare! It just assure that if you run up bills over your deductable that the healthcare provider will get some of their money! It basically tells businesses to shut up and provide the insurance (not even sure is there even a way for the business to get assistance if they really afford it?? And well the taxpayer's taxes are bound to go up since it's taxpayer's fund that will be used to help SOME of those who can 't afford the insurance.

Remember when some of the doctors were experimenting with the idea of just not accepting the insurance and using the money that they were spending on filing all those forms to make the insurance companies happy to cut the costs to the patients?? I believe they were finding that it was a very feasible option!
I guess that they can't do any more experiments in that area???


My patients get a very large discount for cash for this very reason--it cuts my overhead way down. I've even traded a new transmission for a surgery--the only cost to the patient was what the hospital charged for equipment and anesthesia. My fee was taken care of by barter--the work on my car.

The only time I refuse cash is when narcotics may be involved. I think it plainly obvious why that might be concerning.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 07:58 AM
link   
You guys keep forgetting that there are several countries that have mandated health insurance. Japan, Germany, Sweden, France, the Netherlands... Some have government-run insurance, others have a mix of private/public insurance, others have only private insurance companies. The difference is, the private insurance companies are either not-for-profit, or, if they are for-profit, their premiums are highly regulated by the government. Funny thing is, most people from these countries are quite happy with their healthcare system. And all these countries spend less money per capita on healthcare than the U.S.

Point is, mandated health insurance is not some hair-brained scheme thought up by the evil reptilian overlord, Obama. It does happen elsewhere in the world - quite successfully. Mandated health insurance doesn't bother me. What bothers me is the unchecked greed by our insurance companies. Their greed needs to be reined in by the government - or, for-profit health insurance companies need to go away, to be replaced by not-for-profit only.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 08:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Cloward-Piven is just the latest propaganda term being used in certain circles....just like Saul Alinsky, chicago-style politics and illegal alien invader. It's hard to take people seriously when they keep parroting the MSM talking points.

a reply to: windword



I don't think health care should be a for profit business.


I would have to agree with you on that.


NO, it's a thoughtful understanding of a suggested method to get a politician's way. Many people read and follow RUles For Radicals. It's a playbook that they even admit to using and you can see it in action if you are thoughtful and pay attention. It ahs nothing to do with "MSM talking points" as the MSM is generally pro-left and like Alinsky.

Any other industries you demand be "non-profit?" We all need food. No farmer should ever profit from growing food because that's just mean and stuff.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc



No farmer should ever profit from growing food because that's just mean and stuff.

Yep.
Water too.
There are a lot of companies bottling filtered tap water and selling it to poor, thirsty people and they are making a killing at it.
Haha, when does it stop?
When the economy collapses, that's when.


edit on b000000312014-07-23T08:17:50-05:0008America/ChicagoWed, 23 Jul 2014 08:17:50 -0500800000014 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 08:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: generik
does this mean all those who received these now illegal subsidies are now on the hook for the full cost, or can they opt out of their policies?

this is really gonna hurt the affordable care act i would think. i wonder how many will try to opt out, or just not pay their premiums, and how this will effect everyone else with policies since if many people aren't paying will everyone else's rates skyrocket as a result?



I am actually watching this very closely because I literally purchased a plan through healthcare.gov the day before this ruling. The confusing part of this situation is that another Federal court ruled the EXACT OPPOSITE POSITION the SAME FREAKING day as this ruling.



posted on Jul, 23 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
dbl post
edit on 23-7-2014 by starfoxxx because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join