It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Healthcare Ruling: Individual Mandate Ruled CONSTITUTIONAL, entire law upheld.

page: 81
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:36 PM
reply to post by Indigo5

hmmmm, this is sounding more delusional and narcissistic with each post ... perhaps you do need insurance more than most. if so, have at it.

did it ever occur to you that death is the only inevitable in this equation we call life ?
all the rest is what ??? risk, nothing more.
you accept your risks and i'll accept mine.

psssst: did you know ppl are curing themselves of cancer without doctors or medical treatments ?? search Jay Kordich for an example.

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:50 PM
reply to post by Indigo5
got a link for this or are you just assuming that administrative costs are the sole expense of operating such an exchange?

Hey...BTW...the Affordable care Act restricts Health Insurance companies from directing more than 20% of the premiums they collect to administrative costs.

That measn they have to pay 80% toward actual healthcare for thier customers
without a link, all this means is that a maximum of 20% will cover administrative costs.
there is nothing other than your assumption regarding the other 80%.

how 'bout a link for this one too or is this more hyperbole ??

Because of "Obamacare" in Illinois alone about 160,000 people are getting about 50 Million refunded to them..about $300 per policy holder

How about this...they can no longer ef you over...they can profit...up to 20%...but if they shoot for the stars and decide to not pay 80% toward actual claims...they got to refund it.
and where o'where did you get this nonsense ^^^ ??
links please or this is just your latest fantasy cause you ran out of valid arguments.

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:00 PM

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by macman

Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to Mitt Romney, admitted Monday that he actually agrees with the Obama administration on something: the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act is a "penalty" and not a "tax."

If you read the entire exchange he is stating he agreed with the dissenting opinion in that the mandate is not a tax, that a mandate is unconstitutional and never should hev been upheld. He is not agreeing with the President and their argument, which is the mandate is not a tax but a penalty, instead he is saying its not a tax period, that the bill is unconcstitutional.

As for the iditotic argument the adminstration is trying to make...

I pay an income tax on what I earn.
I pay property tax on my property (house / car / etc).
I pay car insurance so I can drive my car.
I pay a gas tax when I buy fuel for my car.
I pay sales taax when I buy tiems...

If I dont have or dont buy anything, I am not required to pay the taxes on those items.

What this bill does is force people to buy an item and to pay a forced tax on that item even if they dont need it.

Secondly the medicare / midicaid issue comes in about 10 years after the provision goes into effect, whcih is to say the FEderal government will stop funding that extension, forcing the states to pick up the balance. A large chunk of money they don't have. Florida alone will cost about 1.9 billion.
edit on 2-7-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:18 AM
I really don't think that Big Insurance is going anywhere near broke in my lifetime.

I will stand by my statement that this is a Big Win for the healthcare industry (who will continue to raise prices for medical care. The only question is how much. They call it medical inflation) and the insurance industry especially reinsurance carriers (both will raise premiums for the transference of risk (more risk than before even)) What goes without saying is that they will get their profit by either cutting benefits on plans/policies, tightening eligibility requirements, raising premiums or a combination of those methods or other methods.

In my experience, these reserves that insurance companies are required to have are not sitting idly. They are making money but it isn't as much from the premium but the investment of said premiums.

For those who don't know: Back in the 90s, about 90% of all health insurance offered through an employer was self funded by the employer. They were allowed to do this under ERISA. This is different from an insured plan or policy. Insured plans and policies are regulated on a state level. Self-Funded plans are regulated federally. If you look at the policy/plan document, you can tell if your insurance is one or the other.

Damn Newb, you sound like an insurance industry shill.

I don't like this much, but I am gonna get personal here a litttle bit. I haven't worked in the insurance industry for some time. I made good money and had benefits like health insurance, medical savings plan and 401k. Due to rising medical inflation, rising administrative costs to deal with new laws (find out all the things that HIPAA did), rising reinsurance rates, and the fact that clients want to spend less money for their buck and go out for bidding (especially in the self insured part of the market), I and several co-workers (about 60 of 205 employees) were let go. I will say that on my last insurance position, I had a disagreement with my boss about slow paying claims by pending them for more information, such as medical records, even if I as the claims adjuticator could plainly see it was a covered expense and the participant was eligible for benefits. This practice is actually legal and can help if the plan falls into a stop loss situation (the reinsurance carrier may have that claims practice requirement). I don't feel that it was ethical. I didn't last much longer there after that. I had several different employers and only one that stretched ethics.

I have floated around and done several different types of jobs. I have been unemployed some of the time also.

Now I have a different job. I don't make good money but I make more than 133% of the poverty level (not much more). In fact I struggle to keep a 1 bedroom apartment and pay my bills and get to and from work. I have no benefits including health insurance. I eat one time, sometimes two, a day. I do not qualify for medicaid in my state. My state is said to be in fiscal difficulties so I don't see that they will expand Medicaid. I am lucky as I am in decent health, My job is pretty satisfying. I get to help people less fortunate than me. I take people with disabilities and disadvantaged persons to their medical appointments.

This law does nothing to help me. I haven't been to the doctor in years. When I have gone, I have paid cash or made a payment arrangement. I see the stick upcoming that I will be beaten with.

I know, I know.....analysis says that health insurance will now be affordable. (Which I sincerely doubt unless I can get a heck of a pay raise.)

In my humble opinion, until they make fundamental changes to the healthcare industry which doesn't happen in this law (and what the healthcare industry including the research portion will fight against) nothing will truly change in regards as they(as a whole/there are some great individuals that don't deserve the generalization) don't care about patients but rather about wallets.
edit on 3-7-2012 by pwndnewb because: disadvantaged...spelling...

edit on 3-7-2012 by pwndnewb because: spacing...medicare to medicaid...i am not that old yet.

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 12:41 AM

Originally posted by knightsofcydonia
If owning a car is not a privilege then why doesn't everyone own one?

It is neither a Right nor a privilege. Anyone can own a car, if they truly want to. Some people choose not to and others have made poor choices that disable that opportunity, while others are in extraordinary situations that negate their ownership of this material item we call an automobile.

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Indigo5

You mean the actual ruling by Roberts? or the other sources I have cited? Whilst you simply burp up regurgitated GOPisms.

I assure you that I am not a republican.

Originally posted by Indigo5 stated it...

Um,not so. Here you go Wally.

Originally posted by Indigo5

It's only restrictive of rights if you think it your right to be uninsured...

Originally posted by Indigo5
And having no health insurance, being denied insurance, black-listed or simply not being able to afford to go to the doctor is beyond "restrictive".

We are not talking about how Health Insurance operates. We are talking about how the Fed Govt has now stated "Thou must purchase health insurance". Yet, you try to spin it into something from high atop a soapbox. You sound like the know it all adult stating "I know what's best for you". You, by definition are about as elitist in thought as they come.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Absent that, you are fighting for the right to mooch off everyone else who pays for your uninsured ass via inflated medical bills and local taxes when your appendix explodes and you don't have 50k in your wallet to pay the doctors before they operate....all the while mumbling about your "freedoms" to not have insurance.

Just because the freedom does not directly affect me, it attacks my neighbors freedoms. They are forced to purchase something. No matter how much you squirm, it is still a restriction of freedoms.

Originally posted by Indigo5 stupid of an argument is that? My grandfather liberated concentration camps...and you wine about how being required to carry health coverage is the "government grabbing you by the throat".

Ah geez Wally, how did that German Govt start? Was it like that from the get go? Nope. Happened over time. And thank you grandfather. He, unlike you, sounds like he knows what it is to be personally responsible.

Originally posted by Indigo5
Just effen retarded IMO. Your brain has been stunted by too much Fox News.

God help me...on to real issues...

Don't watch Fox news and I don't watch much TV. Don't have Cable TV either. Nice try though.
Again, maybe engage your brain, before you stick foot into mouth.
edit on 3-7-2012 by macman because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:49 AM

Originally posted by Honor93
actually, i pay for my healthcare, not insurance or you for that matter.
(unless i'm treated at the clinic - taxdollars contribute)

Idiotic argument. Unless you have well over a Million dollars in a savings account dedicated to healthcare or have a landline to GOD so you are aware of the future, you are gambling with other peoples money.

A simple Appendectomy costs 40k-50k
A night in the Hospital for any reason 5K
Hernia? 18K

And god help you if you have cancer or heart disease...

Originally posted by Honor93
this blanket statement is completely false ...

absent insurance, private or public, healthcare is neither paid for nor provided
healthcare is seldom refused or denied to a paying patient, however, quite often, both requested and medically necessary healthcare is denied by insurance beaurocrats.

Did you miss the "public" part...yes...if YOU can't pay they will still treat you...and the rest of us...the "Public" picks up the bill both through inflated costs in our own bills and through tax-dollars.

Originally posted by Honor93and finally, you manage your level of risk and i'll manage mine.
it is not my duty to mitigate your level of risk.

If you "Managing your risk" means pretending you are immortal and invulnerable and sticking the rest of us with the bill when your deluded self realizes you are still able to get sick or have your appendix burst...then your risk is my risk...ACA creates a legitmate "pool" to reduce those costs and risks associated with invulnerability delusion and makes sure the taxpayer and the rest of us aren't stuck with the inflated bill for that delusion.

Originally posted by Honor93
ETA: here's a question i truly hope you'll answer honestly --> IF i and 10,000 others who are not currently insured, join ObeyMeCare and decide to become expert daredevils (you know, like Evel Knievel, RIP) who regularly inflict serious bodily harm to ourselves, are you now willing to shoulder the burden [without complaint] of our additional expense to your healthcare ??
edit on 2-7-2012 by Honor93 because: add txt

You are required to have an insurance policy. That policy is not required to cover stupid activities and rarely does with the exception of high paying occupations...Like Blackwater Contractors...and then those policies cost an enormous amount. The average policy does not cover those stupid activities.

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:53 AM
reply to post by Honor93

You are asking for links that are common knowledge for anyone that has read even a little about ACA.

Here I will help you get started..

The new rules include:

*A provision that limits what health insurers can do with the money their customers send in as premiums.

The rule requires that insurers spend at least 80 percent of this money on the customers themselves. The companies must either spend this money to pay insurance claims or use it for activities that improve customers' health.

For policies that are sold to large groups instead of small companies and individuals, the number is even higher: 85 percent. The remaining 15 or 20 percent of the money can be used for a company's salaries, marketing and overhead - or kept as profit.

Previously, there was no federal restrictions on insurance companies' spending. The federal government says some insurers kept 30 or even 50 percent.

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:30 AM
So now this is a tax, Obamacare is now null and void. Tax bills must come from the house first not the senate.

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:46 AM
reply to post by MegaMind
off to a fema camp you go, to do slave labor on the Infrastructure, roads power grid and the like.

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:47 AM
reply to post by camaro68ss
not only that show me the tax code saying this is a tax, if not in the tax code then it is not an enforceable tax.

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 01:01 PM

Originally posted by macman

Plus, now this just adds to the massive heap of lies that 0bama has promoted over 4 years.
And how is it that Liberals are not rioting in the streets? You are forced to purchase health Insurance.
I thought you guys were against Big Corps taking advantage of the little people.

edit on 2-7-2012 by macman because: (no reason given)

They have apparently determined that some big corporations are fine and dandy, because Dear Leader has decreed so, and that we are to throw our money at these corporations in lieu of actually throwing it at doctors, and hospitals and stuff when we go to get patched up.

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 01:57 PM

Originally posted by masqua

I blame crappy politicians, greedy corporations, bad educations and starry eyed thirty-somethings thinking they could go into debt $500,000 without any risk because their bank said "go for it".

Sure...nobody can dispute that it's bankers, politicians, corporations and a crappy educational system.

However...let's look at the country's track record once the 'boomer's took over in positions of governmental and corporate authority in the early/mid '90's.

Almost immediately, politics descended into a highly polarized pissing match between competing utopian ideals as Gingrich became obsessed with where Clinton was putting his penis and Tipper Gore declared war on naughty words in song lyrics. All of sudden the most "significant" issues of any election are pretty much all about what people decide to do with their genitals while the country crumbles around us.

Despite the 'boomer's inheriting the world's sole superpower with ALL of it's enemies soundly defeated, the world's best infrastructure, and the most advanced public education system in the world they somehow managed to ruin each and every institution they managed. It should be noted that to date there hasn't been a whole lot of non-boomer's who would advocate cutting an already strapped educational system by 1/3 or suggesting that K-12 kids only go to school four days/wk.

Similarly, how in the hell does an energy company go bankrupt in Texas of all places? companies have always been greedy...but it takes a special talent to tank a company with the money, strength, and legislative advantages of Enron. The greediest of corporate douchebags of the Korean War or GI generation couldn't have managed to pull something of that magnitude off.

In there ANYTHING the Baby Boomer's (as a generation) has successfully accomplished? Have they used their enormous numbers and economic advantages to anything worthwhile? As far as I can tell they have failed miserably at every single endeavor and crisis they have ever been tasked with "leading" us through in both the public and private sector. Even in the big digital revolution the big claim to fame the 'boomer's have is Steve Jobs...unless of course, you feel as though Bill Gates deserves some sort of accolades for the series of consecutive disasters that are colloquially referred to as "Windows".

The segments of society you have identified have always been greedy and selfish...but you really have to stand in awe of the fantastic incompetence, greed, and selfishness of the baby boomers who held those roles.

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:12 PM
When I used to go to the doctors it would cost me $100 a visit. It was the cheapest place I could find. I just went again today and it was free. I like free. Free is good. If that is what I can expect from this obamacare then I am starting to really like it. Sometimes there are good things about being destitute.

Oh and my son had an appendectomy not too long ago. It was not $40,000. It was $5000. Where do you get your numbers from?

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:29 PM

Originally posted by Ookie

Oh and my son had an appendectomy not too long ago. It was not $40,000. It was $5000. Where do you get your numbers from?

My wife had an appendectomy last year. Given it was caught late and thus she had infection spread and spent 8 days in the hospital, but all in I paid 39K and change out of pocket because she was dropped from her insurer the month prior.

See here for what Average costs are...apparently my costs were above average with the infection having spread.

Appendectomy Pricing Report

Average Hospital Charges


Average Doctor Charges


Average Total Cost


Average Low Cost


Average High Cost


posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 03:48 PM
reply to post by Indigo5

So what is the point?
That you had to pay for a service rendered?
Or that you want everyone else to pay for services rendered?

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 04:40 PM

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by Indigo5

So what is the point?
That you had to pay for a service rendered?
Or that you want everyone else to pay for services rendered?

Maybe you are confused about the point, because I was not responding to you?...See the little box above my post explaining the post I was responding to?
......ignorance on your scale takes work and I give you credit for that.

posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 02:36 AM
This all might be a moot point with the number of states discussing refusing to implement the exchanges (medicare/medicaid). Those exchnages have the effect of spreading the cost across all of the states / people paying into it. If states refuse to implement the exchanges (and the Supreme Court decision allows this without adverse affect) it means the costs will only be spread out among those states who are participating.

That means the cost of Obamacare is going to rise significantly, to the point those states participating wont be able to afford the higher costs.

posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 08:53 AM
reply to post by Indigo5

Sorry to hear your problem. And hope all is well.

But something doesn't sound quite right.

Why didn't you buy insurance after your wife's employer dropped her ?

The "preexisting" thing has been in effect already.

Why no insurance ??

If you paid the expenses out of pocket, you must have had the money ??

posted on Jul, 4 2012 @ 09:29 AM
reply to post by Xcathdra

Why would states refuse to increase competition among insurance companies?
Do they hate free market ideas?

<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in