General

Re: Obamacare

SkepticalMetal — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 03:31:39 GMT

My response to the ruling:

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Re: Obamacare

Anenome — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 02:37:53 GMT

Franchisors warn Obamacare will halve profits

...

Most, said Atlanta Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken franchiser David Barr, presumed that the reports about how hard Obamacare will hit them were overblown. "They had their head in the sand," he told Secrets.

That is until he pulled out his powerpoint showing how funding Obamacare will cut his--and likely their--profits in half overnight. With simple math the small business folks understood, he spelled out that their only choice is to slash employee hours so they aren't eligible for company-paid health care or stop offering insurance and pay the $2,000 per employee fine...

Under Obamacare, however, he will have to provide health insurance for all 109 full-time workers, a cost of $444,000, or two and half times more than his current costs. That $315,000 increase is equal to just over half his annual profit, after expenses, or 1.5 percent of sales. As a result, he said, "I'm not paying $444,000."

Re: Obamacare

Cortes — Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:18:29 GMT

EDIT: nvm

Re: Obamacare

Andrew Cain — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 06:40:51 GMT

"Interesting. Care to point me to a case where this is done? It's fine if not; I'm more curious than anything."

Search around the Bricker amendment controversy in the 1950s.

For court cases:

US v. Pink

Oyama v. California

Seiji Fujii v. California

and Missouri v. Holland

The Holland case is the biggest.

Re: Obamacare

Cortes — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 15:32:42 GMT

Healthcare inflation is due to productivity differentials (labor intensive sectors see cost increases on top of wage growth) and was just was fast before the government healthcare programs. Problem is, inequality has increased a lot and middle class families (or what's left of the middle class after manufacturing was outsourced) can't afford the same standard of living.

Excess inflation in healthcare:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=8kg

But anyway, ignore these facts, back to the thread.

Would the mandate help resolve this situation?

Re: Obamacare

Lady Saiga — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:42:20 GMT

Prime's right, I'm a medical biller for a small company. The biggest and most immediate difficulty we see with Medicare and Medicaid is that because nobody has any choices, ultimately it's the healthcare provider that gets screwed.

Each year we are forced to accept LESS MONEY for the same services, and each year we are forced to comply with more and more regulations that take more employees to complete. I haven't had a raise in about four years, and things keep getting worse for my company. We have to change our policies about providing services in order to cut costs, and we have less leeway to write off in order to help our poorer patients, because we just don't have the money.

On the other side of things, each year we also see an increase in the number of audits that come in from Medicare. Virtually every one of them is spurious, and it requires us to go through a large amount of manpower and paper to respond to. The first and second review steps usually ignore what is being submitted, so the whole thing gets forwarded up the chain a bunch of times on the Medicare end. I have visions of the armies of people employed by the government, whom I'm personally paying out of my own paycheck, required to basically do nothing of consequence. All because the initial number of audits shows up on somebody's statistical survey as "Medicare fraud averted" or something.

Bottom line from where I sit, the more the government gets involved with private insurance, the more private insurance will come to resemble public insurance, and that's bad for everyone.

Re: Obamacare

thelion — Wed, 15 Aug 2012 21:41:23 GMT

I love the japanese when they go out and do this:

http://www.sankakucomplex.com/2009/02/12/obama-sex-doll/

Shows that even foreigners understand how harmful the policies of the present adminstration are, when such jokes become acceptable.

Re: Obamacare

John James — Fri, 06 Jul 2012 06:39:26 GMT

How Obamacare Will Screw the Young

Why Life Expectancy Will Decline Under ObamaCare

Libertarian Reaction to Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare

Ron Paul Responds to Supreme Court Obamacare Decision

Justice Ginsberg Correctly Points Out That Romney Put the Country on the Road to Obamacare

Obamacare Destroyed

How You Can Find Out How Obamacare Will Impact You

15 Reasons Why The Obamacare Decision Is A Mind Blowing Disaster For America

"A Fine by Any Other Name Stinks as Bad," You Gowned Clown

When Robert Reich Told the Shocking Truth About Obamacare

Krugman Gets Stuffed Trying to Prove Socialized Canadian Healthcare is Great

Obamacare: 21 New or Higher Taxes

Robert Reich and Judge Napolitano on the Bizarre Logic of Justice Roberts

Trump on Obamacare

Why the President of the AMA Needs Her Breasts Cut Off

How Government Healthcare Interference Got Started in the U.S. and What It Will Lead To

A Paul Mulshine Mess

Here's How Much The Obamacare Penalty Tax Will Cost You...

What Obama Cooked into the Healthcare Act to Get an Edge in the Election

How to Game Obamacare (And Eventually Collapse It)

What Would Romney Replace Obamacare With?

ObamaCare is RomneyCare

Mitt Romney First Introducing the Individual Mandate

Re: Obamacare

John James — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:01:57 GMT

shackleford:
I never said increases in efficiency would occur.

Neither did I. You need to read more carefully. I said "increases in efficiency occur." And I want you to explain to me why that is, if:

a) Anyone can "simply beg for your money"

b) as you say, the fact that they can beg means they "don't care to be efficient."

So tell me. Why do increases in efficiency occur? (Or would you prefer to take the position that increases in efficiency never occur?)

The risk pool argument depends on there being at least one mandate - the mandate to purchase an insurance product.

Isn't that what I said? Am I not the one who just told you that in my last post?

In my hypothetical situation, I was ignoring all other mandates and all ramifications and problems created by government through Obamacare. I think most of here understand why Obamacare is so terrible when you consider all of the other mandates it enacts.

Once again, I addressed this "doesn't forcing people to buy something mean costs will go down" question in the post above. Once again I encourage you to actually read it.

Re: Obamacare

NonAntiAnarchist — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 03:38:48 GMT

Interesting. Care to point me to a case where this is done? It's fine if not; I'm more curious than anything.

Re: Obamacare

Andrew Cain — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 03:31:34 GMT

"Yes, you could make that argument. It woudn't go anywhere, but that more likely means it's a good argument in this day and age. My point was merely that the justification for the auto-mandate was different from the proposed justification for the healthcare mandate. You're also required to drive with a license, etc., but typically, this has been justified under the notion that driving on state roads is not a "right," but a priviliege."

There is precident for using UN charters as a means of repealing domestic law. A majority of roads are public roads and the US has an obligation to legally follow the freedom of travel therefore utilizing the road whether in terms of walking or motor vehicle is a basic human right.

Re: Obamacare

NonAntiAnarchist — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 03:27:19 GMT

There is no argument over the constitutionally of mandatory health insurance. It is already been deemed constitutional. It has gone to the highest court.

The bolded doesn't follow as it's stated, but yes, I meant to say "was" the big argument.

If one were so inclined one could argue that since the United States is a charter member of the United Nations then it must strive to maintain the basic human rights it agreed upon when entering into such an order. Being that one of those rights is the freedom to travel and being that the United States is restricting travel through mandatory insurance which is not apart of the legal restrictions, then one could say that making car insurance mandatory is a human rights violation.

Yes, you could make that argument. It woudn't go anywhere, but that more likely means it's a good argument in this day and age. My point was merely that the justification for the auto-mandate was different from the proposed justification for the healthcare mandate. You're also required to drive with a license, etc., but typically, this has been justified under the notion that driving on state roads is not a "right," but a priviliege.

See around 6:40. That's basically what I'm basing this off of.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SDf5_Thqsk

Re: Obamacare

Andrew Cain — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 03:11:11 GMT

"Who is referring to the UN Human Rights committee, though? The big argument in the U.S. is over constitutionality, aka the legality in reference to our body of "law"."

If one were so inclined one could argue that since the United States is a charter member of the United Nations then it must strive to maintain the basic human rights it agreed upon when entering into such an order. Being that one of those rights is the freedom to travel and being that the United States is restricting travel through mandatory insurance which is not apart of the legal restrictions, then one could say that making car insurance mandatory is a human rights violation. There is no argument over the constitutionally of mandatory health insurance. It is already been deemed constitutional. It has gone to the highest court.

Re: Obamacare

NonAntiAnarchist — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 02:50:33 GMT

Who is referring to the UN Human Rights committee, though? The big argument in the U.S. is over constitutionality, aka the legality in reference to our body of "law".

Re: Obamacare

Andrew Cain — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 02:42:08 GMT

"So what?"

Mandatory auto insurance restricts my freedom of movement.