ACA Subsidies ruled illegal

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Maybe it's time to look at the anti-trust laws again. Maybe a good dose of monopoly upset is just what the doctor ordered?

a reply to: windword

Shouldn't they have done that before ACA?
Seems to me they totally ignored tort reform, for example.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Shoulda, woulda, coulda.......

Sometimes, it seems, things have to fall apart so they can be rebuilt, or restructured. That's what we're looking at with the ACA, in my opinion.

originally posted by: Aazadan

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.

The next time you're in So Cal. do what everyone else does go to ER and tell them you can't walk. Are you telling me you aren't eligible for medicaid? From what we have both spoken about we both know you are and the back problem can be taken care of. I know someone in CA that just got a new hip because of medicaid. Since you have friends in CA. use their address and get medi-cal they have denti-cal included. If you need help with the paperwork flow PM me and I will give you a CA. phone number to find out what he did and how for his hip.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: MarlinGrace


There are millions of people benefiting from Obamacare, and I'm one them. The problems, I mentioned, with the the Insurance industry pre-Obamacare were real and adversely affecting millions of people.

I can only speak from my own experiences and the people I know. Optimistic is being kind, and I never had any of the problems you speak of. My biggest problem was cost going up the second Obama Care became part of the health care vocabulary, my insurance company openly admitted they didn't know what was coming as was preparing by raising prices. As I have said in several post the government does very little right, I won't say nothing right but I am still looking. The Va looks to be what we could have to look forward to just based on experiences so far. But so far in my experience they are 100% a failure in health care business, website creation business, and saving money for the citizen business.

a reply to: windword

And what happens to the millions on ACA when it falls apart and they have no insurance.....far higher numbers than before ACA????

a reply to: MarlinGrace


I don't know , man. Other countries have made it work. America used to be progressive. Everyone wanted American music, American cars, but now, progressive is a dirty word, and we're no progressive leader when it comes to the public health, safety and welfare of our citizens.

I think we can do better, but all I hear from the dissatisfied is "Destroy!", "Destroy!", "Destroy!"

/Doom Gloom

Here's an example of how other countries see us.

When I was in the U.S. a few weeks ago, I lost an asthma puffer and when I looked into replacing it in Oregon, I was told I needed a doctor's prescription and $95 for a single puffer. Something is very wrong in the U.S. when an item so common and important in the treatment of asthma costs 10 times more than it costs in other countries. An asthma puffer in Australia is less than $10 and can be purchased over the counter. Thank goodness Australia has a pharmaceutical benefits scheme that keeps the cost of medication within reason.
obamacarefacts.com...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: MarlinGrace


I don't know , man. Other countries have made it work. America used to be progressive. Everyone wanted American music, American cars, but now, progressive is a dirty word, and we're no progressive leader when it comes to the public health, safety and welfare of our citizens.

I think we can do better, but all I hear from the dissatisfied is "Destroy!", "Destroy!", "Destroy!"

/Doom Gloom

Here's an example of how other countries see us.

When I was in the U.S. a few weeks ago, I lost an asthma puffer and when I looked into replacing it in Oregon, I was told I needed a doctor's prescription and $95 for a single puffer. Something is very wrong in the U.S. when an item so common and important in the treatment of asthma costs 10 times more than it costs in other countries. An asthma puffer in Australia is less than $10 and can be purchased over the counter. Thank goodness Australia has a pharmaceutical benefits scheme that keeps the cost of medication within reason.
obamacarefacts.com...

You are right we can do better, and I wonder if government and lawyers got completely out of health care how much it would cost for a doctors visit and medications. It just seems to me being in business involved with business professionals, the government from local to federal have to regulate, mandate everything to death making everything cost way more than it should, all in the name of being better for the people. After they get their hands in it it's never better, it cost more, and takes longer. They exempt themselves from laws they make for us, and live by the buddy system. Its like a legal mob family.

How can any federal government politician or employee look a citizen in the eye and say Obama Care is good for you when its not good for them. Then everyone of us wants to battle over it. When politicians and citizens have the same healthcare plan then it will be a good one. We shouldn't settle for anything less than congress, the president or any of the rest of them get, they work for us, they aren't any better than you and I, and they should be honored we ask them to represent us. But instead, they lie, manipulate, overspend, I just find it incredible we let this happen.

All reason, and common sense is gone in government today. They have us bickering among ourselves, in the left right paradigm while they do what they want without consequence. I try to judge situations on a personal level, ie how it would effect me, my experiences, and an open mind and heart. Like this illegal thing, I ask myself seriously what would I do if I invited a person to dinner and they brought 50 people with them unexpected. I couldn't feed them all, I couldn't do it everyday for the next 2 years, their medical, transportation, none of it, my neighbors wouldn't help, they wouldn't want them in the neighborhood. But yet we are asked as a country to do it everyday no matter the cost. Sometimes I think we have lost our minds, and honestly I don't see why it's any rich persons to do more than anyone else just because they can afford it. You can't force people, this creates dissension, eliminates progress, etc etc. Iam sure you have heard it all. Forcing people to do things out of a false fairness just creates an underlying anger you see today. Who decides whats fair the government? They can't even decide how to fix a 20 year problem like the VA.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: windword

And what happens to the millions on ACA when it falls apart and they have no insurance.....far higher numbers than before ACA????

We need to build a "scaffolding" before we take it down. Maybe that's all the ACA is right now anyway, "scaffolding".

a reply to: windword

If you had to choose the highest priority issues, which two would be the first to work on ?

Assuming Obama.Care was never passed.

What would have been those to start with in 2009?

a reply to: xuenchen

LOL, What am I? Running for president? What are you talking about priorities?

I expect our elected officials to be intellectually honest and do their job.

I want corporations to have less, not more, power over us.

How's that?

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
The next time you're in So Cal. do what everyone else does go to ER and tell them you can't walk. Are you telling me you aren't eligible for medicaid? From what we have both spoken about we both know you are and the back problem can be taken care of. I know someone in CA that just got a new hip because of medicaid. Since you have friends in CA. use their address and get medi-cal they have denti-cal included. If you need help with the paperwork flow PM me and I will give you a CA. phone number to find out what he did and how for his hip.

I'm primarily in OH, I just get to visit CA every now and then. I do qualify for Medicaid but just qualifying isn't enough, you need a doctor to take you on as a patient... you can't force doctors to take it beyond the mandatory accessibility requirements for an area which don't make doctors available enough. I could probably go into a hospital and get pain killers but I don't want pain killers, besides the fact that it seems wrong to do so I would rather get actual treatment.

If you had to choose the highest priority issues, which two would be the first to work on ?

Assuming Obama.Care was never passed.

What would have been those to start with in 2009?

Not that I'm the person you directed that at, but:

#1 far and away is making people aware of what health care costs and in doing so encouraging them to shop around for better rates. Under the previous and even current system people for the most part have no idea what it costs to fix a broken arm, get a foot surgery, or a pair of glasses. They get a price negotiated down by the insurance company, and pay a deductible (which is higher these days), if past the deductible they pay a $5 copay or whatever and don't give it a second thought. That type of system does not make for smart consumers which allows prices to go out of control. We don't have doctors competing on rates.

#2 is a long term fix but it would involve bringing down the cost of being a doctor. It's currently a massive financial risk and by lessening the risk we can encourage more doctors which brings down the price of doctor fees.

In general insurance is a good idea in order to prevent catastrophic illness but we've expanded the concept of insurance to cover fairly routine incidents. If we could push insurance back to covering only those catastrophic things the rates for everything else would go down. Look at hospital stays as an example, back in the 1950's hospitals would advertise rates of $5/night. That's about $50 by todays standards. A hospital stay is 10 to 100 times that right now. Coincidentally, hospitals don't advertise their rates.

a reply to: Aazadan


I've tried to shop around for heathcare.

it doesn't work too well since the people you are asking have no idea.
It's kind of like obamacare....you have to experience it know.

the last pair of glasses I got cost me over $200.
the bill for the broken ankle was more then two years of my earning potential..

I find it rather funny that the gov't felt that we could afford medical care that would cost the total of a year's worth of income that we had at the time.. after the hernia I came to the conclusion that it costs me more to fix the problems caused by me working than I get paid so I don't put myself through the pain of trying to do the work now..
we seem to do better all the way around that way.

Although I believe that we do need some tort reform I believe that we would also risk opening the floodgate to the heathcare industry to become even more corrupt than it already is. And another reason the costs are so high is that the doctors are getting kickbacks for prescribing the newest (not necessarily the best) drug on the market instead of a cheaper just as adequate drug or even an over the counter medication.. And many of these drugs carry along with the side effects that just ensures you will be back at a future date with new problems that will require new drugs with new side effects that needs more drugs!!

If you need evidence of this all you need to do is look how hard the gov't and healthcare organizations are tying to get us all diagnosed with mental disorders so they can get us hooked on the drugs!
Want to reduce the costs! Do some serious research into the alternative medicines and herbal remedies. You know the weeds growing in people's yards and well don't forget about the one that could be growing hidden away in their closet or attic! But they won't do that since no one can make money if you just go out into the woods or yard and pick you own medicine!

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: marg6043
a reply to: Libertygal

In a country like America that the Federal government has become the whole executor of laws disregarding the states right to individuality, is not democracy, passing ACA was not democracy it was an order, a bill of these magnitude was to be take by the individuals states and put for voting by the citizens of the states.

That was bypassed and a big reason why the supreme court gave the right to the states to opt out of ACA, without penalties, but gave the federal state the right to use commerce to push the mandatory part of it by itself

Sadly in America people doesn't understand anymore the right of the states against the Federal centralized government.

The opt out is going to kill ACA, remember ACA is a scam.

the federal government does this to make sure a person that moves from one state to another has the same coverage...this is the whole reason for federalizing laws, above and beyond, states rights....so there is consistency in laws no matter what state you live in, move to, or visit. didn't anyone take a government class in school?

Obviously you didn't because by Federal Law, you cannot sell health insurance across state lines. Unlike car insurance, Federal law prevents selling health insurance across state lines so it is the federal ruling that makes this a mess and reduces competition and the size of pools.

Where in the Constitution is the federal government mandated that the laws are consistent throughout the states and if you said is true, why do everything from speed limits to the drinking age to self defense rules all can vary state to state?

it's easy for individuals to change the speed of their cars in individual states. same for drinking age, and self-defense.... however, having health insurance change from state to state could endanger your life simply by crossing a state line...let's say you lived in one state, you got a job in another state, and you had to start the new job in one week,...so you spend that time packing up, moving, getting into some other place to live, but at the exact point in which you cross the state line, you lose your health insurance coverage due to different state laws....don't you see the problem with this?

You don't automatically lose your coverage when you cross state lines. You move from NY to MT, you'll be covered under NY BCBS until you buy a policy with MT BCBS.

It's expensive and a pain in the ass, but you are not left without coverage.

Without government interference in the healthcare market, you could just have a policy with BCBS that's good in every state and if you lived in NY and Humana out of (pick a state at random) had a better deal, you could buy coverage with them even if you didn't live in that state. I honestly fail to see the logic asking government--the group that caused the problem in the first place--to bail us out of a problem they created.

a reply to: windword

Ahhh, the asthma inhaler. My husband was just ranting about that to me yesterday. He needs it, and it requires a prescription, and costs us $75 for the co-pay (just for one inhaler). The insurance company supposedly pays over $100 for it. In Mexico and Canada, you can buy them over the counter for 10 bucks. The company's patent has run out, but they have used their lobbying efforts to "pay" for a block on cheaper generic equivalents. Oh, but we don't need to regulate the free markets, because competition will keep the prices down, right? (eye roll emoticon inserted here)

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: windword

Ahhh, the asthma inhaler. My husband was just ranting about that to me yesterday. He needs it, and it requires a prescription, and costs us $75 for the co-pay (just for one inhaler). The insurance company supposedly pays over $100 for it. In Mexico and Canada, you can buy them over the counter for 10 bucks. The company's patent has run out, but they have used their lobbying efforts to "pay" for a block on cheaper generic equivalents. Oh, but we don't need to regulate the free markets, because competition will keep the prices down, right? (eye roll emoticon inserted here)

You may not see it but you posted a contradiction. Here I'm going to pull two phrases from your post that contradict each other:

"The company's patent has run out, but they have used their lobbying efforts to "pay" for a block on cheaper generic equivalents."
and then this
"Oh, but we don't need to regulate the free markets, because competition will keep the prices down, right?"

You DO realize that a company lobbying government and getting the government to do something in their favor is NOT the free market right?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't like corporate lobbies, and I want more regulations. I want corporations out of government, and I don't want politicians in the corporations' pockets. I want politicians to make laws that are in the best interests of the people in general, and not what's best for their own personal interests. Free markets are over-rated IMO, and can be (and have been) manipulated by the greedy.

Is that still a contradiction?

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: windword

Ahhh, the asthma inhaler. My husband was just ranting about that to me yesterday. He needs it, and it requires a prescription, and costs us $75 for the co-pay (just for one inhaler). The insurance company supposedly pays over $100 for it. In Mexico and Canada, you can buy them over the counter for 10 bucks. The company's patent has run out, but they have used their lobbying efforts to "pay" for a block on cheaper generic equivalents. Oh, but we don't need to regulate the free markets, because competition will keep the prices down, right? (eye roll emoticon inserted here)

Ah, but in Mexico you do not have the added costs of regulation, litigation, and QA. If your husband has a reaction to his inhaler because of shoddy workmanship or poor QA or any number of chance happenings, he has no means or recourse at all. Americans demand that their medications are thoroughly tested, effective, and absolutely safe and can sue for millions if anything goes wrong. That raises the cost quite a bit.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't like corporate lobbies, and I want more regulations. I want corporations out of government, and I don't want politicians in the corporations' pockets. I want politicians to make laws that are in the best interests of the people in general, and not what's best for their own personal interests. Free markets are over-rated IMO, and can be (and have been) manipulated by the greedy.

Is that still a contradiction?

So you want government to regulate and tax the heck out of corporations but you don't want them to have any say? That sounds fair (sarcasm.) All for taxation without representation, eh?

If government wasn't meddling in every aspect of business, business wouldn't feel the need to lobby them. When a stroke of a pen can destroy you or destroy your competition, of course you are going to want to go in and influence the lawmakers to help you and hurt your competition. The answer is not to violate the Constitution and limit the right to petition for redress, the answer is to limit governmental power.

You actually help huge corporations with your demand for more regulations and huge corporations love governmental regulations because they have the wherewithal to cover the regulatory cost of those regulations whereas competing startups do not. Those people who demand more and more regulations make lobbyists more and more powerful and help limit competition and make megacorporations more powerful.

Free markets do have their aspect of greed, but that is limited by the market. Managed markets with a high regulatory burden have an even greater potential to be manipulated by the greedy because there is even more power consolidated into fewer people. When the market is run by thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, you still have competition. When it is run and regulated by a few hundred on capital hill, there is less competition and more of an aspect of greed. It's rather naïve to assume that a politician would do anything less out of self interest than a CEO.

a reply to: NavyDoc

What about Canada and all the other 1st world countries where you can get it for $10 or less? Wonder how they manage it? What about the block on generic equivalents in the U.S.? No, I'm sure it has nothing to do with wanting to keep those profits at an abnormal high...