Supreme Court Upholds Health Care Mandate

Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

12thMan
07-03-2012, 09:22 AM
Yea right, please name a major federal program that has not run way over its projected cost when it became law.

Got me there. But given that healthcare represents 17% of GDP, it's the one that has the biggest drain on the economy, doing nothing and repeal this and repeal that isn't an option any longer.

firstdown
07-03-2012, 10:43 AM
Got me there. But given that healthcare represents 17% of GDP, it's the one that has the biggest drain on the economy, doing nothing and repeal this and repeal that isn't an option any longer.

Not sure if I would say its a total drain. Isn't that 17% of GDP going back into the system one way or another. Medical providers, hospitals, medical equipment, nurses, ambulance, construction, etc... make a living of medical cost and that 17%. I agree we need to cut cost but this is not the way.

12thMan
07-03-2012, 12:54 PM
This is absolutely the way. We have more waste, fraud and abuse within our healthcare system than any other. We spend more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation. It's really now or never. That repeal bullshit is for the birds.

Chico23231
07-03-2012, 01:05 PM
This is absolutely the way. We have more waste, fraud and abuse within our healthcare system than any other. We spend more on healthcare than any other industrialized nation. It's really now or never. That repeal bullshit is for the birds.

How come the right fails to look at the waste, fraud and mismanagement in the DoD? This is latest from them:

Again in 2011, the GAO could not "render an opinion on the 2011 consolidated financial statements of the federal government", with a major obstacle again being "serious financial management problems at the Department of Defense (DOD) that made its financial statements unauditable".[19]

In December 2011, the GAO found that "neither the Navy nor the Marine Corps have implemented effective processes for reconciling their FBWT." According to the GAO, "An agency’s FBWT account is similar in concept to a corporate bank account. The difference is that instead of a cash balance, FBWT represents unexpended spending authority in appropriations." In addition, "As of April 2011, there were more than $22 billion unmatched disbursements and collections affecting more than 10,000 lines of accounting."[20]

So how come we are good with this? Cut the pentagon's budget from ear to ear until we can at least get an audit of there expendures. As a citizen im outraged by this, why arent others?

12thMan
07-03-2012, 02:07 PM
Naw, they're just concerned with ObamaScare and delusional talking points.

Mind you Obamacare was oringially conceived by Republicans, instituted by the Republican nominee, and upheld by a Republican Supreme Court Justice. So much for socialism I guess.

skinsguy
07-03-2012, 03:03 PM
Naw, they're just concerned with ObamaScare and delusional talking points.

Mind you Obamacare was oringially conceived by Republicans, instituted by the Republican nominee, and upheld by a Republican Supreme Court Justice. So much for socialism I guess.

I think what gets lost in the argument is the fact that both sides agree that something needs to be done to curve the rising costs of healthcare insurance. However, anytime the government steps in and takes something over means more tax dollars coming out of all of our pockets. The logic of it all is that if ONLY those who do not have health insurance are "taxed" to get on this program, how in the world is that going to be enough to support this program? I can't see it being enough to pay for all types of healthcare needed.

Also, speaking from experience, any time a healthcare agency deals with state money, their reimbursement is not nearly as quick as it is dealing with private insurance. It can take up to six months, sometimes longer to get reimbursement back. The argument that someone else had the other day was, "at least the health agency is getting reimbursed" but that argument fails when you consider that the health agency has to have money coming in every month to maintain its day to day operations, purchase supplies, pay its employees, etc...I hope you guys keep in mind that the same issues will take place when these health agencies are waiting for this government reimbursement. I work for a mental health agency, and 70% of our money comes from medicaid and medicare, while the other percentage comes from private insurance and self pay. When your payer source is a governmental payer, then you have to deal with the government approving/or denying the health services rendered. To assume this wouldn't happen in the medical health field as much as it does the mental health field is being quite ignorant to the way in which government interference works when it comes to healthcare.

I hate to say it, but too often, the American people only take a small portion of something instead of looking at all of the components. I'm all for everyone having affordable health insurance, but I'm also for everyone having access to that health service without some government no-name approval of that service.

Daseal
07-03-2012, 03:29 PM
I think what gets lost in the argument is the fact that both sides agree that something needs to be done to curve the rising costs of healthcare insurance. However, anytime the government steps in and takes something over means more tax dollars coming out of all of our pockets. The logic of it all is that if ONLY those who do not have health insurance are "taxed" to get on this program, how in the world is that going to be enough to support this program? I can't see it being enough to pay for all types of healthcare needed.

Also, speaking from experience, any time a healthcare agency deals with state money, their reimbursement is not nearly as quick as it is dealing with private insurance. It can take up to six months, sometimes longer to get reimbursement back. The argument that someone else had the other day was, "at least the health agency is getting reimbursed" but that argument fails when you consider that the health agency has to have money coming in every month to maintain its day to day operations, purchase supplies, pay its employees, etc...I hope you guys keep in mind that the same issues will take place when these health agencies are waiting for this government reimbursement. I work for a mental health agency, and 70% of our money comes from medicaid and medicare, while the other percentage comes from private insurance and self pay. When your payer source is a governmental payer, then you have to deal with the government approving/or denying the health services rendered. To assume this wouldn't happen in the medical health field as much as it does the mental health field is being quite ignorant to the way in which government interference works when it comes to healthcare.

I hate to say it, but too often, the American people only take a small portion of something instead of looking at all of the components. I'm all for everyone having affordable health insurance, but I'm also for everyone having access to that health service without some government no-name approval of that service.

Please correct me if I was wrong -- but this is forcing insurance companies to cover everyone -- but along with that, forcing everyone to buy insurance. While the government is mandating it, they won't be 'running' it directly. Most government interactions will be between the government and the insurance agency, not the gov't and consumer and/or provider. If that is wrong, please point me in the right direction.

12thMan
07-03-2012, 05:04 PM
Please correct me if I was wrong -- but this is forcing insurance companies to cover everyone -- but along with that, forcing everyone to buy insurance. While the government is mandating it, they won't be 'running' it directly. Most government interactions will be between the government and the insurance agency, not the gov't and consumer and/or provider. If that is wrong, please point me in the right direction.

That's the gist it. To put a fine point on it, the law now requires insures to end discriminating based on gender, they can no longer deny coverage to kids based on pre-existing conditions, or drop coverage based on sudden illness. It also eliminates lifetime cap limits on patients.

12thMan
07-03-2012, 05:06 PM
Daseal, the mandate really applies to the 30 million uninsured Americans with legal status.

RedskinRat
07-03-2012, 06:55 PM
Busted: Audio of Obama Lawyer Arguing Obamacare Is a Tax Stuns WH Chief of Staff Lew - YouTube

EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum