AND yes Amos, the bill for our military is whats bankrupting us, plain and simple. We forget that thought and want to put more into military and if you speak against it people portray you as wanting to take money out of soldiers pockets.
no kidding. if they just stripped out the contractor spending that would help, and that IS taking money out of our soldiers pocket. Besides with all the money soldiers make they should take a pay cut! come on. Soon that is what we will hear, you watch. And another way to cut money is to STOP invading countries.
I wouldn't be surprised in the long run that if this bill is not abolished it will easily move the US economy into the lower 10 range which means China, Japan, Germany, Brazil, UK, Russia, India, and Canada will probably be ahead of the US in 20 years. In case you were wondering the bill will add 1.73T USD to the US debt immediately upon being put into effect and I believe 200M a year to upkeep it every year with even higher taxes. Shoulda payed more attention when I was learning this stuff..
You do realize that at least most, if not all of the countries you think will be ahead of us, already have what we're trying to get. What they DON'T have, is a bill for 48% of all the military spending on the planet. WE do.
Well I honestly don't know what these other countries have is the same thing we are trying to get. What I do know is that in many instances insurance companies make more money than healthcare providers do on medicare/medicaid claims. So I'm not terribly keen on giving more money and control to health insurance companies.
Im not an attorney, but I know enough about law...and common sense....that Citizens United was a crap decision and a political one------so when the Court itself is "politicking" as you say, how are we to have faith in the system?
No, you don't know sh!t about law - every reason you, Amos and Krieger have given are political reasons, devoid of any legal understanding.
If you wanna fist pump over the victory in Obamacare, go ahead and do it, but don't try to bullsh1t me that you understand jack about the legal aspects; stick to the political gloating, don't tread into things you don't know about.
On another note, I think this may well turn into a Pyrrhic victory for Obama
The commerce clause is their ability to tax. Thus it was a tax.
Don't be an idiot.
A simple google search will tell you that taxing authority is Art. I, Sect 8, Clause 1; Commerce clause is A I, S. 8, Clause 3. They're as much the same as 1st and second amendment are, which is to say, two distinct parts
Im not an attorney, but I know enough about law...and common sense....that Citizens United was a crap decision and a political one------so when the Court itself is "politicking" as you say, how are we to have faith in the system?
No, you don't know sh!t about law - every reason you, Amos and Krieger have given are political reasons, devoid of any legal understanding.
If you wanna fist pump over the victory in Obamacare, go ahead and do it, but don't try to bullsh1t me that you understand jack about the legal aspects; stick to the political gloating, don't tread into things you don't know about.
On another note, I think this may well turn into a Pyrrhic victory for Obama
The commerce clause is their ability to tax. Thus it was a tax.
Don't be an idiot.
A simple google search will tell you that taxing authority is Art. I, Sect 8, Clause 1; Commerce clause is A I, S. 8, Clause 3. They're as much the same as1st and second amendment are, which is to say, two distinct parts
It would appear that the Supreme Court agrees with Pheebs and Vulch on this one...
The commerce clause is their ability to tax. Thus it was a tax.
Don't be an idiot.
A simple google search will tell you that taxing authority is Art. I, Sect 8, Clause 1; Commerce clause is A I, S. 8, Clause 3. They're as much the same as1st and second amendment are, which is to say, two distinct parts
It would appear that the Supreme Court agrees with Pheebs and Vulch on this one...
That is actually incorrect. In their decision, they specifically stated that their justification was NOT valid under the Commerce clause, but that it was applicable as a tax and so would be applied and justified differently.
Now in my opinion, that seems to boil down to little more than semantics.... "I'm gonna shoot you because you're ugly" vs. "I'm going to shoot you because you're fat.". I understand the ramifications go deeper than that, but the result is the same either way.
read this on another forum, bingo> I swear, you guys don't get it. Years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fed had the power to regulate a private individual growing wheat in his own yard to feed his own family.
Now, 80+ years later, folks benefiting (or potentially benefiting) from OSHA, Fair Labor Standards Act, Clean Water Act, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, FEMA, Federal crop insurance, Federal Flood insurance, and the whole freakin list of programs that have followed want to act all surprised at this result? Huh? Wut?
We have a "soft socialist" nation because two parties are in love with increasing the power of the Fed: The Demos and the Repubs. Their only real area of disagreement is who's income is to be taken and who's actions are to be controlled. And, these parties are in love with gov. power, gov. control, and redistribution of income because their voters demand it. We are a nation of petty regulators.
Real liberty, real freedom, real individualism left this nation long ago. This was a direct result of the change in the popular view of the basic social contract in this country. I fear, that change is permanent and irreversible.
Years ago, the idea of taxing one man 100K per year and taxing his neighbor only 10K per year was revolutionary. Now, its considered "fair" or "just" or "right" or one of those other empty terms used to justify a result.
"Co-conspirators?" Both parties are doing exactly what their victim mentality, entitlement demanding, weak kneed, "I've fallen and can't get up, and its your fault," petty regulator constituents demand. Exactly.
Meanwhile, re-naming the french fries in the Congressional cafeteria "freedom fries" is considered a significant event, and not under the heading: You gotta be f'in kidding me that those c-suckers are wasting a single f'in moment on such stupid g.d. chit. Its considered an achievement.
Im not an attorney, but I know enough about law...and common sense....that Citizens United was a crap decision and a political one------so when the Court itself is "politicking" as you say, how are we to have faith in the system?
No, you don't know sh!t about law - every reason you, Amos and Krieger have given are political reasons, devoid of any legal understanding.
If you wanna fist pump over the victory in Obamacare, go ahead and do it, but don't try to bullsh1t me that you understand jack about the legal aspects; stick to the political gloating, don't tread into things you don't know about.
On another note, I think this may well turn into a Pyrrhic victory for Obama
The commerce clause is their ability to tax. Thus it was a tax.
Don't be an idiot.
A simple google search will tell you that taxing authority is Art. I, Sect 8, Clause 1; Commerce clause is A I, S. 8, Clause 3. They're as much the same as1st and second amendment are, which is to say, two distinct parts
well considering what you spout on a daily basis than I'll take that as a compliment. I said that congress has used the commerce clause before to tax, so sorry I didn't spell it out for you. Doesn't really matter in the scheme of things. You go a head and vote for your tea bagger friends, they are doing a great job in Florida and in Running the Congress, not to mention stone walling the Senate. Oh and their hard one for repealing this crappy health bill.
The commerce clause is their ability to tax. Thus it was a tax.
Don't be an idiot.
A simple google search will tell you that taxing authority is Art. I, Sect 8, Clause 1; Commerce clause is A I, S. 8, Clause 3. They're as much the same as1st and second amendment are, which is to say, two distinct parts
It would appear that the Supreme Court agrees with Pheebs and Vulch on this one...
That is actually incorrect. In their decision, they specifically stated that their justification was NOT valid under the Commerce clause, but that it was applicable as a tax and so would be applied and justified differently.
Now in my opinion, that seems to boil down to little more than semantics.... "I'm gonna shoot you because you're ugly" vs. "I'm going to shoot you because you're fat.". I understand the ramifications go deeper than that, but the result is the same either way.
Exactly my point. Macro was saying that it did not meet the criteria for a tax. Apparently the Supreme Court disagreed with him.
read this on another forum, bingo> I swear, you guys don't get it. Years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fed had the power to regulate a private individual growing wheat in his own yard to feed his own family.
Now, 80+ years later, folks benefiting (or potentially benefiting) from OSHA, Fair Labor Standards Act, Clean Water Act, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, FEMA, Federal crop insurance, Federal Flood insurance, and the whole freakin list of programs that have followed want to act all surprised at this result? Huh? Wut?
We have a "soft socialist" nation because two parties are in love with increasing the power of the Fed: The Demos and the Repubs. Their only real area of disagreement is who's income is to be taken and who's actions are to be controlled. And, these parties are in love with gov. power, gov. control, and redistribution of income because their voters demand it. We are a nation of petty regulators.
Real liberty, real freedom, real individualism left this nation long ago. This was a direct result of the change in the popular view of the basic social contract in this country. I fear, that change is permanent and irreversible.
Years ago, the idea of taxing one man 100K per year and taxing his neighbor only 10K per year was revolutionary. Now, its considered "fair" or "just" or "right" or one of those other empty terms used to justify a result.
"Co-conspirators?" Both parties are doing exactly what their victim mentality, entitlement demanding, weak kneed, "I've fallen and can't get up, and its your fault," petty regulator constituents demand. Exactly.
Meanwhile, re-naming the french fries in the Congressional cafeteria "freedom fries" is considered a significant event, and not under the heading: You gotta be f'in kidding me that those c-suckers are wasting a single f'in moment on such stupid g.d. chit. Its considered an achievement.
Eh, pretty extreme but I agree to an extent. Sure we all hate taxes and all but taxes pay for services. All society tax or take money from their citizens in order to do things, its those things that make a country for the people or against the people.
The kings of old used it to by and large screw the people over. Take Finland for example, they have one of the best countries to work in, live in based on a survey of the people. Why? Well they have a great healthcare system, education system, and have decent employment. Take China for example, they have a crap load of people working for slave wages, pollution is huge, work place is hazardous, but they have invested in their country and have outpaced the United States.
So it comes down to this, do we as a nation keep all of our money for the DOD, subsidies (welfare) for huge companies and keep dwindling down our protections from pollution, safety, national interests such as tariffs, and infrastructure, or do we use the money from our taxes to boost those things so that way our country doesn't become something out of MAD MAX or the Book of Eli? I personally would like to know that the food I buy doesn't contain disease or bad drugs that was used on the food, clean water, power that doesn't pollute, safe drugs to take, health care, new bridges so they don't collapse, sensible military where we don't pay contractors 3x what our soldiers make, a military that doesn't exist to make war, and the list can go on.
The money comes in it's what and where it goes that effects us. From the 1940's to 1980's there was a large amount of progress in this country. From the 1980's to now there hasn't been much. There is a reason why we have regressed and other countries are surpassing us, and it isn't because we are saving a few bucks from our paychecks.
The commerce clause is their ability to tax. Thus it was a tax.
Don't be an idiot.
A simple google search will tell you that taxing authority is Art. I, Sect 8, Clause 1; Commerce clause is A I, S. 8, Clause 3. They're as much the same as1st and second amendment are, which is to say, two distinct parts
It would appear that the Supreme Court agrees with Pheebs and Vulch on this one...
That is actually incorrect. In their decision, they specifically stated that their justification was NOT valid under the Commerce clause, but that it was applicable as a tax and so would be applied and justified differently.
Now in my opinion, that seems to boil down to little more than semantics.... "I'm gonna shoot you because you're ugly" vs. "I'm going to shoot you because you're fat.". I understand the ramifications go deeper than that, but the result is the same either way.
Exactly my point. Macro was saying that it did not meet the criteria for a tax. Apparently the Supreme Court disagreed with him.
Technically, it doesn't meet the requirements for a tax, but that's a whole other debate in and of itself and this is the first time I've said it. Go re-read my post - I said the Court found it legal as a tax, which I didn't have a problem with
And as usual, Pheebs boils a complicated issue to black vs white, good government vs evil corporations. Nothing else to see here.
The commerce clause is their ability to tax. Thus it was a tax.
Don't be an idiot.
A simple google search will tell you that taxing authority is Art. I, Sect 8, Clause 1; Commerce clause is A I, S. 8, Clause 3. They're as much the same as1st and second amendment are, which is to say, two distinct parts
It would appear that the Supreme Court agrees with Pheebs and Vulch on this one...
That is actually incorrect. In their decision, they specifically stated that their justification was NOT valid under the Commerce clause, but that it was applicable as a tax and so would be applied and justified differently.
Now in my opinion, that seems to boil down to little more than semantics.... "I'm gonna shoot you because you're ugly" vs. "I'm going to shoot you because you're fat.". I understand the ramifications go deeper than that, but the result is the same either way.
Exactly my point. Macro was saying that it did not meet the criteria for a tax. Apparently the Supreme Court disagreed with him.
Technically, it doesn't meet the requirements for a tax, but that's a whole other debate in and of itself and this is the first time I've said it. Go re-read my post - I said the Court found it legal as a tax, which I didn't have a problem with
And as usual, Pheebs boils a complicated issue to black vs white, good government vs evil corporations. Nothing else to see here.
I did read your earlier quote bud. That was why I was surprised at your outburst at Pheebs when he commented on it. I thought you were changing your arguement. I must have read more into it than you were saying?
The commerce clause is their ability to tax. Thus it was a tax.
Don't be an idiot.
A simple google search will tell you that taxing authority is Art. I, Sect 8, Clause 1; Commerce clause is A I, S. 8, Clause 3. They're as much the same as1st and second amendment are, which is to say, two distinct parts
It would appear that the Supreme Court agrees with Pheebs and Vulch on this one...
That is actually incorrect. In their decision, they specifically stated that their justification was NOT valid under the Commerce clause, but that it was applicable as a tax and so would be applied and justified differently.
Now in my opinion, that seems to boil down to little more than semantics.... "I'm gonna shoot you because you're ugly" vs. "I'm going to shoot you because you're fat.". I understand the ramifications go deeper than that, but the result is the same either way.
Exactly my point. Macro was saying that it did not meet the criteria for a tax. Apparently the Supreme Court disagreed with him.
Technically, it doesn't meet the requirements for a tax, but that's a whole other debate in and of itself and this is the first time I've said it. Go re-read my post - I said the Court found it legal as a tax, which I didn't have a problem with
And as usual, Pheebs boils a complicated issue to black vs white, good government vs evil corporations. Nothing else to see here.
btw, just to let you know the quote i made was made by a lawyer too, i know cause he helped me with a tax problem
two parties are in love with increasing the power of the Fed: The Demos and the Repubs. Their only real area of disagreement is who's income is to be taken and who's actions are to be controlled. And, these parties are in love with gov. power, gov. control, and redistribution of income because their voters demand it. We are a nation of petty regulators.
Real liberty, real freedom, real individualism left this nation long ago. This was a direct result of the change in the popular view of the basic social contract in this country. I fear, that change is permanent and irreversible.
"Co-conspirators?" Both parties are doing exactly what their victim mentality, entitlement demanding, weak kneed, "I've fallen and can't get up, and its your fault," petty regulator constituents demand. Exactly.
Meanwhile, re-naming the french fries in the Congressional cafeteria "freedom fries" is considered a significant event, and not under the heading: You gotta be f'in kidding me that those c-suckers are wasting a single f'in moment on such stupid g.d. chit. Its considered an achievement.
Well, can't argue with any of that! Hit the nail on the head.
I wouldn't be surprised in the long run that if this bill is not abolished it will easily move the US economy into the lower 10 range which means China, Japan, Germany, Brazil, UK, Russia, India, and Canada will probably be ahead of the US in 20 years. In case you were wondering the bill will add 1.73T USD to the US debt immediately upon being put into effect and I believe 200M a year to upkeep it every year with even higher taxes. Shoulda payed more attention when I was learning this stuff..
You do realize that at least most, if not all of the countries you think will be ahead of us, already have what we're trying to get. What they DON'T have, is a bill for 48% of all the military spending on the planet. WE do.
Well I honestly don't know what these other countries have is the same thing we are trying to get. What I do know is that in many instances insurance companies make more money than healthcare providers do on medicare/medicaid claims. So I'm not terribly keen on giving more money and control to health insurance companies.
I think you may be on to part of the real problem here.
Recently a Canadian woman was injured on vacation. She spent some time in the hospital in the US and thought that she was covered by the travel insurance she purchased before her trip. For onr reason or another the insurance company weasled out of covering her expenses and she was left holding the bag for over $380,000.00 in hospital expenses. She went to an ombudsman of some sort and her story got out on the news as well.
Long story short here, the hospital decided after hearing that she was NOT going to be covered by her insurance company that they would reduce her bill down to $160,000. This sounds like a very nice gesture on the hospitals part, however... It leads me to ask why is it when an insurance company is paying the bill is it twice the amount that the hospital was looking for from the woman as an individual.
This situation is repeated time and again whenever a government contract is let, or an insurance company is involved the price is inflated disgustingly. So like in so many situations this one comes down to wether you think the hospital was being generous to the woman or was guilty of trying to bilk the extra money out of the insurance company, which has an effect on the rates we all pay for this type of insurance? It's all a matter of perspective.
Ok, i will be honest, i have not paid attention to any of this until now. Everything on this thread seems to be hey its a tax, hey it is this, it is that....what does it all mean to the working class person, such as my self who pays tens of thousands of dollars a yeat in taxes? What, now if i get sick, is my doctor not going see me? Can i not get my medication? guys please dont take this wrong, i could give two shits less on weather it is a tax or not, just what is going to change for me and my family, friends, and all of you? Please explain what is going to change, not wether it is a victory for some one or not. Is this something i should just go home for and ask govorner perry to start building the great wall of TEXAS and become our own country?
The commerce clause is their ability to tax. Thus it was a tax.
Don't be an idiot.
A simple google search will tell you that taxing authority is Art. I, Sect 8, Clause 1; Commerce clause is A I, S. 8, Clause 3. They're as much the same as1st and second amendment are, which is to say, two distinct parts
It would appear that the Supreme Court agrees with Pheebs and Vulch on this one...
That is actually incorrect. In their decision, they specifically stated that their justification was NOT valid under the Commerce clause, but that it was applicable as a tax and so would be applied and justified differently.
Now in my opinion, that seems to boil down to little more than semantics.... "I'm gonna shoot you because you're ugly" vs. "I'm going to shoot you because you're fat.". I understand the ramifications go deeper than that, but the result is the same either way.
Exactly my point. Macro was saying that it did not meet the criteria for a tax. Apparently the Supreme Court disagreed with him.
Technically, it doesn't meet the requirements for a tax, but that's a whole other debate in and of itself and this is the first time I've said it. Go re-read my post - I said the Court found it legal as a tax, which I didn't have a problem with
And as usual, Pheebs boils a complicated issue to black vs white, good government vs evil corporations. Nothing else to see here.
btw, just to let you know the quote i made was made by a lawyer too, i know cause he helped me with a tax problem
If you REALLY wanna get into it, read the dissent by Kennedy - he rips Roberts, and digs into the tax issue as well
Ok, i will be honest, i have not paid attention to any of this until now. Everything on this thread seems to be hey its a tax, hey it is this, it is that....what does it all mean to the working class person, such as my self who pays tens of thousands of dollars a yeat in taxes? What, now if i get sick, is my doctor not going see me? Can i not get my medication? guys please dont take this wrong, i could give two shits less on weather it is a tax or not, just what is going to change for me and my family, friends, and all of you? Please explain what is going to change, not wether it is a victory for some one or not. Is this something i should just go home for and ask govorner perry to start building the great wall of TEXAS and become our own country?
Short answer: Nobody knows what's gonna happen - the full law doesn't go into effect until 2014.
Obamacare is extremely expensive - it requires the healthy to pay in to subsidize the sick who are taking out - the individual mandate was there to assure that everybody paid in to support the system
Now the individual mandaet is still on, but it's weak - $95 or 1% of your income the first yr you don't have insurance in 2014, up to $2,000 or 5% of your income. If you don't buy insurance, under the law in 2014, hospitals still have to accept you (so really, there's not a whole lot of reason to buy insurance). Congress can always change these penalites - increase or decrease - but no one knows what they're gonna do.
Bottom line - most businesses have no idea what's gonna happen; whether the law will be changed, repealed, or kept as-is. Everythingn comes down to the election in November; who controls the White House, the Senate, and the House. Republicans will repeal, and are debating what they want to replace it with; dems want to keep things as-is.
Ok, i will be honest, i have not paid attention to any of this until now. Everything on this thread seems to be hey its a tax, hey it is this, it is that....what does it all mean to the working class person, such as my self who pays tens of thousands of dollars a yeat in taxes? What, now if i get sick, is my doctor not going see me? Can i not get my medication? guys please dont take this wrong, i could give two shits less on weather it is a tax or not, just what is going to change for me and my family, friends, and all of you? Please explain what is going to change, not wether it is a victory for some one or not. Is this something i should just go home for and ask govorner perry to start building the great wall of TEXAS and become our own country?
Short answer: Nobody knows what's gonna happen - the full law doesn't go into effect until 2014.
Obamacare is extremely expensive - it requires the healthy to pay in to subsidize the sick who are taking out - the individual mandate was there to assure that everybody paid in to support the system
Now the individual mandaet is still on, but it's weak - $95 or 1% of your income the first yr you don't have insurance in 2014, up to $2,000 or 5% of your income. If you don't buy insurance, under the law in 2014, hospitals still have to accept you (so really, there's not a whole lot of reason to buy insurance). Congress can always change these penalites - increase or decrease - but no one knows what they're gonna do.
Bottom line - most businesses have no idea what's gonna happen; whether the law will be changed, repealed, or kept as-is. Everythingn comes down to the election in November; who controls the White House, the Senate, and the House. Republicans will repeal, and are debating what they want to replace it with; dems want to keep things as-is.
Do you mean that the Republicans will come up with some kind of similar program with the funding coming from different sources Macro? I am just asking because if that were true, then maybe this whole discussion and exercise in changing this system will eventually lead to a system that works and can be accepted by a majority of Americans, or is that too unrealistic?
Ok, i will be honest, i have not paid attention to any of this until now. Everything on this thread seems to be hey its a tax, hey it is this, it is that....what does it all mean to the working class person, such as my self who pays tens of thousands of dollars a yeat in taxes? What, now if i get sick, is my doctor not going see me? Can i not get my medication? guys please dont take this wrong, i could give two shits less on weather it is a tax or not, just what is going to change for me and my family, friends, and all of you? Please explain what is going to change, not wether it is a victory for some one or not. Is this something i should just go home for and ask govorner perry to start building the great wall of TEXAS and become our own country?
Short answer: Nobody knows what's gonna happen - the full law doesn't go into effect until 2014.
Obamacare is extremely expensive - it requires the healthy to pay in to subsidize the sick who are taking out - the individual mandate was there to assure that everybody paid in to support the system
Now the individual mandaet is still on, but it's weak - $95 or 1% of your income the first yr you don't have insurance in 2014, up to $2,000 or 5% of your income. If you don't buy insurance, under the law in 2014, hospitals still have to accept you (so really, there's not a whole lot of reason to buy insurance). Congress can always change these penalites - increase or decrease - but no one knows what they're gonna do.
Bottom line - most businesses have no idea what's gonna happen; whether the law will be changed, repealed, or kept as-is. Everythingn comes down to the election in November; who controls the White House, the Senate, and the House. Republicans will repeal, and are debating what they want to replace it with; dems want to keep things as-is.
Do you mean that the Republicans will come up with some kind of similar program with the funding coming from different sources Macro? I am just asking because if that were true, then maybe this whole discussion and exercise in changing this system will eventually lead to a system that works and can be accepted by a majority of Americans, or is that too unrealistic?
Eh, nobody really knows. Parts of the act, like staying on parents healtchare til 26, guaranteed coverage, etc, are really popular. Reppublicans wanna repeal it, but polls consistently show about 70-80% of the population wants it replaced with something else, so Republicans have been talking about "repeal and replace". What, exactly, they intend to replace it with, they haven't figured out yet, but there's rumors they'll keep the popular provisions and add something like buying insurance from any State in the country. Beyond that, there's no real details in this election year.
Buying insurance across state lines has been a popular idea so far; the idea being that the States can set any regulations on insurance companies they want, like baseline coverage, or no baseline coverages - then you as a consumer, could pick which insurance plan you want. One in Calif or NY will haev loads of baseline coverage, but one in Utah would likely have no baseline coverage but be cheaper - pick whichever you want, no longer restricted to your own State. That's the idea, anyway; let the free market and the 50 States decide and force lower rates through nationwide competition
I wouldn't be surprised in the long run that if this bill is not abolished it will easily move the US economy into the lower 10 range which means China, Japan, Germany, Brazil, UK, Russia, India, and Canada will probably be ahead of the US in 20 years. In case you were wondering the bill will add 1.73T USD to the US debt immediately upon being put into effect and I believe 200M a year to upkeep it every year with even higher taxes. Shoulda payed more attention when I was learning this stuff..
You do realize that at least most, if not all of the countries you think will be ahead of us, already have what we're trying to get. What they DON'T have, is a bill for 48% of all the military spending on the planet. WE do.
Well I honestly don't know what these other countries have is the same thing we are trying to get. What I do know is that in many instances insurance companies make more money than healthcare providers do on medicare/medicaid claims. So I'm not terribly keen on giving more money and control to health insurance companies.
I think you may be on to part of the real problem here.
Recently a Canadian woman was injured on vacation. She spent some time in the hospital in the US and thought that she was covered by the travel insurance she purchased before her trip. For onr reason or another the insurance company weasled out of covering her expenses and she was left holding the bag for over $380,000.00 in hospital expenses. She went to an ombudsman of some sort and her story got out on the news as well.
Long story short here, the hospital decided after hearing that she was NOT going to be covered by her insurance company that they would reduce her bill down to $160,000. This sounds like a very nice gesture on the hospitals part, however... It leads me to ask why is it when an insurance company is paying the bill is it twice the amount that the hospital was looking for from the woman as an individual.
This situation is repeated time and again whenever a government contract is let, or an insurance company is involved the price is inflated disgustingly. So like in so many situations this one comes down to wether you think the hospital was being generous to the woman or was guilty of trying to bilk the extra money out of the insurance company, which has an effect on the rates we all pay for this type of insurance? It's all a matter of perspective.
In the case of prescription medicaid claims there is something called the spread by the insurance industry. I've only had it explained to me but this is what I understand. The Insurer is allowed to bill the government a certain amount of money for a single prescription drug claim. The total amount paid by the government contains the amount the insurer will pay to the pharmacy and the profit the insurer will keep for themselves. Those amounts are predetermined independent of what a pharmacy bills for the prescription and those amounts are different for each different product. What is happening is that insurance companies are now requiring pharmacies, via formularies, to dispense certain particular more expensive brand name drugs over their less expensive generic drug version because the insurance companies are making more money off the brand name drug spread than the spread they would make for the generic version of the drug. Like I was eluding to before, often this spread is far more profitable for the insurance company than the providers who actually administer the healthcare. Since the difference between Brand and Generic can be >$100 for a single claim it gives you an idea of the kinds of dollars we are talking about. So you see in this case it is not providers bilking money out of insurance companies but it is insurance companies bilking money out of the government.
Also, in the US the insurance companies set the rates they will pay for any type of procedure or product and for the most part they will not negotiate with hospitals or clinics on those rates. In your story of the canadian woman, if the insurance company had paid the claim it would probably have been in the range of 60-70% of the original "cash" price that was billed by the hospital. These rates also would have been predetermined by the insurance companies based on the procedures performed. In this case, it seems to me that I doubt this hospital could survive if it gave a >50% discount to all of it's customers. However I do appreciate what you are saying about it being a matter of perspective.
if you dont like progress, move to saudi arabia... conservative paradise. hug it out. we are all Americans, quit being so polarized and political... arguing on the internet is like winning at Russian roulette...
if you dont like progress, move to saudi arabia... conservative paradise. hug it out. we are all Americans, quit being so polarized and political... arguing on the internet is like winning at Russian roulette...
Funny. Your first sentence compares conservatives in the US to the sharia law conservatives in SA, and then you talk about not being polarized. Not sure if you're going for irony, or you're too dumb to not realize the contradiction.
Politics is the battle of idea's, of governing philosophy, of the way that Men should rule each other. There will always be battles; it's a mark of progress that we're debating opening and pasisonately; it means there are paths open before us, compared to europe which is slowly dying with no path forward.
The more we debate, the more idea's are exchanged and then those idea's need to stand up to scrutiny; it's in the crucible that an idea proves it's worth.
if you dont like progress, move to saudi arabia... conservative paradise. hug it out. we are all Americans, quit being so polarized and political... arguing on the internet is like winning at Russian roulette...
Funny. Your first sentence compares conservatives in the US to the sharia law conservatives in SA, and then you talk about not being polarized. Not sure if you're going for irony, or you're too dumb to not realize the contradiction.
Politics is the battle of idea's, of governing philosophy, of the way that Men should rule each other. There will always be battles; it's a mark of progress that we're debating opening and pasisonately; it means there are paths open before us, compared to europe which is slowly dying with no path forward.
The more we debate, the more idea's are exchanged and then those idea's need to stand up to scrutiny; it's in the crucible that an idea proves it's worth.
it was irony, and ill be the bigger man and not attack your intelligence, which you couldn't show me the respect of not doing to begin with, or the numerous others you have done it to on this thread and many others...
I'm all for open debate and exchange of ideas, but you, sir, have done not much other than attack people and put them down, as well as claiming to know more about constitutional law than the supreme court of the land... cool story bro, tell it again. Sure, you have some posts where you share solid info and advance the discussion, but most boil down to you attacking others, in this thread and the rest... its why, until earlier, i stopped reading this part of the forum... just saw guys who share the joy of cigars and alot of the same ideas attack each other and call each other names over petty things, like it will mean something after your unplug your computer...
Comments
A simple google search will tell you that taxing authority is Art. I, Sect 8, Clause 1; Commerce clause is A I, S. 8, Clause 3. They're as much the same as 1st and second amendment are, which is to say, two distinct parts
Now in my opinion, that seems to boil down to little more than semantics.... "I'm gonna shoot you because you're ugly" vs. "I'm going to shoot you because you're fat.". I understand the ramifications go deeper than that, but the result is the same either way.
The kings of old used it to by and large screw the people over. Take Finland for example, they have one of the best countries to work in, live in based on a survey of the people. Why? Well they have a great healthcare system, education system, and have decent employment. Take China for example, they have a crap load of people working for slave wages, pollution is huge, work place is hazardous, but they have invested in their country and have outpaced the United States.
So it comes down to this, do we as a nation keep all of our money for the DOD, subsidies (welfare) for huge companies and keep dwindling down our protections from pollution, safety, national interests such as tariffs, and infrastructure, or do we use the money from our taxes to boost those things so that way our country doesn't become something out of MAD MAX or the Book of Eli? I personally would like to know that the food I buy doesn't contain disease or bad drugs that was used on the food, clean water, power that doesn't pollute, safe drugs to take, health care, new bridges so they don't collapse, sensible military where we don't pay contractors 3x what our soldiers make, a military that doesn't exist to make war, and the list can go on.
The money comes in it's what and where it goes that effects us. From the 1940's to 1980's there was a large amount of progress in this country. From the 1980's to now there hasn't been much. There is a reason why we have regressed and other countries are surpassing us, and it isn't because we are saving a few bucks from our paychecks.
And as usual, Pheebs boils a complicated issue to black vs white, good government vs evil corporations. Nothing else to see here.
Recently a Canadian woman was injured on vacation. She spent some time in the hospital in the US and thought that she was covered by the travel insurance she purchased before her trip. For onr reason or another the insurance company weasled out of covering her expenses and she was left holding the bag for over $380,000.00 in hospital expenses. She went to an ombudsman of some sort and her story got out on the news as well.
Long story short here, the hospital decided after hearing that she was NOT going to be covered by her insurance company that they would reduce her bill down to $160,000. This sounds like a very nice gesture on the hospitals part, however... It leads me to ask why is it when an insurance company is paying the bill is it twice the amount that the hospital was looking for from the woman as an individual.
This situation is repeated time and again whenever a government contract is let, or an insurance company is involved the price is inflated disgustingly. So like in so many situations this one comes down to wether you think the hospital was being generous to the woman or was guilty of trying to bilk the extra money out of the insurance company, which has an effect on the rates we all pay for this type of insurance? It's all a matter of perspective.
Obamacare is extremely expensive - it requires the healthy to pay in to subsidize the sick who are taking out - the individual mandate was there to assure that everybody paid in to support the system
Now the individual mandaet is still on, but it's weak - $95 or 1% of your income the first yr you don't have insurance in 2014, up to $2,000 or 5% of your income. If you don't buy insurance, under the law in 2014, hospitals still have to accept you (so really, there's not a whole lot of reason to buy insurance). Congress can always change these penalites - increase or decrease - but no one knows what they're gonna do.
Bottom line - most businesses have no idea what's gonna happen; whether the law will be changed, repealed, or kept as-is. Everythingn comes down to the election in November; who controls the White House, the Senate, and the House. Republicans will repeal, and are debating what they want to replace it with; dems want to keep things as-is.
Buying insurance across state lines has been a popular idea so far; the idea being that the States can set any regulations on insurance companies they want, like baseline coverage, or no baseline coverages - then you as a consumer, could pick which insurance plan you want. One in Calif or NY will haev loads of baseline coverage, but one in Utah would likely have no baseline coverage but be cheaper - pick whichever you want, no longer restricted to your own State. That's the idea, anyway; let the free market and the 50 States decide and force lower rates through nationwide competition
In the case of prescription medicaid claims there is something called the spread by the insurance industry. I've only had it explained to me but this is what I understand. The Insurer is allowed to bill the government a certain amount of money for a single prescription drug claim. The total amount paid by the government contains the amount the insurer will pay to the pharmacy and the profit the insurer will keep for themselves. Those amounts are predetermined independent of what a pharmacy bills for the prescription and those amounts are different for each different product. What is happening is that insurance companies are now requiring pharmacies, via formularies, to dispense certain particular more expensive brand name drugs over their less expensive generic drug version because the insurance companies are making more money off the brand name drug spread than the spread they would make for the generic version of the drug. Like I was eluding to before, often this spread is far more profitable for the insurance company than the providers who actually administer the healthcare. Since the difference between Brand and Generic can be >$100 for a single claim it gives you an idea of the kinds of dollars we are talking about. So you see in this case it is not providers bilking money out of insurance companies but it is insurance companies bilking money out of the government.
Also, in the US the insurance companies set the rates they will pay for any type of procedure or product and for the most part they will not negotiate with hospitals or clinics on those rates. In your story of the canadian woman, if the insurance company had paid the claim it would probably have been in the range of 60-70% of the original "cash" price that was billed by the hospital. These rates also would have been predetermined by the insurance companies based on the procedures performed. In this case, it seems to me that I doubt this hospital could survive if it gave a >50% discount to all of it's customers. However I do appreciate what you are saying about it being a matter of perspective.
Politics is the battle of idea's, of governing philosophy, of the way that Men should rule each other. There will always be battles; it's a mark of progress that we're debating opening and pasisonately; it means there are paths open before us, compared to europe which is slowly dying with no path forward.
The more we debate, the more idea's are exchanged and then those idea's need to stand up to scrutiny; it's in the crucible that an idea proves it's worth.
I'm all for open debate and exchange of ideas, but you, sir, have done not much other than attack people and put them down, as well as claiming to know more about constitutional law than the supreme court of the land... cool story bro, tell it again. Sure, you have some posts where you share solid info and advance the discussion, but most boil down to you attacking others, in this thread and the rest... its why, until earlier, i stopped reading this part of the forum... just saw guys who share the joy of cigars and alot of the same ideas attack each other and call each other names over petty things, like it will mean something after your unplug your computer...