Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[urdrwho]

That's true. I'm not sure what the poll numbers are exactly, but it's definitely not a buzz phrase politicians will use in a positive way. But what other alternatives are there, besides leave the system as is? --which seems to be just as unpopular a solution.

There are all kinds of things that can be done that have been suggested numberous times. Here are a few mentioned by Big Fitz on another thread.


1. End state and federal mandates on insurance. Let people pick the type of coverage they want just like car, homeowners and life insurance.

2. Force open pricing by all medical agencies and facilities for all treatments so people may comparison sop.

3. Allow purchase of insurance across state lines increasing the size of the pool of competition.

4. End restrictions on separating medical facilities from what is currently called "insurance".

5. End tax exemptions to businesses that pay employees insurance but give it to the individual account holder.

6. End commercial pharmaceutical advertising. Since that prohibition was ended in 1994, prices have increased over 300% for drugs and development while advertising budgets shot through the roof increasing drug costs.

7. Institute 'loser pays' tort reform. This ends frivolent lawsuits and ambulance chasers that force facilities to practice "defensive mediine".

8.BAN all federal government provision or administration of health care with the only exception being for active military personnel. Veterans must seek private care.

9. BAN federal tax dollars from being spent on health care related subsidation. this includes privatization of Medicare and medicaid on the federal level. Seek private companies to take over and administer these programs.

10. End all subsidies to health industry related businesses and individuals. Offer tax incentives to private individuals to give to health care charities.

Agree 100% !!!!

 

[Bern80]

Your are right about one thing. Healthcare is a huge expense to business. This law significantly reduces that expense. There are a number of problems in the law but increased business expense is not one of them.

The 700 waivers, which affect less than 1% of the policyholders in the country does not indicate any shortcoming in the law nor additional burden on employers. These waivers allow insurance companies to provide policies with low annual caps on spending limits till 2014. In 2014 caps on annual spending limits are not allowed.

Most of those are to businesses and unions. So no it is not decreasing their expenses.

These waivers allow insurance companies to continue to provide mini-med policies until 2014. These policies have low annual spending caps, often as low as only a few thousand dollars which make them useless in providing any catastrophic coverage. In addition they have deductibles that make them useless in covering routine care. The administration decide to allow these policies till 2014, feeling that poor quality insurance was better than nothing at all. There is so little benefit in these policies, that the Senate is questioning whether these policies are actually health insurance policies. These policies allow employers to claim they provide health insurance when in reality they provided almost nothing.

That doesn't change the fact that requiring a business to provide a different plan is going to cost them more money. An employer does not owe his/her employees the benefit of health insurance. If these psuedo policies are useless work for a company that provides better. It is a bad idea for a society in general to shift responsibility for providing for onself from the individual to another.

The healthcare law is not a burden on businesses but to the contrary it significantly reduces the cost of providing healthcare coverage to employees. For example:

· In 2010 businesses with less than 25 employees and an average annual wage of less than $50,0000 received a tax credit of 35% of the cost to provide health insurance to employees. This tax credit increases to 50% in 2014.

· In 2014 the law creates state-based American Health Benefit Exchanges and Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) Exchanges. Through these exchanges businesses with less than 100 employees will be able to shop for insurance by filing a single form. Cost to employers and employees are reduced by increased competition and credit for Medicaid eligible employees.

· In 2014, to increase competition in the health exchanges, there will be a minimum of two multi-state plans.

· In 2014 businesses that acquire health insurance through the exchanges will be able to use employee vouchers for low-income employees to further reduce their cost of providing health insurance to their employees.

· In 2016, the law permits states to form health care choice compacts and allows insurers to sell policies in any state participating in the compact. This will lower cost to businesses by increasing the competition in the health insurance industry.


Implementation Timeline - Kaiser Health Reform
Tackling Mini-Med Policies - NYTimes.com

You are looking at this so wrong. All you see are costs going down to the purchases and you don't see the artificial mechanism government is resorting to in order to do that. Subsidies NEVER lower the purchase price of a product it simply changes who pays for it and how much. Since part of that cost is being shifted to an entity who is much less price sensative than an individual, what a company charges for it's product will actially go up, now down. So you see you haven't lower the cost of anything. When subsidize something you're basically shifting expense from an entity to whom money is an object to an entity to whom money is not an object and the price goes up.

 

[jillian]

actually, it's pretty naive.

first of all.. you can't have insurance available across state lines because the insurance companies will all base themselves in the state with the fewist regulations like banks do. (meaning the people get screwed for corporate profit... like with credit card companies).

and who are you going to find as a participating provider in california if you have united health care of maine coverage?

do you people even think about these things? health insurance is not a luxury that people can do without.

 

[Foxfyre]

That's your excuse? You don't have time to learn about what you are purchasing? You don't have time to figure out what is going to get paid for should you have a life threatening illness? If you're not going to take time for you, why the fuck should anyone else?

when you get your insurance through an employer, how much choice of policies do you think you get?

if you get a choice of two plans,. you're lucky. and then most people choose cost (hmo) versus picking their own out-of-network doctors. (which costs a lot more).

do you work? have you ever had to make real-life decisions about these things?

Non sequitur Jillian. I certainly have worked at some sort of job since I was 15 until I retired last year. I have been insured under company plans and I have purchased my own insurance. In both cases I knew what coverages I had.

One of the reforms I think citizens should push for in healthcare however is to do away with company plans--except for self insured ones--and go to a system where eveybody purchases their own policy. Employers could still contribute an amount toward your insurance plan if they wanted to, but everybody would own their policy that would go with them if they quit their job or changed jobs. We need to enact other suggested reforms though that do address costs and encourage much more competition to make all private insurance more affordable.

The only involvement the federal government should have in this is:
1) oversight of fraud or illegal practices by insurance companies.
2) enforcement of anti-trust laws.
3) proper and meaningful tort reform
4) And I think the federal government should put together a catastrophic insurance plan similar to national flood insurance or earthquake insurance that would kick in for the super expensive illnesses or injuries. Also remove mandates that insurance companies HAVE to cover runny noses, flu shots, and routine sore throats that people can pay for out of pocket. Do that, and necessary healthcare insurance should be affordable for just about everybody who wants it.

 

[Bern80]

That's your excuse? You don't have time to learn about what you are purchasing? You don't have time to figure out what is going to get paid for should you have a life threatening illness? If you're not going to take time for you, why the fuck should anyone else?

when you get your insurance through an employer, how much choice of policies do you think you get?

if you get a choice of two plans,. you're lucky. and then most people choose cost (hmo) versus picking their own out-of-network doctors. (which costs a lot more).

do you work? have you ever had to make real-life decisions about these things?

That's exactly my situation actually. I don't have any choices. They're high deductible or low deductible. That fact that I don't really have to worry about a choice is the problem. How can you not see that. Why would I be respsonsbile consciouncous purchaser of an insurance plan if i don't have to be. What possible reason is there for me to take an interest in how my health care is paid for and what it covers other than morbid curiosity in a system like this. My whole fucking point Jill is the way we are doing things with health care and the way in which Obamacare only makes it worse, is only providing further incentive for people take less responsibility for their own health care costs.

 

[jillian]

That's your excuse? You don't have time to learn about what you are purchasing? You don't have time to figure out what is going to get paid for should you have a life threatening illness? If you're not going to take time for you, why the fuck should anyone else?

when you get your insurance through an employer, how much choice of policies do you think you get?

if you get a choice of two plans,. you're lucky. and then most people choose cost (hmo) versus picking their own out-of-network doctors. (which costs a lot more).

do you work? have you ever had to make real-life decisions about these things?

That's exactly my situation actually. I don't have any choices. They're high deductible or low deductible. That fact that I don't really have to worry about a choice is the problem. How can you not see that. Why would I be respsonsbile consciouncous purchaser of an insurance plan if i don't have to be. What possible reason is there for me to take an interest in how my health care is paid for and what it covers other than morbid curiosity in a system like this. My whole fucking point Jill is the way we are doing things with health care and the way in which Obamacare only makes it worse, is only providing further incentive for people take less responsibility for their own health care costs.

actually, your whole point, bern, was that health insurance should be caveat emptor when you have no choices.

how stupid is that?

sheldon's point was that we rely on government regulations to make sure we don't get screwed given the fact that most of us HAVE NO CHOICES beyond high deductible or low deductible. and he is correct. you seem to have this bizarre view that you should be victimized by corporations.

 

[Foxfyre]

Add to my above list reinstatement of tax free medical savings accounts from which folks could pay for those runny noses, sore throats, etc. and roll over into a tax free savings account if all the medical savings account wasn't needed.

If people are actually paying their own bill for this stuff they WILL look at the charges, question any that don't look right or are out of line, and be more proactive in what is prescribed or charged to them.

 

[Sheldon]

Egg-fucking-zackly.

My policy looks like a book.

But I really should take the personal responsibility of knowing how to comprehend a maze of terminology that requires law and medical degrees.

Back in the real world, most people don't have the time or education to decipher the novel of fine-print legalese in their policies. A job, kids, bills, errands, social life. We rely on the government to provide some basic consumer protections, so that insurance companies can't do something like, say, cancel your policy when they find out you get diagnosed with the bird flu.

Damn you, gubmints.

That's your excuse? You don't have time to learn about what you are purchasing? You don't have time to figure out what is going to get paid for should you have a life threatening illness? If you're not going to take time for you, why the fuck should anyone else?

It's not an excuse, it's reality. You can rant about how degenerate everything is because no one takes personal responsibility, but that fact is that the actual policies are incredibly complex, written by lawyers and doctors for lawyers and doctors--people who have gone to higher education for years in order to read and write the nuances in the policies. That's why they make more money than the serfs like me.

You may not like it, but that's how the real world works. Turn the health insurance industry into a mandate-less Wild West, and a vast majority of people who aren't trained in lawyerspeak are going to get screwed in the policies, only to find it out when they need it most.

The state governments provide minimum coverage mandates so you *know* you won't be provided with a take-it-or-leave-it policy that only covers your second heart attack and a severe case of scurvy.

 

[Bern80]

It's not an excuse, it's reality. You can rant about how degenerate everything is because no one takes personal responsibility, but that fact is that the actual policies are incredibly complex, written by lawyers and doctors for lawyers and doctors--people who have gone to higher education for years in order to read and write the nuances in the policies. That's why they make more money than the serfs like me.

The above is the rant friend. The ranting made up excuse of a cynic. What course would that be exactly where I go and learn how to write insurance policies?

You may not like it, but that's how the real world works. Turn the health insurance industry into a mandate-less Wild West, and a vast majority of people who aren't trained in lawyerspeak are going to get screwed in the policies, only to find it out when they need it most.

Again the words of a cynic. It is in no businesses best interest to screw over its customers. Have you considered that one reason they are allowed to make those policies so complex is because YOU (the consumer collective) don't seem to give two shits?

 

[boedicca]

It's pretty sad to see people screech about how businesses are so intent on screwing over their customers and yet they trust the government with guns and taxes.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's pretty sad to see people screech about how businesses are so intent on screwing over their customers and yet they trust the government with guns and taxes.

Some businesses do screw over their customers, but those that do usually don't last too long. Somebody invariably rises up to provide the same products and services in a more ethical manner. Only those bad businesses that operate hand in hand with government seem to go on and on for prolonged periods.

Generally, however, we have the choice of whether to do business with a private entity.

And generally we do not have the choice of whether to do business with government.

And therein is the primary affront and danger to our unalienable rights and liberties.

 

[chanel]

And don't we have a "Dept of Insurance" that is supposed ENSURE that people don't get scammed? Isn't what they are paid for?

 

[jillian]

And don't we have a "Dept of Insurance" that is supposed ENSURE that people don't get scammed? Isn't what they are paid for?

only if regulations exist for them to enforce and only if they're funded properly.

 

[Foxfyre]

And don't we have a "Dept of Insurance" that is supposed ENSURE that people don't get scammed? Isn't what they are paid for?

That is the function of the state insurance board. And I believe every state has one. And you're right. The function is to ensure that companies licensed to do business in a state are providing an honest product and administering claims properly.

 

[jillian]

And don't we have a "Dept of Insurance" that is supposed ENSURE that people don't get scammed? Isn't what they are paid for?

That is the function of the state insurance board. And I believe every state has one. And you're right. The function is to ensure that companies licensed to do business in a state are providing an honest product and administering claims properly.

try the correct answer.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3286875-post413.html

 

[Foxfyre]

And don't we have a "Dept of Insurance" that is supposed ENSURE that people don't get scammed? Isn't what they are paid for?

That is the function of the state insurance board. And I believe every state has one. And you're right. The function is to ensure that companies licensed to do business in a state are providing an honest product and administering claims properly.

try the correct answer.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3286875-post413.html

???? How is this responsive to what I said?

 

[jillian]

That is the function of the state insurance board. And I believe every state has one. And you're right. The function is to ensure that companies licensed to do business in a state are providing an honest product and administering claims properly.

try the correct answer.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3286875-post413.html

???? How is this responsive to what I said?

read my post in that link.

you know, the one that's right above yours.

if you don't see why it's responsive, hon, you aren't reading.

 

[Foxfyre]

try the correct answer.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3286875-post413.html

???? How is this responsive to what I said?

read my post in that link.

you know, the one that's right above yours.

if you don't see why it's responsive, hon, you aren't reading.

Okay touche'. I didn't follow the link. Now I have. And I still don't think it is responsive. Who writes the policy and regs for the insurance board other than the insurance board? Our Insurance Commission sure does. It has to submit these, and its request for a budget, to the Governor and legislature, but as long as it does its job, it is pretty well left alone to do its thing.

And it doesn't require a lot of budget/funding in order to do its job. Its function is regulatory specifying certain dos and don'ts for the insurance companies and as an enforcement arm of the regulations. It has the power to issue or revoke a license to sell insurance in the State of New Mexico. Those who reject a ruling from the Insurance Commission wind up in court. Sometimes the Commission wins. Sometimes it loses. But it has worked efficiently here for a lot of decades now.

And not one penny of federal money needs to be involved in that other than in a watchdog capacity to secure the unalienable, legal, civil, and constitutional rights of the people.

 

[DiveCon]

try the correct answer.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/3286875-post413.html

???? How is this responsive to what I said?

read my post in that link.

you know, the one that's right above yours.

if you don't see why it's responsive, hon, you aren't reading.

i think the point she is making is do we have any proof these agencies are underfunded or that they don't have the necessary regulations to back them up

 

[Foxfyre]

???? How is this responsive to what I said?

read my post in that link.

you know, the one that's right above yours.

if you don't see why it's responsive, hon, you aren't reading.

i think the point she is making is do we have any proof these agencies are underfunded or that they don't have the necessary regulations to back them up

Sort of. My point was that it is the boards that write and enforce the regulations. And they don't need a whole lot of budget in order to do that. If the Insurance board or commission is NOT doing its job, the state legislature will be overwhelmed by angry business owners, homeowners, workers, etc. demanding something be done and that will be followed by a hasty exit of the Insurance Commissioner. There is strong incentive for him to do his job well.

And the fewer layers of bureaucracy that are involved, the fewer dollars are required out of my pocket in order to get that particular service.