You (and others) really need to stop throwing that word around as if everyone who disagrees with you hates America. It's obnoxious and ignorant.God Bless Justice Scalia a true Patriot!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You (and others) really need to stop throwing that word around as if everyone who disagrees with you hates America. It's obnoxious and ignorant.God Bless Justice Scalia a true Patriot!
Medicare recipients are retired, and mostly can't afford to pay more. They paid in during their working lives.I am saying medicare recipients should pay more not working people.
Facts? Basis? Links? Once again, all you've got is The World According to CO. Hoosier.
Soooooo, what you're saying is you're not a constitutionalist, a constitutional scholar of any kind, and don't have any idea what fights have anything to do with the constitution. Thanks for clearing that up. Yes, Chief Justice Roberts decided the ACA was constitutional because, well, it is. It's essentially a tax. Article 1, section 8, clause 1. Congress has the power to tax and spend. They tax you if you don't have health insurance and they spend your tax dollars on subsidies for poorer people to have affordable insurance. You don't have to like why you're being taxed and you don't have to like what they spend your tax dollars on. There are exactly two things you can do about it. 1) nothing 2) deal with it. I don't like the fact that we spend a trillion dollars per year on a global military empire. You know what? That's just tough shit for me.
Any evidence connecting those dots? Here's some of mine:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B007BP3GXA?redirect=true&ref_=kinw_myk_ro_title
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003LSTK8G?redirect=true&ref_=kinw_myk_ro_title
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003LSTK8G?redirect=true&ref_=kinw_myk_ro_title
Far as I can tell, the only dots that really matter are the real-estate bubble and the global financial services meltdown, both brought to us courtesy of the GOP playbook and free-market capitalism. As you can see, I have some support for my POV.
What does any of that have to do with CO. Hoosier's claim that Obamacare is a drag on the economy?How about this?
"As a result, our analysis suggests that much of the decline in health spending growth in recent years was fully expected given what was happening more broadly in the economy. For example, in the three years 2001-2003, annual health spending growth rates averaged 8.8%, the recent peak in the curve. Annual growth rates have been steadily declining since then and have averaged 4.2% from 2008 to 2012, a decline of 4.6 percentage points from the peak. But, based on patterns of real GDP changes and inflation, our model predicts that the growth rate in health spending would have been expected to decline by 3.6 percentage points over that same period. In other words, about three-quarters (77%) of the recent decline in health spending growth can be explained by changes in the broader economy."
http://kff.org/health-costs/issue-b...-on-the-recent-slowdown-in-health-spending-2/
"The Affordable Care Act (ACA), which was enacted in March 2010, had a minimal impact on overall national health spending growth through 2012. However, several provisions implemented in 2010 and 2011 continued to affect the payers and programs that financed health care spending in 2012, including increased Medicaid rebates for prescription drugs, the Medicare drug coverage gap (“doughnut hole”) discount program, coverage for dependents under age twenty-six, and the minimum medical loss ratio provision. (The latter establishes the minimum amount of premium revenue that insurers must spend on medical claims and health care quality improvements.)3 In 2012 a provision of the ACA reduced Medicare payment updates for most providers, thereby contributing to slower growth in Medicare spending in 2012."
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/33/1/67.full
"GDP growth rates are miserable"...CO. Hoosier
CoH, what do you think the growth rate should be?
Heck, back in 2009 I was predicting a double dip recession which never occurred. If this had happened, we would just be recovering from the second dip.
Finally, fracking isn't the only positive factor coming from the private sector.
Untrue Super,
Congress can only levy taxes as authorized by the constution. The constution doesn't give the feds unfettered power to tax. See 16th amendment.
How is Scalia any more political than Kagan, Sotomayor or Ginsberg? Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't remember a single significant case where those three didn't vote exactly how you would expect them to. Those three are automatic votes for the left wing. Heck, throw Breyer in there too. Thomas and Scalia get all the heat for voting in lockstep all the time, but no vote is more predictable than those of the 4 liberal judges. Heck, they shouldn't even bother showing up.Once again, your idea of a Patriot is the person that believes as you. 6-3 isn't really close, and some of the reliable conservatives voted against it. Scalia is probably the most political of the entire group, sadly.
No, your links related to a CMS report that laid out only the (1) highest (2) proposed increases. You can't legitimately conclude anything based on only the highest proposed increases. That's like basing average temperatures on only daytime highs. You could get a much better sense of the likely outcomes by reading this Kaiser Family Foundation study. It concludes that, while premiums will vary widely by state, the average increase will be 4.5 percent.I already linked several sources that indicate dramatic premium increases are impending for those on public exchanges living in states like NY, IL and NE.
You'd have to read the opinions they produce. For example, everything needed to uphold Obamacare could be found in Scalia's Gonzales v. Raich concurrence, which is why Obamacare's defenders quoted it extensively. But while Scalia had an expansive view of the commerce clause when he wished to uphold controlled substance laws (which he likes), he had a much narrower view (in Sebelius) when it came to Obamacare (which he detests).How is Scalia any more political than Kagan, Sotomayor or Ginsberg?
How is Scalia any more political than Kagan, Sotomayor or Ginsberg? Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't remember a single significant case where those three didn't vote exactly how you would expect them to. Those three are automatic votes for the left wing. Heck, throw Breyer in there too. Thomas and Scalia get all the heat for voting in lockstep all the time, but no vote is more predictable than those of the 4 liberal judges. Heck, they shouldn't even bother showing up.
Agree, many could not pay more but even a modest increase would really make a difference. You are right about end of life care. So often just a waste and takes away from what little quality of life is left. I believe the AFCA is suppose to allow more family choices in that regard. In other words, better inform people as to their options rather than pressuring them to take more useless tests when there is little or no hope.Medicare recipients are retired, and mostly can't afford to pay more. They paid in during their working lives.
I agree that we need to get Medicare costs under control, but on the backs of retirees doesn't seem to me like the way to go about it. Don't hold me to this number, since I saw it some time ago, but IIRC about half of all Medicare costs are incurred w/r/t patients who are desperately ill and clearly in their last few months of life. We need to take a hard look at what we pay for, and the chances it'll prolong a life by a reasonable amount with decent quality.
There is no way to answer the questionAre you suggesting we shouldn't listen to your economic predictions?
You're still not connecting the dots, C, and you're now completely incoherent.
There is no way to answer the question
But it is safe to say that government policy, particularly in the form of new regulations, is like a ball and chain for many sectors. Did you read the article I linked in the thread about economic opportunity? That explains a lot of the dynamics I'm thinking of.
The issue is why the voted that way, d, and why you expected them to. As I note elsewhere they share a judicial philosophy, which involves the belief that individual rights should be interpreted broadlly, and that the provisions of the Constitution should be interpreted over time to reflect changes in social values and shared mores. That's not political.
Scalia, by contrast, expounds a conservative philosophy, originilism, which he abandons with no reluctance at all as necessary to reach his policy preferences and political goals, as he did in Bush v. Gore, one among many examples. The difference between the 3 women and Nino is that they're honest philosophically, whereas he's clearly not: he's a decent though not outstanding lawyer in the abstract, but when the issue is one as to which he has a policy preference he's not even an honest lawyer.
Agree, many could not pay more but even a modest increase would really make a difference. You are right about end of life care. So often just a waste and takes away from what little quality of life is left. I believe the AFCA is suppose to allow more family choices in that regard. In other words, better inform people as to their options rather than pressuring them to take more useless tests when there is little or no hope.
Yeah I am
Thinking that the whole problem starts with "GOP playbook and free-market capitalism" is intellectually lazy if not intellectually void. There is no free market capitalism in the finance industry. It is all K-street capitalism. It is all permeated with regulations and requirements. Those who know how to make the money, and cause the bubbles, are the ones who know how to manipulate the bureaucracy and buy the legislators.
I agree that the employer mandate is the worst part of the ACA. It's not even close for me. Employer-provided insurance is not only bad health policy, it's bad labor policy.I support the subsidies and mandatory coverage requirement. I believe the employer mandate is TERRIBLE policy. The biggest problems in our system could almost entirely be tied back to a system built upon employer provided insurance. This was caused by the Federal Govt back in WW2, and now instead of working to correct their error of their ways, they have doubled down on this horrible idea.
Hey goat, what is your take on this?I agree that the employer mandate is the worst part of the ACA. It's not even close for me. Employer-provided insurance is not only bad health policy, it's bad labor policy.
I support the subsidies and mandatory coverage requirement. I believe the employer mandate is TERRIBLE policy. The biggest problems in our system could almost entirely be tied back to a system built upon employer provided insurance. This was caused by the Federal Govt back in WW2, and now instead of working to correct their error of their ways, they have doubled down on this horrible idea.
Wow....you should. When do you start? I've been really busy lately and it's been hit and miss with the cooler so I haven't read near everything on here.My take is that I should write for The Hill.
It is ruining private insurance and forcing everyone on the public exchanges... moving toward socialized, single-payer healthcare.
Now that the ruling has come down? And then, hopefully next week we can put the gay marriage thing aside also. It's time to move on.
Now that the ruling has come down? And then, hopefully next week we can put the gay marriage thing aside also. It's time to move on.
Now that the ruling has come down? And then, hopefully next week we can put the gay marriage thing aside also. It's time to move on.
@stollcpa - Can you explain why you are telling your clients these things? Your description of how the penalty affects them does not even remotely match the research I did about the penalty when preparing for this at the restaurant. For example, my understanding was that any penalty was figured based on the number of employees over 50 that are employed, so that it would be mathematically impossible for any penalty against a small employer.
Thanks.
@stollcpa - Can you explain why you are telling your clients these things? Your description of how the penalty affects them does not even remotely match the research I did about the penalty when preparing for this at the restaurant. For example, my understanding was that any penalty was figured based on the number of employees over 50 that are employed, so that it would be mathematically impossible for any penalty against a small employer.
Thanks.
Okay, I thought it was 50. I also thought the non compliance daily penalty excluded the first 50, as well. From some more brief research, looks like I was wrong.I did misspeak on the $2000 penalty example. You can exclude the first 30 employees.
I think divorcing healthcare from employment would solve all kinds of problems. I know so many people that would retire if they could get reaSo able healthcare. Same with young mothers that are just working for benefits.Okay, I thought it was 50. I also thought the non compliance daily penalty excluded the first 50, as well. From some more brief research, looks like I was wrong.
I did most of my research on this 2-3 years ago, when people were still figuring it out.
I've been opposed to the employer provisions of the ACA since day 1, even when I thought our restaurant wouldn't be affected. I simply think health care should be divorced from employment altogether.
I think divorcing healthcare from employment would solve all kinds of problems. I know so many people that would retire if they could get reaSo able healthcare. Same with young mothers that are just working for benefits.
I would argue that the reasons for divorcing health care from employment are:How is that economically productive? So more reasonable healthcare subsidized by the few taxpaying citizens will result in less people working and less output... this is the basis for separating healthcare from employment?