Local Reaction Mixed on Court's Health Care Ruling
- Print print this page
- Discuss 65 comments, Blog about
Advertisement
In a high-stakes decision that affects every American, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, derisively referred to as “Obamacare” by its critics, is constitutional.
The court voted 5-4 to uphold the law, with Chief Justice John Roberts providing the swing vote.
Considered one of the most important high court rulings in years, the decision produced mixed reactions from area health care officials and physicians. Retired pediatrician Dr. David Bruton said the ruling represented “a good day” for democracy.
“The ruling is good for medicine, for physicians and for patients,” said Bruton, a former secretary of health and human services under North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt. “Roberts did America a big favor with his vote, and I am very pleased with the court’s decision.”
Bruton said that he hopes the decision will help erase the “big lie” perpetrated by critics that the law will raise the price of health care.
“Health care costs too much in America, and it’s not producing the value or the results that others are getting for a lot less money,” he said. “We’ve got to reduce these costs and improve the quality of care. That’s what the Affordable Care Act is all about.”
Bruton said he believes the public has a “huge misunderstanding” of what the law is really about.
“To better understand this law, I would encourage everyone who doesn’t have a good understanding of the Affordable Care Act to try to learn what’s going on. It’s going to require reading, studying, listening and time.”
The decision was one of several that experts believed the justices might consider. Those included letting the law remain unchanged, removing the mandate that all individuals must purchase health insurance or pay a penalty, which the ruling preserved as a tax, or deciding that the act in its entirety was unconstitutional.
The final decision would have caused legislators to begin considering healthcare reform once again from the beginning.
David J. Kilarski, CEO of FirstHealth of the Carolinas, issued the following statement on the ruling.
“FirstHealth, along with hospitals across the nation, has been awaiting the decision from the Supreme Court on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” he said. “Providers have been preparing for the law for the past two years, and this decision clarifies the direction of our health system.
“In theory, any decision would have had no bearing on our current quality and cost-savings initiatives. There are some changes to the Medicaid portion of the law. We will work with our state and national associations as that part of the ruling is analyzed and determine if there are implications for FirstHealth.”
Former FirstHealth CEO Charles Frock said that he found Thursday’s ruling “a little” surprising.
“I think the decision will have relatively little impact on FirstHealth,” he said. “Despite the court’s ruling, the underlying issues involved with health care reform are not going away. In light of the politicalization of the issue, changing the bill or starting over will not take place until after the election.”
Proponents of the act argue that insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, among other perks, while opponents believe that the law would cause health care costs to rise due to billions in new taxes levied on drug companies. The act also provides exemptions to the individual mandate based on one’s religious beliefs or financial hardship.
Congresswoman Renee Ellmers, whose 2nd District now includes Moore County, has been a vocal opponent of the health care reform law.
“Today, the Supreme Court verified that Obamacare is a tax — one that increases the financial burdens on every American by $500 billion and will go down in history as the most significant expansion of government power over the lives of its citizens,” Ellmers said in a statement. “This law has and continues to be bad policy for all Americans and future generations.
“I respect our judicial system and the legislative process by which our nation is governed but am deeply concerned with what this means for the future of our country. Today’s decision by the Supreme Court sends a direct message to Congress and policy makers that we have to get back to work to repeal this law and replace it with effective, efficient reforms.”
Ellmers was a registered nurse for more than 21 years before being elected to Congress in 2010. She ran for office primarily on her opposition to the health care law.
The legislation was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. It passed the Senate on Dec. 24, 2009, by a vote of 60–39, with all Democrats and two Independents voting for the law while all Republicans voted against it.
The bill passed the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010 by a vote of 219–212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against.
Contact John Lentz at (910) 693-2479 or jlentz@the-pilot.com.
More like this story
Advertisement
Comments
stanley10 10 months, 3 weeks ago
It is up to us, "The American People" to invalidate Obamacare. From Robert's opinion; " Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." He is pointing us to NOVEMBER !
moonchild7 10 months, 3 weeks ago
In this mornings NYT's Mark Landler writes" "What the Supreme Court's decision does do is preserve Mr. Obama's status as a President who did more to expand the Nation's safety net than any since Johnson. It preserves a bill intended to push back against rapidly rising income inequality. And for a self-consciously historic figure, it allows Mr. Obama to argue that he had delivered on the most cherished goal of his 2008 campaign: "Change we can believe in." "...said historian Robert Pallek: This is another step in humanizing the American Industrial System." For those of you who are so appalled at what has now been "Legitimized" by the Supreme Court you are all SELFISH, UNCARING, INDULGENT, and HORRIBLE people. President Obama's has done what no other President has been able to do foe about the past 100 yrs. About time. Only those who already have Health Insurance seem to be against this and are thus total hypocrites. Ther's NOTHING to invalidate stanley10 except those people like you who are going to try to "repeal" this EXCELLENT Supreme Court Decision.
Courseaire 10 months, 3 weeks ago
"I just love a new tax that helps the little people." - Leona Helmsley
Mythreekids 10 months, 3 weeks ago
If those former, present and future congressmen would give up their lifetime "Paid For By The Working People" healthcare benefits, then, perhaps there would be some validity in their arguments against. The chances of that happening are????
moonchild7 10 months, 3 weeks ago
TAXING PEOPLE WHO HAVE NO MONEY? I know that the Wealthy and Rich love the concept and the POOR have been really good at obliging but it's time for those with the means to start putting a lot more into the "COLLECTION BASKET." If the RICH keep Getting RICHER with only CRUMBS left for everyone else, then "everyone else" soon hit the streets.
SH59 10 months, 3 weeks ago
I am so excited this has passed. This plan has been proven in Massachusetts to bring down health care costs and improve people's health overall. Instead of someone without insurance avoiding going to the doctor until the last critical moment costing huge amounts of money that the rest of us are paying for, that same person is now able to go to a doctor for help avoiding further complications down the road. My insurance is $700 a month and I am a healthy 59 year old without any history of health issues! It's more than my mortgage and if my bill goes down it will make a huge difference in my life. As far as the issue of government getting involved in one more thing I have to do, there are so many things I pay the government for already without having the option to opt-out. This isn't a good talking point to overthrow this law. I think it will prove in the end to be a great thing. Besides didn't Romney create the same law for Massachusetts? It's just not going work if he spends so much time trying to pretend he doesn't believe in it.
JD 10 months, 3 weeks ago
And now here's the part where they threaten to start shooting: http://t.co/T9Cs2EfT
moonchild7 10 months, 3 weeks ago
$700 a month Insurance SH59? That's an awful huge amount to be paying. Do you know why it's so high? The over-paid CEO's of the Insurance Co.s and Pharmaceutical CO.'s know that their time is clicking down now. They are part of the reason that health costs are too much. There are of course other reasons but SH59 you need to write to one of your Sen. or Congress-Persons and see if they can help. I've never known anyone who had to pay that much a month. Whether receiving Private Ins. Medicare or State Gov Insurance. Oh yes JD, I read where some guy is calling for a full out insurrection because we have a President who wants all of the citizens of his country to be covered by HEALTH INSURANCE. What a Commie Plot! People have become so FEARFUL of change that they now want total DEATH for everyone else? Right-Winged Conservative Brainwashing sure works for a lot of people doesn't it?
DaveyNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Ok, we are Europe now. See that 8-10% unemployment rate? Get used to it, it's here to stay. Want a job? You can get one, but it will be as a temp or contract hire. Very few people will actually make it onto permanent payrolls going forward. All that nice innovation the US has produced in medicine over the years? It will go elsewhere. My money is on India, maybe Switzerland or Germany. Want to grow your company to more than 50 employees? Going to be really hard to do that now because there will be a large cost barrier for that 51st employee.
Be careful what you wish for. We all know that our healthcare system needs reform; I do not dispute that. But this ain't it. This is a train wreck. Today, we have all become wards of the state in nearly every aspect of our lives; education, healthcare, health insurance, retirement, financially. John Roberts has it right, it is not the Court's responsibility to reverse this, it is up to the people and those we elect.
moonchild7 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Our past Presidents and Congress have all allowed that to happen by letting the RICH have everything THEY wanted and they in return made sure that next to "NOTHING trickled on down the road" to the rest of us. They sent jobs overseas, they closed up shops and businesses, never increase minimum wage, put a full on assault of Unions, "reinvested" in THEMSELVES, their HUGE HOMES and FURNISHINGS. It made the cost of everything go up to supply them with their "Profits" and here we are. There's NOTHING to REVERSE. We must go ahead and with ACA and improve upon what's already done. The Repubs want to start out 2013 with a RE-DO of Health Care? INSANE.
Sherwood 10 months, 3 weeks ago
We shouldn't confuse healthcare reform with health insurance regulation reform, which is what ObamaCare is. The Affordable Care Act is supposed to reduce out-of-pocket costs for policyholders and increase coverage for everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions etc. Reduced costs and greater coverage can have a positive impact on current and future policyholders, there is no denying this. But the individual mandate is what it is-- a subsidy for the insurance industry.
In order to truly tackle the healthcare affordability issue, it makes sense to focus not only on re-regulating, or reducing the role of, insurance companies providing financing for healthcare but also on patent law reform. Patents granted to companies doing research and development in the medical field gives these same companies a monopoly on the production of technologies and medicines they develop. This gives patent holders great flexibility in setting prices due to lack of competition. Of course, these prices are not low.
DaveyNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Sherwood, if I read you correctly, you want the various medical-related companies to develop new treatments and drugs and procedures at their own expense and then turn them over to, what---the public? Without allowing them to recover the very substantial cost of developing said benefits? Do I have that right?
Because if that is what you are advocating, then you have just agreed with my earlier point about the coming loss of American innovation in the medical arena. No sane person would agree to fund such research and development without the reasonable expectation of at least getting back the money invested, let alone gaining any of those evil profits that Moonchild constantly rails about.
If you want to drop the cost of healthcare and health insurance tomorrow, make it easier for people to set up and maintain Health Savings Accounts and then purchase major medical or catastrophic care insurance. The cost would drop like Moonchild's Caps Lock key.
teufelhunden 10 months, 3 weeks ago
The IRS will have a lot more power it seems...YAY!
jimt 10 months, 3 weeks ago
DaveyNC, As you may be aware, millions of Americans get prescription from Canada. In many cases the specific drug they get is not yet a generic drug, and is developed and manufactured in the United States and is under full patent protection in the U.S. Why get them from Canada instead of at home? Price. It is often far less exspensive to buy the same drug in Canada than in the U.S., even though both are fully patent protected. Why? Because the single payer system in Canada gives the Government tremendous leverage in dealing with U.S. drug companies. In essence, they can give these companies a blunt option; lower your costs to the Canadian public or stop doing business in Canada. We should do that here too. But under the ACA the U.S. Government is prohibited from negotiating drug prices with pharmacueticals. That's crazy!
I think it is important to make another drastic change to our health care system, one that has been in place in many western industrailized countries for a long time, and for which there is ample evidence by which to judge if this model works in reducing costs without sacrificing quality health care. That change is put doctors, who are willing to do so, on salary.
The Cleveland Clinic and the Mayo Clinic, two major hospital organizations, are widely perceived, and the evidence makes up this perception, to be among the best health care providers in the U.S. All of their doctors are salaried (They make substantial salaries, often well into six figures.). Further, when you go to their facilities you are assigned a doctor of record who will oversee your treatment and who will arrange consultations and tests by other specialists who work on site. Without leaving the facility, you will get a diagnosis within hours or at the most, days. In our system you can get referred by your primary care physician to specialists, but you may find you will have to wait weeks to see him/her, and the process is repeated if he/she wishes to refer you to a third doctor, etc.
Further, each of these specialists has to individually file for payment with your insurance companies, or ask for payment at the time of service and put the onus on you to be reimbursed by your health insurance provider, if you have one. This ads to the cost of doing busiess for these doctors, which is passed on to you.
Even more disconcerting is the fact that many doctors are financially invested in companies or other individuals who do medical tests. So they have a financial incentive to order tests, even when such tests are of questionable value in terms of providing a correct diagnosis. They also order such tests as a hedge against mal-practice lawsuits, which is understandable given the ridiculously high awards juries sometimes give. So a bit of tort reform is also needed.
We absolutely must get away from the mantra that "we have the best health care system in the world," when the statistical and cost data clearly shows that we do not.
getreal 10 months, 3 weeks ago
To Moonchild7, I am surprised that you have never heard of health care costing $700.00. We were paying $1200.00 a month until we had the option of changing plans to one with a larger deductible which then went to $600.00 a month. I don't know what kind of health care you have, but I would hope it is adequate to handle anything very costly that might happen to you. BTW I have a preexisting condition and was lucky to get health care at all! This plan should help those with the same problem. We will have to wait and see what glitches arise, I am sure there will be plenty. Always a problem with anything the government tries to run. I am sorry that illegal aliens are not included in this plan, they will still be able to abuse the health care system and use our hospitals as their private doctors. This misuse has crippled California's health care system costing it billions and continues to drag it down. Unfortunately it happens in every state, including NC.
AFCHIEF 10 months, 3 weeks ago
MC7, how about the excessive lawsuits that drive up medical costs and insurance for doctors. Obama refused to rein in these frivilous lawsuits. Why????
Sherwood 10 months, 3 weeks ago
DaveyNC, I'm pointing out the fact that medical patents are anti-competitive and contribute to market inefficiencies. Additionally, patents can distort the direction of medical research. Monopolies are by their nature anti-competitive. Medical patents contribute to a 300 to 400 percent increase in prices over marginal costs. Reliance on patents to finance the development of medical solutions results in research that focuses on patent-able solutions at the expense of research geared toward non-patent-able solutions. Such reliance also results in companies investing resources in figuring out how to get around existing drug patents so that they can develop and market copycat drugs. In the process, true innovation is stifled. So while medical patents provide a guaranteed profit for some companies, it is at the expense of patients and true innovation.
The notion that if medical patents were eliminated innovation would cease to exist ignores the realities surrounding the development of penicillin, the polio vaccine, AIDS treatments and other treatments developed by public or non-profit institutions.
DaveyNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
jimt, getting into the weeds about who has "best healthcare system in the world" is beyond the scope of this discussion. Different countries measure outcomes and returns differently. Far too complicated.
As to the lower cost of Canadian drugs, Canada freerides on the US in more ways than that. The US healthcare consumer is effectively subsidizing Canada and other countries because Canada has decided, on a whim, what it will pay for medicine. It has little bearing on actual cost of those medicines. It is easy for a candidate for office in Canada to stand up and promise to cut the cost of medicine when all he is doing is cutting the price. Cost and price are two different things. Canada also freerides on our national defense capabilities. They have little to no incentive to properly fund their military so long as their Very Large Neighbor (no MC7) to the south will repel any incursion onto North American soil. This can also be said for Europe.
If we adopt the method that Canada uses to pay for medicine, and I guess we just did, we will lose our pharmaceutical industry to somewhere else that is a little more friendly to it.
I would be very interested to hear from some of our local doctors on how they will respond to this.
DaveyNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Sherwood, I do not dispute that all companies in all industries game their patents. But if you eliminate the protection that intellectual property rights confer, those companies will simply go somewhere that they can gain those rights or simply become generic manufacturers reliant on someone else to innovate.
I did not say that innovation would cease to exist in my earlier comments. I said we would lose it here, in the US. It will go elsewhere. We will lose the benefits that accrue to the innovator; jobs, charitable contributions, increased tax base and so on. We will have no competitive advantage over any other country that can buy the machines needed to press out little blue pills. Kind of like what happened with the textile industry.
Sherwood 10 months, 3 weeks ago
If, in the case of the elimination of medical patents, drug companies reliant on their patent-provided monopolies flee the U.S. then it would make sense to replace such companies with public institutions which would provide jobs and an increased tax base (sounds silly, I know) and so on. I hinted at this in my prior post. :)
I wouldn't lose sleep over a handful of drug companies "going Galt."
DaveyNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
So you are comfortable with turning over our pharmaceutical industry to central planning.
Yeah, that'll work.
jimt 10 months, 3 weeks ago
DavyNC, "The US healthcare consumer is effectively subsidizing Canada and other countries because Canada has decided, on a whim, what it will pay for medicine."
U.S. companies have the right to simply refuse to do business in Canada. They don't do so because they are still making a nice profit on the prices the Canadian Government negotiates with them. Why else would they continue doing business there?
U.S. drug companies are among the most profitable around. I'm not to worried about them relocating to other countries, or about their going out of business.
DaveyNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Ok, jimt, glad you are comfortable with losing one of our strongest, most innovative industries. Let's keep going that way and see what we have left.
I mean, did you really just say that you don't mind losing some of our most profitable companies? Really? How can a country remain viable that grows an industry to the point that some politician decides that a company's products/services are all of a sudden a "right" and then nationalizes it or chases it off? That is what Chavez has done with Venezuela's various large industries; oil, media, etc. Venezuela currently has the 2nd highest rate of inflation in the world at 29% per year and oil production is falling: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=venezuela+economy Chavez took office in 1999; have a look at oil production since that time: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=venezuela+oil+production
That is some screwy thinking right there.
Sherwood 10 months, 3 weeks ago
DaveyNC: central financing not central planning. But I understand your sentiment.
DaveyNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
A good recent example of central financing would be the solar industry. Solyndra, et al. Hasn't worked out too well.
Please tell me, Sherwood, that evidence that is staring you in the face carries more weight with you than theory. You seem unusually thoughtful for these comment threads. Please look at real world results. Don't adhere to ideas that are being refuted before our very eyes. Solar, healthcare, education, housing---all are in crisis of one sort or another and all share the common trait of heavy government intervention.
Retail and technology would be two examples of areas of our economy that have comparatively little government intervention and both are crisis free and innovating daily. That is not an accident. It is a pity that I have a hard time coming up with more areas that are largely free of such interference.
landopines 10 months, 3 weeks ago
I feel most of you, on both sides of the argument; have no idea what you are writing about. It's just regurgitated hyperbole gained from sources motivated by ideology.
DaveyNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Well, landopines, thanks for adding to the discussion. You have certainly distinguished yourself here today.
AFCHIEF 10 months, 3 weeks ago
AND HOW IS OBAMACARE NOT RAISING TAXES
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/what-obamacare-means-for-your-taxes.html
jimt 10 months, 3 weeks ago
DaveyNC: "Ok, jimt, glad you are comfortable with losing one of our strongest, most innovative industries. Let's keep going that way and see what we have left. I mean, did you really just say that you don't mind losing some of our most profitable companies? Really? How can a country remain viable that grows an industry to the point that some politician decides that a company's products/services are all of a sudden a "right" and then nationalizes it or chases it off?
You're entitled to your prediction, I don't think it will come true. The U.S. drug industry also supplies much of the world's prescription drugs, including countries that have that dreaded "socialized medicine." They too negotiate drug costs with prescription drug providers, both foreign and domestic suppliers. I wouldn't cash in your pharma stocks just yet.
Sherwood 10 months, 3 weeks ago
DaveyNC, Solyndra would have failed whether or not it received federally guaranteed loans, not because it received federally guaranteed loans. Although the government does have to fill the gap in the case of failures like Solyndra, which is why I would not be supportive of such debt-based financing in the form of loan guarantees.
But what you characterize as government intervention, I'd characterize as poor regulation. And I don't want to give the impression that I'd want heavy government involvement in every industry.
clarabelle 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Sherwood - DaveyNC is typical of the far right....... no facts just BS
DaveyNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
jimt, for the record, I point you back to my original comment on this thread. I will add one other now: as of right now, we do not have nearly enough doctors to meet the demand that has just been created out of thin air. It will be, at best, 20 years before we can catch up. Either that, or many of your future doctor visits will take place on line. Can you imagine dealing with your Indian doctor the way that you deal with your Indian computer repair tech? Sounds fun, doesn't it?
And Sherwood, I would characterize it as government lacking the proper knowledge and incentives to make good investments. Again, the evidence is right before our eyes. Grants to Solyndra equaled donations to political campaigns. That sort of arrangement is inherently flawed and cannot be improved with more regulation.
And I most definitely do want to give the impression that I want less government involvement in every industry and aspect of our lives. A fairy tale, I know.
DaveyNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Jeez, was trying to get away from this machine and then Clarabelle shows up.
Clarabelle, which facts that I provided do you not accept? The references to the Venezuelan economy via Wolfram Alpha? The facts that Solyndra received government loan guarantees despite overwhelming evidence that the company was failing and that the company and its execs then donated the maximums to various mostly Democrat political candidates? The fact that the various industries I mentioned suffer from heavy governmental involvement and are constantly in crisis? When was the last time you thought our education system was sufficient for our needs?
I could go on but I am tired of this machine for today. I'm going outside to wilt.
Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago
DaveyNC-- Never argue with a global warming scientist. Cheers!
golflady 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Perhaps now First Health Moore Regional Hospital will get someone to drive the Shuttle Van on the weekends. I find it unbelievable with all the older people living in this area that a volunteer can't be found to do this task on weekends. And if the hospital can't locate a volunteer, they need to pay Shuttle Drivers. Most people visit on weekends and this is when they need a driver.
alladat1 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Hey - here's an idea - let's only obey the laws that we like.
jimt 10 months, 3 weeks ago
"Stocks of hospital companies rose sharply and some insurance companies fell Thursday after the Supreme Court upheld a requirement that almost all Americans carry health insurance.
The stock of Hospital Corp. of America, the largest private hospital chain in the United States, climbed 10 percent. Community Health Systems rose 8 percent, Health Management Associates 7 percent.
Quest Diagnostics, which runs laboratories, and Laboratory Corp. of America both gained more than 2 percent.
The ruling was a win for hospital operators because it will add 32 million Americans to the rolls of the insured, vastly expanding the pool of health care consumers, said Jeffrey Loo, a stock analyst with S&P Capital IQ, a research group.
Under the current system, about one-fourth of the care provided by hospitals is never paid for, either because debts go bad or because the patient is uninsured, Loo said. He said the law will cut the portion of care that is not paid for in half." Source: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/insurance/index.html
"Analyst, C. Anthony Butler, sees a minimal long-term impact (of the SCOUS ruling yesterday) on pharma stocks. Butler said, "This ruling came as a surprise to some investors, who in recent days have been expecting the overturning of the individual mandate if not the entire act...decision has minimal effect on the fundamentals of the U.S. pharmaceutical companies, and there is unlikely to be any long term effect on the valuations of the sector."
Butler's other highlighted points include: 1) Ongoing reform measures affecting ~7% in pharma annual EPS; pressures stay status quo with the ruling; 2) Starting in 2013, those companies with medical device exposure (i.e. Johnson&Johnson (NYSE: JNJ), Abbott (NYSE: ABT)) will need to pay a 2.3% deductible tax on U.S. medical device sales; 3) We expect increased health care coverage in the pool of uninsured Americans (~35M) starting in 2014; and 4) There remains some ambiguity over the pace and magnitude of the implementation of PPACA on the states level."
Source :Barclays on Pharmaceutical Stocks: Impact as SCOTUS Upholds Entire Affordable Care Act http://www.streetinsider.com/Analyst+Comments/Barclays+on+Pharmaceutical+Stocks%3A+Impact+as+SCOTUS+Upholds+Entire+Affordable+Care+Act/7551369.html
So, I have to ask, what do these professional investment analysts know that the rapid "this is socialism," "welcome to the socialist states of America," right-wing posters on this site not know? I think it's this thing the right never thinks about when developing their ideas and analysis: FACTS.
Bentpan 10 months, 3 weeks ago
alladat1 1 hour, 51 minutes ago "Hey - here's an idea - let's only obey the laws that we like."....
Ahh. the Obama / Holder Democrat approach
buskwon 10 months, 3 weeks ago
I want to buy a new Chevy pick-up truck but I cannot afford it , If I do not buy it I will be taxed . Where does it stop?
moonchild7 10 months, 3 weeks ago
getreal, I was questioning why a "Single", i.e. ONE PERSON, would be paying $700 per month. The average Family of four pays about $1000 a month. The most I paid was when I had my son on my policy and the cost was $250 per month. Just about everyone I know who's working now and has insurance thru their employer pays, at the most $300 per month. The older family members who have Medicare pay about $150 per month. buskwon, there's quite a bit of difference between wanting to own a LUXURY item yet have no money to purchase it and the Gov't requiring everyone to have health insurance coverage especially in case of health emergencies. We don't care if you can't afford to buy a truck and won't be taxing you, but we DO CARE if you need to see a doctor but have no insurance and so you go the the Hospital Emergency Room for care. That "Care" costs you $2000 and all you have to do is sign a paper and walk out the door, never having to pay the bill. The rest of us have had to pay your bill thru our higher Ins. Premiums. It STOPS when every American has MANDATED Health Care. Just like Social Security and Medicare. They are TAXES too.
DaveyNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Moonchild, you were likely paying only the employee portion of the premium. The cost to insure someone runs anywhere from $9-13,000+ per year, depending on the coverage you select. Employers typically pay a chunk of that and that $300 per month that you mention is paid by the employee. Heck, in truth, the whole premium is paid by the employee. It is just accounting that makes it look like the employer is paying part of it.
DaveyNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Here is as good an explanation as you will find about how our health insurance works (or doesn't): http://goo.gl/2UOvH
geoffcutler 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Buskwon, My Chevy pick-up is 12 years old. I still love it. But it's going to give out soon. I'll not be buying another... not after the government looters got to General Motors and their bondholders. I will buy from achievers, producers...not bailout receivers. Fords from here on in.
getreal 10 months, 3 weeks ago
To moonchild7, you never mentioned in you first post that the total was for one person and you never mentioned that you have part of your premium paid by an employer. We are self employed and don't have someone to help pick up our tab like you do. In this area it is difficult to find work let alone an employer willing to offer paid benefits. Too bad you didn't see my posts on another subject about the abuse that takes place in some businesses around here, health benefits? What a joke! I also don't understand your post, I already said I didn't understand why the illegals are not included in this plan, they are one of the biggest abusers of the health care system. This plan doesn't address that problem, too bad, they should pay or they can't stay. I was just at a doctor's office a few days ago and this woman came in with her kid, she was over an hour late for the appointment and said she was told any time before 4:00 was fine, which was a lie according to the receptionist. She got upset when she found out the visits included in the free plan had expired. There I sat on time for my appointment, after paying my $50.00 co pay and there she sat on her cell phone (she could afford the phone) trying to get some agency to give her more visits so she could have her son treated. I kept thinking what is wrong with this picture! Maybe things will change for the better now. At least now she will have to pay for her insurance. One can only hope.
getreal 10 months, 3 weeks ago
To moonchild7, I reread and saw that part of your post was directed at buskwon, thought it was a typo, my mistake. The rest of my post stands.
irishman 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Moonchild, with all due respect, the rise in healthcare cost has been astonishing, and the driving factor is ObamaCare! I am 45, wife same age and two teenage kids. Health Insurance $1,400 per month, ObamaCare, Pricless. I don't have an employer that subsidizes, I am self employed.
What ObamaCare has done will continue to drive HealthInsurance costs up. The so called "taxes" go to the government, but those with pre-existing conditions will wait until they need the care, then buy the insurance, or Adverse Selection.
Remove lifetime caps on coverage, actuarial rates go up. Politicians Lie (Obama "it's not a tax") but numbers don't.
Obamacare has not really addressed anything about the high cost of medical care, as compared to medical insurance. Legal reform would have been a great start, how many tests and labs are prevent for the doctor to CYA for liability?
In the end Justice Roberts has given us this new persepective, it's not the SCOTUS's job to protect us from our lousy elected officials. They argued in court they had the power to tax, and they do now with a huge expanse.
Toda 10 months, 3 weeks ago
The uninformed spew out diatribes about jobs in America...look at the facts:
Here is your link.
Toda 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Obama appeals to business leaders in India
While Indians also feel threatened by American products and companies, Obama said, both countries should set aside their stereotypes and engage as economic partners."
Here's your link
So what was Congress doing while jobs were being off-shored?
Link to sell out of American Jobs
Toda 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Say it ain't so that Mitt Romney Pioneered Technological jobs by OFF-Shoring; Opp's my mistake, OUTSOURCING is more in line with Romney's venture in capitalism. So why is there a need for Affordable Health Care. American's cannot compete with jobs in India and Panama, unless everyone works for less than $500.00 a month. Let's try to be honest in our opinions.
Here's your CARD
Toda 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Please don't shoot the messenger ... I don't work for The New York Times. I will post the link about Romney's Bain Capital Investments in off shoring technological jobs as well as other jobs. Excuse me "outsourcing" was Romney's terminology. So why is Affordable Health Care such an issue? Because the deep pockets of Insurance companies don't have a foothold in China and India!
[Here's your card][1]
[1]: http://[1]: http://Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India. During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Toda 10 months, 3 weeks ago
"While economists debate whether the massive outsourcing of American jobs over the last generation was inevitable, Romney in recent months has lamented the toll it’s taken on the U.S. economy. He has repeatedly pledged he would protect American employment by getting tough on China.
“They’ve been able to put American businesses out of business and kill American jobs,” he told workers at a Toledo fence factory in February. “If I’m president of the United States, that’s going to end.”
So one can't but wonder why American Jobs numbers increased during the 15 years while Mitt was in charge of Bain Capital? Should he be elected his eldest son who is a Hedgefund Manager will see that overseas jobs will again be a sound investment for American companies choosing to invest by "out sourcing jobs." IYOGI now handles home loan investment portfolios. check out their site -
Investment Opportunities
Toda 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Look up your Congressional Representatives on both sides of the isle who take money from insurance companies, pharmacological companies, energy (Duke Power & Progress Energy), and Health Care businesses and so called Not-for-Profits. First Health is a not-for-profit ... spend a night or a weekend.
Difficult to argue with facts!
Here's your link
MikeNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Moochild, as always thanks for putting things so elequontly. Anyone not for Obamacare, horrible, self endulging, etc. As for "new no taxes", try 25 plus new taxes that have and will be levied by 2016. And it won't be pretty for some of the middle and lower income families. Then I'm suppose to sit here and BELIEVE that all this revenue collected from these Obama "no new taxes" will go directly towards paying for Obamacare? I predict that by 2016, BILLIONS of dollars of revenue that was suppose towards paying for this debacle, will NOT be there. Two things will then result from that- rationed healthcare and MORE "no new taxes". Granny won't be the only one going over the cliff by 2016. Diane
DaveyNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Moonchild, in the midst of all of your ranting about "...SELFISH, UNCARING, INDULGENT, and HORRIBLE people." have you stopped to consider that those poor people who cannot afford healthcare will now be forced to buy it or pay a fine?
MikeNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Oh and Moonchild- the greediest people we have here in America at this point, The Democrats and our CEO in Chief. TAX, TAX, TAX, TAX. Take, Take, Take. I wonder if the people who are rounded up for not paying their tax penalty, will be thrown in that dungeon Nancy Pelosi said exited in halls of Congress. Ironic, Moonchild is all for having people who smoke pot released from jail and yet would support loved ones being taken from love ones, because they didn't pay their healthcare tax penalty. Almost reminds me of the debtor prisons of Europe in the 18 th 19 th century. Diane
Toda 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Seems like Moon Child is a whipping post for anyone who disagrees with her. Give it break and try to stick to topics as opposed to selective belligerent impunity.
Romney told donors he would eliminate or limit the mortgage-interest tax deduction for second homes for those with high incomes, and probably would do the same for the state income-tax and state property-tax deductions now taken by millions of Americans, the Wall Street Journal reported.
Romney aides said he was merely responding to questions offering suggestions during the fundraiser.
Tax Revisions and whishy washy
Toda 10 months, 3 weeks ago
And shame on President Obama for attempting to get those earning over $250,000 a year to strep up and pay their fair share of taxes. The working poor have to use mortgage interest to lessen their tax burden; so what does Romney do to reduce raising taxes, takes away tax advantages of the poor.
For all Mitt's supporters, why not ask why the very wealthy in this country get a free tax ride while those earning less than $25,000 pay the tax bill for ALL Americans.
Poor working class and some professionals can no longer afford health care...one San Francisco attorney graduated last fall with over $300,00 of college loans and $600. a month for 20/80 health expense without pre-existing...check out opensecrets.org and see whose interest politicians protect.
Romney Protecting the Wealthy
Thatcher 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Toda-- I'm going to take a wild guess here: you don't like Romney. Am I right? I feel like Nostradamus.
DaveyNC 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Toda, WWTP here, the wealthy hardly get away with a free tax ride. Romney paid something over $3M in taxes in 2011: http://goo.gl/gx26M
Warren Buffett paid somewhere over $6M in personal taxes. He's still trying to avoid his company paying over $1B in taxes: http://seekingalpha.com/article/516081-the-buffett-rule-do-as-warren-buffett-says-not-as-he-does That's Billion, with a "B". Not exactly a free ride. Well, except for Mr. Buffett of course.
clarabelle 10 months, 3 weeks ago
"Warren Buffett paid somewhere over $6M in personal taxes. He's still trying to avoid his company paying over $1B in taxes:"
DUH - why wouldn't he do all he can to pay as little taxes as possible UNDER the LAW - isn't that what we all do?
"Romney paid something over $3M in taxes in 2011"...............the average mans candidate ......BIG grin!
Toda 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Thatcher 18 hours, 41 minutes ago => I too may be a soothsayer in that Romney cannot come to terms on [his] policy. When speaking at the fundraiser, he through out ideas anticipating feedback on a scale of 1-10 for a popularity vote of confidence - which never came except providing more loopholes and tax advantages to those who can afford to pay more.
Toda 10 months, 3 weeks ago
clarabelle 14 hours, 11 minutes ago => link please...
buskwon 10 months, 3 weeks ago
moonchild7, You miss my point , If the government can TAX you for not buying insurance then they can TAX you for not buying whatever they want.
moonchild7 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Say all you want, here's the TRUTH. America has AVOIDED coming to terms with it's Over All Health Care Situation for way too long now. While the Elderly, Poor and Disabled have Government Health Care, the rest do not. They have to pay for their own whether thru an employer or themselves. Both England and France came to terms with this right after WWII. We've been confused, polarized, argumentative, angry, and above all UNCARING. Stop complaining about the high costs of it now. If you voted for Republicans who TRASHED Hillary Clintons "Health Care Plan" in the 90's YOU'RE to BLAME. The Health Care Industry was SO HAPPY when once again America voted to make the Health and Phamaceutical Industries RICHER and RICHER by essentially keeping them Corporations working under the PROFIT Movtive. If Romney becomes our next President you're in for a HUGE AWAKENING. The costs will absolutely skyrocket outta here. There should be no PROFIT MOTIVE in Health Care. I've said it before, Doctors and Nurses should be salaried Social Security and medicare are both paid for with taxes. I've yet to be taxed for NOT BUYING something buskwon. I have what I need, I use what I buy. I don't spend over my income or savings. I pay the taxes that I owe. It's your choice.
moonchild7 10 months, 3 weeks ago
Oh, I forgot this: Overall support for "OBAMACARE" is now at 48% up from 43%, since the Supreme Court Decision. It should go up even more once all of the LIES the Republicans keep spouting are exposed.