News As Obamacare goes into effect, new criticisms leveled

  • Thread starter Thread starter Galteeth
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around criticisms of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), particularly focusing on issues related to its implementation and the potential for fraud. Participants express concerns about the complexities of the legislation, including the repayment of subsidies when income changes, which could create high effective marginal tax rates for low-income families. There is a significant debate about the legality of certain mandates within the ACA and the expansion of the IRS to enforce these rules. Critics argue that the legislation was rushed through Congress without adequate understanding or scrutiny, leading to potential negative consequences for both healthcare providers and patients. The conversation also touches on the broader implications of government involvement in healthcare, with some participants questioning the effectiveness and fairness of the system. Overall, the discussion highlights a mix of skepticism regarding the ACA's implementation and the challenges of navigating its complexities.
  • #51
WhoWee said:
Would it really be a terrible thing if this Congress does nothing except undo waste and otherwise perpetually increasing deficits? Do we really need any new programs and spending?

I can't honestly say that I know the answer to that, but it seems like a waste of the people's time. If the bill is going to die, I can accept (if not like) that, but to spend 2 years undoing one bill?... I think people who elected congressmen to legislate would be very angry.

Still, I'm not answering your fundamental question, and I don't know that I know enough to do so.

Al68: Sorry, I worded that in a manner that would only be sensible to people familiar with the gaff. He read the opening of the BoR as though it were the opening to the constitution as a whole. You can't substitute amendments for preamble, but you're right and I was unclear.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
Galteeth said:
WhoWe, have you heard of the "Read the bills" act?
http://www.downsizedc.org/read-the-laws

Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
Is it possible the House finally read the Bill? Three Democrats voted with the Republicans in the House to repeal the legislation 245 - 189.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-vote-health-care-repeal-bill-today/story?id=12648281

"House Passes Bill Repealing Health Care Law
Republicans Say Bill Sends a Strong Message, Urge Debate in Senate"

It passed with a margin of 220 - 215. That means the repeal won by a greater margin than the passage - correct?
 
  • #54
WhoWee said:
Is it possible the House finally read the Bill? Three Democrats voted with the Republicans in the House to repeal the legislation 245 - 189.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-vote-health-care-repeal-bill-today/story?id=12648281

"House Passes Bill Repealing Health Care Law
Republicans Say Bill Sends a Strong Message, Urge Debate in Senate"

It passed with a margin of 220 - 215. That means the repeal won by a greater margin than the passage - correct?

What did you expect? It's a new house... sadly for some, the senate remains intractable on the issue.
 
  • #56
WhoWee said:
Some things never seem to change. This doesn't seem to be the civil and toned-down rhetoric President Obama requested?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/0...-accuses-republicans-of-nazi-big-lie-on-heal/

Well, the problem of course is that this has made 2 things painfully clear:

1.) Sarah Palin is a narcissist, and an idiot, but she's not the devil or a killer.
2.) You can begin change with a lie, but at some point people have to buy into it... and Loughner is too obviously insane to allow for blame to be taken seriously.

The issue of rhetoric is very real, it just doesn't have anything to do with the reasons it's been raised... thus cynicism, thus failure of the attempt. That doesn't mean however, that hypocrisy of the sources aside, changing the dialogue from faux-psychopath to merely "angry" would be wise. I think, of all the commentary on this issue, the most salient and on-target has been Jon Stewart's; he makes a good case for a change in the environment so that the truly crazy people no longer seem like a kind of norm.
 
  • #57
nismaratwork said:
Well, the problem of course is that this has made 2 things painfully clear:

1.) Sarah Palin is a narcissist, and an idiot, but she's not the devil or a killer.
2.) You can begin change with a lie, but at some point people have to buy into it... and Loughner is too obviously insane to allow for blame to be taken seriously.

The issue of rhetoric is very real, it just doesn't have anything to do with the reasons it's been raised... thus cynicism, thus failure of the attempt. That doesn't mean however, that hypocrisy of the sources aside, changing the dialogue from faux-psychopath to merely "angry" would be wise. I think, of all the commentary on this issue, the most salient and on-target has been Jon Stewart's; he makes a good case for a change in the environment so that the truly crazy people no longer seem like a kind of norm.

These comments were made on the House floor before the vote on healthcare repeal.
 
  • #58
WhoWee said:
These comments were made on the House floor before the vote on healthcare repeal.

...? And? Because politicians are the BEST of us?! Ha!

edit: Politicians say things to and about each that, if a private citizen were to act in the same manner, would result in fines, civil suits, and even jail for terroristic threats, libel, and slander!
 
  • #60
mheslep said:
Rep. Steven Cohen: "just like Goebbels, [...] The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it -- and you had the Holocaust" What an ***.

WOW. I'd say more about what I think of this... "man"... making any such comparison, but I don't want to get banned.
 
  • #61
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas on the Neil Cavuto show cited a woman on Medicare might die if Obamacare were to be repealed. Cavuto challenged her - because the woman is on Medicare and would not be affected by any change in Obamacare. He told her she was making things up - she said the Republicans didn't read the Bill...blah, blah, blah(IMO)...watch and see.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/on-air-interview-heats-up-as-rep-claims-obamacare-repeal-would-kill-americans/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #62
WhoWee said:
Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas on the Neil Cavuto show cited a woman on Medicare might die if Obamacare were to be repealed. Cavuto challenged her - because the woman is on Medicare and would not be affected by any change in Obamacare. He told her she was making things up - she said the Republicans didn't read the Bill...blah, blah, blah(IMO)...watch and see.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/on-air-interview-heats-up-as-rep-claims-obamacare-repeal-would-kill-americans/

Cavuto also compared the events in Tunisia to incremental rise in cost of food staples in the US. As sources go, I really need something more than Fox-Anything, or MSNB-Anything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
nismaratwork said:
Cavuto also compared the events in Tunisia to incremental rise in cost of food staples in the US. As sources go, I really need something more than Fox-Anything, or MSNB-Anything.

Cavuto is not an elected official. Did you listen to the full exchange? How can a Congressperson not be challenged when they misrepresent the facts? If a Republican held up a photo of a sick worker on a retiree group plan and stated they would lose their specific group coverage under Obamacare (because of the elimination of tax deductions) - would they be challenged and accused of fearmongering?
 
  • #64
WhoWee said:
Cavuto is not an elected official. Did you listen to the full exchange? How can a Congressperson not be challenged when they misrepresent the facts? If a Republican held up a photo of a sick worker on a retiree group plan and stated they would lose their specific group coverage under Obamacare (because of the elimination of tax deductions) - would they be challenged and accused of fearmongering?

My point is that I'd rather stick a fork in my eye than listen to Cavuto exchange ideas; I'd rather see the man exchange fluids!

If he has valid points, surely there's a source for them that doesn't involve the opinion branch of Fox News.
 
  • #65
nismaratwork said:
My point is that I'd rather stick a fork in my eye than listen to Cavuto exchange ideas; I'd rather see the man exchange fluids!

If he has valid points, surely there's a source for them that doesn't involve the opinion branch of Fox News.

Somebody needs to challenge the misinformation this Congresswoman is spreading - it happened to be Cavuto - on Fox. The issue is her assertion that someone on Medicare will die - if Obamacare is repealed. It is a blatant lie - and he called her on it.
 
  • #66
WhoWee said:
Somebody needs to challenge the misinformation this Congresswoman is spreading - it happened to be Cavuto - on Fox. The issue is her assertion that someone on Medicare will die - if Obamacare is repealed. It is a blatant lie - and he called her on it.

OK, I can accept that possibility, but if he's making a valid argument there should be sources beyond Cavuto himself to support his points. I'm not too proud to beg: if they exist, please share!... I really really REALLY don't want to watch that... man... talk for more than 5 seconds per year.

O'Reilly is wacky, Beck is NUTS, but Cavuto?... What's his excuse? He and Olberman should be locked in a cage with a rabid hyena... a hungry, rabid hyena.
 
  • #67
I guess Cavuto is your Soledad O'Brien - ever since Katrina - I can't watch her.
 
  • #68
WhoWee said:
I guess Cavuto is your Soledad O'Brien - ever since Katrina - I can't watch her.

Yeah, that sounds about right, although to be fair I never could stand O'Brien. I don't believe she has anything to do with news, just "special programming"... which to me just says, "get thee to Lifetime or Hallmark".
 
  • #69
How does the new system work? Are all required to get health insurance? What happens to those people who are unemployed/underemployed and do not have enough money to buy insurance?
 
  • #70
I guess none of us know.
 
  • #71
PhilKravitz said:
How does the new system work? Are all required to get health insurance? What happens to those people who are unemployed/underemployed and do not have enough money to buy insurance?

Where do you want to start? It's phased-in over several years. The taxes start ahead of the benefits. The Obama Administration has granted over 200 waivers to companies thus far - so NO - everyone won't have to follow the rules. We have a few other threads running with a lot of posts. You might want to read through them as well.

This link will give you an idea of the problem with this legislation - not a lot of clarity.
http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf
 
  • #72
Zefram said:
If you want a basic introduction to the law, KFF has lots of materials for you. Also note that the legislation linked to in the post above is not the law in question.

Kaiser has published some good information. As for the link - think of it as research notes.
 
  • #73
I'm going to pipe up and say, I think it does no harm to see both sides (and they are SIDES) of this debate, but beyond that there is no substitute for a truly neutral and knowledgeable party. I'm not that party, but there isn't a lot of neutral going around right now, and it's a HUGE bill so if you do find that person or group... please share?
 
  • #74
isotopiary said:
I feel the criticism is warranted. If it weren't, why were over 200 waivers to Obamacare granted (primarily to politically well-connected unions)? And, why were shady procedural tactics (threatened reconciliation) and blatant buy-offs (Cornhusker kick-back) used to secure passage? In my opinion, from this legislative disaster recovery will be exceedingly slow.

You feel this is somehow different from the way that other legislation is produced?
 
  • #75
isotopiary said:
Reconciliation has traditionally only been used for passing budgets (which the Democrats refused to do last year). Granted, buy-offs have gone on forever, but you have to admit that a buy-off exempting a state from parts of the legislation itself is pretty blatant.

Oh, it's so blatant I don't recall if it even made it into the final bill! Still, I think the lesson we can take from this has less to do about this bill, than it does with what a concentration of Washington wheeling and dealing looks like. Normally we get ONE bridge to nowhere, or some pork... here we had a HUGE trough, so we had some big old hogs!

As for reconciliation, you could be right, I certainly don't know. I'll tell you what, unless someone else has evidence to the contrary, I'll take your word for it.
 
  • #76
Zefram said:
The permanently increased FMAP for Nebraska didn't make it into the law. It was removed, ironically perhaps, using reconciliation.

I'd call that irony! Thanks for the information Zefram.
 
  • #77
isotopiary said:
Yes, reconciliation (only 51 votes needed for cloture - instead of 60) had traditionally been used only for passing budgets. The Democrats had threatened to use it to block Bush judicial appointees (the nuclear option), but McCain and others thwarted that effort.
Right, the Democrats, in the minority then in 2005, were using the filibuster in the Senate to block Bush judicial appointees when the majority Republicans threatened the "nuclear option" to stop the filibusters by changing Senate rules when McCain stepped in.
 
  • #78
If for no other reason than to eliminate the pork and complexity, I vote for a do-over. The bill is about 999 pages too long, and about 1,000% too expensive.

Apparently, Econ wasn't a required course in law school. Apparently, neither was preventative medicine, health ed, or P.E. You can't fix America's health problems by bankrupting the country.

Life just doesn't work that way.
 
  • #79
More health care waivers approved.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...-more-than-50-denied-waiver-requests-hhs-says

"The latest round of approvals bumped the number of waivers from 222 to 729. However, the number of individuals covered by the waivers rose from 1.5 million to just 2.1 million. HHS said it was anticipating the bump because plans were required to file the waiver request before the plan year starts — Jan. 1 for many.

Republicans on the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee last week asked HHS to disclosed detailed information on waiver requests. HHS said Wednesday night that the waiver process has been transparent. "
 
  • #80
Testimony couple days ago from the Medicare actuary and Rep McClintock

McCLINTOCK: True or false: The two principal promises that were made in support of Obamacare were one, that it would hold costs down. True or false?

FOSTER: I would say false, more so than true.

McCLINTOCK: The other promise… was the promise that if you like your plan, you can keep it. True or false?

FOSTER: Not true in all cases.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC9rhGWJA2w&feature=player_embedded

Its over! Repeal and replace the thing already.
 
  • #81
When it comes down to it, just scrap it all, along with entitlements. Cut down the population, lower the deficit... win win.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic either... we don't need so many people, and I, and those I care about have money now. So... cut 'em all loose, but I sure hope hat you have something in the bank.

I'm amazed that anyone on the pro-universal health-care side actually WANTS to pass anything at this point... don't want it? don't have it! When your cystic fibrosis starts to act up, well... genetics. Cancer bad? Well, let's see the color of your money.

Really... who's lives are you trying to save?... gulls who are moved by the kind of rhetoric quotes in this thread, and espoused by others? :smile:

USA... a train wreck in slow motion where the passengers are too busy talking to get off the train. It's going to be interesting to watch it happen... train wrecks always are.
 
  • #82
nismaratwork said:
When it comes down to it, just scrap it all, along with entitlements. Cut down the population, lower the deficit... win win.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic either... we don't need so many people, and I, and those I care about have money now. So... cut 'em all loose, but I sure hope hat you have something in the bank.

I'm amazed that anyone on the pro-universal health-care side actually WANTS to pass anything at this point... don't want it? don't have it! When your cystic fibrosis starts to act up, well... genetics. Cancer bad? Well, let's see the color of your money.

Really... who's lives are you trying to save?... gulls who are moved by the kind of rhetoric quotes in this thread, and espoused by others? :smile:

USA... a train wreck in slow motion where the passengers are too busy talking to get off the train. It's going to be interesting to watch it happen... train wrecks always are.

:rolleyes:Is this a new kind of scare tactic?:wink:
 
  • #83
WhoWee said:
:rolleyes:Is this a new kind of scare tactic?:wink:

Nope, just something a comedian pointed out: we have all of these "liberals" trying to FORCE unwanted health care on people. OK, cut it.

Seriously, let's try it Rand Paul's way and see what happens, I'm a naturalized citizen with more than one citizenship; this isn't my grave.

I see what doctors are doing in the USA, changing who they take as patients, what they prescribe, and sometimes they move their practices abroad! Your system is terribly broken, and if the best solution right now is nothing... do it.

So... no... not a scare tactic... this is like trying to convince a Jehova's witness to get a transplant if they're set against it. At some point, if they want to die so badly... die already.
 
  • #84
Federal government future expect liabilities minus future expect revenues equals 202 trillion dollars. So no need to change anything. Just wait and change will come due to reality.
 
  • #85
PhilKravitz said:
Federal government future expect liabilities minus future expect revenues equals 202 trillion dollars. So no need to change anything. Just wait and change will come due to reality.

Huh?
 
  • #86
nismaratwork said:
Nope, just something a comedian pointed out: we have all of these "liberals" trying to FORCE unwanted health care on people. OK, cut it.

Seriously, let's try it Rand Paul's way and see what happens, I'm a naturalized citizen with more than one citizenship; this isn't my grave.

I see what doctors are doing in the USA, changing who they take as patients, what they prescribe, and sometimes they move their practices abroad! Your system is terribly broken, and if the best solution right now is nothing... do it.

So... no... not a scare tactic... this is like trying to convince a Jehova's witness to get a transplant if they're set against it. At some point, if they want to die so badly... die already.

No one is saying we should do "nothing" about America's healthcare system. It obviously needs reform. But the Democratic party's argument that we had to do "something," and hence Obamacare, well Obamacare was the totally wrong way to go about it and was done in the name of ideology by the Democrats.
 
  • #87
This is something I've touched on in previous posts/threads but we don't yet have all of the details. The Class Act is Title VIII of the healthcare law. The Senate passed it 12/24/09, House approved 3/21/10, and President Obama signed it into law on 3/23/10. Now, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is expected to set benefits by October 2012?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/proposal/titleviii
"Title VIII. Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act (CLASS Act)
Establishing a Voluntary, Self-Funding Long-Term Insurance Choice for American Families
The Act provides Americans with a new option to finance long-term services and care in the event of a disability."

We do have a framework - benefits will depend on a person's degree of impairment (min $50/day) expected to average $75/day. Individuals will pay premiums for at least 5 years before they qualify - a 5 year waiting period. We still don't know if this will be classified a "Partnership" plan (insurance term) with the Government - but should be with the various carriers (per state regulations).

Nursing home care is very expensive and a drain on Medicaid. LTC (Long Term Care) typically requires medical underwriting and is designed to protect retirement assets (as well as the house).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
CAC1001 said:
No one is saying we should do "nothing" about America's healthcare system. It obviously needs reform. But the Democratic party's argument that we had to do "something," and hence Obamacare, well Obamacare was the totally wrong way to go about it and was done in the name of ideology by the Democrats.

Someone is; I am. Send it back to the states, if they can afford it, and if not... not.
 
  • #89
nismaratwork said:
Someone is; I am. Send it back to the states, if they can afford it, and if not... not.
Or we could fix the problem with each state prohibiting out of state insurance policies. The federal government has no constitutional authority to force people to buy insurance, but they do have the power to regulate interstate commerce, so they could simply pass a law preempting state prohibitions on interstate policies, after repealing Obamacare.

That would immediately and drastically improve competition. And an even bigger advantage to consumers is that it would provide an incentive for states to stop screwing over consumers with their regulations, since a consumer can simply buy a policy not subject to them from another state.
 
  • #90
Al68 said:
Or we could fix the problem with each state prohibiting out of state insurance policies. The federal government has no constitutional authority to force people to buy insurance, but they do have the power to regulate interstate commerce, so they could simply pass a law preempting state prohibitions on interstate policies, after repealing Obamacare.

That would immediately and drastically improve competition. And an even bigger advantage to consumers is that it would provide an incentive for states to stop screwing over consumers with their regulations, since a consumer can simply buy a policy not subject to them from another state.

I think it would be more productive if the states worked to agree on a reasonable standard for policies to be sold (and used) across state lines. The best way to turn away a bad idea is to have a good idea.
 
  • #91
One of the brightest ladies of my high school, a current PhD, came at me with a simple objection to my complaints. When I got what she was getting at, and replied with 53 objections to her points which she claimed did not exist in the health care plan at all, yet in the first 49 pages of a 1,000 page document, she gave up, dissed me from FB, and I haven't heard from her since.

So much for Valedictorians with respect to being able to read government documentation.

I'm retired. She's not. Somehow, I "evolved" between then and now, or I would have been one of the V's.

Still, the documents rest on their own case. I rest on mine.
 
  • #92
Zefram said:
There are multiple ways to try and do that without granting states the authority to deregulate each other's insurance markets.
What are you referring to? Are people within a state that state's "insurance market"? Does my ability to buy other products from another state constitute the other state deregulating my state's market? Or is it simply an option for consumers to avoid state regulations they determine to be bad ones.

Is it really not obvious why something gets very expensive when government forcefully replaces the decisions of consumers with its own?
The point here is that opening up health insurance markets across state lines need not go hand-in-hand with the shedding of consumer protections.
What "consumer protections" are you referring to? The advantage to being able to buy insurance from other states is that a consumer can avoid the states with burdensome regulations. The cost of regulation would be obvious in the price differences between the states.

Better yet would be a complete prohibition on any state trying to control the contents of a private agreement between private parties. Imagine that. What an extreme and radical notion. :eek:
 
  • #93
WhoWee said:
I think it would be more productive if the states worked to agree on a reasonable standard for policies to be sold (and used) across state lines. The best way to turn away a bad idea is to have a good idea.
Then what of the consumers that don't consider that standard so reasonable? That's not much better than Obamacare.

How about both the federal government and the states refrain from interfering in private contracts? Or at least give consumers the option of picking a state that does.
 
  • #94
Al68 said:
Then what of the consumers that don't consider that standard so reasonable? That's not much better than Obamacare.

How about both the federal government and the states refrain from interfering in private contracts? Or at least give consumers the option of picking a state that does.

The state regulators are closer to the consumers - they hear the problems and deal with insurance issues on a daily basis. I trust the 50 experienced insurance regulators to establish a reasonable set of regulations more than an isolated group of self serving Washington bureaucrats.
 
  • #95
WhoWee said:
The state regulators are closer to the consumers - they hear the problems and deal with insurance issues on a daily basis. I trust the 50 experienced insurance regulators to establish a reasonable set of regulations more than an isolated group of self serving Washington bureaucrats.
I agree. My point was that some states are better than others, and would be even more so if consumers were free to choose between them, without some "standard" applying to them all.
 
  • #96
Al68 said:
I agree. My point was that some states are better than others, and would be even more so if consumers were free to choose between them, without some "standard" applying to them all.

Insurance regulations are similar to building codes. Some regulations might be more applicable to one region than an another - but everyone can build to the highest standard. If everyone agrees to the same (higher) standards, then all of the (qualified) insurance companies will be able to compete nationwide.
 
  • #97
We don't shed all consumer protections in the property and hazzard insurance markets when they operate across the states; I fail to see why that most be so with health insurance.
 
  • #98
How about we limit government medical care to a life time cap of $50,000 per person.
 
  • #99
PhilKravitz said:
How about we limit government medical care to a life time cap of $50,000 per person.

What would that accomplish? I'll assume you know $50k is a very small amount of medical coverage. In insurance terms, a $50k cash indemnity plan is best sold to someone that doesn't really need coverage - a very healthy 22 year old male that wants to tell his parents he has coverage.
 
  • #100
WhoWee said:
What would that accomplish?.

Lower government spending.
 

Similar threads

Insights Is Science an Authority? How to View Announcements from Scientists
2
Replies
95
Views
7K
News How much the rich are being taxed
Replies
49
Views
11K
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
Replies
15
Views
3K
New High Efficiency Power Lines
Replies
4
Views
1K
Sad adieu to Botanic Man, David Bellamy
Replies
2
Views
2K
Mad Magazine - A brief history
Replies
9
Views
801
How is mathematics related to creativity?
Replies
7
Views
4K
Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
Replies
4
Views
3K
News WikiLeaks & Anonymous: "Hacktivism" & Freedom of the Internet
Replies
24
Views
5K
B Are real theories undiscoverable from effective field theories?
Replies
4
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top