Obamacare Survives with a twist

[Don]

Originally Posted by Chrissy

*hands out more business cards*



It just occurred to me this could be great for the underground economy.

Paging Don to the front desk, Don, to the front desk, please.....

Already on it, Chrissy. You're absolutely right. As EarlyBird points out, this is one more reason for a career that allows for cash or barter transactions. Points to FedGov for encouraging more people to shrug and starve the beast.

[robeiae]

On the Medicaid expansion aspect: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...oyola?toggle=y

The silver lining in yesterday’s ruling was that Chief Justice John Roberts marshaled seven votes for a significant revision of the Dole coercion doctrine. The essence of the ruling was that states must retain freedom of choice, not just in theory but also in fact. Though the Court provided little guidance in how to distinguish between mere encouragement and compulsion, it seems clear from the ruling that if the penalty is much more than nominal, it risks being struck down for eliminating the state’s freedom of choice in fact. Another crucial aspect of the ruling was that the threat of losing all Medicaid matching funds if states did not comply with Obamacare’s transformation of Medicaid was per se unconstitutional. Elevating Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s Dole dissent into the majority, the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to condition the funds for one program on compliance with the dictates of a different program. The Medicaid expansion is no mere modification of Medicaid, reasoned the Court: It creates an entirely new program. Now think about that for a second. Many and perhaps most conditional federal grant programs have provisions similar to the one struck down by the Roberts Court. All of those will now be open to constitutional challenge.

I think this decision may truly have been a Marbury v. Madison moment. Roberts has taken full control of the Court and has bent it to his will, to his views on the scope of government authority. And he's done it quite cleverly. Maybe too cleverly, though...

[RudyValentina]

I will say this, just before this came up the first time around we had an insurance meeting at my job, and a couple of insurance people hung out in the lobby before the meeting. I heard them complain about Obamacare because they thought the idea of having to accept anyone, not being able to kick people out, and most of all, losing money, apparently made them sick to their stomachs. To me, listening to these greedy people made me be pro Obamacare. They don't care about people, only money and if this means that they can't just do as they please with people’s lives I'm all for it.
I feel like many people are just against it on principal, without thinking about it. For instance on twitter there were sooo many posters screaming "I'm moving to Canada because of this" and I thought to myself "Don't you all know that Canada has healthcare for all as well? You'll be forced to pay for it one way or the other there as well..." I don't think people really think about it. If a republican had passed this same law conservatives would be applauding it.

[muravyets]

A Republican did pass the same law, and it was applauded, for a while. Not any more. That Republican was, of course, Mitt Romney.

[Zoombie]

I'm going to continue my lurk and observe for now.

[third person]

Originally Posted by muravyets

A Republican did pass the same law, and it was applauded, for a while. Not any more. That Republican was, of course, Mitt Romney.

Yep. And for fun, here's Four Things Romney Wishes He Hadn't Said About Romneycare.

[muravyets]

Originally Posted by third person

Yep. And for fun, here's Four Things Romney Wishes He Hadn't Said About Romneycare.

The four is up to five already, eh? I'll bet that list will keep growing between now and election day.

[clintl]

All Obama really needs to do to defuse Romney completely on those issue is run those clips in a few commercials. Especially the one about Romneycare being a model for the nation. The one about the mandate and "freeloaders" would be very powerful, too. Romney will not be able to counter that, and it could very well undermine some of the Republican base's support for Romney.

[clintl]

Originally Posted by RudyValentina

I feel like many people are just against it on principal, without thinking about it. For instance on twitter there were sooo many posters screaming "I'm moving to Canada because of this" and I thought to myself "Don't you all know that Canada has healthcare for all as well? You'll be forced to pay for it one way or the other there as well..." I don't think people really think about it. If a republican had passed this same law conservatives would be applauding it.

Those are probably the same people who were holding up protest signs a couple of years ago that said, "Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare!"

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by clintl

Those are probably the same people who were holding up protest signs a couple of years ago that said, "Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare!"

Considering that I saw those primarily at right-wing gatherings, yes.

Because as much as people like to say - and even believe - they vote in their own best interest rather than along party lines, that's not the way things play out.

http://content.ksg.harvard.edu/blog/...y-fat-margins/

Those who have the most to gain from President Obama’s health care legislation are those who have a pre-existing condition or are pre-disposed to illness, for example because they are overweight. They are more likely to need medical care in the future, but can be charged higher rates if they try to buy private insurance, by virtue of their condition. Or they can be excluded completely. (Each obese American incurs medical costs 42% higher than those of normal weight.)

I show how Congressmen from each state voted on the Affordable Care Act on the vertical axis of Figure 1, with the state rates of obesity on the horizontal axis. There is a statistically significant relationship. But the relationship goes the other way: states where more people are overweight, such as Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina and Texas, are more likely to oppose Obamacare. In those parts of the country where people are slimmer, such as New England, New York and Colorado, there is strong support for health care reform. For every one percentage point increase in obesity, support for Obamacare declines by an estimated four percentage points on average.

[...]

Ideology is much less important than party affiliation. This is the same result when one looks at which states receive more federal subsidies: despite all the rhetoric about “getting the government off our backs,” it is the red states, i.e., those where people vote Republican, that receive the most transfers from Washington.

(bolding mine)

[rugcat]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Because as much as people like to say - and even believe - they vote in their own best interest rather than along party lines, that's not the way things play out.

An interesting corollary is that when the proposed Medicaid expansion, (part of the ACA) kicks in, the states who will benefit the most are those who have been the most stringent in limiting it to date -- mostly red states.

Texas covers only working adults up to 26 percent of the poverty line. The poverty line for an individual is $11,170. So, you could be a single person making $3,000 a year and you’re still not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid in Texas. . .

. . .In May 2010, the Kaiser Family Foundation ran the numbers for all
50 states. Of the top 10 beneficiaries — which I’m defining as the states that get the highest percentage of eligible adults moved to insurance by the Medicaid expansion — nine of them are states that went for John McCain in 2008. Of the 10 states that get the least help from the Medicaid expansion, eight of them went for Barack Obama. As Alec MacGillis wrote in The Post back in May 2009, “The Democrats’ No. 1 domestic policy initiative, universal health care, is likely to help red America at the expense of blue.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...gy-red-states/


However, red states are so opposed to Obamacare that the the governors of Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana have already promised to refuse to implement the Medicaid expansion which would cover their poor with a huge influx of federal money.

[Don]

...and of course, people who oppose things that may put money in their pockets at others' expense could only do so because they're stupid, and not because they choose principles over pragmatism.

Wasn't it a Democrat who said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?"

[caliph]

Thought I'd link to hilarious article on this
http://www.cracked.com/blog/what-oba...my-girlfriend/
Unproductive? Eh.

[AncientEagle]

Originally Posted by Don

...and of course, people who oppose things that may put money in their pockets at others' expense could only do so because they're stupid, and not because they choose principles over pragmatism.

Wasn't it a Democrat who said "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?"

Nah, they're highly principled politicians who are concerned that taking Federal money paid in by the taxpayers, and using it to help their own citizens who need health care, is just morally wrong. They'd rather let their own people suffer 'cause, after all, ask not what you can do for your own suffering people, but ask what most fits your political agenda.

No, they're not stupid. Just painfully wrongheaded. In my opinion, of course.

[raburrell]

Originally Posted by Don

...and of course, people who oppose things that may put money in their pockets at others' expense could only do so because they're stupid, and not because they choose principles over pragmatism.

Stupid, no. But it's much easier to stick to your principles when some else gets to suffer for them.