How the Affordable Care Act benefits you

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by lord007

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...loyer-coverage...Sounds like a plan....suck it up you Fn moonbat

a lot of smaller companies will decide to pay the fine and dump group coverage, because it'll be cheaper that way. no surprise at all. the only surprise is that people think it won't happen. employers know that their workers will be able to get it elsewhere-so why not?
group coverage is good in that no one can be denied. but it can also be higher in cost for the youngest and healthiest employees, as they are subsidizing the overall cost-which is higher for some, lower for others. my son just experienced that-his cost was lower going on his own. for now. i told him when the ind. price exceeds the group, get in the group-if it still exists at that point.
but i'm being optimistic that the scotus will overturn what is unconstitutional. there is no way the commerce clause will be interpreted as the proper tool to force people to buy a product-even if it's 'for their own good'. who wants the govt deciding that?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

a lot of smaller companies will decide to pay the fine and dump group coverage, because it'll be cheaper that way. no surprise at all.

From the article:
" ... the law could just as well increase the number of people with employer-based coverage by 3 million in 2019."

group coverage is good in that no one can be denied.

Per the ACA nobody can be denied, even in private coverage. Good thing your worry will be gone due to the ACA.

but it can also be higher in cost for the youngest and healthiest employees, as they are subsidizing the overall cost-which is higher for some, lower for others.

Cost which is brought down by insurance exchanges allowing non-profits to participate.

but i'm being optimistic that the scotus will overturn what is unconstitutional. there is no way the commerce clause will be interpreted as the proper tool to force people to buy a product-even if it's 'for their own good'. who wants the govt deciding that?

The Republican Party. "Everyone must be self-responsible and purchase health insurance". It's their health plan. Similar to the one Mitt Romney instituted to great success.

You're insured, right 'Zig? You take advantage of your increased preventive care benefits yet? Pap smear? Mammogram?

20.4 million women with private insurance now can get free preventive care. That means they can get life-saving cancer screenings like mammograms and can have their contraception covered without paying a co-pay or deductible. They’re living healthier lives while saving money at the same time.

[Riot]

[Honu]

What if everyone refuses to pay the penalty? Then where does the revenue come from? I know that in this recession my partners boss has made some changes to the companies insurance program a slight increase in premiums and they dropped the life insurance policy. I also want to know if in this fabulous newly run program are people who are in very high risk jobs like me still get the shaft or will I just be considered no more of a risk than someone who pushes paper?
I guess Im one of those people who will believe it when I see it.

[ArlJim78]

there are no benefits to the bill, it's simply the worst disaster foisted on the country by democrats in half a century. none of what was said about it is true including the costs which are astronomical. it is so bad that it won't be around for long because it will collapse of its own weight.

before it has even fully been implemented the estimated costs have doubled according to the CBO. it's hysterical that someone would post statements from barackobama.com or any .gov website, as if that is anything you can rely on. it's nonsense.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

there are no benefits to the bill, it's simply the worst disaster foisted on the country by democrats in half a century. none of what was said about it is true including the costs which are astronomical. it is so bad that it won't be around for long because it will collapse of its own weight.

before it has even fully been implemented the estimated costs have doubled according to the CBO. it's hysterical that someone would post statements from barackobama.com or any .gov website, as if that is anything you can rely on. it's nonsense.

wow! a rare arlington jim sighting.

it must be an election year.

[Riot]

The Executive Branch is trying to get the SCOTUS to review this right before the election.

Why is that?

Hummmmm.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Honu

What if everyone refuses to pay the penalty? Then where does the revenue come from? I know that in this recession my partners boss has made some changes to the companies insurance program a slight increase in premiums and they dropped the life insurance policy. I also want to know if in this fabulous newly run program are people who are in very high risk jobs like me still get the shaft or will I just be considered no more of a risk than someone who pushes paper?
I guess Im one of those people who will believe it when I see it.

smaller groups are expected to cut coverages. matter of fact, bcbs already doesn't offer their less than 20 emp. group plan any longer.
one of the issues with obamacare is they ran the numbers based on one million losing employee coverage, when in fact six million or more could lose it. but using the one million number kept the cost under a trillion when they passed it. of course we now see theyve increased the costs, and concede it could be still higher.
does anyone rememeber legislation before ppuca being passed with no real idea of cost? no bottom line? anyone remember any bill being explained with the words you have to pass it to see whats in it?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

anyone remember any bill being explained with the words you have to pass it to see whats in it?

Yes. That was when three different versions were being worked on separately, in Committee, the House, and the Senate, and a final version was not yet brought up for passage.

[Riot]

Interesting comment. The oral arguments before the Supremes start a week from Monday, the 26th.

This aggregation review of previous decisions essentially says the Supremes will likely hold with the two other conservative lower court judges opinions in support of the mandate. Points out a libertarian (conservative) court view of individual responsibility supports the individual mandate, and to overturn it would go against previous court rulings on the commerce clause.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1354804.html

Neal Katyal, the former acting U.S. solicitor general, said iIn an interview with HuffPost that the government responds to this argument by saying that "everyone consumes health care in this country."

"Right now 50 million people don't have insurance, so it means that you and I essentially are paying for them," said Katyal, who defended the law in front of three appeals courts. "Congress said, 'Let's fix that system and make it so that everyone has a certain amount of insurance.'"

Next week's health care cases come from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which did not buy the government's argument. But high-profile conservative judges on two other appeals courts. Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton, a former Scalia law clerk, was the first among all federal judges to cross party lines to uphold the mandate. D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan-appointed greybeard of the conservative legal movement, did the same.

The challengers' "view that an individual cannot be subject to Commerce Clause regulation absent voluntary, affirmative acts that enter him or her into, or affect, the interstate market expresses a concern for individual liberty that seems more redolent of" the cramped pre-1937 view of economic regulation, wrote Silberman. That reading "has no foundation in the Commerce Clause," he concluded.