The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[Chef Jim]

But why do premiums go up? Do you know?

Wait so you're admitting healthcare costs are going up? Didn't you just say.....oh never mind.

[Tiberius]

Wait so you're admitting healthcare costs are going up? Didn't you just say.....oh never mind.

What did I say??

[Chef Jim]

What did I say??

 

You said premiums are going up. I assume you consider premiums to be part of the cost of healthcare. So you said the cost of healthcare has gone up. That is after you said they've gone down.

[B-Man]

King v. Burwell Is Much Bigger Than Obamacare: The Supreme Court is about to decide whether we are a nation of laws or men.

 

John Adams, in a 1775 essay referencing the Roman historian Livy and other sources, wrote that a republic was “a nation of laws, not of men.” As recently as fifty years ago, most Americans would have intuitively understood his point and why it was relevant to their lives. Today, it isn’t clear that the President of the United States, the leaders of the Democratic Party, or the members of our “news” media would grasp the meaning of Adams’ words, much less that they still matter today. We will soon discover if the same can be said of the Supreme Court.

The Court will hear oral arguments this Wednesday in King v. Burwell. The petitioners in this case want the justices to rule that the Obama administration must abide by the provisions of PPACA that govern insurance subsidies. The text of that law, better known as Obamacare, requires that all subsidies must flow through exchanges established by the states. But due to the refusal of 36 states to set up such “marketplaces,” the Obama administration cobbled together federal exchanges in those states through which it is now issuing illegal subsidies

 

In other words, the President conducts himself in a manner utterly inconsistent with republican principles and his constitutional oath. Obama obviously believes the law is what he says it is, a delusion evidently shared by his party and the press. He behaves as if he possesses the power to unilaterally change laws and create new ones merely because the opposition party actually opposes his agenda.

 

This is, at its core, what King v. Burwell is about. It has nothing do with any “plot to kill health care,” as the New York Times recently put it. Nor does it involve a surreptitious conspiracy to reinvigorate the “states’ rights” movement, as it was described last week in Politico. It isn’t even an attack on Obamacare, though a ruling in favor of David M. King and his fellow plaintiffs would obviously have a profound effect on the future of the “reform” law. It is rather an attempt to prevent the President from doing further violence to the Constitution.

 

Specifically, it is about the separation of powers doctrine. The Constitution grants the power to tax and spend to Congress alone. Yet the executive branch, under the Obama administration, has brazenly arrogated the power to spend with its IRS rule authorizing the distribution of subsidies through federal exchanges. The original cert petition filed with the Court on behalf of the plaintiffs phrases it as follows: “If the ACA means what it says… the IRS is illegally spending billions of taxpayer dollars every month without congressional authority.”

 

More at the link: http://spectator.org/articles/61915/king-v-burwell-much-bigger-obamacare

 

 

.

Edited March 2, 2015 by B-Man

[Keukasmallies]

That not accurate, you can buy insurance outside the open enrollment for quailed life events, ie job loss, marriage, etc. we bought exchange plans after I quit me job end of last year, and will buy Colorado plan when we move back.

 

That's all been happening for decades, the ACA didn't create that situation.... Continue it perhaps....

 

My experience is that some doctors thought they would get paid 200- 300k plus and work not a lick above 8 hours a day. When they found out bring a specialist might be 60 hours a week or more for that money the get disgruntled.

 

That's probably the case, BUT the ACA was sold as a cure-all for the ills of health care insurance in the US of A. Since it appears to have set up a steeper slope rather than smooth out the historical increases, I say again, "What actually went down?" That is, what went down other than the nation's respect for the current administration.

[Tiberius]

 

You said premiums are going up. I assume you consider premiums to be part of the cost of healthcare. So you said the cost of healthcare has gone up. That is after you said they've gone down.

The rate of increase has gone down. Imagine you not understanding the difference....

[Chef Jim]

The rate of increase has gone down. Imagine you not understanding the difference....

 

But that is only part of the total cost. Higher deductibles, co-pays and changes in networks has made health care more expensive for many.

[Tiberius]

 

But that is only part of the total cost. Higher deductibles, co-pays and changes in networks has made health care more expensive for many.

but, but, but....so what?

[Azalin]

but, but, but....so what?

ah, that famous leftist compassion in action.

[Nanker]

That not accurate, you can buy insurance outside the open enrollment for quailed life events, ie job loss, marriage, etc. we bought exchange plans after I quit me job end of last year, and will buy Colorado plan when we move back.

Okay, then please explain it to this nice young man's friend:

 

OK, true story from today.....

A friend of mine is unemployed and he has a crappy health insurance policy. His wife and kids are under a separate policy. He wants to buy 1 policy for all of them as he's starting a new job in a small company that does not offer insurance. He called healthcare.gov today and after a few phone calls he was told that he cannot buy insurance through healthcare.gov as the enrollment period for 2015 has lapsed. Really? the Obamacare folks are not allowing him to buy a policy? This is what he was told on more than 1 phone call today.

[motorguy]

King v. Burwell Is Much Bigger Than Obamacare: The Supreme Court is about to decide whether we are a nation of laws or men.

 

John Adams, in a 1775 essay referencing the Roman historian Livy and other sources, wrote that a republic was “a nation of laws, not of men.” As recently as fifty years ago, most Americans would have intuitively understood his point and why it was relevant to their lives. Today, it isn’t clear that the President of the United States, the leaders of the Democratic Party, or the members of our “news” media would grasp the meaning of Adams’ words, much less that they still matter today. We will soon discover if the same can be said of the Supreme Court.

The Court will hear oral arguments this Wednesday in King v. Burwell. The petitioners in this case want the justices to rule that the Obama administration must abide by the provisions of PPACA that govern insurance subsidies. The text of that law, better known as Obamacare, requires that all subsidies must flow through exchanges established by the states. But due to the refusal of 36 states to set up such “marketplaces,” the Obama administration cobbled together federal exchanges in those states through which it is now issuing illegal subsidies

 

In other words, the President conducts himself in a manner utterly inconsistent with republican principles and his constitutional oath. Obama obviously believes the law is what he says it is, a delusion evidently shared by his party and the press. He behaves as if he possesses the power to unilaterally change laws and create new ones merely because the opposition party actually opposes his agenda.

 

This is, at its core, what King v. Burwell is about. It has nothing do with any “plot to kill health care,” as the New York Times recently put it. Nor does it involve a surreptitious conspiracy to reinvigorate the “states’ rights” movement, as it was described last week in Politico. It isn’t even an attack on Obamacare, though a ruling in favor of David M. King and his fellow plaintiffs would obviously have a profound effect on the future of the “reform” law. It is rather an attempt to prevent the President from doing further violence to the Constitution.

 

Specifically, it is about the separation of powers doctrine. The Constitution grants the power to tax and spend to Congress alone. Yet the executive branch, under the Obama administration, has brazenly arrogated the power to spend with its IRS rule authorizing the distribution of subsidies through federal exchanges. The original cert petition filed with the Court on behalf of the plaintiffs phrases it as follows: “If the ACA means what it says… the IRS is illegally spending billions of taxpayer dollars every month without congressional authority.”

 

More at the link: http://spectator.org/articles/61915/king-v-burwell-much-bigger-obamacare

 

 

.

 

Great post here. very well stated.

[FireChan]

That not accurate, you can buy insurance outside the open enrollment for quailed life events, ie job loss, marriage, etc. we bought exchange plans after I quit me job end of last year, and will buy Colorado plan when we move back.

 

That's all been happening for decades, the ACA didn't create that situation.... Continue it perhaps....

 

My experience is that some doctors thought they would get paid 200- 300k plus and work not a lick above 8 hours a day. When they found out bring a specialist might be 60 hours a week or more for that money the get disgruntled.

They knew this would happen. "Not work a lick above 8 hours a day?" I haven't met a doctor under 60 who works less than 10 hours a day. And that's not counting their early years, when they work 80+ hour weeks.

 

Imagine getting a government pay cut doing one of the most important jobs in the nation.

 

Another person shaking his fist at those entitled guys who did 12 years of $300k of training for the privilege of saving your life.

[Greg F]

The rate of increase has gone down.

Cite?

[B-Large]

Okay, then please explain it to this nice young man's friend:

 

He should have got a policy that covered everybody when open enrollment was happening... I can't think of a reason why he didn't... Consolidating family policies is not a qualifying event, he can change if up next enrollment.

They knew this would happen. "Not work a lick above 8 hours a day?" I haven't met a doctor under 60 who works less than 10 hours a day. And that's not counting their early years, when they work 80+ hour weeks.

 

Imagine getting a government pay cut doing one of the most important jobs in the nation.

 

Another person shaking his fist at those entitled guys who did 12 years of $300k of training for the privilege of saving your life.

 

Oh you... I spent 12 years in hospital administration, I've seen all the circus acts. I know an Endo doc who 11 months into the fiscal year calculated that she met her salary and benefit RVU benchmarks for the year, so she told management she would be taking off that next month and to cancel her 32 half day clinic sessions. Management refused, as some patients had waited 4 months for those Appts... She called each patient and told them not to come in and schedule with someone else.

 

This case was extreme, but the bitching about making 300k and only working 45 weeks a year got REALLY old for me, and the cases were too many to count.

[Alaska Darin]

. When they found out bring a specialist might be 60 hours a week or more for that money the get disgruntled.

You're obviously not a doctor.

[B-Large]

You're obviously not a doctor.

No. Some of them are a rare breed of entitled and lazy though.

[Doc]

And administrators are sorely overpaid.

[3rdnlng]

The rate of increase has gone down. Imagine you not understanding the difference....

Sort of like the old "jobs saved" reference, eh?

And administrators are sorely overpaid.

I think Darin and Beerball earn every penny they get.

[Doc]

Sort of like the old "jobs saved" reference, eh?

I think Darin and Beerball earn every penny they get.

Opinions vary.

[Tiberius]

This is a good story on the case before the court.

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/six-words-landed-affordable-care-act-supreme-court/