Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Detritus » Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:30 pm

Stebben84 wrote:
Meade wrote:
The actual cost of the regulations and taxes may be more or less than predicted. What is known, however, is that severing other provisions from the Individual Man- date and Medicaid Expansion necessarily would impose significant risks and real uncertainties on insurance com- panies, their customers, all other major actors in the sys- tem, and the government treasury. And what also is known is this: Unnecessary risks and avoidable uncertain- ties are hostile to economic progress and fiscal stability and thus to the safety and welfare of the Nation and the Nation’s freedom.


Link please Meade. Board rules and for all I know your Aunt Minnie could have written this.

You will very, very dearly love this, which I sincerely hope was not written by Meade's Aunt Minnie:
http://usofarn.com/2012/06/28/what-the-fuck-obamacare-ruling-edition-.aspx

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Meade » Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:35 pm

Stebben84 wrote:
Meade wrote:
The actual cost of the regulations and taxes may be more or less than predicted. What is known, however, is that severing other provisions from the Individual Man- date and Medicaid Expansion necessarily would impose significant risks and real uncertainties on insurance com- panies, their customers, all other major actors in the sys- tem, and the government treasury. And what also is known is this: Unnecessary risks and avoidable uncertain- ties are hostile to economic progress and fiscal stability and thus to the safety and welfare of the Nation and the Nation’s freedom.


Link please Meade. Board rules and for all I know your Aunt Minnie could have written this.

It's from Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.. Ever heard of it?

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 13531
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby snoqueen » Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:46 pm

Meade, that quote looks like it's from the dissent of Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito to the healthcare ruling. See section C, 1, a, paragraph 4.

http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2012 ... rt-5-of-6/

(I happen to think Justice Roberts pulled off one of the great political/legal finesses of all time.)

Might help if people started trying to read what the law says, instead of continuing this endless argument about what the SC said.
Last edited by snoqueen on Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Stebben84 » Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:54 pm

bdog wrote:
Stebben84 wrote:This brings me to another question. Do you actually WANT this to work, or do you want it to fail.

I would love for it to work. I'm in the middle on it, mostly because I don't understand it yet. What I do know is it doesn't make sense to call anyone a liar over it.


Fair enough, then on the flip side I'd like to know where Walker gets his assumptions from. I know for a fact that people will and have already benefited from the provisions that were put in place already. I know some of them personally with pre-existing conditions. What proof does Walker or Meade have that it will "decrease the quality of health care and, in our state, reduce access for those truly in need of assistance..."

And Meade, I just read your last post. Wasn't that the dissent? What Walker said is not what was written in this post. It was quite a liberal interpretation. Please note the following. Emphasis mine.

If that analysis is correct, the regulations and taxes will mean higher costs for insurance companies. Higher costs may mean higher premiums for consumers, despite the Act’s goal of “lower[ing] health insurance premiums.” 42 U. S. C. §18091(2)(F) (2006 ed., Supp. IV). Higher costs also could threaten the survival of health-insurance companies, despite the Act’s goal of “effective health insurance markets.” §18091(2)(J).


http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/2012 ... rt-5-of-6/

Notice how they said may and could versus Walker saying would. There is a difference and it's called spin. We have risks and uncertainty in the stock market all the time and people make out like bandits.
Last edited by Stebben84 on Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 13531
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby snoqueen » Thu Jul 05, 2012 3:58 pm

"Unnecessary risks and avoidable uncertain- ties are hostile to economic progress and fiscal stability and thus to the safety and welfare of the Nation and the Nation’s freedom."


And this is our same Walker who wants to dismantle the trust fund?

Never mind. Back to the affordable care act. Carry on.

Meade
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Meade » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:10 pm

Remember, this is a law that already will cost as much as $2.7 trillion from 2014 to 2024, and will add more than $823 billion to the federal deficit — estimates that assumed state taxpayers would be picking up some Medicaid costs. How will Congress react if billions or perhaps trillions of dollars in new costs are added to the federal budget?
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obamacares-now-bigger-mess?print

Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6073
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Stebben84 » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:21 pm

From the same article.

it dumped a mess in the laps of governors and state legislators


The mess will be created if the governors don't start setting up the exchanges. So the governors let everything get mucked up and then blame the system. Nice.

This was a horribly written opinion with many statistics, but no foot notes.

ObamaCare required states to increase eligibility for Medicaid to 133 percent of the poverty line, or roughly $30,000 per year for a family of four. The expansion would also make childless single men (a notoriously high-cost group) eligible for Medicaid for the first time. In all, about 40 percent of all the people projected to gain coverage under ObamaCare would do so via Medicaid.


On second thought, lets just let these folks get sick and die or better yet, go bankrupt. That'll show 'em.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 13531
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby snoqueen » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:30 pm

And instead of letting the government run a planned, coordinated healthcare system with economies of scale (think of Medicare, a popular program that relieves older people of tremendous burdens and worries) you'd rather have every man/woman for him/herself? You'd rather leave things the way they are now?

Talk about doing things the hard way, and the expensive way.

And I'm fed up with all this whining about "new taxes." What about all the people who will be paying less in insurance premiums?

If the total aggregate healthcare dollars spent in the US goes up, it'll be because people previously receiving no health care are now receiving some.

If it goes down, which seems less likely, we'll be covering more people at less cost per person.

Either way, the government has set up rules to make those healthcare dollars get spent more efficiently, with better accountability and results.

Why would anybody object to this, unless they were making out like bandits under the old system and are now going to be reined in?
Last edited by snoqueen on Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Detritus » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:33 pm

Meade wrote:
The actual cost of the regulations and taxes may be more or less than predicted. What is known, however, is that severing other provisions from the Individual Man- date and Medicaid Expansion necessarily would impose significant risks and real uncertainties on insurance com- panies, their customers, all other major actors in the sys- tem, and the government treasury. And what also is known is this: Unnecessary risks and avoidable uncertain- ties are hostile to economic progress and fiscal stability and thus to the safety and welfare of the Nation and the Nation’s freedom.

It's from Chief Justice Roberts' opinion in NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS ET AL. v. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.. Ever heard of it?

The original text may have come from the dissent to that decision, but I will wager that you got it from the site I linked, strange punctuation and all. And even that site seems to understand that it's not the majority opinion, but the dissent.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 13531
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby snoqueen » Thu Jul 05, 2012 4:42 pm

That usofarn site (Detritus' link) is full of Meadisms, or at least things he borrows. Talk about a mess.

Beaver
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3131
Joined: Fri May 04, 2001 9:57 am
Location: Building a dam in the river
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Beaver » Thu Jul 05, 2012 5:37 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_b ... t_for_2010
Total 2012 Military Spending $1.030–$1.415 trillion

I thought it was at least a trillion but wasn't sure. Thanks for the link.

bdog wrote:Liar...face palm.

Reading your posts here makes me feel like I'm in third grade again.

Comrade
Forum Addict
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 10:53 am
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Comrade » Thu Jul 05, 2012 6:15 pm

This is classic! Archived for future use. Henry has absolutely no idea what the costs are, but wants it anyway. Wack wack doesn't believe his taxes will go up. Snowqueen believes insurance premiums will decline and believes Medicare is a model of success (despite the ginormous deficits in coming years making it unsustainable at current levels)

I am absolutely stupefied by the level of naivitee' on display here. There just isn't anything left to say.'

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 22653
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:08 pm

The only thing classic is your failure to understand a rhetorical question. Claims were made that health care reform will cost Wisconsin money and I just asked how. It was someone else's assertion and it isn't up to me to prove it.

O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3392
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby O.J. » Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:11 pm

Comrade wrote:This is classic! Archived for future use.

I am absolutely stupefied by the level of naivitee' on display here. There just isn't anything left to say.'


Umm, naivitee'? Really?

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 13531
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby snoqueen » Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:16 pm

What I wrote, silly outraged person, was this:

...Medicare, a popular program that relieves older people of tremendous burdens and worries...


Did I ever say it didn't need some tweaking? It does. I know way more about Medicare than I ever wanted to thanks to having put in >10 years being responsible for family members, now dead, who were enrolled. I could write a laundry list of poor uses of money in Medicare. The devil is very much in the details.

But does it relieve older people of tremendous burdens and worries? It definitely does. I would have had to put Family Member #1 in a nursing home without it, a course of action that would have been far more expensive than what we ended up doing. And I was never afraid that Family Member #2 would be left without medical care thanks to Medicare.

Not everybody leads a working life that provides them with enough savings to buy their own insurance through to age 96, which was how long both these people lived.

Tell me, do you think you have enough money to buy your own insurance until you're 96?

I didn't think so.
---------------------------


Let us move on.

Regarding those insurance premiums:

I know you believe the Secretary of Health and Human Services doesn't know as much about the healthcare law as you do, but here's what she says:

Today, 11 million Americans buy health insurance on their own, without the help of an employer, Medicare or Medicaid. Too often, these people pay more money but get fewer benefits than people who have insurance through their employer. What’s more, people in the individual market have higher out-of-pocket costs, including larger deductibles and copays, and a lower likelihood of having prescription drug coverage....

...if adults in the individual market during 2001-08 had benefits similar to those provided under the Affordable Care Act, they would have seen:

An average annual savings of $280 in annual out-of-pocket spending for medical care and drugs,
Average out-of-pocket savings of $589 for those 55-64 and $535 for those 26-64 with low incomes, respectively, and
Near elimination of out-of-pocket expenses over $6,000 for all adults and a reduced likelihood of those expenses over $4,000.


Read the rest here:
http://www.healthcare.gov/blog/2012/05/ ... 51712.html

-------------------------------------------------

Please note she is discussing people who pay for their own insurance, not those who are covered by an employer's plan. You should check here if you are interested in small businesses and the ACA: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factshee ... iness.html

In the quote I printed above, Sebelius is addressing out-of-pocket expenses because those are the biggies when medical bills start arriving. Did your insurance cover all, part, or none of those expenses? Too often, the insurance company's expertise at finding loopholes way exceeds the individual's ability to fight, and the individual ends up with nearly-insurmountable denied claims. Now there will be a ceiling.

---------------------------------------------

And what about premiums, which are only part of an individual's health care expenses?

Prices for policies sold in Affordable Insurance Exchanges have not been established yet. Exchanges—state-run marketplaces where individuals and small businesses can purchase private insurance policies—will begin operation in 2014. Insurers will offer plans with a certain guaranteed set of benefits at a range of prices. Members of Congress will purchase their health insurance through the new Exchanges, and you will be able to as well.

The law makes clear that insurers won’t be able to charge more based on your gender or your health status, and there will be limits to how much premiums can vary based on your age.

In addition, consumers with income below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (about $88,000 per year for a family of four) who are buying insurance for themselves or their family will get tax credits that cover a significant part of their costs. A recent report estimated that a family earning twice the federal poverty level would pay less than $3,000 for their coverage for a year – compared to more than $11,000 without the Affordable Care Act



From: http://answers.healthcare.gov/questions/7720

That's a search engine where you can get more answers if you like.

Tax credits means you get part of your premiums back at tax time if you qualify, so in comparing premiums before and after ACA, be sure to include the credits.

----------------------------------------------

It is assumed companies will enroll more people (because of the tax/fine) if they offer desirable plans, which under normal conditions results in lower costs due to scale. What various plans cover will be more easily compared with other plans due to the new regulations. People will be able to make more informed choices, supposedly, when they buy. And the 80% rule should cut overhead.

Those forces and others set in motion by the ACA will act as a downward pressure on monthly premiums.

In addition premiums cannot rise more than 10% a year without the companies making a special application to DHSS, so the giant increases of recent years should be curbed.

On the other hand, the usual market forces of inflation and healthcare becoming more expensive and complex haven't been repealed. Those are the upward pressures against which the downward pressures apply.

--------------------------------------------------

Overall, I would expect premium costs to rise less than they would have without the ACA simply because it brings to bear downward pressures that did not exist previously. And for some people (see boxed quotes above) premiums will clearly go down. That includes people with pre-existing conditions, a large group: diabetics, those on dialysis, those with disabilities, those with HIV/AIDS, and more.

And don't forget rural families, who are a large sector in Wisconsin as Walker surely must know:

Rural families currently pay for nearly half of their health insurance costs out of their own pockets, but the new law helps put an end to this by capping out-of-pocket expenses.


from
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factshee ... icans.html

---------------------------------------------

If you choose to believe the law is going to be an overall burden, you need to show why in detail. This is not a yes/no question or a stupid/smart law, and if you refuse to bother to read the details you will leave your answers full of holes. Please use the web site linked above, which is extensive and reasonably well-organized, instead of partisan blogs whose intent is not to elucidate the law but to make it look as bad as possible to discredit President Obama.
Last edited by snoqueen on Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:16 pm, edited 10 times in total.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests