![]() |
Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies (/Thread-Supreme-Court-Upholds-Nationwide-Health-Care-Law-Subsidies) |
Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - GMDino - 06-25-2015 http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2015/06/25/supreme-court-upholds-nationwide-health-care-law-subsidies/ Quote:The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the nationwide tax subsidies under President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, in a ruling that preserves health insurance for millions of Americans. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - Au165 - 06-25-2015 Not sure how I feel about the program as a whole either way but it's here. I have a bigger issue with the next person in trying to gut it as soon as they get elected and implement a new program, which I am sure will have issues getting started as well. At this point keep it see how it goes then we can re evaluate. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - Benton - 06-25-2015 (06-25-2015, 12:10 PM)Au165 Wrote: Not sure how I feel about the program as a whole either way but it's here. I have a bigger issue with the next person in trying to gut it as soon as they get elected and implement a new program, which I am sure will have issues getting started as well. At this point keep it see how it goes then we can re evaluate. That's an issue I have. There are parts of the legislation that are good, parts that are bad. Instead of wasting all the time and money already spent, just fix what's been passed. Amend it, tweak it. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - Au165 - 06-25-2015 (06-25-2015, 12:13 PM)Benton Wrote: That's an issue I have. There are parts of the legislation that are good, parts that are bad. Instead of wasting all the time and money already spent, just fix what's been passed. Amend it, tweak it. I would have preferred they approached health care reform differently. Rather than putting the burden on the consumer, go after frivolous malpractice suits then the price gouging healthcare providers justify to offset those costs from the frivolous suits. We could bring healthcare to an affordable point that would make insurance and paying for it more reasonable. However this is the system we have for now. My world hasn't come crashing down because of it, so I figure give it a shot and see what happens. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - michaelsean - 06-25-2015 Wow I'm shocked. The die was cast when Roberts folded the first time. Has a liberal justice ever voted other than the way we know they will vote? Showing up for the arguments must be just for show since we know how they will vote from day one, and they never disappoint. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - Benton - 06-25-2015 (06-25-2015, 12:20 PM)Au165 Wrote: I would have preferred they approached health care reform differently. Rather than putting the burden on the consumer, go after frivolous malpractice suits then the price gouging healthcare providers justify to offset those costs from the frivolous suits. We could bring healthcare to an affordable point that would make insurance and paying for it more reasonable. I hesitate when it comes to malpractice reform. The idea is usually to put harsh penalties or a complete cost burden on those who bring the suit. Unfortunately, that won't do anything to discourage attorneys from encouraging suits (they'll still get paid), but it will probably discourage some consumers who have legitimate claims. But there are plenty of ways to reduce costs. Take charting. It's done, typically, by an RN. The RN is making, depending on the state and amount of education, $20-$50 an hour. Now, with electronic charting, it typically takes longer. You can't rubber stamp or pre-fill forms, it all has to be entered by hand. There's also the duplicitous pricing. Pay a doctor in cash, get one price. Got insurance? Pay a higher price. Education costs also play a big hand in it. Part of the reason a doctor can charge that high is the legitimate need to recoup the investment on his education. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - GMDino - 06-25-2015 (06-25-2015, 12:23 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Wow I'm shocked. The die was cast when Roberts folded the first time. That was a good question. First link I found: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/upshot/a-more-nuanced-breakdown-of-the-supreme-court.html?abt=0002&abg=1 ![]() image hosting 30 mb RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - StLucieBengal - 06-25-2015 Roberts has once again proven himself worthless. Thanks Bush . Now we gotta get someone in there to roll it back. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - BmorePat87 - 06-25-2015 (06-25-2015, 12:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: That was a good question. 50% is pretty good for Kennedy being the moderate. So if we do a +/- with Kennedy as 0 Kagan -20.4 Sotomayor -19.9 Ginsberg -18.9 Breyer -8.9 Kennedy 0 Roberts +5.4 Scalia +5.4 Thomas +9.5 Alito +10.3 So the argument definitely can be made that the liberal judges are far more liberal than the conservative judges are conservatives. Someone please correct me if I read this wrong. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - GMDino - 06-25-2015 (06-25-2015, 01:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Roberts has once again proven himself worthless. Or they could keep it since it keeps getting approved. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - GMDino - 06-25-2015 (06-25-2015, 01:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 50% is pretty good for Kennedy being the moderate. That's the way I read it too. Still nearly a 1/3 of the liberal votes go conservative which is more than I imagined it was. I don't know if someone breaks it down by topic/subject. That would be interesting. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - StLucieBengal - 06-25-2015 (06-25-2015, 01:04 PM)GMDino Wrote: Or they could keep it since it keeps getting approved. We are losing what makes us unique. We are becoming another european socialist country. This whole law was slide through via reconciliation. Then lied about constantly as it was sold to the people... You can keep your insurance if you like it.... We have to pass the bill before we can see what's in it..... When employer mandate kicks in everyone will feel how worthless this law really is.... All obama dis was delay the mess until his term is over. Then he will blame the new president. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - Belsnickel - 06-25-2015 (06-25-2015, 01:02 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: 50% is pretty good for Kennedy being the moderate. I agree with you assessment. Just to prove that numbers like this can be manipulated to make any point you'd like, I decided to do the same thing based upon the number midway between the two furthest points and not the median that is Kennedy. The number is 55.05%, in case anyone is interested. Kagan -15.35 Sotomayor -14.85 Ginsberg -13.85 Breyer -3.85 Kennedy +5.05 Roberts +10.45 Scalia +10.45 Thomas +14.55 Alito +15.35 Now we can use the mean, because I'm bored and feel like doing these crazy things. The mean is 53.94 Kagan -14.24 Sotomayor -13.74 Ginsberg -12.74 Breyer -2.74 Kennedy +3.94 Roberts +9.34 Scalia +9.34 Thomas +13.44 Alito +14.24 Of course, using those two methods throws Kennedy on the conservative side, which he is very much a moderate justice which is why most see him as the swing on the more controversial issues. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - Belsnickel - 06-25-2015 (06-25-2015, 01:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We are losing what makes us unique. Quite frankly, the lack of universal health care is not the only thing that makes us unique when compared to other developed nations. But it is one of the many things we are unique for that I am rather ashamed of. I don't even care how it is done, whether the solution is government or private sector or what. But the fact that affordable health care is something so many people in our country do not have access to is shameful. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - michaelsean - 06-25-2015 (06-25-2015, 01:06 PM)GMDino Wrote: That's the way I read it too. Still nearly a 1/3 of the liberal votes go conservative which is more than I imagined it was. I don't know if someone breaks it down by topic/subject. That would be interesting. I just notice in the big issues, that nobody ever wonders which the the 4 will go. There never seems to be a Kennedy type appointed by a Dem President let alone a Sutter. I don't remember ever being surprised by a liberal type justice like we were with Roberts the first time around. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - michaelsean - 06-25-2015 Curious if there are any libs who think this is a bad ruling. Not outcome, but ruling. The text is pretty straightforward, and we have this Gruber guy running around saying it was completely intentional. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - Nately120 - 06-25-2015 (06-25-2015, 01:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Roberts has once again proven himself worthless. Is this like the political equivalent of drafting a first round bust? RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - michaelsean - 06-25-2015 (06-25-2015, 01:45 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Is this like the political equivalent of drafting a first round bust? Late 2nd round. Sutter was JaMarcus Russell/Ryan Leaf. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - Benton - 06-25-2015 (06-25-2015, 01:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Curious if there are any libs who think this is a bad ruling. Not outcome, but ruling. The text is pretty straightforward, and we have this Gruber guy running around saying it was completely intentional. ![]() Or the guy who, according to an email, indicated that he claimed he was invited to the White House once by a staffer? Because neither one are really supporting the conspiracy theory. But at least one of them had nice hair. RE: Supreme Court Upholds Nationwide Health Care Law Subsidies - michaelsean - 06-25-2015 (06-25-2015, 01:55 PM)Benton Wrote: You apparently read only one email from the link and certainly didn't go read the original story. You don't really believe when they said "state" they meant the federal government do you? |