Obamacare.....From those who have to those who don't have - Page 9

Adds Trillions to Deficits and Debt?

Romney: And even with those cuts and tax increases, Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations on to coming generations.

The costs of the insurance coverage provisions of the health care law include federal subsidies for lower-income individuals to help them purchase insurance, expansion of Medicaid eligibility and tax credits for small businesses that provide coverage. In March, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office revised its estimate on the gross cost of those provisions of the law over the next 10 years. The updated estimate — $50 billion higher than the year before — came to nearly $1.5 trillion.

But that’s only looking at one side of the budgetary ledger — cost. Even though Romney claims he factored those in, his figure ignores major cost-cutting provisions including cuts in the future growth of Medicare and increased payroll taxes and investment-income taxes on higher-income earners (the same ones Romney had just mentioned).

Once all those revenue streams are factored in, CBO has estimated that the law would actually reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period (see Table 1, page 2). CBO did not update that overall figure in its latest report. 

What is the topic here? Oh yeah personal dislike of others, wait, no, that is not it, is it Obamacare, ah yes. Carry on my wayward friends there will be peace when you are done.

I am surprised at the number of woman speaking bad about this as it is a big win for millions of woman.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/brycecovert/2012/06/28/obamacare-decision-why-women-are-the-big-winners-health-care-supreme-court

SCOTUS has spoken: The U.S. Supreme Court just upheld the Affordable Care Act, saying that the individual mandate is constitutional as a tax. This is fantastic news for the nearly 50 million uninsured Americans.

Women in particular should pop the champagne and celebrate. Of those millions of uninsured, 19 million are women. Up to 10.3 million of the low-income among them will now be covered by Medicaid by 2014 when the law goes into full effect. Although the uninsured tend to use less medical care, and therefore spend less than the insured, altogether they spend about $2.64 billion out of pocket each year. (Not to mention that being uninsured leads to a greater risk of death.) They can rest assured that the Supreme Court won’t get in the way of their insurance coverage, which should mean more accessible and affordable care.

Women are big financial winners in this decision in other ways. The first is the elimination of gender rating, or charging women more because they’re women, pure and simple. The National Women’s Law Center recently found that in states that haven’t banned the practice, over 90% of the best selling plans charge women more than men, even though only 3% of them cover maternity services. In fact, even when maternity care is excluded, almost a third of plans charge women at least 30% more than men for the same coverage. One plan even charges 25-year-old women 85% more than men. All told, the practice costs women about $1 billion a year.

That will now become illegal in 2014, after the ACA is fully implemented. Insurers will no longer have free reign to charge women whatever they like for no discernable reason. That extra $1 billion in our pockets sounds pretty good.

Had the individual mandate been struck down, as many assumed would happen, women could have been the first victims. Premium rates would have almost surely risen – read Sarah Kliff’s great account of what happened under an incredibly similar scenario in Washington State not too long ago for empirical evidence. There were many estimates of how much premiums would have risen without the mandate: The RAND Corporation predicted that they would rise by 9.3 percent ; the Urban Institute estimated a 10 percent rise; the CBO put it far higher, at 15-27 percent. Even with RAND’s lower estimate, it anticipated the average premium to rise by $534. Given that women are targeted for gender rating, their costs would have very likely risen faster than others’. The Supreme Court’s decision offers protection from this scenario.

On top of all this, much of women’s preventative care, including contraception, Pap test, mammograms, and domestic violence screenings, will be covered without copay. An 18-year-old woman can expect to shell out $11,842 over her lifetime in copays for hormonal birth control and mandated doctor’s visits, but now she can put that money in her pocket next to the money saved from gender rating and medical expenses.

Women also have a long history of being denied care because of preexisting conditions, including some dubious so-called “conditions.” Think that pregnancy is a normal course of life? Insurance companies have been known to treat women who seek coverage when they’re pregnant as if they have a preexisting condition. Even women who gave birth through previous Caesarean section – about a third of all births – are thought to have a “condition.” Think the victims of sexual abuse and assault have enough to deal with as it is? Add to their burdens the denial of coverage because receiving treatment related to that abuse has been considered a preexisting condition. Now that the ACA is free to stand, that practice will no longer be tolerated, either.

Other gains women will make now that health care reform will stay on the books: Maternity care is a required coverage area. Meanwhile, nursing mothers will be given mandated breaks and a private place to express breast milk at places of employment that have 50 employees or more.

While it’s clearly a moral imperative that we give as many Americans access to quality, affordable health care, it’s also a financial issue for millions of women. With the Supreme Court’s affirmation of the Affordable Care Act, they stand to see a big boost to their bottom lines. They can rest easier today knowing that their health care costs will be lower for years to come.

As a woman, I stand against this! Yes, I want no parts of it or what will come after. It has nothing to do with my feelings of Obama either so bringing up other political issues do not change my mind or cloud it for me. I will never accept movement towards government controlling anything about my medical care after growing up a military brat, using Government doctors and hospitals, and sitting by my dad's side when the cancer he got from his ship was eating him up and all they were willing to do for him was make him comfortable to die painless and there was nothing we could do about any of it because it was the government and you cannot do anything to fight them. Old people will be triaged, kiss them now and save up money for your own care of your elderly so that they are then not a number to be smudged so that the government will not have to pay out years of retirement and social security to them because with our technology have created a problem with living longer.

        What I like about this is that young adults keep insurance. I pa for my 21 year old son's insurance without this anyhow. When I was 18 the government took away my health care lmao........ They need to practice what they are preaching? After my dad died, They took away his wife's medical care because with this war going on they needed every dollar. Who cares that my dad served over 35 years and gave his life for our country for the promise his wife would have excellent medical care the rest of her life as well.


        I said the government needs to keep out of my health insurance, not that it will be a government medical system. I said the are asking insurance companies to do what they do not do themselves. Keep trying to cloud the issues yelling facts. I have first hand experience with what happens once the government controls anything to do with my health and no thank you!!

And again, the health care law doesn’t come close to establishing a government-run system like those of Britain or Canada. While Medicaid will be expanded to more people, most Americans will continue to get their insurance through a private carrier. To the dismay of many liberals, a proposal to include a government-run “public option” to private health insurance was dropped during the legislative process.

Factcheck.org 

Hey; no fair using facts!

I think what the Supremes did here is rule the entire Bill invalid. Because the more I think about it, the more things are not adding up. If this is a "tax" then it's the biggest tax increase in US History.

Remember in 2010 when it was argued and Obama insisted the Affordable HealthCare Bill wasn't a tax ? Instead it was only enforceable under the commerce clause. That decision back then by the Supremes was how the Bill passed to begin with. Not being a "tax". It was passed because of the commerce clause.

Now all of a sudden it's a "tax", the CBO is saying a "tax" of 1.76 Trillion dollars in only 10 years - that number doubled since 2010 when it was argued to only be enforced under the Commerce Clause.

This is what I was thinking ...

Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution says .. "all Bills for raising revenue shall originate in the house of Representatives but the Senate may propose or concur with ammendments as on other Bills"

In 2010 the house barely passed a version of the HealthCare Bill, the Senate passed a version of their own. Then the House version hit a roadblock in the Senate, so Democrats because it wasn't a "tax" Bill in 2010 - pulled the Senate Bill from reconciliation and deamed it passed instead of risking another vote in the House.

Sooo, beings we know how it passed in 2010 and now the Supremes in 2012 calling it a "tax" - it was NEVER lawfully passed. Right ? I mean, the Supremes this past time never even argued the commerce clause and that's how it passed to begin with in 2010. The Affordable Health Bill that passed in 2010 didn't originate in the House or Senate as a "tax" or "revenue" Bill.

Does anyone follow what I'm trying to say here ... lol I'm attempting to grasp I know .. but still .... this could be worth looking into, I think.

"I think what the Supremes did here is rule the entire Bill invalid."

Yeah, well, you're wrong.

Keith, stop the hate for a sec and think ... if this Affordable healthCare Bill is NOW concidered a "tax" instead of enforceable under the commerce clause as written - wouldn't it have to be rewritten and send back to the House and then the Senate as a "tax" in order to be Law ?

(edit) This is government revenue we are talking about here.

I knew I was on to something. I googled and found this ... Ohh look a shiny penny.

http://www.imcitizen.net/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/