TexasCHLforum.com

I started using the comment "The GOP will save us" after the last election when the infamous GOP mandate was all the rage.

It seems the furor of the mandate really wasn't.

Keep voting.

anygunanywhere wrote:I started using the comment "The GOP will save us" after the last election when the infamous GOP mandate was all the rage.

It seems the furor of the mandate really wasn't.

Keep voting.

I intend to, but with the fast track trade authorization, I will never vote for another republican as long as I live. I'm done with them, and it is time for a new party to enter the ranks of the majors.

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Had they struck it down, per how it's written, the immediate impact would have been devastating on a huge part of the population.

I disagree that striking it down would impact a a "huge" part of the population. I work in emergency departments in Houston. Since the law was enacted I see the same population of patients utilizing the ER as their primary care provider now ,without providing proof of insurance, as before the ACA was passed. What that tells me is that those who abused the system before the ACA will continue to abuse the system because there is no disincentive.

What I think would happen is that my family insurance premium would return to a more reasonable rate. I used to pay around 4K per year for my family of four, now I pay close to 12K per year for an inferior plan. YMMV.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:I started using the comment "The GOP will save us" after the last election when the infamous GOP mandate was all the rage.

It seems the furor of the mandate really wasn't.

Keep voting.

I intend to, but with the fast track trade authorization, I will never vote for another republican as long as I live. I'm done with them, and it is time for a new party to enter the ranks of the majors.

I'm sorry TAM.

I forgot the sarcasm smiley.

Voting does nothing. The national government is on cruise control. Nothing coming from a voting booth will slow it dow or stop it. The GOP has handed he who wants to destroy America everything he wants on a silver platter.

There are no political parties in DC.

What is fast track? All treaties have to be ratified by the Senate.

LeakyWaders wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

VMI77 wrote: Had they struck it down, per how it's written, the immediate impact would have been devastating on a huge part of the population.

I disagree that striking it down would impact a a "huge" part of the population. I work in emergency departments in Houston. Since the law was enacted I see the same population of patients utilizing the ER as their primary care provider now ,without providing proof of insurance, as before the ACA was passed. What that tells me is that those who abused the system before the ACA will continue to abuse the system because there is no disincentive.

What I think would happen is that my family insurance premium would return to a more reasonable rate. I used to pay around 4K per year for my family of four, now I pay close to 12K per year for an inferior plan. YMMV.

The group of patients you refer to are not the only ones impacted by it. There are millions of people who could not buy health insurance due to pre-existing conditions unless they were employed by a company with a "Large Group" (over 50 employees)status which prevents the carriers from excluding individual employees and ALL employees pay THE SAME RATE. That directly affects most small business and small business owners, who were insured under "Small Group" regulations...those business owners and their employees could be excluded from coverage under the group plan for "pre-existing conditions" at any time. That resulted in business owners being held hostage to their insurance providers rate increases, because if they had an employee who had been diagnosed with heart problems, back problems, respiratory issues and anything else they wanted to exclude, if you tried to get a quote from another provider they would lose their coverage. There are a HUGE number of people in those categories. I was a business owner with 17 employees, two of which had heart issues and had worked for me for 20 years, and a mother whose daughter was diagnosed with leukemia at age 6. I had no choice but to pay whatever rate increases they charged or they would have been left without any medical coverage. I sold my business in 2005 but retained my small group coverage on my wife and myself. In 2006, I had 3 heart stents put in, and my rates increased the maximum allowed under law...and every year after that... and I was forced to raise the deductible amounts every year to try and keep the premium where I could pay it. The last year I was with them I was at a $7000 deductible with a monthly premium of $1198.00 for me and my wife. I had even tried to get my wife covered under their individual policy with a premium of about $350 per month and applied to the Texas High Risk pool for myself to get coverage under the $10k deductible major medical only plan (with no RX, office visits, etc...pay out of your pocket for anything not requiring hospitalization,just major medical). I had a couple of my friends who were self employed, with similar medical issues who had done so successfully at cost of about $300 per mth. I found out I was ineligible because one of the requirements is that you are unable to obtain coverage anywhere else at any price. Since I could keep my coverage...regardless of the cost...I was ineligible. I considered going bare, but then received notice from my provider that they would not accept my wife on an individual policy because her medical records showed she was diagnosed with a herniated disc in her back after a car wreck in 1984 despite the fact that she had never had any treatment for it in the following 25 years...they knew they had me over a barrel. There are millions of people in similar situations...mostly self employed or small businesses. Is the ACA perfect? NO...but the state and federal legislatures and the State Insurance Boards have had 30+ years to come up with a solution to the issue and ignored it, because the insurance industry opposed any attempts to regulate them. There HAS to be some mechanism kept in place to allow anyone to get medical coverage...if the insurance industry can afford to do it for a company with 50 employees and still make money then they can do it on a larger scale too...they just didn't want to.

When insurance is required to accept 'pre-existing conditions' it is no longer insurance. It becomes straight out 'healthcare'.
Further, when insurance has a crazy high deductible then it really helps no one except those companies taking in the premiums. Sick person still cannot use it.

The system is badly broken. How many years before we go medicare for everyone ?

Probably never, same for the flat simple tax. Cannot put all the insurance companies and accountants out of work.

SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

Whether the cost is called premium, deductible or coinsurance, it is still a cost to the insured and the cost are still out of the realm of possibility for many.

Now with Humana and Cigna looking to be bought or merged and Assurant Health discontinuing its health insurance lines, we will have less competition in spite of being promised more competition.

With regard to the SCOTUS rulings lately, regardless where one stands on the issues being ruled upon, the basis on which the court has been making their rulings is even more troublesome to me. Instead of interpreting the law, they redefine words and base their decision on how their ruling would effect the country. The very next day, they say they are going strictly by the law and constitution to arrive at their decision. Justice Roberts, is the one that stands out front and center in this. We no longer have a checks and balances system now that all three branches have decided they can make law on their own.

Sad days for our country indeed. We'll see how the return to Sodom and Gomorrah works out. I doubt it will work out any different than before.

bigity wrote:SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

I personally have no problem with all Americans having equal protection under the law. Whether you agree with it or not, their right to have equal protection outweighs your right to perceived harm done to "the sanctity of marriage". I may get flamed on this, but it's the way our current society regards this no matter what the past has been. It's a freight train and it's not going to stop.

Additionally with this wedge issue off of the table, it will be easier for Republicans to compete with Dems in the minds of some independent voters.

TVGuy wrote:

bigity wrote:SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

I personally have no problem with all Americans having equal protection under the law. Whether you agree with it or not, their right to have equal protection outweighs your right to perceived harm done to "the sanctity of marriage". I may get flamed on this, but it's the way our current society regards this no matter what the past has been. It's a freight train and it's not going to stop.

Additionally with this wedge issue off of the table, it will be easier for Republicans to compete with Dems in the minds of some independent voters.

Do you agree the same equal protections extend to religious liberties for those deciding not to participate in activities which go against their religious beliefs?

While I oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, I should in fairness clarify that I see this as a failure to uphold states rights vs the federal government.

mojo84 wrote:

TVGuy wrote:

bigity wrote:SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

I personally have no problem with all Americans having equal protection under the law. Whether you agree with it or not, their right to have equal protection outweighs your right to perceived harm done to "the sanctity of marriage". I may get flamed on this, but it's the way our current society regards this no matter what the past has been. It's a freight train and it's not going to stop.

Additionally with this wedge issue off of the table, it will be easier for Republicans to compete with Dems in the minds of some independent voters.

Do you agree the same equal protections extend to religious liberties for those deciding not to participate in activities which go against their religious beliefs?

Absolutely. A Catholic church won't marry a Methodist and a Catholic, they shouldn't have to and won't have to marry two men or to two women either.

bigity wrote:While I oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds, I should in fairness clarify that I see this as a failure to uphold states rights vs the federal government.

I understand where you are coming from, but the decision today is really a 10th amendment Vs. 14th amendment issue. In that case the 14th amendment will almost always win.

The ACA decision earlier this weak left me ... ... and I regard as very questionable. I share the concern you voiced on that decision for the record.