Beerball Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Under the "Cornhusker Kickback," the federal government will pay all of Nebraska's new Medicaid costs forever, while taxpayers in the other 49 states will see their budgets explode as this safety-net program for the poor is expanded to one out of every five Americans. Now 12 state Attorneys General led by South Carolina's Henry McMaster are contending that this "special treatment" is unconstitutional. "In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just," the AGs wrote last week to the Democratic leadership, the Article I spending clause is limited to "general Welfare." If Congress claims to be legitimately serving that interest by expanding the joint state-federal Medicaid program, then why is it relieving just one state of a mandate that otherwise applies to all states? In other words, serving the nongeneral welfare of Nebraska—for no other reason than political expediency—violates a basic Supreme Court check on the "display of arbitrary power" that was established in 1937's Helvering v. Davis. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I like the new law that everyone will be forced to buy health insurance even if they don't want it. Talk about constitutional issues! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 link The thing that disgusts me most about this is not that they've essentially bribed all these senators in order to get their vote, and not even that they did it in broad daylight with no embarrassment whatsoever, but that when called on it, they respond with something putrid like "It's a fair deal. Some people said I was getting money for Nebraska. That's wrong. I was just getting rid of an underfunded federal mandate. There's nothing sleazy about it. I cracked the door open for other states." Nelson, you're a dolt. You should count your blessings that you can hang around until 2012. I like the new law that everyone will be forced to buy health insurance even if they don't want it. Talk about constitutional issues! What's even more embarrassing is that the fines for NOT having insurance are so nominal that it's considerably cheaper to NOT carry health insurance. And quite frankly, why bother? Since they now can not deny pre-existing conditions, all you have to do is keep paying the no-coverage fine until you need coverage, and then jump on the coverage-for-all gravy train. What could possibly go wrong with a plan like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 The thing that disgusts me most about this is not that they've essentially bribed all these senators in order to get their vote, and not even that they did it in broad daylight with no embarrassment whatsoever, but that when called on it, they respond with something putrid like "It's a fair deal. Some people said I was getting money for Nebraska. That's wrong. I was just getting rid of an underfunded federal mandate. There's nothing sleazy about it. I cracked the door open for other states." Nelson, you're a dolt. You should count your blessings that you can hang around until 2012. What's even more embarrassing is that the fines for NOT having insurance are so nominal that it's considerably cheaper to NOT carry health insurance. And quite frankly, why bother? Since they now can not deny pre-existing conditions, all you have to do is keep paying the no-coverage fine until you need coverage, and then jump on the coverage-for-all gravy train. What could possibly go wrong with a plan like that? I shouldn't ask (for fear my head will explode in frustration), but what is the fine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I shouldn't ask (for fear my head will explode in frustration), but what is the fine? In the Senate Bill, which is the one that is likely going to pass, your fine starts at $95 in 2014 and rises over time to $750. So let's see: coverage from $7-10K a year...or a $95 fine until you need the coverage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 In the Senate Bill, which is the one that is likely going to pass, your fine starts at $95 in 2014 and rises over time to $750. So let's see: coverage from $7-10K a year...or a $95 fine until you need the coverage? 750 tops for a year? Are you serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 750 tops for a year? Are you serious? Not to worry. I'm sure Harry Reid has it all figured out. Right down to the idea that they plan to expand Medicare at the same moment they plan to cut $500B out of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 750 tops for a year? Are you serious? Which means that their prediction that 94% of the public will have health insurance is bogus. I've written about this before, and as LA Billz eluded to earlier, if the penalties are so weak (which btw I don't agree with anyway) and health insurers can't deny people with pre existing conditions, then what is the incentive to carry health insurance all 12 months of the year, specially if you are young? Young people under this legislation are going to get hammered in their premiums if they aren't being covered by their employers. Since people with pre existing conditions can't be denied, that means the health insurers will lose money on people who are at higher risk of being covered and plus they will have to make up the costs for all the people who are going to circumvent the system by waiting to get insurance until there sick, which means that the premiums will get passed down to people who are the least likely to get sick. This pre existing condition requirement is morally correct concept, but an impractical and costly one. We won't see 94% of the public covered with health insurance and premiums will be alot higher than what the CBO is estimating, which is still 10-13% higher than what it is today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 Which means that their prediction that 94% of the public will have health insurance is bogus. I've written about this before, and as LA Billz eluded to earlier, if the penalties are so weak (which btw I don't agree with anyway) and health insurers can't deny people with pre existing conditions, then what is the incentive to carry health insurance all 12 months of the year, specially if you are young? Young people under this legislation are going to get hammered in their premiums if they aren't being covered by their employers. Since people with pre existing conditions can't be denied, that means the health insurers will lose money on people who are at higher risk of being covered and plus they will have to make up the costs for all the people who are going to circumvent the system by waiting to get insurance until there sick, which means that the premiums will get passed down to people who are the least likely to get sick. This pre existing condition requirement is morally correct concept, but an impractical and costly one. We won't see 94% of the public covered with health insurance and premiums will be alot higher than what the CBO is estimating, which is still 10-13% higher than what it is today. I don't have to much of a dog in this fight as we have an awesome "gold plated" ($7.62 a week as single/18 for me/wife/kids) insurance plan at work and I know for a fact the company will absorb any increases barring catastrophic ones. For now at least... My worry is my company sells what is essentially a luxury item for people with spare cash. If the economy goes in the tank due to this horrible bill, I may simply be unemployed. I wish that there was real reform here, but it seems it will add yet another layer of bureaucracy and do nothing to address rising costs. The real issue is people die and we do everything we can to stop it. Tons of money go into this. When is enough enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I don't have to much of a dog in this fight as we have an awesome "gold plated" ($7.62 a week as single/18 for me/wife/kids) insurance plan at work and I know for a fact the company will absorb any increases barring catastrophic ones. For now at least... My worry is my company sells what is essentially a luxury item for people with spare cash. If the economy goes in the tank due to this horrible bill, I may simply be unemployed. I wish that there was real reform here, but it seems it will add yet another layer of bureaucracy and do nothing to address rising costs. The real issue is people die and we do everything we can to stop it. Tons of money go into this. When is enough enough? As long as your company stays in business everything will remain the same, but as you said, if the company you work for goes under, then that is another story. The businesses that are at most risk with this new bill are the small businesses. They do get a tax credit to help them with the burden of having to cover their employees, but to simply put it, there are alot of companies out there that do not have the luxary to provide health insurance to their employees, which means that my guess is that they will have to reduce their pay in many cases or offer less to new employees to make up for the added expenditures that they will have to incur due to the new legislation. In regards to your last point, there is no quick fix solution, and the only way I see us really being able to bring down health costs is to promote healthier living standards. It's asinine to believe that by trying to reform the health insurance industry that it will bring down health service costs. Unfortunately politicians and just people in general are always looking for the quick fix solution. We need to promote healthier foods, exercise, preventive medicine practices, which of course these things take along time to develop and have a meaningful impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I don't have to much of a dog in this fight as we have an awesome "gold plated" ($7.62 a week as single/18 for me/wife/kids) insurance plan at work and I know for a fact the company will absorb any increases barring catastrophic ones. For now at least... My worry is my company sells what is essentially a luxury item for people with spare cash. If the economy goes in the tank due to this horrible bill, I may simply be unemployed. I wish that there was real reform here, but it seems it will add yet another layer of bureaucracy and do nothing to address rising costs. The real issue is people die and we do everything we can to stop it. Tons of money go into this. When is enough enough? If you have one of those "Cadillac" plans, you're going to get taxed (unless you're a union member, in which case you're likely to get a pass). Or your company is going to get taxed, and that will mean reduced coverage. Not to mention, the private insurers will be unable to sustain themselves based on federal regulations that require minimal costs and undeniable coverage. The private insurers will fold like lawn chairs. Then it's a government plan to fix the problem they created. So actually, you do have a dog in this fight. A big dog. And that's before you wake up to realize the federal government is essentially making every person born in this country purchase something. Big dog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 In regards to your last point, there is no quick fix solution, and the only way I see us really being able to bring down health costs is to promote healthier living standards. We need to promote healthier foods, exercise, preventive medicine practices, which of course these things take along time to develop and have a meaningful impact. Just to clarify, the reason we have such an awesome insurance plan is we (the company) are in this field. This is exactly what we promote. It helps on our rates as we have regular classes about how to eat and what to eat. People can forgo their 2 15 minute breaks and work out for an hour with a personal trainer. Mind you, I am the slacker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 If you have one of those "Cadillac" plans, you're going to get taxed (unless you're a union member, in which case you're likely to get a pass). Or your company is going to get taxed, and that will mean reduced coverage. Not to mention, the private insurers will be unable to sustain themselves based on federal regulations that require minimal costs and undeniable coverage. The private insurers will fold like lawn chairs. Then it's a government plan to fix the problem they created. So actually, you do have a dog in this fight. A big dog. And that's before you wake up to realize the federal government is essentially making every person born in this country purchase something. Big dog. Not for now at least. There may be a marginal markup and at most I might pay 9 a week as I am divorced. Another comment and I realize I should probably have merged my reply to you and Magox... I am not even sure prolonging life through diet and exercise is good overall. I mean, if you live to 90 what does that do to SS and medicaid? I should be clear here, I am not advocating death camps, but I simply do not see a way past this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted January 5, 2010 Share Posted January 5, 2010 I like the new law that everyone will be forced to buy health insurance even if they don't want it. Talk about constitutional issues! I hate that I'm forced to buy roads and road maintenance even though I don't want it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 I hate that I'm forced to buy roads and road maintenance even though I don't want it. right cause you never leave your momma's basement... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 I hate that I'm forced to buy roads and road maintenance even though I don't want it. Not even close to the same thing - but we all know you won't let stupidity stop you from posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drnykterstein Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Not even close to the same thing - but we all know you won't let stupidity stop you from posting. How so are they different? Both are elective services that a government or people can choose to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 How so are they different? Both are elective services that a government or people can choose to offer. Eeee fornicating gad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Not even close to the same thing - but we all know you won't let stupidity stop you from posting. Not only will he not let it stop him, in many ways, I think it encourages him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 I hate that I'm forced to buy roads and road maintenance even though I don't want it. Buy health insurance or go to jail. Use roads or don't. Almost the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts