First Federal Appeals Court upholds Healthcare law

[Riot]

Good.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the individual mandate provision in the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, marking the first time a federal appellate court has ruled on the law's constitutionality.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washingt...h/Reform/27356

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Good.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that the individual mandate provision in the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, marking the first time a federal appellate court has ruled on the law's constitutionality.

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washingt...h/Reform/27356

Not just Good; IT'S GREAT!!!

Have you any clue what the track record is of the 6th Circuit being overturned by the Supreme Court? LMAO

U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS OVERRULED THE 6TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ON LAST 15 APPEALS STRAIGHT
Feb. 20, 2011

Supreme Court has reversed every decision since 2008, including five death penalty cases

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati is one of the most powerful courts in the nation, but these days it’s suffering through a major slump.

The court owns the longest losing streak in the country over the past two years at the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviews decisions and corrects mistakes made by the nation’s top appeals courts.

The Supreme Court has examined 15 rulings from the 6th Circuit since 2008 and has thrown out every one of them.

In each case – from death penalty appeals and tax disputes to disagreements over election law – the Supreme Court found critical errors that tainted the 6th Circuit’s decision.

“It’s a bit surprising to see 15 reversals in a row,” said Michael Solimine, a University of Cincinnati law professor who studies the federal courts.

http://news.lawreader.com/?p=3452

[Riot]

Well, Sutton is very conservative, and Martin is very liberal, yet they both agree. We know it will get to the Supreme Court. So we'll see.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well, Sutton is very conservative, and Martin is very liberal, yet they both agree. We know it will get to the Supreme Court. So we'll see.

I just think the 6th Circuit's 0-15 record for the past 15 decisions gives us a hint that this court's opinions are meaningless and wonder why their is still a 6th Circuit? Also wonder about the decisions that were appealed to the SC and were refused?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I just think the 6th Circuit's 0-15 record for the past 15 decisions gives us a hint that this court's opinions are meaningless and wonder why their is still a 6th Circuit? Also wonder about the decisions that were appealed to the SC and were refused?

Why are you fighting so hard against uninsured people being able to purchase insurance? And insurance companies not being able to deny their paid clients coverage?

The PPACA has only given you benefits you have already reaped, it doesn't cost you any more, you have nothing to lose, you don't have to change your insurance, you've already gained benefits, it will help your fellow Americans.

Try to justify for me again why you think this is worth fighting against? Is it because you want to go back to children with cancer being denied lifetime care? You want kids 18-26 to be uninsured again, and take their current insurance away? You want people to go back to using emergency rooms for intermittent health care when they get ill enough, rather than having insurance and using a primary care physician? You want the 18 million who have purchased insurance since the PPACA went into effect to have to give that up?

This law is already in effect. Tell us how you have suffered at it's hands, how it's been a terrible thing for the country, and why we should overturn it and harm our fellow citizens and cost us billions.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why are you fighting so hard against uninsured people being able to purchase insurance? And insurance companies not being able to deny their paid clients coverage?

The PPACA has only given you benefits you have already reaped, it doesn't cost you any more, you have nothing to lose, you don't have to change your insurance, you've already gained benefits, it will help your fellow Americans.

Try to justify for me again why you think this is worth fighting against?

I have no problem with what you mentioned above. I do have a problem with the government forcing a citizen to purchase a private product. In a much bigger picture I'm not fond of any force by the government unless it's used to kill an enemy. Government budding into private business especially something so valuable as healthcare is NEVER a good idea

I'm also all for individuals purchasing health insurance and forcing insurance companies to stand by their policy. I'm against forcing others to subsidize the purchase just as I'm against applicants who 'fib' when applying for coverage and are later denied treatment. We agree!

[Antitrust32]

the law is barely in effect. that is a misrepresentation. a tiny part of the law in in effect now... most of it doesnt start for a couple years.

and its been bad for me already.


nobody is arguing the lifetime benefits, more people insured, no exclusion thing.


the problem is the other 2000 pages of the bill. including forcing people to buy a product, and the fact that the dems didnt even attempt to do tort reform (real insurance reform) because the lawyers are in the dems pockets.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

the law is barely in effect. that is a misrepresentation. a tiny part of the law in in effect now... most of it doesnt start for a couple years.

Most of the provisions that affect everybody are already in effect, the vast remainder of what is left is employer and tax provisions.

and its been bad for me already.

Because your boss lied to you and blamed the PPACA for increasing your insurance policy cost at work? See your first comment, above

the problem is the other 2000 pages of the bill. including forcing people to buy a product,

A very conservative judge who clerked for Scalia just agreed there's nothing wrong with it.

and the fact that the dems didnt even attempt to do tort reform (real insurance reform) because the lawyers are in the dems pockets.

Wrong. There indeed is some "tort reform" in there.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

Because your boss lied to you and blamed the PPACA for increasing your insurance policy cost at work? See your first comment, above


.

this is so false I dont even know where to go with it.

what does my boss have anything to do with it?

she has the same exact crappy plan as I do. infact all 8000 of us do.

because of the PPACA, United health care got rid of two of the three options, leaving us all with a extremely high deductable policy. because of the stupid cadillac tax, apparently Obama does not want anyone to have good health insurance policies.

who are you to accuse my boss of lying when you have absolutely no idea about what you are talking about?

[Antitrust32]

an extremely minimal amount of tort reform.

just admit it, the dems failed us with this law. they could have accomplished actual health care reform... instead they created a ton of government agency's and decreased benefits for the working class.

what a wonderful trillion dollar bill.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

because of the stupid cadillac tax, apparently Obama does not want anyone to have good health insurance policies.

who are you to accuse my boss of lying when you have absolutely no idea about what you are talking about?

The importance of everyone receiving some care now trumps the quality or cost of care. It's the Obama/socialistic way. Maybe he can add a provision that those who pay anothers subsidy are also responsible for providing transportation and if needed babysitting and pet sitting services while they visit the doctor.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

this is so false I dont even know where to go with it.


because of the PPACA, United health care got rid of two of the three options, leaving us all with a extremely high deductable policy.

What part of the PPACA "caused" United Health Care to get rid of options?

It's nice to blame the PPACA for UHC taking a last huge profit grab.

But there is nothing in the PPACA that forced that. Not one thing. What is false is them blaming the PPACA.

I mentioned your boss as I thought you said previously, when you talked about your employee health insurance increasing, that your boss had told you the rising costs were due to the PPACA.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

The importance of everyone receiving some care now trumps the quality or cost of care. It's the Obama/socialistic way.:

That's just complete false bullshiat. The PPACA has over 5 billion in Medicare cost savings from waste elimination (that helps pay for the PPACA), and changes payment to doctors to emphasize outcomes not just coded service clicks.

[paulo537]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's just complete false bullshiat. The PPACA has over 5 billion in Medicare cost savings from waste elimination (that helps pay for the PPACA), and changes payment to doctors to emphasize outcomes not just coded service clicks.

Bull.

You think reducing bedsores, a key component of the "savings" is going to save 1/2 Billion?

You think screening Medicare claims and providers is going to save 1/2 Billion? You think they aren't screened now?

You think setting up the ACO to study ways to save money will lower costs by 1/2 Billion?

Maybe you do.

FACT is, every politician since Johnson has campaigned saying they can pull savings from Medicare. Did you believe them?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by paulo537

Bull.

You think reducing bedsores, a key component of the "savings" is going to save 1/2 Billion?

Pay attention. What I said was "completely false bullshiat" was Dell saying that "The importance of everyone receiving some care now trumps the quality or cost of care. It's the Obama/socialistic way.:"

Nonsensical crap. You think that's bull? You called it bull. So explain why the quality of care has gone down due to the PPACA and deliberately been sacrified for quantity.

Now: you want to talk about the validity of Medicare savings within the PPACA, I'll point to closing the donut hole, the provisions rewarding doctors for results rather than visits, and yeah, the review of duplication of treatment.

You can maintain those provisions will fail, I will maintain that they will hopefully work, and we'll have to wait for the verifiable result, one way or the other, to see.

[paulo537]

[quote=Riot;788068]
It's nice to blame the PPACA for UHC taking a last huge profit grab.

QUOTE]

Bullshit

You no doubt think Health Insurance is some wildly profitable business and have drank the anti-insurance company bullshit of the past 20 years.

Tell us all your answer to this question:

If health insurance is so profitable, why do so few insurers even underwrite health?

What is your answer to this?

Where is Metropolitan? Where is Prudential? Where is Allstate? Where is Hartford? Where is Travelers? Where is Liberty? Chubb?

The answer is they used to be in health insurance. Now they are not. They all have left during the past 20 years.

Do you think they left because they got tired of "grabbing huge profits," as you say?

[paulo537]

Originally Posted by Riot

Wrong. There indeed is some "tort reform" in there.

Bullshit.

The only thing you can possibly twist into calling tort reform in the bill is giving $50,000,000.00 of Federal tax money to the states to study and offer alternatives to current tort law at the state level.

That is "Tort Reform?"

No, that is giving states 1/20 of a Billion dollars to study **** we already know.

[Riot]

You no doubt think Health Insurance is some wildly profitable business

When they elevate premiums 20% a year, and decline to honor their part of their contract with their insured in order to save money, yup, they run some nice profit margins.

"Health insurance companies likely to break profit records for 2010"
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...cords-for-2010

"The six largest investor-owned health insurance companies saw a 22 percent increase in combined net income in the third quarter, putting them on pace to break profit records for 2010."

Yeah, and Anti's boss blamed the PPACA for their company insurance costs rising. LOL.

The PPACA is mostly consumer protections. Why? Because they are needed. Interestingly, stock in insurance companies rose when the PPACA became law.

The health business is about 20% of our economy. That's absurd. It costs more to provide healthcare, per person, in the United States than in other first world countries, and we do not have the same quality of outcomes, nor do we have the same general population health, and we have the most uninsured and unseen by the healthcare system citizens of any other first world country. Yeah, the PPACA is a good start. What we need in this country is to offer a single payer opportunity. Offer Medicare buy in to anybody, of any age, who wants in. If the insurance companies can compete in an open market, they are welcome to.

[paulo537]

Originally Posted by Riot

Pay attention. What I said was "completely false bullshiat" was Dell saying that "The importance of everyone receiving some care now trumps the quality or cost of care. It's the Obama/socialistic way.:"

Nonsensical crap. You think that's bull? You called it bull. So explain why the quality of care has gone down due to the PPACA and deliberately been sacrified for quantity.

Now: you want to talk about the validity of Medicare savings within the PPACA, I'll point to closing the donut hole, the provisions rewarding doctors for results rather than visits, and yeah, the review of duplication of treatment.

You can maintain those provisions will fail, I will maintain that they will hopefully work, and we'll have to wait for the verifiable result, one way or the other, to see.

Bullshit.

You obviously don't know what you are talking about.

Closing the Donut Hole is not a cost Savings. It is an cost Expenditure. It is ludicrous to call it anything else.

There is nothing inherently wrong in saying it is good for seniors to get more $$ transfered their way through higher Medicare PD reimbursement.

It is, however, a blantant falsehood to call it a Medicare cost savings.

[clyde]

On to the High Court of Trained Seals.