The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 57

Thread: Obamacare ... unintended consequence?

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Hubert NC
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy View Post
    The Federal govt was giving them aid to help treat these illegals; now that aid will be cut in half in a few years. I think you did not read the part about the hospitals not being viable without the Fed aid.

    Those Fed funds are being moved to Obamacare, ostensibly to treat poor citizens who will now be insured. What good will that health insurance be if there is no hospital left to give the care?

    I would agree that no one who is seriously ill should be turned away. I can't imagine any doctor doing so. How to fund all of this is the problem. While Fed funding of health care for illegals may not be a Fed responsibility ... enforcing immigration laws is its responsibility. So by fulfilling their constitutional responsibility ... they would solve the other problem as well.
    Can't see that happening in the current regime. They would loose votes.

    Richard

  2. #12
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paul young View Post
    I guess i need to ask-

    what is more offensive, an American on welfare ,medicaid and food stamps or an illegal immigrant and his or her family trying to work their way to respectability but lacking health care insurance?

    Is there a real difference?

    Illegals take a beating on this forum. I don't like them coming here undocumented either. But i don't think they deserve the level of contempt they get here. They are less than 1% of the population of this country. There is no way they have the ability to change our socio-economic landscape at this time on the scale some folks on here suggest is possible. What needs to happen is that there are severe penalties for hiring them. If there's no work, they won't be as quick to come here.

    Our borders are HUGE! Sealing them completely is not an option. We have to remove the incentive to come here illegally to turn this around. Perhaps the fact that they won't be covered for health expenses by law is a good thing?-Paul
    Paul, I don't think it's the illegals, in and of themselves, it's the fact that the immigration laws are not being enforced.

    And I don't disagree with you at all that the best solution would be to remove incentives by working with the employers. Yet, I think I just read somewhere that because of the new "Dreamer" policy, the govt will not expand the e-Verify system that many employers already use.

    While the total %-age of the population may be small, certain areas like AZ, TX, NM, FL carry most of the burden.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.E. Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JDogger View Post
    I don't understand why people are still so upset about a program that is yet to be. Come Nov. Romney will be elected, sworn-in in Jan. Control of the Senate will reverse and all chaos will disappear and the natural order restored. ...Right?

    JD
    I have seen many things passed into law but very few done away with. Once they are on "the books" it is very difficult to get them repealed etc.

    On another note that is sort of on track but has nothing to do with JD's post here. If you lose your current doctor and you are on medicare try finding one who will take you ! It' like finding hens' teeth. Guess how busy the hospital emergency room is going to be with all us old people having to get medical care that way.
    And the COST !!!!
    charly

    There ought to be one day -- just one -- when there is open season on Congressmen.
    ~Will Rogers~

  4. #14
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,261

    Default

    Another unintended consequence: Cook Medical a medical device manufacturer in Indiana, as a result of the 2.3% tax on medical devices, says it will cancel plans for 5 new plants here in the U.S.

    Everyone, including myself, figured the tax would simply be passed onto consumers as increased cost of the devices then increased cost from the doctors or hospitals using the devices (increase in cost of the procedures using the devices).

    OTOH, as with Medicare, the govt determines what will be paid for certain procedures. Would have to imagine that Obamacare will have the same payment regulations ... so the doctors/hospitals might not be able to raise their prices to offset an increase in costs. That means that device mfr won't be able to recover the cost of the new tax without losing business to some company (outside of the US) that could make the device for 2.3% less.

    Duh? I hadn't thought of that.

    The net result in this case turns out to be that the mfr does not build new plants; does not create those new jobs. The $ they would have spent on expansion is used to pay the device tax instead.


    If the Indiana company sells its devices outside the U.S., then those sales will not be subject to the tax. However, if there is a larger market for their devices in the U.S., then that won't really be offset by foreign sales. They may already be making sales to foreign countries anyhow. Maybe they'll simply try to sell more of the devices they make outside of the US, if that can be done?

    If there is a shortage of Indiana devices in the US, will be have to import cheaper devices from somewhere else?
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  5. #15
    Senior Member HPL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Coastal Bend of Texas
    Posts
    2,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by paul young View Post
    I guess i need to ask-

    what is more offensive, an American on welfare ,medicaid and food stamps or an illegal immigrant and his or her family trying to work their way to respectability but lacking health care insurance?

    Is there a real difference?

    Illegals take a beating on this forum. I don't like them coming here undocumented either. But i don't think they deserve the level of contempt they get here. They are less than 1% of the population of this country. There is no way they have the ability to change our socio-economic landscape at this time on the scale some folks on here suggest is possible. What needs to happen is that there are severe penalties for hiring them. If there's no work, they won't be as quick to come here.

    Our borders are HUGE! Sealing them completely is not an option. We have to remove the incentive to come here illegally to turn this around. Perhaps the fact that they won't be covered for health expenses by law is a good thing?-Paul
    Paul, you're from Connecticut for crying out loud!!! You saying that the influx of illegals isn't REALLY that big a problem is sort of like me telling someone from Minnesota that snow can't really be that big a problem, after all it's just a little frozen water that will go away all by itself as soon as they get a little warm weather. You have no idea what the situation is like in the states that are ACTUALLY ON THE BORDER!! Perhaps the illegals are too small a cohort to completely change the socio-economic landscape of the entire country by themselves, but you also have to count the liberal sympathizers and "one world" nut cases who see them as needing to be a "protected class". You also need to spend some time in the areas where they are actually a significant percentage of the populace to see how much strain they place on social services in these often less affluent, already struggling communities. Sure, many illegals are here to work in honest jobs in order to improve the lot of their families, but there are also many that are involved in criminal activity, everything from petty theft to drug running and murder. You should see the check point that we have to go through every time we leave the "frontier" heading north. About 100 miles north of the border all traffic passes through one of these checkpoints. I have been going through the one on Tx Hwy 77 for about 50 years now. Originally it was a little travel trailer parked under an oak tree on the side of the road with a couple of border patrol agents. By the mid 70's it had become a house trailer with a slightly larger contingent. Currently it is a large permanent building with offices and holding cells built under a larger metal building that spans the entire width of 4 lanes of north bound traffic. I believe that there are about 250 agents based there. A few hundred yards before you reach the checkpoint you drive through a battery of sensors that are perhaps photographing you and scanning for who knows what. Then as you creep ahead in line at the checkpoint you again go through a matching battery of these sensors. At the checkpoint, there will be at least 6-10 border patrol agents, some with dogs, checking all vehicles. Not exactly check point Charlie at the Berlin wall, but still not what one would expect when traveling freely through this great free nation of ours. So far there are no machine gun posts, and the agents are only carrying side arms, but things are constantly changing and the day may be here soon.
    Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgment and for action helps create the attitudes that welcome and support the totalitarian state.
    (John Dewey)

    Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company.
    (George Washington)

    Gig'em Aggies!! BTCO'77HOO t.u.!!

    www.HughLieck.photoshelter.com

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    N.E. Oklahoma
    Posts
    2,206

    Default

    Our local paper prints the arrests almost every day. For a while a large percentage were hispanic sounding names. Many of those hispanics had no car insurance and no driver's license. Some did not stop for stop signs. We had a lot of rapes reported where the perp had a hispanic sounding name. This changed some after that law got passed here in OK. We were getting the bad apples from other countries.
    charly

    There ought to be one day -- just one -- when there is open season on Congressmen.
    ~Will Rogers~

  7. #17
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,261

    Default

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/25/re...at-least-1000/

    These unintended consequences just keep piling up ...

    Since the SCOTUS ruled that the Fed govt couldn't pull Medicaid funds from the states if the state decided not to expand its Medicaid program, that sort of messed things up for the low-income folks who would have gotten their health insurance that way.
    The Action Forum estimates that there are potentially 1.2 million people who would be subject to the tax if only six states decide to opt out of the Medicaid expansion. This is in addition to the 3.9 million the CBO estimated in 2010.

    “The CBO estimates that by 2016 about half of the roughly 55 million currently uninsured will gain insurance either through Medicaid or private insurance exchanges,” writes McBride. “As such, ACA represents, in the main, a massive transfer of wealth from the uninsured, who are largely low- and middle-income earners, to insurance companies and the larger healthcare industry.”
    So the end result is that the low- and middle-income earners are worse off than they were before?

    We know that legislators don't actually write these bills. They have "staff" that do that kind of thing. Obviously, the 2000 pages were too convoluted for even these people to figure out what they were creating.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  8. #18
    Senior Member M&K's Retrievers's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Royse City, TX
    Posts
    5,237

    Default

    As more and more of the "unintended consequences" pop up, the Federal Government will look like the guy on the Ed Sullivan show that spun plates on sticks. A cluster waiting to happen.

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zhoos1oY404

    Except the government won't make the recovery.
    Last edited by M&K's Retrievers; 07-30-2012 at 12:44 AM.
    M&K's HR UH Tucker of Texoma JH
    M&K's SHR Prime Black Angus
    M&K's Miss Jessie Girl JH
    Sir Jacob of Lakeview-Jake
    Freeway JYD

    Mike Whitworth

  9. #19
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,261

    Default

    Oops ... another oversight ...
    No Exchange; NO Penalties
    The administration and Democrats in Congress call it a "drafting error" but Cato Institute calls it a deliberate choice. The ACA only authorizes tax credits and subsidies to be issued by government exchanges built by states. They are not authorized in the Federal Exchange.

    Thus, state legislatures that do not establish a state exchange will protect their employers from $3,000 per-employee penalties that face employers if even one employee buys insurance on the exchange and gets a subsidy or tax credit.

    Cato's Michael Cannon and Jonathan Adler have written a well-researched paper opposing the IRS regulation that the administration is using to attempt to authorize tax credits and subsidies through a Federal Exchange (FE) even though Congress did not allow it. Likewise, Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia's attorney general, is urging states to do nothing to establish state exchanges.
    ACO - The End of Insurance

    The author of "Seeking Alpha" calls Obamacare's Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) an "insurmountable" risk to health insurance companies. The ACO is an organization created when hospitals and doctors join together to receive a lump sum ("bundled") payment from insurers for the care of patients.

    The author notes that today insurers collect a payment based on your risk and pay doctors, hospitals and other clinicians for services provided. But Obamacare ended the need for risk-based premium adjustments (no pre-existing exclusions) and eliminated payment for services based on individual claims for care received.

    The author notes, "The consensus in the hospital industry is that payment will be for period of one year to three years. The hospital or doctor will get a fixed sum of money for each patient per year from the insurance company out of which to meet all the medical needs of the patient. There'll be no need to submit a claim to an insurance company...The insurance company becomes merely a shell transferring the collected premium from insured to the ACO."

    As the author writes, "The insurance company will no longer need actuaries, risk analysts, claims processing, sales people, even executives and management...And since they would just be collecting and handing over the premiums to the ACO without doing anything further of value, there would be no need for health insurance companies to exist at all, and I predict that health insurance companies will cease to exist by 2017-2018 as the ACO model becomes widespread.

    The ACO model means local hospital will become the insurance company and care provider in one." In other words, a major conflict of interest. On July 9, HHS announced 89 new ACOs, bringing the total to 154 ACOs, with 400 more organizations planning to apply for ACO status in August.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,261

    Default

    It just keeps getting more complicated ...

    CNSNews.com) - The Justice Department last week presented the Newland family of Colorado--who own Hercules Industries, a heating, ventilation and air-conditioning business--with what amounted to an ultimatum: Give up your religion or your business.
    “Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business,” the Justice Department said in a formal filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

    In response to the Justice Department’s argument that the Newlands can either give up practicing their religion or give up owning their business, the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the family, said in a reply brief: "[T]o the extent the government is arguing that its mandate does not really burden the Newlands because they are free to abandon their jobs, their livelihoods, and their property so that others can take over Hercules and comply, this expulsion from business would be an extreme form of government burden.”
    The Justice Department further argued that people owning for-profit secular businesses do not have a First Amendment right to the free exercise religion in the way they conduct their businesses—particularly if their business is incorporated.

    “Here, plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged that the preventive services coverage regulations substantially burden their religious exercise,” the Justice Department told the court. “Hercules Industries, Inc., is not a religious employer; it is ‘an HVAC manufacturer.'
    The Newlands' attorney(s) reply:
    “The government argues that the Newlands forfeited their right to religious liberty as soon as they endeavored to earn their living by running a corporation,” said the Newlands’ brief.

    “Nothing in the Constitution, the Supreme Court’s decisions, or federal law requires—or even suggests—that families forfeit their religious liberty protection when they try to earn a living, such as by operating a corporate business,” they argued.

    If the Obama administration’s understanding of the First Amendment were accepted, argued the Alliance Defending Freedom’s brief, the media would have no rights either.

    “The government’s exclusionary attitude would push religion out of every sphere of life except the four wall of a church,” they said in their brief. “If for-profit corporations have no First Amendment ‘purpose,’ newspapers and other media would have no rights.”
    With 265 employees, a business like the Newlands' would need to pay the government $26,500 per day if they decided not to comply with Sebelius’s regulation and insured their employees anyway. Over 365 days that would amount to $9,672,500.
    "Look at this fine mess you've gotten us into, Ollie."
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •