If ACA is overturned, who benefits the most?

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2012 9:07:33 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Who benefits? People like me who pay for their own coverage and therefore go without things that I'd rather spend that money on. Why should i pay for those who choose other things over their own health care?

[formerroomate99]

the idea that research can't be funded publicly is ludicrous. Cuba, of all places, has a kick ass medical research program that they run on a shoestring. one of the advantages of it is that the public sets the priorities. so rather than doing research on hardons and big tits, they focus on things that actually matter in the health of people.

One of the reasons they can run their research on a shoestring is because the government controls salaries. Paying reseach scientists the same as a Walmart cashier wouldn't exactly work here, and you know it.

And to compare life expectancies of the two place is a blatantly dishonest argument. Lots of people in this country willingly lower their life expectancies because they choose to eat processed crap, drive everywhere, and do almost no manual labor, none of which are an option for most of the people living in a poorer country. And a lot of pregnancies that would end in a miscarriage in other countries result in the live birth of a sickly child in this country. This will also drive down average life expectancies.

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2012 9:07:33 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Who benefits? People like me who pay for their own coverage and therefore go without things that I'd rather spend that money on. Why should i pay for those who choose other things over their own health care?

Should I point out the irony of your earlier post on YM saying you leave the state to make major purchases to avoid paying taxes?

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 10:39:04 GMT -5 formerroomate99 said:

the idea that research can't be funded publicly is ludicrous. Cuba, of all places, has a kick ass medical research program that they run on a shoestring. one of the advantages of it is that the public sets the priorities. so rather than doing research on hardons and big tits, they focus on things that actually matter in the health of people.

One of the reasons they can run their research on a shoestring is because the government controls salaries. Paying reseach scientists the same as a Walmart cashier wouldn't exactly work here, and you know it.

i totally agree, f99. that is a major reason.

And to compare life expectancies of the two place is a blatantly dishonest argument.

tell that to the guy who did it. i didn't bring it up.

Lots of people in this country willingly lower their life expectancies because they choose to eat processed crap, drive everywhere, and do almost no manual labor, none of which are an option for most of the people living in a poorer country. And a lot of pregnancies that would end in a miscarriage in other countries result in the live birth of a sickly child in this country. This will also drive down average life expectancies.

like i say, i didn't bring it up. but i won't hesitate to use it to my advantage if someone else does.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 10:41:00 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Jun 27, 2012 9:07:33 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Who benefits? People like me who pay for their own coverage and therefore go without things that I'd rather spend that money on. Why should i pay for those who choose other things over their own health care?

Should I point out the irony of your earlier post on YM saying you leave the state to make major purchases to avoid paying taxes?

moreover, everyone pays for the uninsured already. the cost is already socialized. it is just done so in the most unjust and expensive way possible, rather than the most sensible and well managed way.

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2012 11:19:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 27, 2012 10:41:00 GMT -5 @craftysarah said:

Should I point out the irony of your earlier post on YM saying you leave the state to make major purchases to avoid paying taxes?

moreover, everyone pays for the uninsured already. the cost is already socialized. it is just done so in the most unjust and expensive way possible, rather than the most sensible and well managed way.

Well managed and sensible aren't usually terms to describe government entities.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Jun 27, 2012 11:23:47 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 27, 2012 11:19:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

moreover, everyone pays for the uninsured already. the cost is already socialized. it is just done so in the most unjust and expensive way possible, rather than the most sensible and well managed way.

Well managed and sensible aren't usually terms to describe government entities.

What? The US Post Office is a well run operation? FNMA? Freddie...

How about OTB in nyc...oh, hold on, they went bankrupt, and they had a monopoly.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 11:23:47 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 27, 2012 11:19:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

moreover, everyone pays for the uninsured already. the cost is already socialized. it is just done so in the most unjust and expensive way possible, rather than the most sensible and well managed way.

Well managed and sensible aren't usually terms to describe government entities.

yeah, i would like to ban the military too, but what can you do?

[wvugurl26]

Jun 27, 2012 11:23:47 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 27, 2012 11:19:27 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

moreover, everyone pays for the uninsured already. the cost is already socialized. it is just done so in the most unjust and expensive way possible, rather than the most sensible and well managed way.

Well managed and sensible aren't usually terms to describe government entities.

Amen!

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2012 11:34:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 27, 2012 11:23:47 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Well managed and sensible aren't usually terms to describe government entities.

yeah, i would like to ban the military too, but what can you do?

The military is one of the few things the government gets "decently right". It's certainly not perfect and it could stand to lose a bit of funding, but overall it's okay. But then again...I did say "usually". There are always exceptions to the rule.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 11:38:57 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 27, 2012 11:34:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yeah, i would like to ban the military too, but what can you do?

The military is one of the few things the government gets "decently right". It's certainly not perfect and it could stand to lose a bit of funding, but overall it's okay.

thanks for the concession. i can think of several other ones. but one will do.

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2012 11:40:34 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 27, 2012 11:38:57 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

The military is one of the few things the government gets "decently right". It's certainly not perfect and it could stand to lose a bit of funding, but overall it's okay.

thanks for the concession. i can think of several other ones. but one will do.

Please read my edit.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 11:41:16 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 27, 2012 11:40:34 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

thanks for the concession. i can think of several other ones. but one will do.

Please read my edit.

your edit would not have changed my reply, ft. i was looking for one of our resident anarchists to say something good about the government. i know it hurt, and i was giving you a pat on the back for your pain.

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2012 11:42:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 27, 2012 11:41:16 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Please read my edit.

your edit would not have changed my reply, ft. i was looking for one of our resident anarchists to say something good about the government. i know it hurt, and i was giving you a pat on the back for your pain.

You know nothing about me if you think I'm an anarchist. Wanting the government to do its job correctly is now considered "Anarchy"? Interesting theory.

Edit: If you can find any post of mine where I've said the government does absolutely nothing with a decent amount of success, then I'll concede my point. I'm pretty damn sure that won't happen.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 11:50:22 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 27, 2012 11:42:41 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

your edit would not have changed my reply, ft. i was looking for one of our resident anarchists to say something good about the government. i know it hurt, and i was giving you a pat on the back for your pain.

You know nothing about me if you think I'm an anarchist.

the blinky guy is how i designate a sarcastic reply, ft. meant to be taken lightly.

for the record: i know nothing about ANYONE here, nor do i tend to presume anything. that is why i ask a lot of questions.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

You know nothing about me if you think I'm an anarchist. Wanting the government to do its job correctly is now considered "Anarchy"? Interesting theory.

Edit: If you can find any post of mine where I've said the government does absolutely nothing with a decent amount of success, then I'll concede my point. I'm pretty damn sure that won't happen.

Of course, your position does not support "the revolution". Remember, the issue is not the issue.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 11:50:22 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Edit: If you can find any post of mine where I've said the government does absolutely nothing with a decent amount of success, then I'll concede my point. I'm pretty damn sure that won't happen.

wow. an even WIDER concession. awesome!

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 11:54:21 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

You know nothing about me if you think I'm an anarchist. Wanting the government to do its job correctly is now considered "Anarchy"? Interesting theory.

Edit: If you can find any post of mine where I've said the government does absolutely nothing with a decent amount of success, then I'll concede my point. I'm pretty damn sure that won't happen.

Of course, your position does not support "the revolution". Remember, the issue is not the issue.

wtf are you talking about, SF?

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2012 11:55:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 27, 2012 11:50:22 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Edit: If you can find any post of mine where I've said the government does absolutely nothing with a decent amount of success, then I'll concede my point. I'm pretty damn sure that won't happen.

wow. an even WIDER concession. awesome!

If that's the way you see it. Perception is reality, I suppose. Let me burst that bubble by saying this: The government messes up more than anything it might do with any amount of success.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 11:57:20 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 27, 2012 11:55:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

wow. an even WIDER concession. awesome!

If that's the way you see it. Perception is reality, I suppose. Let me burst that bubble by saying this: The government messes up more than anything it might do with any amount of success.

i don't really understand that last sentence. but you don't need to hedge, ft. i got it: you are not an absolutist. neither am i.

edit: i could have mentioned that i didn't actually say "government" in the post you first replied to- but i thought this idea was worth exploring. unlike many posters here, you seem to rely on your mind rather than on the blogs or some infinitely repeated talking points to argue, and i respect that.

[fairlycrazy23]

Jun 27, 2012 11:38:57 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

Jun 27, 2012 11:34:40 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

yeah, i would like to ban the military too, but what can you do?

The military is one of the few things the government gets "decently right". It's certainly not perfect and it could stand to lose a bit of funding, but overall it's okay. But then again...I did say "usually". There are always exceptions to the rule.

The military may be something that we want government to do, but I don't think it is especially efficient. We spend an enormous amount of money on the military, how much of that is waste I don't know. But I suspect it is probably inline with most other government endeavors.

[Deleted]

The military is one of the few things the government gets "decently right"

Says something about their priorities.

i was looking for one of our resident anarchists to say something good about the government

Sometimes they wear nice suits.

[formerroomate99]

moreover, everyone pays for the uninsured already. the cost is already socialized. it is just done so in the most unjust and expensive way possible, rather than the most sensible and well managed way.

I agree. I just can't see a problem this complex being handled in a sensible or well managed way by this administration.

There is a lot that only a federal mandate could handle, like allowing users to buy insurance across state lines, standardizind the paperwork, etc. These things could dramatically lower costs for everyone and make buying individual insurance policies more affordable.

[zibazinski]

I didn't leave the state. I was in the state visiting family when I got engaged. My aunt jokingly said we should get my ring there and save the tax! So we did. No reason to not take advantage of a deal. But that isn't the same as expecting others to pay for my choices.

[Deleted]

Big purchases are always for states with less or no tax.

Forgive me. I must have misinterpretted the above.

[beenherebefore]

The Economy Will Get A Boost If The Court Overturns ObamaCare
Fri, Jun 22 2012 00:00:00 E A15_ISSUES
By BETSY MCCAUGHEYBETSY MCCAUGHEY12655 Beatrice Street
Los Angeles
CA
90066

Posted 06/21/2012 05:29 PM ET
The Obama administration launched a pre-emptive ad blitz on June 19, touting the Obama health law's benefits days before the U.S. Supreme Court will announce its ruling on ObamaCare's constitutionality. The ads claim there's a lot to lose if the law is struck down.
But they say nothing about the hiring boom that will result from an ObamaCare defeat. It would give the economy a shot in the arm.
If the justices rule that mandatory health insurance is unconstitutional, they will also strike down a big chunk of the health law — all of Title 1 — including the burdensome "Employer Responsibility" provision that has struck fear in the hearts of employers and deterred hiring.
Beginning in 2014, the "Employer Responsibility" provision would require employers with 50 or more workers to provide health coverage or pay a penalty. Not just any coverage, but a package of expensive benefits that the president deems "essential."
In most states, that requirement would add $1.79 per hour to the cost of a full-time employee. That would amount to the biggest hike in labor costs in American history. Employers in New York and New Jersey, where health plans are the most expensive, would be hit even harder.
There, according to economist James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation, the employer requirement would add more than $2 an hour to the cost of employing someone.
Many employers who already provide health plans will be hit with higher labor costs in 2014 unless the Supreme Court strikes down Title 1 or all of ObamaCare. The law takes away employers' option to provide low-cost mini-med plans, which are common in retail, fast food and other industries employing large numbers of low-wage workers.
Mini-meds cap what the insurer has to pay out in benefits over a year or a lifetime. Employers opt for them on the philosophy that providing low-cost coverage is better than none at all.
But ObamaCare outlaws this option. Andrew Puzder, CEO of a chain of Carl's Jr. and Hardee restaurants, testified before Congress that switching to the one-size-fits-all government-mandated health coverage would more than double his company's health insurance costs.
Employers can refuse to provide the mandated coverage in 2014, but those who do will be hit with a $2,000 per employee yearly penalty (applied to all but the first 20 employees). Spread over a year, the penalty would add 95 cents an hour to the cost of a full-time worker.
No wonder businesses are reluctant to add employees. According to a March 2012 survey by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 73% of small businesses said the Obama health care law made it more difficult for them to add new hires.
Hardest hit are the young, low-skilled workers on the bottom rung of the ladder. Any increase in labor costs historically hurts them the most. A report from Cornell University's Industrial Labor Relations Review (April 2012) shows that when the minimum wage was hiked in New York in 2007, employment among workers aged 16 to 24 dropped a staggering 20%.
The employer mandate in the Obama health law will have the same dire impact on young adults: joblessness. Unemployment rates are 50% higher for them than the overall adult population. Young adults are priced out of the market. Paradoxically, they seldom need costly health care. What they need is work.
At a campaign stop on June 12, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney blamed ObamaCare for the languishing jobs picture. Romney's right, but a Supreme Court defeat for the president's health law could give the economy a shot in the arm, increase hiring, and boost President Obama's chances of winning re-election in November.
McCaughey is former Lt. Governor of New York state and author of "The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It."


news.investors.com/article/615646/201206211729/court-rejection-of-obamacare-good-for-economy.htm?p=2

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2012 12:00:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jun 27, 2012 11:57:20 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

If that's the way you see it. Perception is reality, I suppose. Let me burst that bubble by saying this: The government messes up more than anything it might do with any amount of success.

i don't really understand that last sentence. but you don't need to hedge, ft. i got it: you are not an absolutist. neither am i.

edit: i could have mentioned that i didn't actually say "government" in the post you first replied to- but i thought this idea was worth exploring. unlike many posters here, you seem to rely on your mind rather than on the blogs or some infinitely repeated talking points to argue, and i respect that.

You are certainly correct in relying on my mind. I'll definitely read news to decipher information but I tend to look at the same article(s) through multiple sources and figure out myself what is BS and what the actual story is. There's slant everywhere. You just have to know how to actually see it.

I'll say this dj: If you and I ever actually met, we'd sit down, have a beer or beverage of choice and have some pretty decent conversation.

[Deleted]

Jun 27, 2012 12:08:00 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Jun 27, 2012 11:38:57 GMT -5 @financialtexan said:

The military is one of the few things the government gets "decently right". It's certainly not perfect and it could stand to lose a bit of funding, but overall it's okay. But then again...I did say "usually". There are always exceptions to the rule.

The military may be something that we want government to do, but I don't think it is especially efficient. We spend an enormous amount of money on the military, how much of that is waste I don't know. But I suspect it is probably inline with most other government endeavors.

You're probably right and I don't disagree with you. A good portion of that is waste and I've already said the DoD budget could and should be cut...to an extent. I also think some of what we see as "waste" is R&D for things we won't know about until years later when they have been declassified.

Let's take Area 51 as an example of this: The government still says nothing is going on there, yet it's obvious to the casual observer that Groom Lake has expanded in size in multiples over the last 20-30 years. Whether "ET" is there...meh....but there's definitely some Top Secret R&D tech going on there.

[djAdvocate]

Jun 27, 2012 13:00:19 GMT -5 beenherebefore said:

The Economy Will Get A Boost If The Court Overturns ObamaCare
Fri, Jun 22 2012 00:00:00 E A15_ISSUES
By BETSY MCCAUGHEYBETSY MCCAUGHEY12655 Beatrice Street
Los Angeles
CA
90066

Betsy McClaughey? you mean the same Betsy McCaughy who is a former HC industry lobbyist who was shown to have repeatedly lied about provisions of the ACA?

sorry, but i would not trust her for an honest answer on her bra size, let alone ANYTHING related to this issue.

[beenherebefore]

AT&T (NYSE: T ) and 3M (NYSE: MMM )
Yes, AT&T and 3M. Your eyes are not deceiving you, your computer is not on the fritz, and yes I've had my coffee for the day!

AT&T and 3M are really just the tip of the iceberg of more than a dozen companies that enacted huge one-time health-care reform charge-offs just days after President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010. AT&T took a gigantic $1 billion charge while 3M wrote off $90 million in health-related expensing. The reason these big companies took these non-cash charges was due to the upcoming removal of a key Medicare tax benefit in the ACA. The removal of this benefit could mean the reduction of health-care coverage to retired workers, as well as the potential cutback on coverage to existing employees.

If Obamacare fails to get past the Supreme Court, companies like AT&T and 3M that were forced to take these writedowns are suddenly going to be sitting pretty -- and to boot, they're going to have a happy workforce because health-care benefits would be unlikely to be cut. This isn't an across-the-board trend, but there are enough large-cap companies that are going to be negatively affected by Obamacare that its failure and the continuance of these tax breaks, as well as the happiness of their employees, would be a welcome outcome

www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/06/22/5-stocks-that-will-benefit-if-obamacare-is-overtu.aspx