Talk-Polywell.org

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ ... n-n1864616
Democrats in Congress passed a law that explicitly limited Obamacare subsidy eligibility to consumers who purchased plans on state-level exchanges. They did so in order to coerce and bribe states into setting up their own marketplaces under the law. (Another attempt at coercion, mandatory Medicaid expansion, has been struck down 7-2 by the Supreme Court). Given the controversial law's unpopularity, a majority of states declined to establish exchanges, forcing the federal government to create the infamous federal version -- with Healthcare.gov as its centerpiece. Subsequent New York Times reporting indicated that HHS never expected to have to set up any exchange at all, let alone for 36 states. That's because they were laboring under the belief that the law's sticks and carrots would compel every state to implement marketplaces on their own. Many did not, and the plain text of the law clearly states that anyone buying coverage through any system other than a state-based exchange would not be eligible to receive generous taxpayer subsidies, which relieve much of the heavy cost burden for many consumers (even with the subsidies, many enrollees say they're struggling to pay).


Faced with this predicament, the IRS decided that Congress' true intent was for all exchange consumers to have a shot at subsidies if they were financially eligible, so it simply decreed it to be so in the form of a regulation that effectively rewrote a major provision the law. Today, the Court ruled that the law says what it says, and that the IRS overstepped. This decision, at least for now, plunges Obamacare into chaos -- and furious Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.

MSimon wrote: If this decision holds the screams for repeal will get deafening.

MSimon wrote:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/ ... n-n1864616
Democrats in Congress passed a law that explicitly limited Obamacare subsidy eligibility to consumers who purchased plans on state-level exchanges. They did so in order to coerce and bribe states into setting up their own marketplaces under the law. (Another attempt at coercion, mandatory Medicaid expansion, has been struck down 7-2 by the Supreme Court). Given the controversial law's unpopularity, a majority of states declined to establish exchanges, forcing the federal government to create the infamous federal version -- with Healthcare.gov as its centerpiece. Subsequent New York Times reporting indicated that HHS never expected to have to set up any exchange at all, let alone for 36 states. That's because they were laboring under the belief that the law's sticks and carrots would compel every state to implement marketplaces on their own. Many did not, and the plain text of the law clearly states that anyone buying coverage through any system other than a state-based exchange would not be eligible to receive generous taxpayer subsidies, which relieve much of the heavy cost burden for many consumers (even with the subsidies, many enrollees say they're struggling to pay).

Faced with this predicament, the IRS decided that Congress' true intent was for all exchange consumers to have a shot at subsidies if they were financially eligible, so it simply decreed it to be so in the form of a regulation that effectively rewrote a major provision the law. Today, the Court ruled that the law says what it says, and that the IRS overstepped. This decision, at least for now, plunges Obamacare into chaos -- and furious Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.

If this decision holds the screams for repeal will get deafening.

Skipjack wrote:"Great" decision, lets hit the poor and the middle class a bit harder all for politics. I am sure they will remember at the next election!

Skipjack wrote:

MSimon wrote: If this decision holds the screams for repeal will get deafening.

"Great" decision, lets hit the poor and the middle class a bit harder all for politics. I am sure they will remember at the next election!

Unless you're a sick power-user, the ACA stands the real possibility of being a pure expense with no benefits for most middle class users. Pay the fees for coverage, never hit your deductible, and essentially you get hit with a one-two combination of pay-pay for no gain. Actually, that's quite a step down from the previous status quo for the middle class.

Skipjack wrote:

Unless you're a sick power-user, the ACA stands the real possibility of being a pure expense with no benefits for most middle class users. Pay the fees for coverage, never hit your deductible, and essentially you get hit with a one-two combination of pay-pay for no gain. Actually, that's quite a step down from the previous status quo for the middle class.

This is nonsense! Before the ACA, the US was spending 17% of the GDP on healthcare, compared to other nations which are somewhere around 10% and that same year health insurance providers were announcing a major increase in insurance rates that would have driven the cost up even higher. At the same time, people were denied coverage and were left with huge expenses. Some 70% of all bankruptcies in the US were due to healthcare expenses! 70%! That makes the housing bubble look tame! Then we have the millions that were outright denied health insurance because of a "preexisting condition" like being too tall, or were denied coverage because of a ridiculous "preexisting condition", like a wart on a foot.
Personally, I would have just left everything in place, with a public option to define a baseline for private health care providers to compete with. But that did not go well with the health insurance companies who were fearing "unfair competition from the government". That is of course strange since the government is allegedly not able to compete with private companies due to being so inefficient.
If the ACA fails. I will initiate a major class action lawsuit against health insurance companies, by anyone and everyone who has ever been screwed over. Take them on one by one. I could see that one having the backing of millions of people who have been screwed over, over the years.

I could see that one having the backing of millions of people who have been screwed over, over the years.

MSimon wrote:

I could see that one having the backing of millions of people who have been screwed over, over the years.

Then you will get Veterans Administration care for everyone when the insurance cos go bankrupt. And of course the costs of the suits will drive up costs. Excellent.

MSimon wrote:ACA has driven up costs. Without a government subsidy plan people would be paying more directly.

And then we have a non-invasive cure for cancer
Dr.Christina Sanchez explains how cannabis kills cancer cells

In fact so far as we can tell endocannabinoids regulate every system in the body.

hanelyp wrote:

MSimon wrote:ACA has driven up costs. Without a government subsidy plan people would be paying more directly.

Those of us who understand economics predicted this.

hanelyp wrote:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22038019
The endocannabinoid system consists of an array of endogenously produced bioactive lipids that activate cannabinoid receptors. Although the primary focus of endocannabinoid biology has been on neurological and psychiatric effects, recent work has revealed several important interactions between the endocannabinoid system and cancer. Several different types of cancer have abnormal regulation of the endocannabinoid system that contributes to cancer progression and correlates to clinical outcomes. Modulation of the endocannabinoid system by pharmacological agents in various cancer types reveals that it can mediate antiproliferative and apoptotic effects by both cannabinoid receptor-dependent and -independent pathways. Selective agonists and antagonists of the cannabinoid receptors, inhibitors of endocannabinoid hydrolysis, and cannabinoid analogs have been utilized to probe the pathways involved in the effects of the endocannabinoid system on cancer cell apoptosis, proliferation, migration, adhesion, and invasion. The antiproliferative and apoptotic effects produced by some of these pharmacological probes reveal that the endocannabinoid system is a promising new target for the development of novel chemotherapeutics to treat cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3165955/
The therapeutic potential of cannabinoids for cancer, as identified in clinical trials, is also discussed. Identification of safe and effective treatments to manage and improve cancer therapy is critical to improve quality of life and reduce unnecessary suffering in cancer patients. In this regard, cannabis-like compounds offer therapeutic potential for the treatment of breast, prostate and bone cancer in patients. Further basic research on anti-cancer properties of cannabinoids as well as clinical trials of cannabinoid therapeutic efficacy in breast, prostate and bone cancer is therefore warranted.