| Healthcare Bill Part III; Obamacare | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 3 2014, 02:20 PM (48,658 Views) | |
| Baldo | Jun 29 2014, 02:46 PM Post #706 |
|
California: Confusion over doctor lists is costly for Obamacare enrollees in state Frustration and legal challenges over the network of doctors and hospitals for Obamacare patients have marred an otherwise successful rollout of the federal healthcare law in California. Limiting the number of medical providers was part of an effort by insurers to hold down premiums. But confusion over the new plans has led to unforeseen medical bills for some patients and prompted a state investigation. More complaints are surfacing as patients start to use their new coverage bought through Covered California, the state's health insurance exchange. "I thought I had done everything right, and it's been awful," said Jean Buchanan, 56. The Fullerton resident found herself stuck with an $8,000 bill for cancer treatment after receiving conflicting information on whether it was covered. "How am I going to come up with that much money?"...snipped http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-obamacare-doctor-networks-20140629-story.html#page=1 The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Ronald Reagan |
 |
 
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 29 2014, 09:57 PM Post #707 |
|
I am not well-informed in this area, and have some naive ideas, so maybe what I'm about to say is a bunch of crock ... BUT Did Obamacare mandate that employers provide dental coverage? Did Obamacare mandate that employers provide eyecare coverage? Did Obamacare mandate that employers provide coverage for hearing aids? But it was important that the Federal Government mandate that employers provide coverage for contraceptives??? What the heck??? Edited by MikeZPU, Jun 29 2014, 09:59 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Baldo | Jun 30 2014, 12:41 AM Post #708 |
|
Supply won't meet growing demand for primary care http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/29/primary-care-shortage-health/11101265/# How long have many of us been warning about this? |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 30 2014, 07:33 AM Post #709 |
|
I'm 90% certain that dental and vision coverage was added through regulations. It is mandated by law that employers provide qualified health plans, but Barry rewrote that law to delay it somehow. |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 30 2014, 09:49 AM Post #710 |
|
thanks kbp  Unfortunately, like many of the people who voted for the AFCA,I have not read the entire bill, actually, I have not read even a smidgeon of it Breaking news: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/30/supreme-court-hobby-lobby/ Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge The Supreme Court ruled Monday that certain "closely held" for-profit businesses can cite religious objections in order to opt out of a requirement in ObamaCare to provide free contraceptive coverage for their employees. The 5-4 decision, in favor of arts and crafts chain Hobby Lobby and one other company, marks the first time the court has ruled that for-profit businesses can cite religious views under federal law. It also is a blow to a provision of the Affordable Care Act which President Obama's supporters touted heavily during the 2012 presidential campaign. The ruling was one of two final rulings to come down on Monday, as the justices wrapped up their work for the session. The other reined in the ability of unions to collect dues from home health care workers. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion in the ObamaCare case. The court's four liberal justices dissented. The court stressed that its ruling applies only to corporations that are under the control of just a few people in which there is no essential difference between the business and its owners. Alito also said the decision is limited to contraceptives under the health care law. "Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious beliefs," Alito said. At issue in the ObamaCare case was a challenge brought by Oklahoma City-based Hobby Lobby and a furniture maker in Pennsylvania. The for-profit businesses challenged the requirement in the Affordable Care Act that employers cover contraception for women at no extra charge among a range of preventive benefits in employee health plans. It was the first major challenge to ObamaCare to come before the court since the justices upheld the law's individual requirement to buy health insurance two years ago. Dozens of companies, including Hobby Lobby, claim religious objections to covering some or all contraceptives. The methods and devices at issue before the Supreme Court are those the plaintiffs say can work after conception. They are the emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as intrauterine devices, which can cost up to $1,000. The court had never before recognized a for-profit corporation's religious rights under federal law or the Constitution. The companies in this case, and their backers, argue that a 1993 federal law on religious freedom extends to businesses. read more at the link above. Edited by MikeZPU, Jun 30 2014, 09:51 AM.
|
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 30 2014, 10:12 AM Post #711 |
|
That reads like a confusing mess that will visit SCOTUS again and again. |
|
|
|
| Baldo | Jun 30 2014, 11:06 AM Post #712 |
|
The Basic Problem is how far can the Fed Govt go to rule your life. IMHO we have given way too much power & money to DC. Power should be closer to home. |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 30 2014, 12:04 PM Post #713 |
|
Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance-coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer's religious belief Alito Hopefully there is more to establishing the line. We have religion as a right. How they determine where that rights ends and the new law outweighs it looks like headache we should not encounter. ADD: I think they're going out of their way to avoid disturbing Obamacare Edited by kbp, Jun 30 2014, 12:05 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Mason | Jun 30 2014, 12:16 PM Post #714 |
Parts unknown
|
.. Look how fast we've gone from individual freedoms and rights being held sacred in the country (and the SCOTUS) - to behemoth Government regulations carrying the sacred, by default, ground. What would the Supreme court of 1950, heck 1990, have written about the socialistic all-encompassing Gov't programs? . |
|
|
| kbp | Jun 30 2014, 12:21 PM Post #715 |
|
Just reading the news for Ginsburg's dissent, it struck me that she does not want to allow rights for companies. The new central command law hits too many difficulties that way. Lets hope takings will not be acceptable where companies are involved if liberals hold the majority some day. |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 30 2014, 01:00 PM Post #716 |
|
"Takings" already is acceptable. Check out the Kelo decision, and for that matter the 17th amendment. I mean, except for one's Soul, what does Man have exclusivity of in mortal form? His labor or creativity, I suggest. If "income" taxes don't represent theft, then that word has no definition. |
|
|
|
| MikeZPU | Jun 30 2014, 02:47 PM Post #717 |
|
The undocumented 1/16-th part Native American Senator from the Northeast is trying to garner some political capital from the decision. Note how she lies about what the decision was, and doesn't use the word contraceptive. Are corporations required to cover prophylactics for men? 
Edited by MikeZPU, Jun 30 2014, 02:50 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Mason | Jun 30 2014, 02:53 PM Post #718 |
|
Parts unknown
|
. The DEMS keep moving farther and farther from reality and into the abyss. There doesn't seem to be any price for their craziness. See Nancy Pelosi, Hairy Reid, and Joe Biden. . |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 30 2014, 03:09 PM Post #719 |
|
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/06/30/7-reasons-conservatives-SCOTUS 7 Reasons Conservatives Shouldn't Buy Media's Supreme Court Hype snip |
|
|
|
| kbp | Jun 30 2014, 03:16 PM Post #720 |
|
Barry has his own battles with the MSM... http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/06/30/CNNs-Borger-SCOTUS-Proves-Obama-Has-Overreached CNN's Borger: SCOTUS Proves Obama has Overreached Immediately following the announcement of the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby on the ObamaCare contraception mandate on Monday, CNN chief political Analyst Gloria Borger declared that “the Supreme Court has kind of crystallized [the GOP’s] main political argument” that President Barack Obama has “overreached” and engaged in an “imperial presidency.” Borger stated that the Democratic Party line that Republicans are fighting a “war on women” is an effective argument, but emphasized that Republican arguments about “the overreach of the Obama administration,” and claims that “Obamacare has overreached” are receiving “ratification” from the Supreme Court in its rulings on recess appointments and the Hobby Lobby decision. She added that the Supreme Court’s ruling “kind of plays into [the Republican] midterm election playbook, which is that if you don't like government, which most people don't, you have to restrain a president who is overreaching and using government way too much.” |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic » |
11:54 AM Jul 13