It's almost June - countdown to the Supreme Court decision on ACA

[tererun]

If you're saying that our health care system drastically needs reform, you'll find me at the head of that line. I work in the health care system and I've been saying that for years. It did NOT need a government takeover.

Since there is no government provided health care, what the fuck are you talking about? Even if you were to somehow say that the mandate was a takeover that does not make sense as car insurance has a mandate yet it is still private. There are certain areas where the government has to regulate private business and that is nto a takeover, it is because if they do not business runs amok and hurts people.

Part of the problem with making outlandish statements like that is they are inflammatory, not true, and really confuse the issue. Most people would agree the health insurance system in the US was and is fucked and a half, but when you try and claim obama took it over with this act you distort what was actually done. Nothing was taken over, and the insurance companies are still privately owned. The worst that happened is that there are some piss poor regulations that were not there before requiring insurance companies to actually pay out as per their contracts, and to stop dropping people for collecting on money they paid to collect on. As long as insurance companies are for profit this will be the case. The shareholders will always come before the customers in a business where people are scared shitless to not have your product.

So please tell us just how the AMA has taken over private health insurance, or shut up and stop confusing things.

 

[tererun]

Please oh please oh please, let them strike it down.

What is Obama's campaign team going to do when the verdict comes out?

The Court will indeed invalidate the ACA, and conservatives will be unpleasantly surprised to not realize the political ‘benefit’ they anticipated; it will in fact backfire.

Conservatives should have left well enough alone.

The lawsuits against the ACA in particular, and rightist opposition to the Act in general, had nothing to do with the Constitution or ‘individual liberty,’ it was merely a partisan ploy to ‘attack’ Obama. Republicans will only succeed in unwittingly removing from their arsenal a potent political weapon, energize the president’s base, and will likely anger a significant number of voters against the GOP for eliminating popular provisions of the measure addressing preexisting conditions and coverage for adult children, for example.

Not to mention there is a very big problem it does make an attempt to stop. If they knock it down then the insurance companies will see that as government approval of all the crap that they were doing before, and it will cause them to get worse. People are turning on the republican base now, but what happens if this is scrapped, romney comes in, and things get open wide for four more years of health insurance bullshit? The backlash is going to rip the head off the entire medical industry in america. The insurance companies are too greedy, and left unchecked would ravage their customers for whatever profit they can get. A weak leader like Obama is actually better off for them than one who lets them do whatever they want like Romney. Through Obama we have a chance to plod our way through to a solution that might be good. Romney is just going to let the insurance companies run wild until the whole system collapses, and it is quite possible he will try and force all of us into a mandate too. Remember, he does not have a problem with the mandate, he has a problem with giving health care to the poor.

One one level I say elect Romney and finish the collapse, and on the other I see all the people who are going to get hurt in order to wake people up to the bullshit.

 

[Lovebears65]

and what will happen.

all those people who now got to keep their insurance will lose it.

they will thank the republicans for that one

This is not a Republican VS Democrat issue, it's a ignorance and contempt for the constitution issue by the people who passed the bill. You are being very short sided if you don't not see the danger in the Government being able to mandate people to buy things.

Leave it up to TM to turn this into a party VS party issue rather than an obvious attack on personal liberties as it clearly is.

It is partisan hackery.

Thaat is what the SCOTUS now does

No idiot , the SCOTUS is supposed to do this protect us from this dictator.

 

[JoeB131]

Please oh please oh please, let them strike it down.

What is Obama's campaign team going to do when the verdict comes out?

If by some chance Obama gets another term, will he have another go at HCR?

So essentially, you think it's okay for insurance comanies to refuse to treat sick kids so that Romney can have a talking point against Obama? I'm just trying to understand what you are standing for here.

The amazing level of hypocrisy on the part of Romney's supporters on this issue has been amazing to behold.

Let's review, shall we.

1) Conservatives have called for individual mandates all the way back to HilllaryCare, and Romney even instituted them in Mass. in 2005, and was calling them a model for the nation all the way up until 2009, until he found out that real conservatives really hate sick kids and love them some insurance companies.

2) Conservatives have ranted and raved about Judicial Activism for years when it comes to issues like abortion, school prayer, gay marriage and the lot. How dare those judges find for something when the legislative branch has voted on it. But now they are going to the courts to accomplish what they can't accomplish at the ballot box.

Incidently, I don't think the court will overturn it, because one of those GOP justices is going to realize that it's really bad form to allow insurance companies to cheat peeople out of coverage they paid good money for.

 

[Darkwind]

and what will happen.

all those people who now got to keep their insurance will lose it.

they will thank the republicans for that one

If they managed to keep their insurance, then they'll still have it, won't they?

 

[MuadDib]

If you're saying that our health care system drastically needs reform, you'll find me at the head of that line. I work in the health care system and I've been saying that for years. It did NOT need a government takeover.

Since there is no government provided health care, what the fuck are you talking about? Even if you were to somehow say that the mandate was a takeover that does not make sense as car insurance has a mandate yet it is still private. There are certain areas where the government has to regulate private business and that is nto a takeover, it is because if they do not business runs amok and hurts people.

Part of the problem with making outlandish statements like that is they are inflammatory, not true, and really confuse the issue. Most people would agree the health insurance system in the US was and is fucked and a half, but when you try and claim obama took it over with this act you distort what was actually done. Nothing was taken over, and the insurance companies are still privately owned. The worst that happened is that there are some piss poor regulations that were not there before requiring insurance companies to actually pay out as per their contracts, and to stop dropping people for collecting on money they paid to collect on. As long as insurance companies are for profit this will be the case. The shareholders will always come before the customers in a business where people are scared shitless to not have your product.

So please tell us just how the AMA has taken over private health insurance, or shut up and stop confusing things.

You need to get your own facts straight. What do you think is mandated?

Comparing ACA (not AMA) to car insurance is apples and oranges. You are not required to cover damage to your own car; you're required to cover your liability to the other driver for any damage or injury that YOU cause to someone else's person or property.

 

[Greenbeard]

You need to get your own facts straight. What do you think is mandated?

Private health insurance coverage, chosen in a competitive, private multi-payer market. What do you think is mandated?

 

[tererun]

If you're saying that our health care system drastically needs reform, you'll find me at the head of that line. I work in the health care system and I've been saying that for years. It did NOT need a government takeover.

Since there is no government provided health care, what the fuck are you talking about? Even if you were to somehow say that the mandate was a takeover that does not make sense as car insurance has a mandate yet it is still private. There are certain areas where the government has to regulate private business and that is nto a takeover, it is because if they do not business runs amok and hurts people.

Part of the problem with making outlandish statements like that is they are inflammatory, not true, and really confuse the issue. Most people would agree the health insurance system in the US was and is fucked and a half, but when you try and claim obama took it over with this act you distort what was actually done. Nothing was taken over, and the insurance companies are still privately owned. The worst that happened is that there are some piss poor regulations that were not there before requiring insurance companies to actually pay out as per their contracts, and to stop dropping people for collecting on money they paid to collect on. As long as insurance companies are for profit this will be the case. The shareholders will always come before the customers in a business where people are scared shitless to not have your product.

So please tell us just how the AMA has taken over private health insurance, or shut up and stop confusing things.

You need to get your own facts straight. What do you think is mandated?

Comparing ACA (not AMA) to car insurance is apples and oranges. You are not required to cover damage to your own car; you're required to cover your liability to the other driver for any damage or injury that YOU cause to someone else's person or property.

Why don't you tell me since we are on your planet.

 

[MuadDib]

You need to get your own facts straight. What do you think is mandated?

Private health insurance coverage, chosen in a competitive, private multi-payer market. What do you think is mandated?

It's being required that you purchase health insurance. The US Constitution does not grant the power to compel commerce. It does say that any powers not delegated by the constitution are reserved to the states.

 

[occupied]

If it gets thrown out, every bad thing it would have prevented can rightly be laid at the feet of any republican on record as being against it. I do not think they have even thought that far ahead to the day when our health system is doubly embarrassing for having been willfully sabotaged.

 

[Greenbeard]

You need to get your own facts straight. What do you think is mandated?

Private health insurance coverage, chosen in a competitive, private multi-payer market. What do you think is mandated?

It's being required that you purchase health insurance. The US Constitution does not grant the power to compel commerce. It does say that any powers not delegated by the constitution are reserved to the states.

That's interesting and all but it's the opposite of what you just said. In other words, you're making mutually contradictory arguments:

1. There is a "government takeover" of what was formerly private insurance, and somehow the ACA is the introduction of single-payer public health insurance for all.
2. The ACA compels private commerce, requiring you to go out and buy a product from private companies that the government itself doesn't provide.

These are opposite charges. Granted, I've heard them both leveled at the law, sometimes even from the same person, but usually not within a few lines of each other.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Can you imagine the spectacle that will be the cable news networks on the day its announced?

 

[Amelia]

For those who say the Republicans were wrong to challenge the ACA in court, I'll paraphrase Ben Franklin:

If you're willing to give up constitutional protections to get healthcare insurance, you don't deserve either.

 

[Greenbeard]

For those who say the Republicans were wrong to challenge the ACA in court, I'll paraphrase Ben Franklin:

If you're willing to give up constitutional protections to get healthcare insurance, you don't deserve either.

There's nothing wrong about challenging it in court if they don't believe it withstands constitutionals scrutiny (or, in many of their cases, if they believe there's potential political advantage in doing so).

What's shameful is doing so without developiong any coherent plan for replacing it should it fall.

 

[Amelia]

For those who say the Republicans were wrong to challenge the ACA in court, I'll paraphrase Ben Franklin:

If you're willing to give up constitutional protections to get healthcare insurance, you don't deserve either.

There's nothing wrong about challenging it in court if they don't believe it withstands constitutionals scrutiny (or, in many of their cases, if they believe there's potential political advantage in doing so).

What's shameful is doing so without developiong any coherent plan for replacing it should it fall.

Bull.

If you don't have a plan to replace something which you believe to be unconstitutional, then you shouldn't challenge it?

Utter bull.

 

[Amelia]

For those who say the Republicans were wrong to challenge the ACA in court, I'll paraphrase Ben Franklin:

If you're willing to give up constitutional protections to get healthcare insurance, you don't deserve either.

There's nothing wrong about challenging it in court if they don't believe it withstands constitutionals scrutiny (or, in many of their cases, if they believe there's potential political advantage in doing so).

What's shameful is doing so without developiong any coherent plan for replacing it should it fall.

There is NO obligation to have an alternative plan to government abuse before you fight the abuse.

I better go away. That's so absurd, I might bust a vein.

If someone is harming you, you do not have to have an alternate plan before you take measures to protect yourself from them.


Do you hear yourself?








Yeah, I have to go. I just hope and pray that the SCOTUS gets rid of ACA and that the nation does not reward Obama's outrageous disregard for the Constitution with four more years.

That is all.

 

[Greenbeard]

There is NO obligation to have an alternative plan to government abuse before you fight the abuse.

There's very obviously a moral obligation to figure out what they intend to do for those currently insured through PCIPs, what to do with those benefiting from early Medicaid expansions in various states, those who've benefited from the extension of dependent coverage or the elimination of pre-existing condition clauses for child-only policies or retiree reinsurance provisions, and of course the great many who are set to benefit over the next several years (not to mention the average taxpayer, who's enjoying the sight of historically low Medicare cost growth).

You seek to overturn the entire ACA because you find the individual mandate abhorrent. Yet the vast majority of the legislation (including, obviously, those pieces that have already gone into operation and the Medicare and Medicaid reforms that are being phased in) are independent of that provision.

So yes, there's certainly an obligation to follow up your gleeful wrecking ball with something to help those people you're attempting to harm senselessly.

Cancer patient Kathy Watson voted Republican in 2008 and believes the government has no right telling Americans to get health insurance. Nonetheless, she says she'd be dead if it weren't for President Barack Obama's health care law.

Now the Florida small businesswoman is worried the Supreme Court will strike down her lifeline. Under the law, Watson and nearly 62,000 other "uninsurable" patients are getting coverage through a little-known program for people who have been turned away by insurance companies because of pre-existing medical conditions.

"Without it, I would have been dead on March 2," Watson said of the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, known as PCIP. That's when she was hospitalized for a life-threatening respiratory infection.

It's not clear how the Supreme Court will rule on Obama's law, but Watson's case illustrates the potential impact of tying everything in the far-reaching legislation to the fate of one provision, the unprecedented requirement that most Americans carry health insurance.

 

[JoeB131]

For those who say the Republicans were wrong to challenge the ACA in court, I'll paraphrase Ben Franklin:

If you're willing to give up constitutional protections to get healthcare insurance, you don't deserve either.

horsecrap.

There's no constituitonal issue here. If the government can require you to register for the draft or to pay taxes, it can compell you to buy insurance.

In fact, in 1796, Congress passed a law requiring every able bodied man to own a gun as part of his obligation to be part of the "militia". No one had a constitutional problem with that.

If the court strikes it down on a 5-4 partisan vote, it will be politics, not law.

 

[Greenbeard]

In case I wasn't clear above, let me try and be succinct.

If someone is harming you, you do not have to have an alternate plan before you take measures to protect yourself from them.

In this particular instance, those doing harm are those, like yourself, who seek not to eliminate the individual mandate but rather the entire ACA ("I just hope and pray that the SCOTUS gets rid of ACA"). You could easily hope and pray that the individual mandate is eliminated but, presumably out of spite and some partisan team spirit, you want the Court to take the extraordinary step of eliminating plainly constitutional law and policy unrelated to the individual mandate--law and policy that is already saving lives.

Which is why, as I said, seeking to eliminate the entire ACA that without developing a coherent plan for replacing it is shameful.

 

[Clementine]

Please oh please oh please, let them strike it down.

What is Obama's campaign team going to do when the verdict comes out?

If by some chance Obama gets another term, will he have another go at HCR?

They seemed surprised when the constitutionality was in doubt. Then Obama had some criticism of SCOTUS. It's like they think they can do what they want and no one should question them. If it gets struck down, which I hope it does, then they will replace it with something even worse and we'll be back to square one.

I bet the Obama campaign already has plans to use this to attack Repubs when it gets shot down. Of course, blaming Romney might not work since he was for a similar plan in his state. So, they will attack Republicans in general. What they haven't realized since day one is that they are attacking the majority of Americans who did not want Obamacare. That hasn't dawned on them yet.

Judging by the polls, it appears that the koolaid effect has worn off for many. Obama still has some die hard supporters who can't articulate why they support him, but are quite adept at repeating the talking points and attacking the right.