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

[Salt Jones]

You forgot the notion of inseverability?

How do you make that affordable without the mandate?

When you come up with a constitutional way to do that and when you make the case to enough people to get that to pass, well done.

Too bad Obama spoiled the effort by not coming anywhere close to making the case that his plan was worth getting behind when the economy was in crisis mode. Maybe he could have put that off for a year and done his real duty of making sure that his programs such as the stimulus and HAMP were being administered well and were achieving desired results, and addressing the issue when it was seen that they weren't.


Obama misunderstood his mandate and blew it royally.

I hope the entire thing is thrown out. It will be a political boon for the liberals. And republicans will have to agree to reenact the popular provisions in Congress. It brings out the dem base and puts the repubs on the defensive.

No dummy. The power goes back to the PEOPLE to chart thier own course.

You don't know politics. Pre-existing conditions and leaving your kids on your insurance until they are 26 are extremely popular, especially the children's pre-existing conditions provision. If they are all thrown out the backlash against the right was will be swift and the republicans in congress will cave, just as they did over the payroll tax. You dream in theoretics, I follow political realities. Wake up.

 

[Greenbeard]

Will pre-existing conditions be reversed? Will the age limit be reversed? Will the popular sections be reversed?

Given that none of those are considered by either side to be unconstitutional, one would assume not. But if the Court decides to be especially hackish, you never know.

You forgot the notion of inseverability?

How do you make that affordable without the mandate?

The insurance rating rules in the exchanges are the only piece of the law there that's related to the individual mandate. All pieces of the law currently in effect--e.g. extension of dependent coverage through age 26, medical loss ratios, preventive benefit coverage, etc--are obviously unrelated to the mandate. Similarly the Medicaid expansions that will insure half of those gaining coverage in a year and a half are unrelated to the individual mandate. As are the Medicare reforms and the public health and workforce investments, and so on.

As for the rating rules, affordability for the consumer isn't really at issue here, as most people in the exchanges would have incomes below 400% FPL, meaning they're protected--the maximum amount those people pay for an exchange plan is limited to a certain percentage of their income. The issue is how much the federal contribution via tax credits changes without the mandate. Anyway, the only pieces that could be argued to be inseverable from the individual mandate are the guaranteed issue and community rating rules. Attacking anything beyond those is simple partisanship hackery.

And given that trying to throw out those unrelated pieces has no justification, seeking to eliminate them without offering any replacement is, as I've said, shameful.

 

[Listening]

And given that trying to throw out those unrelated pieces has no justification, seeking to eliminate them without offering any replacement is, as I've said, shameful.

Sorry....

Throw it all out.

Shoot it again.

Drive a stake through it's heart.

Then burn it and bury it.

ALL OF IT.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Listening, that is not going to happen, even a little bit. And if Obama is re-elected, regardless of SCOTUS, the NAHC Act is going to continue to survive,

 

[The T]

I hope the entire thing is thrown out. It will be a political boon for the liberals. And republicans will have to agree to reenact the popular provisions in Congress. It brings out the dem base and puts the repubs on the defensive.

No dummy. The power goes back to the PEOPLE to chart thier own course.

You don't know politics. Pre-existing conditions and leaving your kids on your insurance until they are 26 are extremely popular, especially the children's pre-existing conditions provision. If they are all thrown out the backlash against the right was will be swift and the republicans in congress will cave, just as they did over the payroll tax. You dream in theoretics, I follow political realities. Wake up.

Theocratics Salt-Peter? Really?

And reality is MADE UP in your own mind...YOUR reality should never infringe upon mine...but then? YOU have NEVER been a big FAN of individual LIBERTY, have you Salt-Peter?

YOU are an IDIOT.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is a CAPITALS day for TERRIFIC T.

 

[Salt Jones]

No dummy. The power goes back to the PEOPLE to chart thier own course.

You don't know politics. Pre-existing conditions and leaving your kids on your insurance until they are 26 are extremely popular, especially the children's pre-existing conditions provision. If they are all thrown out the backlash against the right was will be swift and the republicans in congress will cave, just as they did over the payroll tax. You dream in theoretics, I follow political realities. Wake up.

Theocratics Salt-Peter? Really?

And reality is MADE UP in your own mind...YOUR reality should never infringe upon mine...but then? YOU have NEVER been a big FAN of individual LIBERTY, have you Salt-Peter?

YOU are an IDIOT.

Yes, theoretics.

You don't know what you are talking about, as usual.

"Theoretics- the branch or part of any field of learning or knowledge that is concerned with theories or hypotheses, as contrasted with practical application."

theoretics - definition of theoretics by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Correct. This is not a party line decision.

This is a question or not of whether our founding fathers mean a damn to us, or not.

Truthiepoo sides firmly on the 'not' side.

 

[JakeStarkey]

both suds and fitz believe they can determine constitutionality.

they can't.

only SCOTUS can.

End of nonsense.

 

[Amelia]

Example of a case when someone should be expected to tell what they'll replace a policy with:

Tom Barrett in Wisconsin should tell what he'll do after he reverses the legal actions of Scott Walker and our legislature.
​

Example of a case when there is no obligation whatsoever to tell what we'll replace a policy with:

When the policy is unconstitutional.​

Barrett acts like he expects us to vote him in when he has no alternative for fixing the budget problems Walker had to deal with when he walked into office. Budgetary holes Barrett wants to open up again.

Some of the same people who are okay with tanking Wisconsin's economy because Walker went against their ideological principles seem to be among those who question the morality of us defending the Constitution of the United States without having an alternative healthcare takeover plan waiting in the wings.

 

[Greenbeard]

Example of a case when there is no obligation whatsoever to tell what we'll replace a policy with:

When the policy is unconstitutional.​

Funding high-risk pools for those with pre-existing conditions is not unconstitutional. Allowing the states the option to expand eligibility for Medicaid prior to 2014 (as some have now done) is not unconstitutional. Building up the primary care workforce by creating additional residency slots is not unconstitutional. Regulating health insurance practices--say, requiring that dependent coverage be offered through age 26, or that children not be discriminated against, or that eliminating rescissions and annual caps, or coverage for preventive services, or that a minimum percentage of premium dollars go toward patient care, or allowing consumers new options for appealing claims decisions--is not unconstitutional. Closing the Medicare donut hole is not unconstitutional.

None of these things is being challenged, nor has anyone seriously suggested any of them is unconstitutional. So your rationale for why those who seek to destroy them (for no apparent reason) aren't culpable has no basis.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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?

See my signature. I think it will be ruled UnConstitutional. Then we can rid of the POS.

 

[JoeB131]

Listening, that is not going to happen, even a little bit. And if Obama is re-elected, regardless of SCOTUS, the NAHC Act is going to continue to survive,

So what you are admitting is Romney is lying when he says he's going to repeal it.

So why do you support a liar?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course he is saying what he has to, just like Obama, JoeB.

Now tell us about what the mean Mormons in 1983 did to you in military training.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course he is saying what he has to, just like Obama, JoeB.

Now tell us about what the mean Mormons in 1983 did to you in military training.

Nope.... I'm getting waaaayyyy to much pleasure out of watching you obsess about it...

But I'm not sure why you are so anxious to support a guy you think is lying about the most important issue of the day.

If you think the ACA is an important development, and Romney does, too, he should come out in favor of it.

That's what a leader does.

Remember when Bill Clinton realized that despite what his base and his party thought, Welfare Reform was someting that was needed? So he bucked his own party and worked with Gingrich on it? This is what leaders do.

Sweet Evil Jesus, I'm using Clinton as a good example?

 

[JakeStarkey]

JoeB, end the denial. Tell us. You will feel better.

 

[JoeB131]

I feel pretty good now.

You did skip around the point that Romney hasn't even made it up to the low leadership bar set by Bill Clinton.

The man has yet to have a "Sister Souljah" moment where he confronts the more extreme elements of his own party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are talking about your silly, unfounded fear of Mormonism. Open it, and share. You will feel better. Be specific.

 

[JoeB131]

We are talking about your silly, unfounded fear of Mormonism. Open it, and share. You will feel better. Be specific.

No, man, you're talking about that.

It's a settled issue as far as I'm concerned.

I mean, I did have a moment of confusion afterwards when I didn't understand how anyone could be such a big bunch of douchebags without being in the feminine hygeine section...

But then I found out their religions is built on pure batshit crazy, and it all made sense.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Como on, share with us. You will feel better.