Can Obamacare be saved? Bloombergview says no

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,486
Reaction score
3,455
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Supreme Court Can t Save Obamacare - Bloomberg View

Liberals' hope is that if the law can just survive this legal challenge and succeed on the merits -- insuring more people at a reasonable cost -- it will eventually gain acceptance, or at least benign indifference. By that view, the low level of public support for the law is either minimally important or beyond fixing.

But if Democrats don’t find a way to address the public distaste, Obamacare will stay vulnerable to the next ploy that comes along to undercut it.
. . .
By focusing on the expansion in coverage, however, the law's defenders are fighting the wrong argument. The opposition doesn't center on the notion that the government shouldn't be trying to cover more people. It revolves around two other claims, neither of which Democrats have done a good job dealing with. And both of those arguments are mostly bogus.

First is the idea that Obamacare imposes mandates on insurance that needlessly drive up the cost of coverage and restrict choice, a core Republican argument. "Republicans understand that what works in Utah is different from what works in Tennessee or Wyoming," a trio of Republican senators wrote Sunday in the Washington Post. Under their alternative, "every state would have the ability to create better markets suited to the needs of their citizens."

What Republicans are arguing against is the law's requirement that insurance cover 10 types of care: outpatient care, emergency room visits, hospitalization, prescription drugs, laboratory services, preventive care, rehabilitative care, pediatric care, maternity care, and mental health and addiction treatment. Which of those is unnecessary in Utah?

Republicans are really saying that people should be free to avoid carrying insurance for problems they don't expect to have (a bout of depression, maybe, or a stroke that requires rehabilitation) or don't want to help pay for (pediatric and maternity care for men with no children, say). The former view shifts costs onto the unlucky; the latter shifts costs onto women and parents. Both undercut the purpose of insurance, which is pooling risk. Neither saves money. Yet in the abstract the argument sounds compelling. And it's going mostly unchallenged.
....
Yet Democrats have focused on touting the number of people who have gained coverage -- which is important, but doesn't feel as personal to most Americans.
...
The broader point remains that even if the most optimistic interpretations of Wednesday's argument are true, liberals can't count on the Supreme Court to save Obamacare. Sure, it would be nice if the justices uphold the tax credits for every state. But King v. Burwell is a symptom of a bigger problem, one that no ruling will fix. Ultimately, the only way to protect Obamacare is to convince more people that it's a good law. On that count, the government is still failing.

====================

From what I've seen, it cannot be proven either way, if this system covers more people than who are losing benefits or if the costs are going up or down for more people.

What Democrats seem to miss is even proving a more cost effective program does NOT necessarily justify DEPRIVING citizens and states of liberty we didn't all agree to concede to federal govt.

To some people this is NEVER justified, and that argument is being ignored,
as if "proving it to more people" or passing it through more rounds of Courts or Congress is going
to justify overriding someone's inherent beliefs this is not the jurisdiction of federal govt to decide.

Even if you "prove it to more people" that is still by those people's CHOICE to comply with the mandates.
So the person who does not believe in federal mandates should not be affected by someone else's choice.

Similar to religion: just because more Americans CHOOSE to live by Christianity, and find that it improves the quality of life, relations and health, does not justify federal govt MANDATING this for the entire nation,
exempting taxpayers who pay into Christian programs and fining those who want other choices instead.

I find it hard to believe I could be the only liberal prochoice Democrat in America who sees that
this violate concepts of prochoice and separation of church and state.

I talked to a friend yesterday who supports Universal care, and doesn't support anything to do with ACA and corporate insurance; yet sees no purpose in actively contesting the mandates because "Republicans are already fighting it." I tried to explain that if all sides fight it, the sooner it can be replaced, and if we all join forces we could sue and demand the Democrats pay back for the costs of this contested legislation and invest restitution owed to taxpayers into setting up voluntarily run nationalized health services by free choice.

Mandating insurance is not the only choice.

If the Bill had been about mandating that everyone undergo spiritual healing to reduce public costs of health care, liberals would more clearly see this violates separation of church and state. But they don't see it when it comes to their secular beliefs in health care and imposing that on all people regardless of opposing beliefs.

Sadly, spiritual healing would probably save more lives and costs than imposing insurance as a requirement.
Maybe the prolife Christians should come out with their own version of these mandates that requires that!

If one group can impose their beliefs about health care on the entire nation, and require all taxpayers to comply or pay fines into programs they believe provide more coverage, why not allow ALL groups to do the same, and start mandating spiritual healing to cut costs, if those taxpayers are REQUIRED to pay in.
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
82,229
Reaction score
26,500
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
.

From what I'm seeing, Roberts is wobbly and Kennedy's questions so far are making some people think he'll side with the ACA.

The GOP better be careful what it asks for, and/or they'd better have a response for all those who'd lose coverage.

The law is a pig and a terribly wasted opportunity, but a lot of people would not like seeing it go.

.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,486
Reaction score
3,455
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
.

From what I'm seeing, Roberts is wobbly and Kennedy's questions so far are making some people think he'll side with the ACA.

The GOP better be careful what it asks for, and/or they'd better have a response for all those who'd lose coverage.

The law is a pig and a terribly wasted opportunity, but a lot of people would not like seeing it go.

.
Mac1958
My question: why not hold Democrats responsible if that's who passed the flawed bill in the first place.
If a car dealer makes a bad model, and has to recall it, the manufacturer is held responsible for the costs or losses caused.

Why punish the people if the public was defrauded either way?

If Democrats promised "you can keep your doctors and current health insurance plans"
why not sue them and hold them to their commitments? That's how we treat companies that
advertise, why not political parties that pay for commercial advertising and make claims?

Either the Party has to fulfill its platform and pay, provide and manage this "health care as a right"
for all its members, voters, supporters and donors, or admit it committed FRAUD.
And either shut down or make good on its policies.

All by voluntary free choice, because that's what it takes to provide health care for all.
Charity. Someone has to do the work and pay the costs.
So if you keep preaching this religion that this should be provided for all citizens,
then pay up. Practice what you preach and put your money where your mouth is.
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
82,229
Reaction score
26,500
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
.

From what I'm seeing, Roberts is wobbly and Kennedy's questions so far are making some people think he'll side with the ACA.

The GOP better be careful what it asks for, and/or they'd better have a response for all those who'd lose coverage.

The law is a pig and a terribly wasted opportunity, but a lot of people would not like seeing it go.

.
Mac1958
My question: why not hold Democrats responsible if that's who passed the flawed bill in the first place.
If a car dealer makes a bad model, and has to recall it, the manufacturer is held responsible for the costs or losses caused.

Why punish the people if the public was defrauded either way?

If Democrats promised "you can keep your doctors and current health insurance plans"
why not sue them and hold them to their commitments? That's how we treat companies that
advertise, why not political parties that pay for commercial advertising and make claims?

Either the Party has to fulfill its platform and pay, provide and manage this "health care as a right"
for all its members, voters, supporters and donors, or admit it committed FRAUD.
And either shut down or make good on its policies.

All by voluntary free choice, because that's what it takes to provide health care for all.
Charity. Someone has to do the work and pay the costs.
So if you keep preaching this religion that this should be provided for all citizens,
then pay up. Practice what you preach and put your money where your mouth is.
I'm just looking at this logistically.

Let's say the Supes gut the program. Millions of people (I'm far too lazy right now to look up the exact number) will lose their subsidies and most likely will lose their coverage. Then we'll be flooded with stories about this person dying and that person dying (which, by the way, would most likely be factual stories).

Exactly what would the GOP do about people who would lose their coverage, if anything?

.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,462
Points
2,165
The flaw in the OP is this: "Republicans are really saying that people should be free to avoid carrying insurance for problems they don't expect to have (a bout of depression, maybe, or a stroke that requires rehabilitation) or don't want to help pay for (pediatric and maternity care for men with no children, say). The former view shifts costs onto the unlucky; the latter shifts costs onto women and parents. Both undercut the purpose of insurance, which is pooling risk. Neither saves money." The statement is merely opinion without any sort of evidence.

Roberts will not vote against ACA, not after his amazing defense of mandates the last time.

Kennedy is realizing that many millions of folks now have health insurance without breaking the system.

Until the GOP offers a workable reform plan, ACA remains untouchable.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,486
Reaction score
3,455
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
.

From what I'm seeing, Roberts is wobbly and Kennedy's questions so far are making some people think he'll side with the ACA.

The GOP better be careful what it asks for, and/or they'd better have a response for all those who'd lose coverage.

The law is a pig and a terribly wasted opportunity, but a lot of people would not like seeing it go.

.
Mac1958
My question: why not hold Democrats responsible if that's who passed the flawed bill in the first place.
If a car dealer makes a bad model, and has to recall it, the manufacturer is held responsible for the costs or losses caused.

Why punish the people if the public was defrauded either way?

If Democrats promised "you can keep your doctors and current health insurance plans"
why not sue them and hold them to their commitments? That's how we treat companies that
advertise, why not political parties that pay for commercial advertising and make claims?

Either the Party has to fulfill its platform and pay, provide and manage this "health care as a right"
for all its members, voters, supporters and donors, or admit it committed FRAUD.
And either shut down or make good on its policies.

All by voluntary free choice, because that's what it takes to provide health care for all.
Charity. Someone has to do the work and pay the costs.
So if you keep preaching this religion that this should be provided for all citizens,
then pay up. Practice what you preach and put your money where your mouth is.
I'm just looking at this logistically.

Let's say the Supes gut the program. Millions of people (I'm far too lazy right now to look up the exact number) will lose their subsidies and most likely will lose their coverage. Then we'll be flooded with stories about this person dying and that person dying (which, by the way, would most likely be factual stories).

Exactly what would the GOP do about people who would lose their coverage, if anything?

.
I'd look at ways to set up an account for the Democrats through the Federal Reserve,
and transfer the costs and credits for subsidies, coverage and differences in coverage charged to ACA.

And hold Obama, Pelosi and Democrats responsible for covering those costs without charging
taxpayers. Now, if taxpayers out of charity or business investment want to bail out those costs,
they can cut a deal and be like the investors in the Fed who earn interest on their loans.
or they can be Bill Gates and do a huge microloan without interest to fund the revamping of
the exchanges as voluntary and charity run. Or the Democrats can look at borrowing against
the campaign funds for their candidates for the next elections until this is all covered.

if the Democrats who passed this bill made those promises, they should be held responsible
for the costs. They can set up credit accounts with the Federal Reserve, and work out a payment plan.
Instead of charging taxpayers for those costs, the Democrats who created this mess can clean it up on their own tab.
 

Stephanie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
70,230
Reaction score
10,859
Points
2,040
Lets all hope it doesn't and finally do the WILL of the Majority of the people
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,486
Reaction score
3,455
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
The flaw in the OP is this: "Republicans are really saying that people should be free to avoid carrying insurance for problems they don't expect to have (a bout of depression, maybe, or a stroke that requires rehabilitation) or don't want to help pay for (pediatric and maternity care for men with no children, say). The former view shifts costs onto the unlucky; the latter shifts costs onto women and parents. Both undercut the purpose of insurance, which is pooling risk. Neither saves money." The statement is merely opinion without any sort of evidence.

Roberts will not vote against ACA, not after his amazing defense of mandates the last time.

Kennedy is realizing that many millions of folks now have health insurance without breaking the system.

Until the GOP offers a workable reform plan, ACA remains untouchable.
Dear JakeStarkey the whole plan still ASSUMES the belief that govt has the authority to make people provide charity.
That isn't proven to be a belief everyone supports freely, in fact, it has been well established that enough people believe charity should remain a free choice and not forced through govt.

You are welcome to believe and follow your beliefs, but not to impose these on other people's.

There has been NO evidence that the free choice of both public and private alternatives couldn't carry the population.

It is purely 'faith-based' that the only or best way to cover health care is to "require insurance through the federal govt."
That is not proven either way, both are faith-based in which approach is better.

Nobody is arguing that the forced mandates 'don't cover all people and all costs'
We KNOW they don't.

The only way to cover ALL people and costs is to INCLUDE the other options. Do you agree these are still necessary?
So why are those other choices penalized by tax fines?

there is no reason to restrict and penalize people from investing in charitable and educational programs for providing health care, when this is clearly necessary to cover the population.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,486
Reaction score
3,455
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
Lets all hope it doesn't and finally do the WILL of the Majority of the people
Dear Stephanie
hoping slavery will end isn't enough to make it end

I've had to teach people what the Constitution said or they didn't understand
how any of the mandates could be questioned as outside federal authority.

Once you teach people in ONE case, they can apply that same understanding in other cases.
Why depend on Courts to settle just one case, and then have to fight the next one, and the next one?

Why not liberate people, teach and enforce consistent standards to begin with,
then no politicians can hoodwink them into thinking they can magically give them things through govt to buy their votes.

Why keep going through this?
Why not nip the problem in the bud, by teaching people the rules on govt to begin with?
 

Roadrunner

Roadrunner
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
14,126
Reaction score
2,754
Points
290
Location
USA
.

From what I'm seeing, Roberts is wobbly and Kennedy's questions so far are making some people think he'll side with the ACA.

The GOP better be careful what it asks for, and/or they'd better have a response for all those who'd lose coverage.

The law is a pig and a terribly wasted opportunity, but a lot of people would not like seeing it go.

.
Mac1958
My question: why not hold Democrats responsible if that's who passed the flawed bill in the first place.
If a car dealer makes a bad model, and has to recall it, the manufacturer is held responsible for the costs or losses caused.

Why punish the people if the public was defrauded either way?

If Democrats promised "you can keep your doctors and current health insurance plans"
why not sue them and hold them to their commitments? That's how we treat companies that
advertise, why not political parties that pay for commercial advertising and make claims?

Either the Party has to fulfill its platform and pay, provide and manage this "health care as a right"
for all its members, voters, supporters and donors, or admit it committed FRAUD.
And either shut down or make good on its policies.

All by voluntary free choice, because that's what it takes to provide health care for all.
Charity. Someone has to do the work and pay the costs.
So if you keep preaching this religion that this should be provided for all citizens,
then pay up. Practice what you preach and put your money where your mouth is.
Hold Democrats responsible???

You must want your house burned down.
 
OP
emilynghiem

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,486
Reaction score
3,455
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
.

From what I'm seeing, Roberts is wobbly and Kennedy's questions so far are making some people think he'll side with the ACA.

The GOP better be careful what it asks for, and/or they'd better have a response for all those who'd lose coverage.

The law is a pig and a terribly wasted opportunity, but a lot of people would not like seeing it go.

.
Mac1958
My question: why not hold Democrats responsible if that's who passed the flawed bill in the first place.
If a car dealer makes a bad model, and has to recall it, the manufacturer is held responsible for the costs or losses caused.

Why punish the people if the public was defrauded either way?

If Democrats promised "you can keep your doctors and current health insurance plans"
why not sue them and hold them to their commitments? That's how we treat companies that
advertise, why not political parties that pay for commercial advertising and make claims?

Either the Party has to fulfill its platform and pay, provide and manage this "health care as a right"
for all its members, voters, supporters and donors, or admit it committed FRAUD.
And either shut down or make good on its policies.

All by voluntary free choice, because that's what it takes to provide health care for all.
Charity. Someone has to do the work and pay the costs.
So if you keep preaching this religion that this should be provided for all citizens,
then pay up. Practice what you preach and put your money where your mouth is.
Hold Democrats responsible???

You must want your house burned down.
Don't laugh, Roadrunner,
but I am a Democrat, I have seen 4 churches in my district torn or burned down as part of ongoing plans
to destroy the national history and community here using public tax dollars to do it. The City DID tear down and/or move out
the historic houses we wanted to save for Veterans to make it nearly impossible to do the fundraising if the history is already wiped out before we can get help. They've been competing to bleed us out since before I started volunteering.

So yes, in a way, the Democrats "wanting to keep their offices" did enable and collude with corporate interests
to tear down and burn down our houses and churches to make sure the national history was wiped out.

And yes, I have put my own money (about 60,000 in credit card loans to nonprofits and volunteers)
into launching REPARATIONS for this damages done by Democrats in two districts,
both with nonprofit educational campus development plans that were censored and destroyed
to favor giving developers and public school and housing control over property and funding
while trying to kick out, shut down, and silence the community-based programs that couldn't compete
to defend our equal interests due to the monopoly on legal support tied in with political and financial conflicts of interest.

I had already planned to go on hunger strike to protest this mess,
when all the ACA mess hit. If I could protest both issues at once,
I wouldn't mind doing that provided it is set up to win and not have to starve to death to out these abuses.
 

Roadrunner

Roadrunner
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
14,126
Reaction score
2,754
Points
290
Location
USA
.

From what I'm seeing, Roberts is wobbly and Kennedy's questions so far are making some people think he'll side with the ACA.

The GOP better be careful what it asks for, and/or they'd better have a response for all those who'd lose coverage.

The law is a pig and a terribly wasted opportunity, but a lot of people would not like seeing it go.

.
Mac1958
My question: why not hold Democrats responsible if that's who passed the flawed bill in the first place.
If a car dealer makes a bad model, and has to recall it, the manufacturer is held responsible for the costs or losses caused.

Why punish the people if the public was defrauded either way?

If Democrats promised "you can keep your doctors and current health insurance plans"
why not sue them and hold them to their commitments? That's how we treat companies that
advertise, why not political parties that pay for commercial advertising and make claims?

Either the Party has to fulfill its platform and pay, provide and manage this "health care as a right"
for all its members, voters, supporters and donors, or admit it committed FRAUD.
And either shut down or make good on its policies.

All by voluntary free choice, because that's what it takes to provide health care for all.
Charity. Someone has to do the work and pay the costs.
So if you keep preaching this religion that this should be provided for all citizens,
then pay up. Practice what you preach and put your money where your mouth is.
Hold Democrats responsible???

You must want your house burned down.
Don't laugh, Roadrunner,
but I am a Democrat, I have seen 4 churches in my district torn or burned down as part of ongoing plans
to destroy the national history and community here using public tax dollars to do it. The City DID tear down and/or move out
the historic houses we wanted to save for Veterans to make it nearly impossible to do the fundraising if the history is already wiped out before we can get help. They've been competing to bleed us out since before I started volunteering.

So yes, in a way, the Democrats "wanting to keep their offices" did enable and collude with corporate interests
to tear down and burn down our houses and churches to make sure the national history was wiped out.

And yes, I have put my own money (about 60,000 in credit card loans to nonprofits and volunteers)
into launching REPARATIONS for this damages done by Democrats in two districts,
both with nonprofit educational campus development plans that were censored and destroyed
to favor giving developers and public school and housing control over property and funding
while trying to kick out, shut down, and silence the community-based programs that couldn't compete
to defend our equal interests due to the monopoly on legal support tied in with political and financial conflicts of interest.

I had already planned to go on hunger strike to protest this mess,
when all the ACA mess hit. If I could protest both issues at once,
I wouldn't mind doing that provided it is set up to win and not have to starve to death to out these abuses.
Here is the problem as I see it, in many places across the South.

Blacks have no interest in preserving their own history.

They clamour for government to do it, but you do not see grassroots movements to save black history.

There is no penny campaign to clean up the decrepit cemeteries in many small Southern cities, just for an example.

If blacks don't care to save Mount Olive, or Freetown, etc, why should cash strapped cities care when foreigners come in to buy up the real estate?
 

MarathonMike

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
23,825
Reaction score
20,144
Points
2,445
Location
The Southwestern Desert
The very name of the ACA was designed to mislead the public. There was little in the 2400 pages of rambling jibberish that addresses "Affordability". Then Justice Roberts declared it a tax which was the final straw. Now you have the unholy alliance of an incomprehensible new law that is classified as a Federal tax thus opening up health care disputes to who knows what under the 70,000 page IRS tax code. So the primary beneficiaries as far as I can see are lawyers.
 

Conservative65

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2014
Messages
26,127
Reaction score
2,205
Points
265
Trying to save that worthless piece of legislation is like trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top