Supreme Court Rules 7-2 on Obamacare

[Harry Dresden]

It was just announced that the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Obamacare saying the states don't have standing on this case.

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

Two of Trump's three appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented.

www.nbcnews.com

That's truly a shame. The Court is a joke. I just hope Manchin keeps his finger in the dam. Otherwise, we're all fucked.

I think it's a very good thing that we still have Obamacare.

In fact, I think we should do away with insurance companies for health care.

Most people in America can't stand insurance companies controlling what health care they can have and denying to pay medical bills.

We have some people who can have health care without being bankrupted or have insurance premiums that aren't astronomical. It's not fair that some people have proper insurance that is affordable and others don't here in the United States.

Our health care system is a total mess.

Most people in America can't stand insurance companies controlling what health care they can have and denying to pay medical bills.

and you think Medicare is any different?...

Anybody holding up signs like this demanding any healthcare plan Republicans proposed??View attachment 502413

For Medicare to be just like private insurance companies -- there sure seems to be a lot of historically popular bipartisan support for it over the last 60 or so years....

they dont cover everything.....so they also tell you what health care you can have....

Does Medicare tell you what care you can have in order to increase profit share like private insurance companies do??

Do they find all kinds of ways to deny covering pre-existing conditions so they can run at 20% overhead in order to pay out those executive bonuses??

Again...there is a reason why after 50 years -- those with Medicare still love it in comparison to any alternative Republicans/private insurance has offered....


Do we need to pretend to not know the history of how Medicare even became a thing??

all i said was ...medicare does not cover many things,just like private ins.....am i wrong or not?....

 

[BS Filter]

Republicans and Conservatives lose again.

America loses. You and Omar can celebrate with a terrorist attack and a roasted goat.

 

[Dana7360]

I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.

The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.

If they were harmed by buying insurance then every adult in America who buys health insurance is harmed.

What the far right is saying is that they don't want to be forced to be responsible. That they won't be responsible no matter what.

What the far right wants is to not pay for insurance then when they need health care take all the health care they can get then not pay for it.

Leaving the thousands to be paid by those of us who are responsible.

 

[colfax_m]

I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.

The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.

Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?

You were right the first time, it was a cop out.

If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.

The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government

I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.

The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.

 

[kaz]

I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.

The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.

Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?

You were right the first time, it was a cop out.

If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.

The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government

I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.

The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.

You're the one who doesn't know what standing means.

"To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint."

No, that isn't what standing means

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.

The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.

Elie Mystal is a brilliant Harvard educated lawyer.....he summed what the Supreme Court's "standing" ruling meant in regular language perfectly....

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

It was just announced that the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Obamacare saying the states don't have standing on this case.

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

Two of Trump's three appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented.

www.nbcnews.com

That's truly a shame. The Court is a joke. I just hope Manchin keeps his finger in the dam. Otherwise, we're all fucked.

I think it's a very good thing that we still have Obamacare.

In fact, I think we should do away with insurance companies for health care.

Most people in America can't stand insurance companies controlling what health care they can have and denying to pay medical bills.

We have some people who can have health care without being bankrupted or have insurance premiums that aren't astronomical. It's not fair that some people have proper insurance that is affordable and others don't here in the United States.

Our health care system is a total mess.

Most people in America can't stand insurance companies controlling what health care they can have and denying to pay medical bills.

and you think Medicare is any different?...

Anybody holding up signs like this demanding any healthcare plan Republicans proposed??View attachment 502413

For Medicare to be just like private insurance companies -- there sure seems to be a lot of historically popular bipartisan support for it over the last 60 or so years....

they dont cover everything.....so they also tell you what health care you can have....

Does Medicare tell you what care you can have in order to increase profit share like private insurance companies do??

Do they find all kinds of ways to deny covering pre-existing conditions so they can run at 20% overhead in order to pay out those executive bonuses??

Again...there is a reason why after 50 years -- those with Medicare still love it in comparison to any alternative Republicans/private insurance has offered....


Do we need to pretend to not know the history of how Medicare even became a thing??

all i said was ...medicare does not cover many things,just like private ins.....am i wrong or not?....

Except....it covers more at a lower cost to the person being insured than private insurance....

And the main most important distinction is....Medicare doesn't run on a profit motive -- it doesn't find more and more ways to deny coverage to people in order to line their own pockets.....

So basically saying ..."well Medicare doesn't do everything" isn't the retort you think it is...

 

[colfax_m]

I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.

The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.

Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?

You were right the first time, it was a cop out.

If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.

The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government

I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.

The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.

You're the one who doesn't know what standing means.

"To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint."

No, that isn't what standing means

Standing in Federal Court​

At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue

1. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
2. There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
3. It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury

standing

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.

The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.

Since the Federal government was created by the States, how can the States not have standing to sue the Federal government? If they don't have standing, who does?

You were right the first time, it was a cop out.

If I could go back in time and tell the founding fathers one thing, it would be that three branches of government keeping each other in check is a stupid idea. They are not keeping each other in check, they have the same incentive. Bigger government = more power for them.

The founders should have preempted the stupid Judicial review and made the federal government get ALL LAWS ratified by the State legislatures before they took effect. That is a check and balance, not branches of the same government

I don't think you really understand by what "standing" actually means. Of course the states can sue the federal government. That's not what the problem is. To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint. You can't sue just for shits and giggles. You have to show that the government is actually harming you and how.

The plaintiffs weren't able to show that. Their complaint was dismissed because they didn't actually have something to complain about.

You're the one who doesn't know what standing means.

"To sue, to have "standing" you actually have to have a legitimate complaint."

No, that isn't what standing means

The folks who tried to overturn the ACA (yet again) could not show harm....that is why they didn't have standing.....



They have had 10 years and they still have failed.....and Roberts is the type of chief justice that really enforces standing....which is basically a way to keep bullshit cases off the docket....


All you folks have to do is find someone who was actually harmed by the ACA and try again.....

 

[Harry Dresden]

It was just announced that the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Obamacare saying the states don't have standing on this case.

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

Two of Trump's three appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented.

www.nbcnews.com

That's truly a shame. The Court is a joke. I just hope Manchin keeps his finger in the dam. Otherwise, we're all fucked.

I think it's a very good thing that we still have Obamacare.

In fact, I think we should do away with insurance companies for health care.

Most people in America can't stand insurance companies controlling what health care they can have and denying to pay medical bills.

We have some people who can have health care without being bankrupted or have insurance premiums that aren't astronomical. It's not fair that some people have proper insurance that is affordable and others don't here in the United States.

Our health care system is a total mess.

Most people in America can't stand insurance companies controlling what health care they can have and denying to pay medical bills.

and you think Medicare is any different?...

Anybody holding up signs like this demanding any healthcare plan Republicans proposed??View attachment 502413

For Medicare to be just like private insurance companies -- there sure seems to be a lot of historically popular bipartisan support for it over the last 60 or so years....

they dont cover everything.....so they also tell you what health care you can have....

Does Medicare tell you what care you can have in order to increase profit share like private insurance companies do??

Do they find all kinds of ways to deny covering pre-existing conditions so they can run at 20% overhead in order to pay out those executive bonuses??

Again...there is a reason why after 50 years -- those with Medicare still love it in comparison to any alternative Republicans/private insurance has offered....


Do we need to pretend to not know the history of how Medicare even became a thing??

all i said was ...medicare does not cover many things,just like private ins.....am i wrong or not?....

Except....it covers more at a lower cost to the person being insured than private insurance....

And the main most important distinction is....Medicare doesn't run on a profit motive -- it doesn't find more and more ways to deny coverage to people in order to line their own pockets.....

So basically saying ..."well Medicare doesn't do everything" isn't the retort you think it is...

yes it is because if it doesnt cover what i need done than it failed me....no different than private ins....

 

[meaner gene]

Standing in Federal Court​

At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).

The irony is that, after removing the penalty (setting the tax to $0 for not having insurance) they removed any "injury in fact".

 

[Donald H]

A huge hit to Trump by his 'loaded' Scotus.

Complete 'crazy' won't go the distance for Trump. Between this and the positive spin for Biden with Putin, this is Trump's worst day since the voters took him down.

Trump's supporters on this board are now isolated background noise.

His loaded SCOTUS I don't believe has given the right a big win. I always said if a justice was following the law it doesn't matter what President nominated them.

The reason why that's wrong in the US is because the political right is extremist and out of sync with the reality of the 21st. century, and they try to make their own new laws. Outlawing abortion for one instance.
However, on this question some sanity overruled.

 

[dblack]

And the main most important distinction is....Medicare doesn't run on a profit motive -- it doesn't find more and more ways to deny coverage to people in order to line their own pockets.....

Right. But the profit motive works both ways. Their efforts to deny coverage are mitigated by their need to satisfy customers. If people get fed up, they can tell their insurance company to piss off. Your tax dollars will pay for Medicare regardless of whether you use it or not.

It's also interesting to note that Medicare claims processing is farmed out to insurance companies, often the same companies running your "for-profit" group insurance. These companies bid on the contracts for different regions - low bidder wins and then they make profits by, you guessed it, denying claims. Medicare is basically just the usual group insurance, paid for by the government rather than by employers.

 

[meaner gene]

Roberts is the type of chief justice that really enforces standing....which is basically a way to keep bullshit cases off the docket....

Standing is more than that. It requires the person who brings the case to (be or represent the people who) suffer direct harm from the controversy.

The USSC said that a taxpayer doesn't have standing to object to government waste.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

It was just announced that the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Obamacare saying the states don't have standing on this case.

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

Two of Trump's three appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented.

www.nbcnews.com

That's truly a shame. The Court is a joke. I just hope Manchin keeps his finger in the dam. Otherwise, we're all fucked.

I think it's a very good thing that we still have Obamacare.

In fact, I think we should do away with insurance companies for health care.

Most people in America can't stand insurance companies controlling what health care they can have and denying to pay medical bills.

We have some people who can have health care without being bankrupted or have insurance premiums that aren't astronomical. It's not fair that some people have proper insurance that is affordable and others don't here in the United States.

Our health care system is a total mess.

Most people in America can't stand insurance companies controlling what health care they can have and denying to pay medical bills.

and you think Medicare is any different?...

Anybody holding up signs like this demanding any healthcare plan Republicans proposed??View attachment 502413

For Medicare to be just like private insurance companies -- there sure seems to be a lot of historically popular bipartisan support for it over the last 60 or so years....

they dont cover everything.....so they also tell you what health care you can have....

Does Medicare tell you what care you can have in order to increase profit share like private insurance companies do??

Do they find all kinds of ways to deny covering pre-existing conditions so they can run at 20% overhead in order to pay out those executive bonuses??

Again...there is a reason why after 50 years -- those with Medicare still love it in comparison to any alternative Republicans/private insurance has offered....


Do we need to pretend to not know the history of how Medicare even became a thing??

all i said was ...medicare does not cover many things,just like private ins.....am i wrong or not?....

Except....it covers more at a lower cost to the person being insured than private insurance....

And the main most important distinction is....Medicare doesn't run on a profit motive -- it doesn't find more and more ways to deny coverage to people in order to line their own pockets.....

So basically saying ..."well Medicare doesn't do everything" isn't the retort you think it is...

yes it is because if it doesnt cover what i need done than it failed me....no different than private ins....

It also means that the costs you didn't have to pay for what it did cover can be used towards paying for what it doesn't cover....

And I am willing to bet the savings between Medicare and private insurance are not similar at all.....which is why Medicare is a thing.....


"These individuals fared less well in the private health insurance market than did their younger counterparts. Many of them, after all, had lost their ties to employers, who had financed their health care (at least at the end of their working lives, as employer-based health insurance became more common). With relatively high morbidity rates, they represented a particularly bad risk for private companies"


This was a snapshot of the conditions surrounding healthcare in the 40's and 50's...which is how what we know as Medicare came about....

Why didn't the "free market" address this issue before then?? Because it was not profitable to do so....

 

[Rigby5]

Not sure what is unconstitutional about PPACA at this point.

The defunct mandate was the original sticking point.

The whole problem started when the IRS changed the tax laws in 1957, to allow employers to write off employee benefits like health insurance.
That was essentially illegal for many reasons, but mainly because it made health care more expensive for the poor but cheaper for the wealthy, and in effect forced the poor to subsidize health care for the wealthy.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

And the main most important distinction is....Medicare doesn't run on a profit motive -- it doesn't find more and more ways to deny coverage to people in order to line their own pockets.....

Right. But the profit motive works both ways. Their efforts to deny coverage are mitigated by their need to satisfy customers. If people get fed up, they can tell their insurance company to piss off. Your tax dollars will pay for Medicare regardless of whether you use it or not.

It's also interesting to note that Medicare claims processing is farmed out to insurance companies, often the same companies running your "for-profit" group insurance. These companies bid on the contracts for different regions - low bidder wins and then they make profits by, you guessed it, denying claims. Medicare is basically just the usual group insurance, paid for by the government rather than by employers.

So Medicare is not socialist communism that would end America like your conservative heroes argued before??

"Ronald Reagan: “If you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”

Flashback: Republicans Opposed Medicare In 1960s By Warning Of Rationing, ‘Socialized Medicine’

archive.thinkprogress.org

So instead of it leading to America not being free (which is rich because this was said at a time when black Americans were LITERALLY NOT FREE) -- you are saying it is just regular insurance that is funded by taxpayers instead of employers??

Do you understand when you have to rely on goofy ass hyperbole to argue against policy -- chances are, your own policies suck......

 

[Rigby5]

I know "standing" seems like a cop out, but when you actually look at what they mean by "standing", it becomes obvious that the lawsuit is just bullshit.

The complaint is that the plaintiff's were injured by the fact that they had to buy insurance even though they're not forced to buy it and the penalty for not doing so is zero. It's gibberish.

If they were harmed by buying insurance then every adult in America who buys health insurance is harmed.

What the far right is saying is that they don't want to be forced to be responsible. That they won't be responsible no matter what.

What the far right wants is to not pay for insurance then when they need health care take all the health care they can get then not pay for it.

Leaving the thousands to be paid by those of us who are responsible.

Wrong.
Buying health insurance is so stupid as to be criminal.
Buying health insurance means prepaying, so that then you get no say as to cost or quality.
Buying health insurance means paying double to a financial institution that adds absolutely nothing to your health care.
Buying health insurance privately means employers can negotiate much lower prices, forcing those unemployed or at low end employment to have to pay twice as much for health care, because they have no collective bargaining clout.

No liberal would ever support private health insurance, at all, in any way.

 

[sartre play]

ACA has problems because every political entity stuck there finger in the pie to enhance them self's, We have had years to work on improving it, instead as with everything else it has been turned into a political party tool, SO nothing gets done, no new better plan has come forward.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

It was just announced that the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Obamacare saying the states don't have standing on this case.

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

Two of Trump's three appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented.

www.nbcnews.com

That's truly a shame. The Court is a joke. I just hope Manchin keeps his finger in the dam. Otherwise, we're all fucked.

I think it's a very good thing that we still have Obamacare.

In fact, I think we should do away with insurance companies for health care.

Most people in America can't stand insurance companies controlling what health care they can have and denying to pay medical bills.

We have some people who can have health care without being bankrupted or have insurance premiums that aren't astronomical. It's not fair that some people have proper insurance that is affordable and others don't here in the United States.

Our health care system is a total mess.

Except Obamacare completely made Insurance companies even more fabulously wealthy and forced Americans to pump even more of their money into those insurance companies you claim to not like.

Think people. It's realty not that hard to do.