Supreme Court Rules 7-2 on Obamacare

[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.....

Everyone is harmed by ACA, but the problem is things were even worse before ACA.
The solution has to be more fundamental.
Get employers out of our heath care.

Yes, I want to get employers out of healthcare and have it funded by taxpayers...I also want healthcare to be truly portable - so people don't feel like they have to stay at a job instead of doing something else because of health insurance....that definitely isn't freedom...

Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.

With a proper and successful HC system, there is no need to rely on your employer.

When will you Americans begin to want to understand how the world's best systems work?

Employers don't need to subsidize HC in the way it is currently situated.....

Most of the universal HC's in places like Sweden and Denmark are not funded by employers...the same can be done here

Americans know nothing about how HC works in other countries and should stfu and listen to others who do.

Sweden

By Anna H. Glenngård, Lund University School of Economics and Management Sweden’s universal health system is nationally regulated and locally administered. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs sets overall health policy, the regions finance and deliver health care services, and the...

www.commonwealthfund.org

Show me the part that says employers fund most of the HC in Sweden?? Or better yet, just give me a percentage ...is it 75% 60%, 51%??


"Sweden’s health expenditure represents a little over 11% of its GDP, most of which is funded by municipal and regional taxes"

I'm not here to debate Americans who already know everything.

Get with the program on government run, universal HC and stop the bullshit attempts to deflect. from the issues.

I didn't expect you to answer that...

I knew you didn't know what you were talking about a few comments ago....

 

[Flopper]

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

It should be pretty clear that Obamacare is not going to be overturn by the Supreme Court. Conservatives have 3 times tried and struck out. The only way it is going to be overturned is if republican in congress do it. Republicans had a chance when they controlled Congress during the Trump administration. Instead of making it a priority, they punted and left it to the courts. The fact is conservatives want Obamacare gone but they don't want to have to offer a replacement because of the problems it will cause them at the ballot box. 28 million people have health insurance due to Obamacare. 38 states have adopted Medicaid Expansion, a part of Obamacare. Without Obamacare, those states would be faced with either a huge cut to Medicaid or replacing federal funds with state funds.

They will pay with election defeat if they attempt to remove it.
28 million will swing any election.

There would be problems for both parties if the court actually threw out the ACA but republicans would suffer the most.

 

[Winston]

Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.

Why?

Because it's a part of the world's leading HC systems and it works.
There's no danger in leaving an employer that provides HC in a proper system that works. Health care for all the people is guaranteed in those other countries and it's also rated as higher quality than America in all cases of modern industrialized countries.

Why should employers remains as contributors to their employees' HC?

Our system, of health insurance that is based on employment, is totally dysfunctional, at least when it comes to serving the worker. No other enterprise reveals the workings of the American political system than employer sponsored health care. While it is a total injustice to the worker, it is a golden egg for both employers and insurance companies. First, the employers.

Prior to the ACA, and in some extent it is still prevalent, many employees were "trapped" in their job. They were dependent, not on the income, but on the health insurance coverage. Leaving their employer would mean a period of time without health insurance, or a period of excessively high COBRA premiums. Neither choice would be acceptable if you have a spouse or child with a chronic illness. Another scenario is the self-employed individuals, small business owners, who had a spouse working, not for the income, but for the insurance. This was vividly displayed after the passage of the ACA, when literally millions of women left the workforce.

The effect of this dysfunctional tying of health insurance to a job allowed companies to pay less than a "free market" would dictate. If Joe Sixpack had a wife with MS, well he couldn't up and leave his job for better pay. And plumber Pete's wife worked at Walmart, not for the income, but for health insurance. In both cases, the insurance was the vehicle holding the employee to the job, it was not the salary, as it should be.

But the insurance companies made out even better. Health insurance, at it's core, is a diversification of risk. I ran a successful insurance agency for more than twenty years. My intention, when I started, was to work the group market. I ran away from that as fast as I could and settled into the Medicare market because the group market was such a damn racket. When health insurance is based on employment, insurance companies can effectively segment the market. My son is a research scientist. Most of his fellow employees have graduate degrees and it is not like they are doing any physical labor. He has a badass health insurance plan that is dirt cheap, because the risk pool, his fellow employees, are very low risk. But, if you work in a coal mine, well your risk is only diversified among other coal miners and the premiums reflect as much. This inherent segmentation of the market allows insurance companies to maximize profits.

 

[dblack]

After all the childish spamming shit on this board over US fkd up HC, there's still a positive feeling being conveyed that Americans are starting to come to an understanding that the rubber meets the road on the need for proper single payer, government run, universal HC, similar to the world's leading countries.

Didn't the last psychopath president actually help to bring that message home with his complete failure on HC reform?

The message the last psychopath president brought home is that Republicans like power as much Democrats.

 

[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.

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

You keep saying what legal standing isn't yet you don't say what it is.

The reason being is either you don't know what it is or you do and you just like to lie.

Here is the meaning of legal standing.

Notice you are TOTALLY WRONG.

Now be a good little boy. Hush, stop making a fool of yourself and leave reality to adults who have a real grasp of reality.

You don't.

Legal Definition of Standing: Everything You Need to Know

Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit and to do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand.

www.upcounsel.com

Legal Definition of Standing: Everything You Need to Know​

Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit and to do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand.2 min read

1. Requirements for Standing Based on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
2. Requirements for Standing Based on Warth v. Seldin
3. Other Requirements for Standing

Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.

Requirements for Standing Based on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife​

According to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan), there are three requirements for Article III standing:

1. Injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
2. A causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court.
3. A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.

The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements.

Requirements for Standing Based on Warth v. Seldin​

In deciding whether a person has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in this person's declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing, according to Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth).
This case also notes that when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing.
Standing is founded "in concern about the proper — and properly limited — role of the courts in a democratic society." Warth, 422 U.S. at 498.

Other Requirements for Standing​

When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for 'concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.'" Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.
Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief "must show a very significant possibility of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit." Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).

 

[Dana7360]

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".

Yup.

They stabbed themselves right in the back with their own hate and foolishness.

 

[dblack]

Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.

Why?

Because it's a part of the world's leading HC systems and it works.
There's no danger in leaving an employer that provides HC in a proper system that works. Health care for all the people is guaranteed in those other countries and it's also rated as higher quality than America in all cases of modern industrialized countries.

Why should employers remains as contributors to their employees' HC?

Our system, of health insurance that is based on employment, is totally dysfunctional, at least when it comes to serving the worker. No other enterprise reveals the workings of the American political system than employer sponsored health care. While it is a total injustice to the worker, it is a golden egg for both employers and insurance companies. First, the employers.

Prior to the ACA, and in some extent it is still prevalent, many employees were "trapped" in their job. They were dependent, not on the income, but on the health insurance coverage. Leaving their employer would mean a period of time without health insurance, or a period of excessively high COBRA premiums. Neither choice would be acceptable if you have a spouse or child with a chronic illness. Another scenario is the self-employed individuals, small business owners, who had a spouse working, not for the income, but for the insurance. This was vividly displayed after the passage of the ACA, when literally millions of women left the workforce.

The effect of this dysfunctional tying of health insurance to a job allowed companies to pay less than a "free market" would dictate. If Joe Sixpack had a wife with MS, well he couldn't up and leave his job for better pay. And plumber Pete's wife worked at Walmart, not for the income, but for health insurance. In both cases, the insurance was the vehicle holding the employee to the job, it was not the salary, as it should be.

But the insurance companies made out even better. Health insurance, at it's core, is a diversification of risk. I ran a successful insurance agency for more than twenty years. My intention, when I started, was to work the group market. I ran away from that as fast as I could and settled into the Medicare market because the group market was such a damn racket. When health insurance is based on employment, insurance companies can effectively segment the market. My son is a research scientist. Most of his fellow employees have graduate degrees and it is not like they are doing any physical labor. He has a badass health insurance plan that is dirt cheap, because the risk pool, his fellow employees, are very low risk. But, if you work in a coal mine, well your risk is only diversified among other coal miners and the premiums reflect as much. This inherent segmentation of the market allows insurance companies to maximize profits.

That's what I've seen as well.

Group health insurance is also destructive to the market. By breaking the normal consumer incentives, it drives prices higher and higher - to the point that most people think of healthcare as something you can't afford without insurance. Which is kinda nuts when you stop and think about it.

 

[TNHarley]

Government fucked up our healthcare, and all these federal supremacists are cheering our corrupt govt retaining more power than it is supposed to have. To further fuck up our lives.
You people are so goddamn stupid.

Government in the world's leading countries got it right on Health Care.

Is it possible that America's failure is due to bad government? Bad on behalf of both political parties that uphold the fkd up American way?

Only government can get it right.
But first the government has to be made right.
Ask Bernie Sanders about that.

Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either

You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
Lose all your wrong ideas on HC and start from scratch.
When you're ready to learn by acting like rational adults, the rest of the world has some answers.

I know its a failure. How many times must i say it? Does Canada not teach reading and comprehension?

If you understand that America's system is a failure then you should be ready for some learning of new ideas on what works.

You're not, you're still headfkd by your politics.
But I'm here to help if you're ever ready.
Impress me with something you're learning!

We need a govt free healthcare industry. Thats it.
Simple really.

 

[TNHarley]

Group insurance plans are a proven effective way to reduce costs.

No shit?

 

[colfax_m]

You keep saying what legal standing isn't yet you don't say what it is.

Kaz didn’t know. They just repeated a common trope among the right without knowing what they’re talking about.

I swear, the groupthink is hard to penetrate. Especially when you see how they react to attempts to disabuse them of their bullshit

 

[kaz]

It feels like the goalposts are moving.

The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.

The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.

I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you. Go fuck yourself

Whatever dude.

You made a dumb, ignorant statement and now you're going to take out your anger on me because I attempted to explain it to you.

You do like to bicker, it's why I keep putting you on ignore to calm you down

I was actually pretty polite to you. Maybe you learned something today before putting me on ignore.

Ciao loser.

Sounded like your normal useless bickering, still does.

You didn't understand what standing meant when you said it and you read the definition then didn't know how you were wrong. Useless bickering is your bag, it's all you do. My policy for bickering is putting you on temporary ignore, and I've done that to you like three times at least as anyone else. I try to save permanent ignore for people who do more serious things

 

[kaz]

You keep saying what legal standing isn't yet you don't say what it is.

Kaz didn’t know. They just repeated a common trope among the right without knowing what they’re talking about.

I swear, the groupthink is hard to penetrate. Especially when you see how they react to attempts to disabuse them of their bullshit

More of your bickering because you didn't understand what standing means. As I just pointed out, you still don't.

BTW, I never defined standing, stupid fuck. So how would you even know that I don't know what it means? More of your stupid, useless bickering bull shit

 

[Dana7360]

Government fucked up our healthcare, and all these federal supremacists are cheering our corrupt govt retaining more power than it is supposed to have. To further fuck up our lives.
You people are so goddamn stupid.

Government in the world's leading countries got it right on Health Care.

Is it possible that America's failure is due to bad government? Bad on behalf of both political parties that uphold the fkd up American way?

Only government can get it right.
But first the government has to be made right.
Ask Bernie Sanders about that.

Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either

You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.

Obviously. The question is: why?

In my view, things really started to go south with group health insurance. And pretty much every reform effort is aimed at doubling-down on that approach.

Ok so how do you suggest a new couple who just gave birth to a premature baby who needs hundreds of thousands of dollars of care to stay alive is supposed to pay for that?

How do you suggest a person pays the at least million dollars it costs to treat cancer?

So we don't have insurance. We don't have single payer.

How do people pay their medical bills?

 

[JimH52]

Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Obama health law

The Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge from GOP-led states and the Trump administration to Obamacare Thursday, preserving insurance coverage for millions of Americans.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Victory for the ACA and the American People!

Why does the repub party hate the average American so much, that they are willing to let them suffer , without health insurance? Every developed nation in the world has some kind of universal healthy care, The US, with the repub party aka Taliban of the United States, has the most expensive health care costs in the world. And due to stupidity of the repub party, we have people dying in the streets without health care insurance.

List of Countries with Universal Healthcare

Update 1/21/2013: With the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ACA (aka Obamacare), and President Obama’s inauguration to a second term today, the US will have universal health care …

truecostblog.com

Infographic: The U.S. Has the Most Expensive Healthcare in the World

This chart shows per-capita health expenditure in selected countries in 2021.

www.statista.com

 

[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

You keep saying what legal standing isn't yet you don't say what it is.

The reason being is either you don't know what it is or you do and you just like to lie.

Here is the meaning of legal standing.

Notice you are TOTALLY WRONG.

Now be a good little boy. Hush, stop making a fool of yourself and leave reality to adults who have a real grasp of reality.

You don't.

Legal Definition of Standing: Everything You Need to Know

Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit and to do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand.

www.upcounsel.com

Legal Definition of Standing: Everything You Need to Know​

Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit and to do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand.2 min read

1. Requirements for Standing Based on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
2. Requirements for Standing Based on Warth v. Seldin
3. Other Requirements for Standing

Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.

Requirements for Standing Based on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife​

According to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan), there are three requirements for Article III standing:

1. Injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
2. A causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, which means that the injury can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court.
3. A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, which means the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.

The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements.

Requirements for Standing Based on Warth v. Seldin​

In deciding whether a person has standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in this person's declaration and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing, according to Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth).
This case also notes that when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing.
Standing is founded "in concern about the proper — and properly limited — role of the courts in a democratic society." Warth, 422 U.S. at 498.

Other Requirements for Standing​

When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for 'concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.'" Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.
Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief "must show a very significant possibility of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit." Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).

"You keep saying what legal standing isn't yet you don't say what it is."

Correct, none of the other leftists noticed that. colfax_m even responded by telling me I was wrong even though I didn't define it! Nicely noticed

"The reason being is either you don't know what it is or you do and you just like to lie."

After separating yourself from your moron leftist friends, you go right back and tell me what I think. Fuck you bitch, you can't read my mind. If you want to know what I think, ask me, don't tell me. I didn't read the rest of it since it was based on your claim you're a mind reader

 

[Dana7360]

Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.

Why?

Because it's a part of the world's leading HC systems and it works.
There's no danger in leaving an employer that provides HC in a proper system that works. Health care for all the people is guaranteed in those other countries and it's also rated as higher quality than America in all cases of modern industrialized countries.

Why should employers remains as contributors to their employees' HC?

Our system, of health insurance that is based on employment, is totally dysfunctional, at least when it comes to serving the worker. No other enterprise reveals the workings of the American political system than employer sponsored health care. While it is a total injustice to the worker, it is a golden egg for both employers and insurance companies. First, the employers.

Prior to the ACA, and in some extent it is still prevalent, many employees were "trapped" in their job. They were dependent, not on the income, but on the health insurance coverage. Leaving their employer would mean a period of time without health insurance, or a period of excessively high COBRA premiums. Neither choice would be acceptable if you have a spouse or child with a chronic illness. Another scenario is the self-employed individuals, small business owners, who had a spouse working, not for the income, but for the insurance. This was vividly displayed after the passage of the ACA, when literally millions of women left the workforce.

The effect of this dysfunctional tying of health insurance to a job allowed companies to pay less than a "free market" would dictate. If Joe Sixpack had a wife with MS, well he couldn't up and leave his job for better pay. And plumber Pete's wife worked at Walmart, not for the income, but for health insurance. In both cases, the insurance was the vehicle holding the employee to the job, it was not the salary, as it should be.

But the insurance companies made out even better. Health insurance, at it's core, is a diversification of risk. I ran a successful insurance agency for more than twenty years. My intention, when I started, was to work the group market. I ran away from that as fast as I could and settled into the Medicare market because the group market was such a damn racket. When health insurance is based on employment, insurance companies can effectively segment the market. My son is a research scientist. Most of his fellow employees have graduate degrees and it is not like they are doing any physical labor. He has a badass health insurance plan that is dirt cheap, because the risk pool, his fellow employees, are very low risk. But, if you work in a coal mine, well your risk is only diversified among other coal miners and the premiums reflect as much. This inherent segmentation of the market allows insurance companies to maximize profits.

That's what I've seen as well.

Group health insurance is also destructive to the market. By breaking the normal consumer incentives, it drives prices higher and higher - to the point that most people think of healthcare as something you can't afford without insurance. Which is kinda nuts when you stop and think about it.

You are leaving out one of the biggest causes of the high cost of health care.

Unpaid bills.

People don't pay their bill so the provider jacks up everyone else's bill to pay for the bills the deadbeats don't pay.

Then add in the high cost of the education to become a doctor.

Add in the high cost of equipment and an office to actually practice medicine.

Then add in the greed factor.

All of that causes the high cost of health care and it's not going to change no matter what you want.

I don't like insurance companies but that's the system that has been forced on us. We don't have any choice. Either have insurance or don't have proper health care.

That is the only system we have so we have to work with it.

You don't want insurance companies but you also don't want a single payer government system.

You don't offer any alternative that is based on reality.

That reality is people can't afford to pay their own medical bills. The bills are thousands to millions and no normal person can afford to pay it themselves.

So the reality is that it's either insurance and the mess we have now or a single payer system that has been working for the rest of the world for many, many decades.

 

[kaz]

Government fucked up our healthcare, and all these federal supremacists are cheering our corrupt govt retaining more power than it is supposed to have. To further fuck up our lives.
You people are so goddamn stupid.

Government in the world's leading countries got it right on Health Care.

Is it possible that America's failure is due to bad government? Bad on behalf of both political parties that uphold the fkd up American way?

Only government can get it right.
But first the government has to be made right.
Ask Bernie Sanders about that.

Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either

You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.

Obviously. The question is: why?

In my view, things really started to go south with group health insurance. And pretty much every reform effort is aimed at doubling-down on that approach.

Ok so how do you suggest a new couple who just gave birth to a premature baby who needs hundreds of thousands of dollars of care to stay alive is supposed to pay for that?

How do you suggest a person pays the at least million dollars it costs to treat cancer?

So we don't have insurance. We don't have single payer.

How do people pay their medical bills?

"Ok so how do you suggest a new couple who just gave birth to a premature baby who needs hundreds of thousands of dollars of care to stay alive is supposed to pay for that?"

They could buy insurance

 

[kaz]

Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Obama health law

The Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge from GOP-led states and the Trump administration to Obamacare Thursday, preserving insurance coverage for millions of Americans.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Victory for the ACA and the American People!

Why does the repub party hate the average American so much, that they are willing to let them suffer , without health insurance? Every developed nation in the world has some kind of universal healthy care, The US, with the repub party aka Taliban of the United States, has the most expensive health care costs in the world. And due to stupidity of the repub party, we have people dying in the streets without health care insurance.

List of Countries with Universal Healthcare

Update 1/21/2013: With the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ACA (aka Obamacare), and President Obama’s inauguration to a second term today, the US will have universal health care …

truecostblog.com

Infographic: The U.S. Has the Most Expensive Healthcare in the World

This chart shows per-capita health expenditure in selected countries in 2021.

www.statista.com

JimH52: You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! You're a racist! ...

JimH42: Why do Republicans hate people so much

You're a jackass, racist

 

[Dana7360]

You keep saying what legal standing isn't yet you don't say what it is.

Kaz didn’t know. They just repeated a common trope among the right without knowing what they’re talking about.

I swear, the groupthink is hard to penetrate. Especially when you see how they react to attempts to disabuse them of their bullshit

I know.

It's incredible.

However, when you're dealing with people who believe Barak Obama is a muslim from Kenya and Michelle is a man, you aren't dealing with a person who has any grasp of reality, truth and honest facts.

 

[colfax_m]

It feels like the goalposts are moving.

The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.

The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.

I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you. Go fuck yourself

Whatever dude.

You made a dumb, ignorant statement and now you're going to take out your anger on me because I attempted to explain it to you.

You do like to bicker, it's why I keep putting you on ignore to calm you down

I was actually pretty polite to you. Maybe you learned something today before putting me on ignore.

Ciao loser.

Sounded like your normal useless bickering, still does.

You didn't understand what standing meant when you said it and you read the definition then didn't know how you were wrong. Useless bickering is your bag, it's all you do. My policy for bickering is putting you on temporary ignore, and I've done that to you like three times at least as anyone else. I try to save permanent ignore for people who do more serious things

There was nothing wrong about what I said. You should have stuck with ambiguous, that would be fine. It was not incorrect.

If you weren't such an unsufferable jerk, you might learn something.,