Supreme Court Rules 7-2 on Obamacare

[colfax_m]

"Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional...."

I clearly answered that in my original point:​

​

Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax​

"Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???"

You make the falacious assumption that your healthcare is everyone else's job to provide for you.​

​

The better answer is free markets, something that doesn't exist in the medical industry​

The "whole thing" wasn't a tax. The individual mandate was a tax. The healthcare exchanges and the regulation of healthcare is not a tax.

The individual mandate is a tax. That's how the individual mandate is constitutional. That doesn't have anything to do with exchanges or regulation of healthcare.

Glad we can clear that up.

First of all, it was wildly uncommon for the justification for his ruling to be something that neither side argued. The Obama administration argued it was NOT a tax.

Second, there was no severability clause, so even if the mandate was a tax, the whole thing should have been tossed.

Roberts again came out with a bizarre argument and said well, they MEANT to put in a severability clause, but they ran out of time, so he'll pretend it was there. Then he didn't throw out the rest of the bill that clearly wasn't a tax even though he admitted that and pretended there was a severability clause.

As I said, Roberts cared about his career. Not the law, not his country. He just wildcatted the whole thing

First, I don't care who argued it or if it is common. The ruling is what it is. The individual mandate is a tax. Therefore it is constitutional. What you said about the exchanges and healthcare regulations being a tax is gibberish.

Second, this doesn't make any sense. "Severability" would mean that if one part is declared unconstitutional then the whole bill would stand. If there is no "severability" clause, then if the individual mandate was unconstitutional, then the whole bill would have to be declared unconstitutional. So if the mandate is a tax, and therefore constitutional, then severability doesn't even come into play.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

So you can read Roberts' mind?? Cool...

And no, I didn't make that assumption...why do you keep dodging questions like a pussy...

I said..why did Trump say his healthcare plan would cover everyone at a lower cost....was he lying or do you know of this plan??

Roberts SAID in his RULING it was a tax. How stupid are you?

"Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country"

Again...how you know this??? Did Roberts call you on the phone and say "Hey bro, I gotta career to think of...so I am gonna uphold Obamcare...but we're still buds right??

Or did you just read his mind??

And I see you keep dodging the question like a bitch......

Do you think Trump won't love you anymore if you have to concede he was always full of shit when it came to his healthcare plan??

I've continually explained why I say this

You do understand that SC judges have lifetime appointments right??

So how was he upholding Obamacare him putting his career over country??

Or you stupid enough to think his judgeship would be ended if he struckdown Obamacare?? He would be a hero to cucks like you......

And since you seem to know what judges are thinking....can you tell me why Clarence Thomas sided with the majority in this last ACA case??

Was he putting his "career" over country -- or did he not call and explain himself to you?

 

[colfax_m]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Roberts decided the individual mandate was constitutional because of the fact that it was a tax.

Regulation of health insurance is constitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause.

What did you mean that their lame justification was gone? What specifically should have they “overturned” and on what grounds?

And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house

Bzzt. The Senate gutted a bill that did originate in the House and plopped the ACA into it. You can say you don't like it, but it's been a practice in Congress that has stood up to challenges as it technically fits the letter of the Constitution.

That's precedent for you.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Roberts decided the individual mandate was constitutional because of the fact that it was a tax.

Regulation of health insurance is constitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause.

What did you mean that their lame justification was gone? What specifically should have they “overturned” and on what grounds?

And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house

Bzzt. The Senate gutted a bill that did originate in the House and plopped the ACA into it. You can say you don't like it, but it's been a practice in Congress that has stood up to challenges as it technically fits the letter of the Constitution.

That's precedent for you.

I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......

 

[colfax_m]

I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......

It's just their reflexive ideology. If a Democrat does it, it's bad.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Roberts decided the individual mandate was constitutional because of the fact that it was a tax.

Regulation of health insurance is constitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause.

What did you mean that their lame justification was gone? What specifically should have they “overturned” and on what grounds?

And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house

Bzzt. The Senate gutted a bill that did originate in the House and plopped the ACA into it. You can say you don't like it, but it's been a practice in Congress that has stood up to challenges as it technically fits the letter of the Constitution.

That's precedent for you.

I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......

I will never get why you want to force people to pay for others reckless and unhealthy lifestyles, pay for it yourself

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......

It's just their reflexive ideology. If a Democrat does it, it's bad.

Again bullshit, this is about forcing people to buy something they don't want

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Roberts decided the individual mandate was constitutional because of the fact that it was a tax.

Regulation of health insurance is constitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause.

What did you mean that their lame justification was gone? What specifically should have they “overturned” and on what grounds?

And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house

Bzzt. The Senate gutted a bill that did originate in the House and plopped the ACA into it. You can say you don't like it, but it's been a practice in Congress that has stood up to challenges as it technically fits the letter of the Constitution.

That's precedent for you.

I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......

I will never get why you want to force people to pay for others reckless and unhealthy lifestyles, pay for it yourself

That happens anyway, dunce...

or do you think you don't already pay for other's people healthcare??

And do it in the most costly and ineffective way possible...

Can to tell me about the other countries that have all of this superior "free market" healthcare ?? Where people just pay for it out of pocket and if they can't afford it, fuck em?


When you struggle to answer that.....then ask yourself, why is that a model to follow

 

[ElmerMudd]

I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue

Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.

It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.

If you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die.

You don't die if you have health care..


Who knew?

Well Bear, you do die with insurance and/or a lot of money, but most likely not as fast as if you were only given healthcare if you could pay for it or had insurance.
I know this is a very complex idea. Have your mother explain it to you.

Talk about drinking the Kool aid

That is not Kool Aid, that is the real world; no sugar added. How old are you. You sound like a person who has not experienced much in life or are very stupid or both.

Old enough to know I don't need health insurance and am not paying for your fat ass

I have health insurance so you will not pay for my fat ass. Actually, I do not have a fat ass. A big gut but not a fat ass. What happens when you end up with a medical emergency and a $400,000 medical bill? Who pays it? Or do you tell the hospital to stop all treatment after your $1500 life savings is used up so you will not be a burden on the rest of us who are responsible enough to have insurance.
Then who pays for your burial because your life savings is used up.

 

[colfax_m]

I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......

It's just their reflexive ideology. If a Democrat does it, it's bad.

Again bullshit, this is about forcing people to buy something they don't want

Well, now with no individual mandate, no one's forced to do anything.

Easy peasy.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Roberts decided the individual mandate was constitutional because of the fact that it was a tax.

Regulation of health insurance is constitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause.

What did you mean that their lame justification was gone? What specifically should have they “overturned” and on what grounds?

And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house

Bzzt. The Senate gutted a bill that did originate in the House and plopped the ACA into it. You can say you don't like it, but it's been a practice in Congress that has stood up to challenges as it technically fits the letter of the Constitution.

That's precedent for you.

I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......

I will never get why you want to force people to pay for others reckless and unhealthy lifestyles, pay for it yourself

That happens anyway, dunce...

or do you think you don't already pay for other's people healthcare??

And do it in the most costly and ineffective way possible...

Can to tell me about the other countries that have all of this superior "free market" healthcare ?? Where people just pay for it out of pocket and if they can't afford it, fuck em?


When you struggle to answer that.....then ask yourself, why is that a model to follow

Once again we live in a free country if you want to sit on your fat ass drink beer, smoke cigs and stuff your pie hole with junk food it's your choice, don't try to force me to pay for it

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read

Roberts decided the individual mandate was constitutional because of the fact that it was a tax.

Regulation of health insurance is constitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause.

What did you mean that their lame justification was gone? What specifically should have they “overturned” and on what grounds?

And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house

Bzzt. The Senate gutted a bill that did originate in the House and plopped the ACA into it. You can say you don't like it, but it's been a practice in Congress that has stood up to challenges as it technically fits the letter of the Constitution.

That's precedent for you.

I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......

I will never get why you want to force people to pay for others reckless and unhealthy lifestyles, pay for it yourself

That happens anyway, dunce...

or do you think you don't already pay for other's people healthcare??

And do it in the most costly and ineffective way possible...

Can to tell me about the other countries that have all of this superior "free market" healthcare ?? Where people just pay for it out of pocket and if they can't afford it, fuck em?


When you struggle to answer that.....then ask yourself, why is that a model to follow

Once again we live in a free country if you want to sit on your fat ass drink beer, smoke cigs and stuff your pie hole with junk food it's your choice, don't try to force me to pay for it

Most of the people who participate in the Obamacare exchanges have jobs....but ok....

So when I asked you to give me examples of this "conservative utopian healthcare" in other places in the world -- you still got nothing?

Cool

 

[Wyatt earp]

I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue

Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.

It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.

If you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die.

You don't die if you have health care..


Who knew?

Well Bear, you do die with insurance and/or a lot of money, but most likely not as fast as if you were only given healthcare if you could pay for it or had insurance.
I know this is a very complex idea. Have your mother explain it to you.

Talk about drinking the Kool aid

That is not Kool Aid, that is the real world; no sugar added. How old are you. You sound like a person who has not experienced much in life or are very stupid or both.

Old enough to know I don't need health insurance and am not paying for your fat ass

I have health insurance so you will not pay for my fat ass. Actually, I do not have a fat ass. A big gut but not a fat ass. What happens when you end up with a medical emergency and a $400,000 medical bill? Who pays it? Or do you tell the hospital to stop all treatment after your $1500 life savings is used up so you will not be a burden on the rest of us who are responsible enough to have insurance.
Then who pays for your burial because your life savings is used up.

Project much nostradumbass? What happens if I get shot in the head tomorrow? No bills....just cremate my ass

 

[dblack]

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.

You cover a lot of ground here, but most of it seems predicated on the assumption that I oppose insurance, and that's not the case. Insurance is fine. But group insurance isn't really insurance. It's just employer provided (or government provided, whichever) healthcare. Normal insurance has counter-incentives that help prevent abuse, and keep costs down - ie your premiums will go up if you use it a lot. Group insurance has no such counter-incentives.

The problem is that we've been sold the idea that the only way to afford regular healthcare is to get an employer, or the government, to pay for it on your behalf. But that's just dumb when you think about it, and in no way sustainable. Employers, or the government, might like it because it establishes dependency, but it obliterates market incentives and drives prices higher and higher. Which reinforces the self-fulfilling prophecy that healthcare is too expensive to pay for your own.

As others here have mentioned, we need to do away with the tax incentives, and other policies, that promote employer provided healthcare. People should buy their own insurance policies and, if they're smart, they'll get high-deductible, catastrophic policies and pay for as much as they can out-of-pocket. And once people are paying for most of their healthcare costs out-of-pocket, prices will come down.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......

It's just their reflexive ideology. If a Democrat does it, it's bad.

Again bullshit, this is about forcing people to buy something they don't want

Well, now with no individual mandate, no one's forced to do anything.

Easy peasy.

The mandate is still there.

 

[colfax_m]

I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......

It's just their reflexive ideology. If a Democrat does it, it's bad.

Again bullshit, this is about forcing people to buy something they don't want

Well, now with no individual mandate, no one's forced to do anything.

Easy peasy.

The mandate is still there.

So what happens if you don't buy insurance?

Nothing.

It's not a mandate.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......

It's just their reflexive ideology. If a Democrat does it, it's bad.

Again bullshit, this is about forcing people to buy something they don't want

Well, now with no individual mandate, no one's forced to do anything.

Easy peasy.

The mandate is still there.

So what happens if you don't buy insurance?

Nothing.

It's not a mandate.

Once again the mandate is still in force but the tax is zero

 

[dblack]

Medicare is much better on feedback, because it is administered by people who only want to please you and no one else.

Clearly, you've never been to the DMV

As far as you paying into Medicare whether you use it or not, that is the whole point of any social system, to pool risk.

Right. That's what's really going on here. We're trying to convert health care into a "social system". That's the problem, not the solution.

And no, Medicare does not profit from denying claims.

The insurance companies that Medicare farms out to do, in fact, make money by denying claims.

33. Medicare is a Private–Public Partnership - Center for Medicare Advocacy

Most people think Medicare is a government program. That’s only partly true. While Congress created Medicare, and continues to develop Medicare coverage and appeal rules, decisions to pay claims are actually made by private companies. The government does not make those decisions. This was one of...

medicareadvocacy.org

Want to expand Medicare? You’ll need to hire the insurance companies, not fire them

The depth and scope of Medicare’s reliance on for-profit companies is hard to understand from the outside.

thehill.com

 

[dblack]

Roberts decided the individual mandate was constitutional because of the fact that it was a tax.

Yes, yes. A tax "incentive" - which means a grossly discriminatory tax to manipulate people.

Let's say the car industry lobbied Congress to impose a special tax on people who buy used cars, instead of getting a new one every few years? You know, because they're failing to support a nationally important industry. Would you support that as well?

Regulation of health insurance is constitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause.

According to liberals, regulation of every. single. fucking. thing. is constitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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.

You cover a lot of ground here, but most of it seems predicated on the assumption that I oppose insurance, and that's not the case. Insurance is fine. But group insurance isn't really insurance. It's just employer provided (or government provided, whichever) health care. Normal insurance has counter-incentives that help prevent abuse, and keep costs down - ie your premiums will go up if you use it a lot. Group insurance has no such counter-incentives.

The problem is that we've been sold the idea that the only way to afford regular healthcare is to get an employer, or the government, to pay for it on your behalf. But that's just dumb when you think about it, and it no way sustainable. Employers, or the government, might like it because it establishes dependency, but it obliterates market incentives and drives prices higher and higher. Which reinforces the self-fulfilling prophecy that healthcare is too expensive to pay for your own.

As others here have mentioned, we need to do away with the tax incentives, and other policies, that promote employer provided healthcare. People should buy their own insurance policies and, if they're smart, they'll get high-deductible, catastrophic policies and pay for as much as they can out-of-pocket. And once people are paying for most of their healthcare costs out-of-pocket, prices will come down.

Can you tell me what country is practicing "Normal insurance" -- so I can see how they are doing in comparison to the US and the rest of the developed world....