Supreme Court Rules 7-2 on Obamacare

[Biff_Poindexter]

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.

Well, mandating that one drives a car with insurance is pretty much the law in every state...and if you don't have insurance and you drive a car -- there are severe penalties.....including suspension of driving privileges and jail....

It is not a federal mandate that every person have car insurance but that is mainly because the insurance industry successfully lobbied every state to make this a law

 

[dblack]

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.

Right. It's sorta like the draft. It's not currently a thing, but it's still the law of the land, and there when they need it. If the government, and their insurance company lobbyists, think people aren't buying enough health insurance, all they have to do dial it back up.

 

[dblack]

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....

Nah. I'm not really interested in your preoccupation with what "all the other kids" are doing.

 

[dblack]

Well, mandating that one drives a car with insurance is pretty much the law in every state...and if you don't have insurance and you drive a car -- there are severe penalties.....including suspension of driving privileges and jail....

And it's just as wrong.

It is not a federal mandate that every person have car insurance but that is mainly because the insurance industry successfully lobbied every state to make this a law

Exactly. But with health insurance, they saw a way to skip all the state-by-state lobbying, and go straight for the (federal) jugular.

 

[kaz]

0

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.

You're just babbling your inane nonsense again

 

[kaz]

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?

That's all you think that a SC judge would care about, not being removed from the bench? Seriously?

 

[kaz]

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......

The mental gymnastics is your stupid shit that not giving people free stuff is taking it away from them

 

[kaz]

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

But that's Poindexter's point. We live in a free country! So what does he get!

 

[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

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?....

Medicaid covers just about everything private insurance covers, basically what Medicare covers. Unlike traditional insurance low or no copays, deductibles, or premiums. However, there are serious drawbacks to Medicaid. First being it is limited to families with a low income and some states, very low income so it will go away if you exceed those limits. Second, it is a state program. Go out of your home state and the only coverage is emergency care. Lastly, Medicaid reimbursement to doctors varies by state and is often lower than Medicare or insurance company reimbursements. Many Doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients and some don't accept Medicaid at all. Thus the patient may not have a lot of choices and may have to travel further than the patient is able. This is particular frustrating because many doctors accept Medicaid but they limit the numbers so much that it is virtual impossible to get an appointment. However, for serious problems that require hospitalization, care is just as good as Medicare or other insurance.

 

[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?....

Medicaid covers just about everything private insurance covers, basically what Medicare covers. Unlike traditional insurance low or no copays, deductibles, or premiums. However, there are serious drawbacks to Medicaid. First being it is limited to families with a low income and some states, very low income so it will go away if you exceed those limits. Second, it is a state program. Go out of your home state and the only coverage is emergency care. Lastly, Medicaid reimbursement to doctors varies by state and is often lower than Medicare or insurance company reimbursements. Many Doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients and some don't accept Medicaid at all. Thus the patient may not have a lot of choices and may have to travel further than the patient is able. This is particular frustrating because many doctors accept Medicaid but they limit the numbers so much that it is virtual impossible to get an appointment. However, for serious problems that require hospitalization, care is just as good as Medicare or other insurance.

thats great but we were talking about medicare.....

 

[colfax_m]

0

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.

You're just babbling your inane nonsense again

Translation: you have no idea what you’re talking about and have no way of actually responding in a rational way.

Honestly, very little of what you’ve posted actually makes sense. It’s just little bits and pieces of actual arguments which you manage to repeat, incorrectly, without actually understanding it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Congress removed the mandate.

Wrong.

The IM remains, the tax penalty was eliminated – or more accurately, reduced to $0.

Absent the penalty, the issue as to whether the IM is Constitutional becomes moot.

No penalty, no damages; no damages, no standing; no standing, no case.

 

[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?

Beats me. What's that go to do with the futility of group insurance?

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

How do people pay their medical bills?

Insurance itself isn't a bad idea, for catastrophes. It's low-deductible, group insurance that corrodes markets.

So you want to do away with the insurance system we have now.

You don't want to have single payer.

You don't have anything to replace it.

Kind of short sighted don't you think?

Normal people who aren't filthy rich can't afford most medical costs without help from insurance or the government.

Our system sucks to high heaven. It doesn't work for most people but it's all we have. The republicans don't even want us to have what we have now much less allow any sort of single payer system to happen.

It's very short sighted to remove what little we do have without something to replace it.

Your idea of insurance for only major conditions doesn't consider the countless people who can't even afford to go to a doctor's office much less get proper health care.

That might work if a visit to a doctor's office is only 20 bucks with all the rest of the health care such as labs etc, being free or equally as low.

That isn't possible. Especially with for profit health care.

 

[Flopper]

The ONLY people viewing Obamacare as a win......are those who consider destroying America a "win"

The people that considered it a win are those who had pre-existing conditions, about 54 million of them in the US. I had private insurance for serval years before Obamacare. Even relatively minor problems such Asthma and Sinus problems was enough to be deny coverage. And in most states, if you were denied coverage, you would be denied by all insurance companies and you were placed in a high risk pool. In some cases it might take many months to get coverage and your pre-existing condition might be excluded. For people that were self employed or had to move often or had periods of unemployment, it was a nightmare, having to seek new insurance often and never knowing if you would qualify. That might not be so bad if your condition was just asthma and a sinus problems but people with serious pre-existing conditions such as cancer or heart heart disease were just out of luck. Many people with pre-existing conditions felt tied to their employer, fearful of not being able to get good insurance if they changed jobs . And for people who wanted to start their business it could be a major problem.

Another problem was determining what was really good coverage. Your employer might offer what he considered great insurance and then you find out that mental health coverage or rare disease had little or no coverage or that their limits place on certain diseases. Since most regulations only required the insurance company to live up to the terms in general policy negotiated by the employer. It was impossible in most cases to know exactly what your coverage was except by getting sick and filing a claim.

Under the ACA, the coverage rules are simple and the same for all insurance companies. If you get sick, you're covered. For this peace mind, you pay a higher premium or deductible.

 

[Flopper]

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...

Exactly.
Not hard to fix.
Just end the 1957 employee benefit tax write off to employers.
Then the wealthy and poor will all be in the same boat and will all want a solution that benefits everyone.

And I personally think public health care is the solution, because then you cut health care costs in half, like we do with Medicare, VA, and all the countries with public health care.
You don't want to just pay profit making health care industries.
Instead you want us to own the hospitals publicly, and hire the doctors/nurses ourselves.

Healthcare insurance started as a perk to attract top tier employees. The unions made it a required part of the benefit package. Thus healthcare insurance became tied to employment. As it spread, it became a necessary benefit with all major employers. The problem is most employees had no voice in their health insurance and most employers were being forced into to providing it. The government through tax incentives and laws coerced employers. Although they were never a stakeholder, they were simply being forced to provide health insurance. The real stakeholder were the public and the goverment and this is where the responsibility for providing health coverage should rest.

 

[dblack]

So you want to do away with the insurance system we have now.

No, but I do want to do away with the ill conceived incentives that created it. Otherwise I want people to be free to attend to their health however they like.

Your idea of insurance for only major conditions doesn't consider the countless people who can't even afford to go to a doctor's office much less get proper health care.

You're talking about the welfare state. If you think we need to expand the safety net, that's an entirely different discussion. Forcing everybody into the safety net will only cause it to break.

 

[Dana7360]

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.

I agree that employers shouldn't be providing insurance. It's one of the reasons why we have some who have insurance that actually covers health care needs and others don't. It just depends on your employer or union on what type of insurance you can have.

That is totally ridiculous.

I don't believe that people should have to face higher premiums if they actually use the insurance. That's just not fair.

What are you going to say to the couple that has a baby that needs thousands or hundreds of thousands in health care? If they actually use that insurance they can only use it once because that premium will be jacked up so high that the couple can't afford it. So the child dies.

Not a good idea.

Then there's those who are older. They get sick simply because of being older. Cancer, heart problems and many others start after the age of 50. So you're saying that those people can only use their insurance once because once they use it, the premiums will be jacked up so high they can't afford it. So the person dies.

Not a good idea.

Or what about a person like me? I was in a near death accident several years ago. Should I have only been able to use that insurance once? After using it the one time I wouldn't be able to have it anymore because the premiums will have been jacked up so high I can't afford it. So I don't die but I lose the use of my legs, hands and arms. I don't get to have any medications for the pain or to relax the muscles when the nerve damage makes the muscles in my hands and arm spasm uncontrolled or when the herniated disks in my spine are too aggravated and I can't breathe without the feeling of a knife stabbing through my spine?

Your idea of insurance isn't practical. It only considers healthy young people who don't need any health care. Which isn't practical or anything close to reality.

Your idea of the costs magically going down simply because they can't use their insurance isn't practical or anything close to reality.

Your idea is what we had in until Obamacare and still have in many parts of the nation.

People don't have insurance. They don't see a doctor when the problem first starts. They wait until it's life threatening. Then go to the ER where they get the most expensive care that by law doesn't have to actually fix the problem but only stabilize them so they won't die.

Then that person doesn't pay the bill so those of us who are responsible and do the right thing are the ones who pay for it by health care costs much higher than they should be because too many people can't see a doctor and end up getting the most expensive form of health care.

We already did that and still do that. Look at the mess we have now.

Your ideas aren't realistic and would never work.

 

[Dana7360]

So you want to do away with the insurance system we have now.

No, but I do want to do away with the ill conceived incentives that created it. Otherwise I want people to be free to attend to their health however they like.

Your idea of insurance for only major conditions doesn't consider the countless people who can't even afford to go to a doctor's office much less get proper health care.

You're talking about the welfare state. If you think we need to expand the safety net, that's an entirely different discussion. Forcing everybody into the safety net will only cause it to break.

I can't disagree with you more.

What you are advocating isn't practical and will end up killing countless people needlessly.

If we had what you are advocating covid would have been much worse and would have left hundreds of thousands without insurance and proper health care for the rest of their lives.

I agree insurance shouldn't be tied to a person's job.

I don't agree with your solution to the problem.

 

[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

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?....

Medicaid covers just about everything private insurance covers, basically what Medicare covers. Unlike traditional insurance low or no copays, deductibles, or premiums. However, there are serious drawbacks to Medicaid. First being it is limited to families with a low income and some states, very low income so it will go away if you exceed those limits. Second, it is a state program. Go out of your home state and the only coverage is emergency care. Lastly, Medicaid reimbursement to doctors varies by state and is often lower than Medicare or insurance company reimbursements. Many Doctors limit the number of Medicaid patients and some don't accept Medicaid at all. Thus the patient may not have a lot of choices and may have to travel further than the patient is able. This is particular frustrating because many doctors accept Medicaid but they limit the numbers so much that it is virtual impossible to get an appointment. However, for serious problems that require hospitalization, care is just as good as Medicare or other insurance.

thats great but we were talking about medicare.....

Sorry, I was reading your post a bit too fast. However, you are wrong if you really mean medial coverage. Medicare, Medicaid, and Private Insurance covers just about every accepted medical procedure under the ACA. They may not pay for all of it but they cover it. There are only a few exceptions, namely eye exams, dental, chiropractor, Naturopathy, and medical procedures which are considered experimental or are recognized by AMA as a treatment. My wife and I have had Medicare for over 15 years and have had extensive medical treatment and I don't believe I have ever had a medical procedure denied other than those listed above. Occasional a doctor may ask Medicare to approve a procedure that is not a recognized treatment for a diagnosis but generally Medicare will approve it the doctor justifies it's use.

 

[otto105]

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.

I've spent way too much time discussing the merits, or lack thereof, of ACA. It's corporatist shitshow throughout.

But, outside it's corruption and the blatant violation of Constitutional limits on government, the ACA does not have broad consensus. It was passed on strict partisan lines and will be a political football going forward, constantly torn and twisted as successive administrations get their hands on it.

You've managed to put politicians in charge of our health care. Congrats.

You will never convince a Statist that anything is wrong with a government program.

Black or white.....white or black.

Say, just where is libertarianism practiced on this planet?

Everywhere. Most of the time.

Where exactly?

Here. Wherever you are. Anywhere, and in any situation, when there aren't laws dictating our behavior. Is that "exact" enough for you?

I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to build a strawman equating libertarianism with anarchy. The usual. That lets you dismiss any argument criticizing the expansion of government power as "impractical". Basically you're saying, "anarchy doesn't work so you have accept whatever government power grab I propose". Whatever.

I don't care whether you call me a libertarian, or what (the Trumpsters here call me a leftist, go figure). And I'm not - in this thread - talking about any other issues. I just don't want my family's health care to be democratically determined. Voters are far too stupid to trust with something so important.

Voters are why 20,000,000 more people have health insurance with a base level of care.