Supreme Court Rules 7-2 on Obamacare

[FA_Q2]

Trump motivate angry American working class people to fight for his cause. But they had to be angered for a greater reason, which was in fact stated.

Bad government!

HC is the applicable part of bad government in this topic.

The American people are ready to rise up and demand better government; a piece of the American pie.

The politician who can insert him/herself as the leader of that cause will be your next president.

And that's not to say that he/she will be an honest leader of the people's cause. Just to say that he/she will have convinced the people of it.

Fwiw, I would say that Trump is now out of the running. He had his chance and he failed.

Biden is currently in the process of failing too because: go back to politicians being corrupted by money ..................................

Yes. It's the "next Trump" that worries me. Despite being such a crass, ugly person, with no real values outside self-aggrandizement, Trump could have been much worse. At the end of the day, he wasn't a tyrant. He had no grand agenda, no diabolical plan. Despite flirting with the racists, he wasn't really one himself. He had no desire to "exterminate" anyone. Next time, we might not get so lucky.

There was a time when I would have thought such a thing is very unlikely to happen. The way I see Trumpsters defend Trump and most of the left backing riots and Biden even when he mirrors Trump is rapidly destroying that glimmer of positivity.

We have devolved into a point where it doesn't even matter anymore, you can be a die hard socialist and the right will support you if you say you are a republican. The only republicans the right won't support are those that do not go along with whatever bobblehead is the party 'leader' and the left is the same.

 

[FA_Q2]

Mandate is gone. I don't care what they do.

The mandate is but a tiny slice of the damage done by Obamacare.

Bailouts, mandated coverage requirements and other such measures distort the market as a whole. What little the government did correct in that massive bill is far outweighed by the damage.

 

[dudmuck]

Mandate is gone. I don't care what they do.

The mandate is but a tiny slice of the damage done by Obamacare.

Bailouts, mandated coverage requirements and other such measures distort the market as a whole. What little the government did correct in that massive bill is far outweighed by the damage.

Republican (in 2009-2010) passed on the opportunity to help creating it. Then Trump and republicans had full control for two years to come up with something.

 

[FA_Q2]

Mandate is gone. I don't care what they do.

The mandate is but a tiny slice of the damage done by Obamacare.

Bailouts, mandated coverage requirements and other such measures distort the market as a whole. What little the government did correct in that massive bill is far outweighed by the damage.

Republican (in 2009-2010) passed on the opportunity to help creating it. Then Trump and republicans had full control for two years to come up with something.

Did you have a point? You should try getting to it.

 

[Dana7360]

I respect you have a different view.

I don't force my views on other people.

But you vote for politicians who pass laws that do.

Let me ask you this, would you be in favor of allowing people to opt out? Both from using it and from paying for it?

Yes but only if they also agree that no one but themselves will pay for any and all health care they received. And they can't opt in once they have a medical situation. They made their choice to not be responsible so they don't get to all of a sudden opt in when they need the help.

That's the problem.

Most don't anticipate for a health problem mostly because they know they could never save enough for a real health problem.

I was a very healthy 48 year old person when the waves pounded me. I never thought that 15 ft waves would pound me over and over nearly killing me thus resulting in tens of thousand of health care bills. Not just the initial accident. I had to have 3 surgeries and 3.5 years of recovery.

It was tens of thousands of dollars that we didn't have. Thank goodness for the insurance.

Even just breaking a bone is expensive. It's not just the initial break and cast, it's the doctor appointments and physical therapy later.

None of that is cheap.

Those who don't have insurance don't pay the bills resulting in those of us who are responsible to pay the unpaid bills by our heath care being more expensive than it should.

We already did that until Obamacare and still do it in many red states.

If a person wants to opt out, go for it but expect to never be able to opt in when they have a medical situation and they better expect to pay every penny of their health care costs. No matter what those costs are.

 

[Flopper]

I respect you have a different view.

I don't force my views on other people.

But you vote for politicians who pass laws that do.

Let me ask you this, would you be in favor of allowing people to opt out? Both from using it and from paying for it?

Yes but only if they also agree that no one but themselves will pay for any and all health care they received. And they can't opt in once they have a medical situation. They made their choice to not be responsible so they don't get to all of a sudden opt in when they need the help.

That's the problem.

Most don't anticipate for a health problem mostly because they know they could never save enough for a real health problem.

I was a very healthy 48 year old person when the waves pounded me. I never thought that 15 ft waves would pound me over and over nearly killing me thus resulting in tens of thousand of health care bills. Not just the initial accident. I had to have 3 surgeries and 3.5 years of recovery.

It was tens of thousands of dollars that we didn't have. Thank goodness for the insurance.

Even just breaking a bone is expensive. It's not just the initial break and cast, it's the doctor appointments and physical therapy later.

None of that is cheap.

Those who don't have insurance don't pay the bills resulting in those of us who are responsible to pay the unpaid bills by our heath care being more expensive than it should.

We already did that until Obamacare and still do it in many red states.

If a person wants to opt out, go for it but expect to never be able to opt in when they have a medical situation and they better expect to pay every penny of their health care costs. No matter what those costs are.

90% of Americans are insured. Most of the money lost by doctors and hospitals is due high deductibles, not the uninsured. Indigents that end up in the ER or hospital are put on Medicaid. About half of those that are uninsured do not used the healthcare system.

To expect people that can't afford insurance to pay all their bills is a bit naïve. It's easy to say those that opt out will not be allowed back in the system. However, enforcing such a policy would be just about impossible because in America we don't deny life saving medical care for any reason.

 

[EMH]

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

Too many Jews on the scotus with absolutely zero patriotism for America.

The "conservatives" here who cheered Amy Barrett hopefully understand they cheered a clone of RBG.

No more treasonous Israelites on the scotus. 6 out of 9 is 5 too many.

 

[schmidlap]

.

So much for those three trump Justices.....

As with all the Trump judicial appointees who threw his frivolous challenges to a safe and secure democratic election out of court, the law has proven a formidable nemesis for the pandemic's "Bolsonaro of the North"

"We're going to win. We're going to win so much. We're going to win at trade, we're going to win at the border.
We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning, you're going to come to me
and go 'Please, please, we can't win anymore.' You'll say 'Please, Mr. President, we beg you,
sir, we don't want to win anymore. It's too much. It's not fair to everybody else.'" Trump said.
"And I'm going to say 'I'm sorry, but we're going to keep
winning, winning, winning!"​

Trump is still losing, losing, losing.

Some thought the Cry Baby Sore Loser, despite multiple eminent civil and criminal reckonings, was finally finished losing. Not so. Gazing up at his "big, beautiful wall!" that he made "Mexico!" pay for is only one manifestation of his legacy.

The Former Guy promised that his Supreme Court picks would overturn the Affordable Care Act. He met the court's ruling with the deafening silence of defeat.​

​

"THE FORMER STAR OF TRUMP®BLOG" ​

Trump promised to repeal Obamacare, the health insurance program that helped fuel the backlash tea party movement and ultimately his own candidacy. If Trump couldn't get Congress to do away with the law — and he couldn't, even with Republicans in control of both chambers — he vowed to choose Supreme Court justices who would declare Obamacare unconstitutional.​

​

"If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare," Trump tweeted in 2015...​

​

But two of the three jurists Trump picked for the court — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with Roberts as part of a 7-2 majority... It was a major blow — perhaps a decisive one — against the political right's long fight against Obamacare and a sign of the limit of Trump's influence on the justices he appointed.​

​

In the first hours after the ruling, Trump greeted the news with the deafening silence of defeat… most Republicans followed Trump's lead by refusing to give it any extra attention.​

​

There was no promise to renew the fight to repeal the law or to mount another court battle over its constitutionality.​

​

... Republicans aren't at all interested in fighting to take health insurance benefits away from millions of Americans...​

​

In the end, Trump was wrong about the law, the politics of trying to kill the Affordable Care Act — and the assumption that he could control the votes of his Supreme Court picks.​

​

[Analysis: Trump was wrong about the law, Obamacare politics and his judges]​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

[Flopper]

.

So much for those three trump Justices.....

As with all the Trump judicial appointees who threw his frivolous challenges to a safe and secure democratic election out of court, the law has proven a formidable nemesis for the pandemic's "Bolsonaro of the North"

View attachment 503948
"We're going to win. We're going to win so much. We're going to win at trade, we're going to win at the border.
We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning, you're going to come to me
and go 'Please, please, we can't win anymore.' You'll say 'Please, Mr. President, we beg you,
sir, we don't want to win anymore. It's too much. It's not fair to everybody else.'" Trump said.
"And I'm going to say 'I'm sorry, but we're going to keep
winning, winning, winning!"​

Trump is still losing, losing, losing.

Some thought the Cry Baby Sore Loser, despite multiple eminent civil and criminal reckonings, was finally finished losing. Not so. Gazing up at his "big, beautiful wall!" that he made "Mexico!" pay for is only one manifestation of his legacy.

The Former Guy promised that his Supreme Court picks would overturn the Affordable Care Act. He met the court's ruling with the deafening silence of defeat.​

​

View attachment 503947
"THE FORMER STAR OF TRUMP®BLOG" ​

Trump promised to repeal Obamacare, the health insurance program that helped fuel the backlash tea party movement and ultimately his own candidacy. If Trump couldn't get Congress to do away with the law — and he couldn't, even with Republicans in control of both chambers — he vowed to choose Supreme Court justices who would declare Obamacare unconstitutional.​

​

"If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare," Trump tweeted in 2015...​

​

But two of the three jurists Trump picked for the court — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with Roberts as part of a 7-2 majority... It was a major blow — perhaps a decisive one — against the political right's long fight against Obamacare and a sign of the limit of Trump's influence on the justices he appointed.​

​

In the first hours after the ruling, Trump greeted the news with the deafening silence of defeat… most Republicans followed Trump's lead by refusing to give it any extra attention.​

​

There was no promise to renew the fight to repeal the law or to mount another court battle over its constitutionality.​

​

... Republicans aren't at all interested in fighting to take health insurance benefits away from millions of Americans...​

​

In the end, Trump was wrong about the law, the politics of trying to kill the Affordable Care Act — and the assumption that he could control the votes of his Supreme Court picks.​

​

[Analysis: Trump was wrong about the law, Obamacare politics and his judges]​

​

Over half of what the media calls conservative or liberal Justices are really centralist, which is what they should be. The media of course will classify every judge as conservative or liberal so the court can be classified as liberal or conservative by the media because that makes stories about the court's actions more interesting and controversial.

Although there are exceptions, most judges who have aspirations of sitting on the high court can not afford to be biased in their rulings. Claiming a judge is biased is just about the worst insult in the legal profession because the entire legal system is based on fair and equal treatment without bias. In all states there are judicial candidate evaluation systems. Those that can set aside their personal options and make good ruling based on the evidence and law are respected and advance to higher courts.

 

[schmidlap]

.

So much for those three trump Justices.....

As with all the Trump judicial appointees who threw his frivolous challenges to a safe and secure democratic election out of court, the law has proven a formidable nemesis for the pandemic's "Bolsonaro of the North"

View attachment 503948
"We're going to win. We're going to win so much. We're going to win at trade, we're going to win at the border.
We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning, you're going to come to me
and go 'Please, please, we can't win anymore.' You'll say 'Please, Mr. President, we beg you,
sir, we don't want to win anymore. It's too much. It's not fair to everybody else.'" Trump said.
"And I'm going to say 'I'm sorry, but we're going to keep
winning, winning, winning!"​

Trump is still losing, losing, losing.

Some thought the Cry Baby Sore Loser, despite multiple eminent civil and criminal reckonings, was finally finished losing. Not so. Gazing up at his "big, beautiful wall!" that he made "Mexico!" pay for is only one manifestation of his legacy.

The Former Guy promised that his Supreme Court picks would overturn the Affordable Care Act. He met the court's ruling with the deafening silence of defeat.​

​

View attachment 503947
"THE FORMER STAR OF TRUMP®BLOG" ​

Trump promised to repeal Obamacare, the health insurance program that helped fuel the backlash tea party movement and ultimately his own candidacy. If Trump couldn't get Congress to do away with the law — and he couldn't, even with Republicans in control of both chambers — he vowed to choose Supreme Court justices who would declare Obamacare unconstitutional.​

​

"If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare," Trump tweeted in 2015...​

​

But two of the three jurists Trump picked for the court — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with Roberts as part of a 7-2 majority... It was a major blow — perhaps a decisive one — against the political right's long fight against Obamacare and a sign of the limit of Trump's influence on the justices he appointed.​

​

In the first hours after the ruling, Trump greeted the news with the deafening silence of defeat… most Republicans followed Trump's lead by refusing to give it any extra attention.​

​

There was no promise to renew the fight to repeal the law or to mount another court battle over its constitutionality.​

​

... Republicans aren't at all interested in fighting to take health insurance benefits away from millions of Americans...​

​

In the end, Trump was wrong about the law, the politics of trying to kill the Affordable Care Act — and the assumption that he could control the votes of his Supreme Court picks.​

​

[Analysis: Trump was wrong about the law, Obamacare politics and his judges]​

​

Over half of what the media calls conservative or liberal Justices are really centralist, which is what they should be. The media of course will classify every judge as conservative or liberal so the court can be classified as liberal or conservative by the media because that makes stories about the court's actions more interesting and controversial.

Although there are exceptions, most judges who have aspirations of sitting on the high court can not afford to be biased in their rulings. Claiming a judge is biased is just about the worst insult in the legal profession because the entire legal system is based on fair and equal treatment without bias. In all states there are judicial candidate evaluation systems. Those that can set aside their personal options and make good ruling based on the evidence and law are respected and advance to higher courts.

It is not only media that find pigeon-holing judicial temperaments according to ideological shorthand. Politicians pander to their ideologues by demonizing nominees with simplistic, hyperbolic classification. Judges, regardless of their political inclinations, are nuanced concerning particular areas of law.

 

[Flopper]

.

So much for those three trump Justices.....

As with all the Trump judicial appointees who threw his frivolous challenges to a safe and secure democratic election out of court, the law has proven a formidable nemesis for the pandemic's "Bolsonaro of the North"

View attachment 503948
"We're going to win. We're going to win so much. We're going to win at trade, we're going to win at the border.
We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning, you're going to come to me
and go 'Please, please, we can't win anymore.' You'll say 'Please, Mr. President, we beg you,
sir, we don't want to win anymore. It's too much. It's not fair to everybody else.'" Trump said.
"And I'm going to say 'I'm sorry, but we're going to keep
winning, winning, winning!"​

Trump is still losing, losing, losing.

Some thought the Cry Baby Sore Loser, despite multiple eminent civil and criminal reckonings, was finally finished losing. Not so. Gazing up at his "big, beautiful wall!" that he made "Mexico!" pay for is only one manifestation of his legacy.

The Former Guy promised that his Supreme Court picks would overturn the Affordable Care Act. He met the court's ruling with the deafening silence of defeat.​

​

View attachment 503947
"THE FORMER STAR OF TRUMP®BLOG" ​

Trump promised to repeal Obamacare, the health insurance program that helped fuel the backlash tea party movement and ultimately his own candidacy. If Trump couldn't get Congress to do away with the law — and he couldn't, even with Republicans in control of both chambers — he vowed to choose Supreme Court justices who would declare Obamacare unconstitutional.​

​

"If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare," Trump tweeted in 2015...​

​

But two of the three jurists Trump picked for the court — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with Roberts as part of a 7-2 majority... It was a major blow — perhaps a decisive one — against the political right's long fight against Obamacare and a sign of the limit of Trump's influence on the justices he appointed.​

​

In the first hours after the ruling, Trump greeted the news with the deafening silence of defeat… most Republicans followed Trump's lead by refusing to give it any extra attention.​

​

There was no promise to renew the fight to repeal the law or to mount another court battle over its constitutionality.​

​

... Republicans aren't at all interested in fighting to take health insurance benefits away from millions of Americans...​

​

In the end, Trump was wrong about the law, the politics of trying to kill the Affordable Care Act — and the assumption that he could control the votes of his Supreme Court picks.​

​

[Analysis: Trump was wrong about the law, Obamacare politics and his judges]​

​

Over half of what the media calls conservative or liberal Justices are really centralist, which is what they should be. The media of course will classify every judge as conservative or liberal so the court can be classified as liberal or conservative by the media because that makes stories about the court's actions more interesting and controversial.

Although there are exceptions, most judges who have aspirations of sitting on the high court can not afford to be biased in their rulings. Claiming a judge is biased is just about the worst insult in the legal profession because the entire legal system is based on fair and equal treatment without bias. In all states there are judicial candidate evaluation systems. Those that can set aside their personal options and make good ruling based on the evidence and law are respected and advance to higher courts.

It is not only media that find pigeon-holing judicial temperaments according to ideological shorthand. Politicians pander to their ideologues by demonizing nominees with simplistic, hyperbolic classification. Judges, regardless of their political inclinations, are nuanced concerning particular areas of law.

I agree and this is why the pollical faithful conservatives are shocked and feel betrayed because 3 republicans cross the line and voted with the enemy to keep Obamacare. They just don't get it. Justices often don't vote the way the presidents who appoint them expects them to vote. No matter how hard the president and his party may attempt to load the court with political lackeys, when they get on the court, they vote the way they believe they should vote.

The procedure the high court follows makes it very difficult for a judge to vote based on just political opinions and maintain the respect of fellow justices. Legal opinions of the justices are debated and studied in law schools across the country as well as by judges serving on district courts and appellate courts. Those whose opinion are not backed by a good legal and ethical foundation find themselves the subject of mockery and scorn.

 

[schmidlap]

.

So much for those three trump Justices.....

As with all the Trump judicial appointees who threw his frivolous challenges to a safe and secure democratic election out of court, the law has proven a formidable nemesis for the pandemic's "Bolsonaro of the North"

View attachment 503948
"We're going to win. We're going to win so much. We're going to win at trade, we're going to win at the border.
We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning, you're going to come to me
and go 'Please, please, we can't win anymore.' You'll say 'Please, Mr. President, we beg you,
sir, we don't want to win anymore. It's too much. It's not fair to everybody else.'" Trump said.
"And I'm going to say 'I'm sorry, but we're going to keep
winning, winning, winning!"​

Trump is still losing, losing, losing.

Some thought the Cry Baby Sore Loser, despite multiple eminent civil and criminal reckonings, was finally finished losing. Not so. Gazing up at his "big, beautiful wall!" that he made "Mexico!" pay for is only one manifestation of his legacy.

The Former Guy promised that his Supreme Court picks would overturn the Affordable Care Act. He met the court's ruling with the deafening silence of defeat.​

​

View attachment 503947
"THE FORMER STAR OF TRUMP®BLOG" ​

Trump promised to repeal Obamacare, the health insurance program that helped fuel the backlash tea party movement and ultimately his own candidacy. If Trump couldn't get Congress to do away with the law — and he couldn't, even with Republicans in control of both chambers — he vowed to choose Supreme Court justices who would declare Obamacare unconstitutional.​

​

"If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare," Trump tweeted in 2015...​

​

But two of the three jurists Trump picked for the court — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with Roberts as part of a 7-2 majority... It was a major blow — perhaps a decisive one — against the political right's long fight against Obamacare and a sign of the limit of Trump's influence on the justices he appointed.​

​

In the first hours after the ruling, Trump greeted the news with the deafening silence of defeat… most Republicans followed Trump's lead by refusing to give it any extra attention.​

​

There was no promise to renew the fight to repeal the law or to mount another court battle over its constitutionality.​

​

... Republicans aren't at all interested in fighting to take health insurance benefits away from millions of Americans...​

​

In the end, Trump was wrong about the law, the politics of trying to kill the Affordable Care Act — and the assumption that he could control the votes of his Supreme Court picks.​

​

[Analysis: Trump was wrong about the law, Obamacare politics and his judges]​

​

Over half of what the media calls conservative or liberal Justices are really centralist, which is what they should be. The media of course will classify every judge as conservative or liberal so the court can be classified as liberal or conservative by the media because that makes stories about the court's actions more interesting and controversial.

Although there are exceptions, most judges who have aspirations of sitting on the high court can not afford to be biased in their rulings. Claiming a judge is biased is just about the worst insult in the legal profession because the entire legal system is based on fair and equal treatment without bias. In all states there are judicial candidate evaluation systems. Those that can set aside their personal options and make good ruling based on the evidence and law are respected and advance to higher courts.

It is not only media that find pigeon-holing judicial temperaments according to ideological shorthand. Politicians pander to their ideologues by demonizing nominees with simplistic, hyperbolic classification. Judges, regardless of their political inclinations, are nuanced concerning particular areas of law.

I agree and this is why the pollical faithful are shocked and feel betrayed because 3 republicans cross the line and voted with the enemy to keep Obamacare. They just don't get it. Justices often don't vote the way the presidents who appoint them expects them to vote. No matter how hard the president and his party may attempt to load the court with political lackeys, when they get on the court, they vote the way they believe they should vote.

The procedure the high court follows makes it very difficult for a judge to vote based on political beliefs and maintain the respect of fellow justices. Legal opinions of the judges are debated and studied in laws schools across the country. Those whose opinion are not backed by a good a legal foundation find themselves the subject of mockery and scorn.

We were treated to the whacky notion that jurists are merely partisan cheerleaders when some folks were "shocked, shocked!" that Republicans, and even Trump appointees, threw his frivolous, baseless challenges to the election out of court.

A Trump-appointed judge eviscerated the president's biggest election lawsuit​

in Pennsylvania, saying the campaign's 'claims have no merit'​

]

[A Trump-appointed judge eviscerated the president's biggest election lawsuit in Pennsylvania, saying the campaign's 'claims have no merit'] ​

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A Trump-appointed judge eviscerated the president's biggest election lawsuit
in Pennsylvania, saying the campaign's 'claims have no merit'

No matter how much a blind partisan hack, no matter how much a fawning slave to rightwing judicial dogma, even at some point a conservative jurist cannot accommodate the boundless idiocy that were Trump’s election ‘lawsuits.’

 

[Flopper]

.

So much for those three trump Justices.....

As with all the Trump judicial appointees who threw his frivolous challenges to a safe and secure democratic election out of court, the law has proven a formidable nemesis for the pandemic's "Bolsonaro of the North"

View attachment 503948
"We're going to win. We're going to win so much. We're going to win at trade, we're going to win at the border.
We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning, you're going to come to me
and go 'Please, please, we can't win anymore.' You'll say 'Please, Mr. President, we beg you,
sir, we don't want to win anymore. It's too much. It's not fair to everybody else.'" Trump said.
"And I'm going to say 'I'm sorry, but we're going to keep
winning, winning, winning!"​

Trump is still losing, losing, losing.

Some thought the Cry Baby Sore Loser, despite multiple eminent civil and criminal reckonings, was finally finished losing. Not so. Gazing up at his "big, beautiful wall!" that he made "Mexico!" pay for is only one manifestation of his legacy.

The Former Guy promised that his Supreme Court picks would overturn the Affordable Care Act. He met the court's ruling with the deafening silence of defeat.​

​

View attachment 503947
"THE FORMER STAR OF TRUMP®BLOG" ​

Trump promised to repeal Obamacare, the health insurance program that helped fuel the backlash tea party movement and ultimately his own candidacy. If Trump couldn't get Congress to do away with the law — and he couldn't, even with Republicans in control of both chambers — he vowed to choose Supreme Court justices who would declare Obamacare unconstitutional.​

​

"If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare," Trump tweeted in 2015...​

​

But two of the three jurists Trump picked for the court — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with Roberts as part of a 7-2 majority... It was a major blow — perhaps a decisive one — against the political right's long fight against Obamacare and a sign of the limit of Trump's influence on the justices he appointed.​

​

In the first hours after the ruling, Trump greeted the news with the deafening silence of defeat… most Republicans followed Trump's lead by refusing to give it any extra attention.​

​

There was no promise to renew the fight to repeal the law or to mount another court battle over its constitutionality.​

​

... Republicans aren't at all interested in fighting to take health insurance benefits away from millions of Americans...​

​

In the end, Trump was wrong about the law, the politics of trying to kill the Affordable Care Act — and the assumption that he could control the votes of his Supreme Court picks.​

​

[Analysis: Trump was wrong about the law, Obamacare politics and his judges]​

​

Over half of what the media calls conservative or liberal Justices are really centralist, which is what they should be. The media of course will classify every judge as conservative or liberal so the court can be classified as liberal or conservative by the media because that makes stories about the court's actions more interesting and controversial.

Although there are exceptions, most judges who have aspirations of sitting on the high court can not afford to be biased in their rulings. Claiming a judge is biased is just about the worst insult in the legal profession because the entire legal system is based on fair and equal treatment without bias. In all states there are judicial candidate evaluation systems. Those that can set aside their personal options and make good ruling based on the evidence and law are respected and advance to higher courts.

It is not only media that find pigeon-holing judicial temperaments according to ideological shorthand. Politicians pander to their ideologues by demonizing nominees with simplistic, hyperbolic classification. Judges, regardless of their political inclinations, are nuanced concerning particular areas of law.

I agree and this is why the pollical faithful are shocked and feel betrayed because 3 republicans cross the line and voted with the enemy to keep Obamacare. They just don't get it. Justices often don't vote the way the presidents who appoint them expects them to vote. No matter how hard the president and his party may attempt to load the court with political lackeys, when they get on the court, they vote the way they believe they should vote.

The procedure the high court follows makes it very difficult for a judge to vote based on political beliefs and maintain the respect of fellow justices. Legal opinions of the judges are debated and studied in laws schools across the country. Those whose opinion are not backed by a good a legal foundation find themselves the subject of mockery and scorn.

We were treated to the whacky notion that jurists are merely partisan cheerleaders when some folks were "shocked, shocked!" that Republicans, and even Trump appointees, threw his frivolous, baseless challenges to the election out of court.

A Trump-appointed judge eviscerated the president's biggest election lawsuit​

in Pennsylvania, saying the campaign's 'claims have no merit'​

]View attachment 504540
[A Trump-appointed judge eviscerated the president's biggest election lawsuit in Pennsylvania, saying the campaign's 'claims have no merit'] ​

Trump proved that there was nothing more important to him than winning even it meant destroying voters faith in our electoral system, encouraging domestics terrorist to attack the US Capital, and spreading false information about an epidemic that would kill over 600,000 Americans, a real piece work, that thankfully we don't see very often.

 

[Flopper]

.

So much for those three trump Justices.....

As with all the Trump judicial appointees who threw his frivolous challenges to a safe and secure democratic election out of court, the law has proven a formidable nemesis for the pandemic's "Bolsonaro of the North"

View attachment 503948
"We're going to win. We're going to win so much. We're going to win at trade, we're going to win at the border.
We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning, you're going to come to me
and go 'Please, please, we can't win anymore.' You'll say 'Please, Mr. President, we beg you,
sir, we don't want to win anymore. It's too much. It's not fair to everybody else.'" Trump said.
"And I'm going to say 'I'm sorry, but we're going to keep
winning, winning, winning!"​

Trump is still losing, losing, losing.

Some thought the Cry Baby Sore Loser, despite multiple eminent civil and criminal reckonings, was finally finished losing. Not so. Gazing up at his "big, beautiful wall!" that he made "Mexico!" pay for is only one manifestation of his legacy.

The Former Guy promised that his Supreme Court picks would overturn the Affordable Care Act. He met the court's ruling with the deafening silence of defeat.​

​

View attachment 503947
"THE FORMER STAR OF TRUMP®BLOG" ​

Trump promised to repeal Obamacare, the health insurance program that helped fuel the backlash tea party movement and ultimately his own candidacy. If Trump couldn't get Congress to do away with the law — and he couldn't, even with Republicans in control of both chambers — he vowed to choose Supreme Court justices who would declare Obamacare unconstitutional.​

​

"If I win the presidency, my judicial appointments will do the right thing, unlike Bush's appointee John Roberts on Obamacare," Trump tweeted in 2015...​

​

But two of the three jurists Trump picked for the court — Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett — voted with Roberts as part of a 7-2 majority... It was a major blow — perhaps a decisive one — against the political right's long fight against Obamacare and a sign of the limit of Trump's influence on the justices he appointed.​

​

In the first hours after the ruling, Trump greeted the news with the deafening silence of defeat… most Republicans followed Trump's lead by refusing to give it any extra attention.​

​

There was no promise to renew the fight to repeal the law or to mount another court battle over its constitutionality.​

​

... Republicans aren't at all interested in fighting to take health insurance benefits away from millions of Americans...​

​

In the end, Trump was wrong about the law, the politics of trying to kill the Affordable Care Act — and the assumption that he could control the votes of his Supreme Court picks.​

​

[Analysis: Trump was wrong about the law, Obamacare politics and his judges]​

​

​

​

​

​

​

There is only one way to end Obamacare and that is for congress to create a replacement. Democrats are not going to do it and neither are republicans. A lot has change in last 10 years since Obamacare was passed. American may not like the high cost of Obamacare but certainly like the preventive care, portability, a policy that can't be cancelled by the company, unlimited coverage, and no healthcare requirements. The only thing they don't like is their cost. The Democrat solution is for the government to reduce the cost of premiums and deducible with the government footing the bill. The Republican solution was to have the court end Obamacare and leave the job of replacing it on the democrats.

 

[Dana7360]

I respect you have a different view.

I don't force my views on other people.

But you vote for politicians who pass laws that do.

Let me ask you this, would you be in favor of allowing people to opt out? Both from using it and from paying for it?

Yes but only if they also agree that no one but themselves will pay for any and all health care they received. And they can't opt in once they have a medical situation. They made their choice to not be responsible so they don't get to all of a sudden opt in when they need the help.

That's the problem.

Most don't anticipate for a health problem mostly because they know they could never save enough for a real health problem.

I was a very healthy 48 year old person when the waves pounded me. I never thought that 15 ft waves would pound me over and over nearly killing me thus resulting in tens of thousand of health care bills. Not just the initial accident. I had to have 3 surgeries and 3.5 years of recovery.

It was tens of thousands of dollars that we didn't have. Thank goodness for the insurance.

Even just breaking a bone is expensive. It's not just the initial break and cast, it's the doctor appointments and physical therapy later.

None of that is cheap.

Those who don't have insurance don't pay the bills resulting in those of us who are responsible to pay the unpaid bills by our heath care being more expensive than it should.

We already did that until Obamacare and still do it in many red states.

If a person wants to opt out, go for it but expect to never be able to opt in when they have a medical situation and they better expect to pay every penny of their health care costs. No matter what those costs are.

90% of Americans are insured. Most of the money lost by doctors and hospitals is due high deductibles, not the uninsured. Indigents that end up in the ER or hospital are put on Medicaid. About half of those that are uninsured do not used the healthcare system.

To expect people that can't afford insurance to pay all their bills is a bit naïve. It's easy to say those that opt out will not be allowed back in the system. However, enforcing such a policy would be just about impossible because in America we don't deny life saving medical care for any reason.

I was replying to the person who asked me if I agreed that people could be able to opt out both using it and paying for it.

I would under the conditions I listed above.

I agree. Everyone should have insurance. That is the system we have so we have to work with it.

 

[schmidlap]

A Trump-appointed judge eviscerated the president's biggest election lawsuit
in Pennsylvania, saying the campaign's 'claims have no merit'

No matter how much a blind partisan hack, no matter how much a fawning slave to rightwing judicial dogma, even at some point a conservative jurist cannot accommodate the boundless idiocy that were Trump’s election ‘lawsuits.’

Over 80 judges considered the evidence, and dismissed the fantasy. That resulted in Trump goons exhibiting their contempt for evidence:

 

[dblack]

But you vote for politicians who pass laws that do.

Let me ask you this, would you be in favor of allowing people to opt out? Both from using it and from paying for it?

Yes but only if they also agree that no one but themselves will pay for any and all health care they received. And they can't opt in once they have a medical situation.

Of course. Opting out wouldn't make sense otherwise. In fact, I'd even say that they can only opt in before they get sick. That's the way insurance is supposed to work.

They made their choice to not be responsible so they don't get to all of a sudden opt in when they need the help.

They should live with the consequences of their decisions, we all should. But there are plenty of other ways, besides your preferred mode of insurance, to be responsible.

I was a very healthy 48 year old person when the waves pounded me. I never thought that 15 ft waves would pound me over and over nearly killing me thus resulting in tens of thousand of health care bills. Not just the initial accident. I had to have 3 surgeries and 3.5 years of recovery.

It was tens of thousands of dollars that we didn't have. Thank goodness for the insurance.

Sorry you had to deal with that, and glad that the insurance worked out for you.

Those who don't have insurance don't pay the bills resulting in those of us who are responsible to pay the unpaid bills by our heath care being more expensive than it should.

Yes, this is the excuse usually offered by those who oppose any kind of opt-out scheme. Glad to see you're not using it that way.

If a person wants to opt out, go for it but expect to never be able to opt in when they have a medical situation and they better expect to pay every penny of their health care costs. No matter what those costs are.

Again, of course. Most people who'd choose to opt out would be doing so because the don't want to rely on government for their health care, and they don't believe government has any responsibility to provide such care. If they change their minds after the fact, they'll have to deal with the consequences.

I'm glad to see you appreciate some degree of freedom of choice on the matter. But you may have missed one important detail in my original question - which is the right opt out of paying for it if we opt out of using it. That's where any kind of opt-out scheme usually falls out of favor with reformers. The only fair way to do it, would be to figure out what percentage of the federal budget is going to the program, and deduct a similar percentage from the taxes owed by anyone who chooses to opt out.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Like I tell you all when it comes to We the People vs Corporations, Corporations always win.

Supreme Court Backs Businesses Challenging California Labor Law

In a 6-3 decision, the Court's conservative judges sided with agriculture businesses that sought to restrict communication between unions and unionized workers during the day.

www.huffpost.com

In a 6-3 decision, the Court’s conservative judges sided with agriculture businesses that sought to restrict communication between unions and unionized workers during the day.

 

[Rigby5]

...

Those who don't have insurance don't pay the bills resulting in those of us who are responsible to pay the unpaid bills by our heath care being more expensive than it should.

We already did that until Obamacare and still do it in many red states.

If a person wants to opt out, go for it but expect to never be able to opt in when they have a medical situation and they better expect to pay every penny of their health care costs. No matter what those costs are.

Wrong.
The high cost of medical care is NOT due to those who fail to buy insurance, but actually is the fault of those who DO buy health insurance.
Health insurance simply does not and can not work.
It is 3rd party payer, where you have already prepaid, and have no control or say over costs, charges, or quality.
The insurance companies deliberately encourage provider over charges because that makes health care even more unaffordable unless you have health insurance.
Essentially it turns health care into an insurance monopoly.
And of course that is totally unacceptable because it places an undue burden on the poor who do not get free heath insurance through their job.
But it also has wider effects, such as health care costing more than double what it should and that extra cost making US goods too expensive to be able to export any more.