Supreme Court Rules 7-2 on Obamacare

[colfax_m]

Buying health insurance is so stupid as to be criminal.

Kinda feels like you identified a really good reason to buy health insurance here:

Buying health insurance privately means employers can negotiate much lower prices, forcing those unemployed or at low end employment to have to pay twice as much for health care, because they have no collective bargaining clout.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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

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

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

I'll take the opinion of a Harvard educated lawyer with decades of experience over yours....

"Most judges and justices use standing only to kick out truly meritless lawsuits and clear their dockets of the riffraff. By the time a case makes it all the way to the Supreme Court, there’s usually some thin veneer of legal harm that allows the justices to grant standing and then rule on the heart of the matter."

Republicans Tried to Kill the ACA—Instead It Got Stronger

While not a complete victory, the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act places it on its firmest legal ground yet.

www.thenation.com

The fact is....this latest attempt to kick millions of people off insurance failed because the conservative opposition failed to show harm....

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

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

 

[Hutch Starskey]

But we do wonder why Americans refuse single payer universal health care that's half the cost per capita and proven to be better in other countries?

It’s something called self-reliance and personal responsibility. I wouldn’t expect foreigners to understand but some of us believe we can do a better job of looking after ourselves than the Government can.

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.

Give the private insurance companies another 40 or 50 years to get it right. It's only fair!

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.

Give the private insurance companies another 40 or 50 years to get it right. It's only fair!

How will you pay for services without health insurance? Who’s paying that $250k bill for the 10 surgeries to rebuild your pelvis after a car accident or your $60k a month chemotherapy treatments?
There’s a reason health insurance exists. The healthy pay for the sick. Not many individuals could afford to pay for open heart surgery out of pocket.

Insurance is to spread unknown risk, not known costs. What you are describing is welfare. Welfare should be a last resort backup, not the way the entire system is designed

Insurance is to spread unknown risk, not known costs. What you are describing is welfare. Welfare should be a last resort backup, not the way the entire system is designed

WTF? Risk is cost to insurers.
Insurance, like any business, is about controlling cost in order to maximize profits. The risks and costs of untreated chronic disease are well known and understood. It is proven that people actually go to their doctors and manage their chronic illnesses when they have coverage. It is by far cheaper to manage disease then treat the inevitable and avoidable emergencies that require hospital interventions and stays. This is the concept of wellness. It’s better for you and cheaper for your insurers to have your doctors to help you stay well rather than treat you emergently.

You fundamentally don't understand insurance. Insurance is ex ante, not ex post. You're trying to create a welfare program out of it where known costs are spread out driving up the cost of other insured who then don't want to buy it because it's too expensive. That is a welfare program and only works when government uses force

You fundamentally don't understand insurance. Insurance is ex ante, not ex post. You're trying to create a welfare program out of it where known costs are spread out driving up the cost of other insured who then don't want to buy it because it's too expensive. That is a welfare program and only works when government uses force

I’ve done no such thing. I said nothing of welfare or suggested it be free or without profit. It’s obvious to anyone reading this that it is you who struggles.

You clearly did, liar. You said insurance is where healthy people pay for unhealthy people. Actually insurance is about risk pooling. Insurance is based on ex ante risks, not ex post money redistribution. That is socialism, not insurance

You clearly did, liar. You said insurance is where healthy people pay for unhealthy people. Actually insurance is about risk pooling. Insurance is based on ex ante risks, not ex post money redistribution. That is socialism, not insurance

Still confused I see.
I said nothing about welfare, dope.

Yes. Risk pooling. Now explain why they are arranged as such.

God you're stupid. You don't even understand the discussion.

When you say you are using medicine to redistribute wealth (healthy to unhealthy), that is clearly welfare. Clearly meaning to someone who's not an idiot. You know, you ...

God you're stupid. You don't even understand the discussion.

When you say you are using medicine to redistribute wealth (healthy to unhealthy), that is clearly welfare. Clearly meaning to someone who's not an idiot. You know, you ...

I said nothing of redistributing wealth, dope. It’s your fundamental inability to understand that leads you to such retarded conclusions.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

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

www.nbcnews.com

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

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

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

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

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

Our health care system is a total mess.

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

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

Impossible...I thought Obama was a radical socialist communist terrorist who wanted to destroy not only the private insurance market, but the whole American way of life...

Now you are conceding that he was a corporate centrist politician who pushed a conservative inspired policy??

Guess all of that hyperbolic BS was just that....BS....

 

[dblack]

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

Nope. It's good old-fashioned corporatism.

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

What in my post did you consider "goofy ass hyperbole"?

 

[Mustang]

Whatever happened to repeal and replace? I thought Trump was supposed to announce his new healthcare plan years ago. I guess that was just BS like everything else he ever said.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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

Nope. It's good old-fashioned corporatism.

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

What in my post did you consider "goofy ass hyperbole"?

The hyperbole refers to anyone who either said or agreed with critiques against Medicare as being a communist takeover of America that would end our way of life......

Yes Medicare is structured within the framework of faux capitalism and corporatism...but so is America itself....

but I won't go deeper into it because I don't want any of the Trumpers to get triggered about the true history of this country....

 

[dblack]

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

Nope. It's good old-fashioned corporatism.

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

What in my post did you consider "goofy ass hyperbole"?

The hyperbole refers to anyone who either said or agreed with critiques against Medicare as being a communist takeover of America that would end our way of life......

Ahh. Yes, that does get ridiculous.

Yes Medicare is structured within the framework of faux capitalism and corporatism...but so is America itself....

but I won't go deeper into it because I don't want any of the Trumpers to get triggered about the true history of this country....

As long as it's clear that Medicare doesn't take insurance company profits out of the equation. It ensures them.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

As for me. I'm on Medicare. Which I've paid for my whole working life.

And I've been paying for your Medicare my whole working life, and don't get to enjoy it's benefits. You're welcome.

 

[Donald H]

The real damage to the big insurance companies will come when the American people of all political stripes see that their neighbour with the ACA is benefiting so much by it.

This is going to cause big business to become vicious with being proactive to stop the inevitable.

The rest of the world's modern industrialized countries are winning with government run universal health care.

Americans can stubbornly continue to suffer, or finally wake up to the truth.

The loser assholes need to take a long time!

 

[dblack]

The real damage to the big insurance companies will come when the American people of all political stripes see that their neighbour with the ACA is benefiting so much by it.

LOL - are you kidding? They wrote ACA. Google Liz Fowler.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

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

www.nbcnews.com

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

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

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

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

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

Our health care system is a total mess.

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

and you think Medicare is any different?...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

you are talking about something different than me...

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

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.

 

[Donald H]

The real damage to the big insurance companies will come when the American people of all political stripes see that their neighbour with the ACA is benefiting so much by it.

LOL - are you kidding? They wrote ACA. Google Liz Fowler.

Is that the reason why the rabid and frothing at the mouth right is going nuts over the Scotus decision?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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

Nope. It's good old-fashioned corporatism.

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

What in my post did you consider "goofy ass hyperbole"?

The hyperbole refers to anyone who either said or agreed with critiques against Medicare as being a communist takeover of America that would end our way of life......

Ahh. Yes, that does get ridiculous.

Yes Medicare is structured within the framework of faux capitalism and corporatism...but so is America itself....

but I won't go deeper into it because I don't want any of the Trumpers to get triggered about the true history of this country....

As long as it's clear that Medicare doesn't take insurance company profits out of the equation. It ensures them.

But Medicare itself isn't a for-profit enterprise...which is why their overhead can be so low......

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, that isn't what standing means

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



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


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

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

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

 

[Donald H]

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.

Employers paying a share of their employees HC is normal and good practice.

Do some studying on the world's leading examples of successful HC systems.

But first throw out all you thought you knew about America's failure.

 

[Rigby5]

The real damage to the big insurance companies will come when the American people of all political stripes see that their neighbour with the ACA is benefiting so much by it.

LOL - are you kidding? They wrote ACA. Google Liz Fowler.

Correct.
ACA was written in order to benefit private insurance companies, by mandating private health insurance.
Those who think ACA has a public option, are totally wrong.
The problems come from 3rd party payers and prepaying consumers, so ACA fixed almost nothing.

 

[Donald H]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, that isn't what standing means

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



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


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

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

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

Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.

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

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