I am still waiting for someone on the side rejoicing because the ACA has been
declared "unconstitutional" to explain to all of us what the difference
is between Mandatory Health Insurance and Mandatory Automobile Insurance.Why can we all be "forced" to buy auto insurance if we want to
drive? Is it because of the obvious burdens we would place upon others if we
harm them in an accident?Why is "forcing" us to pay for
health insurance if we want to obtain medical care wrong given the FACT that by
failing to have health insurance and then finding oneself unable to pay for our
care -- and then relying on the hospitals to find a way to make other people pay
for it -- any different than driving without insurance and thus leaving others
to pay for our mistakes?I would really appreciate a well considered
and thoughtful answer to that simple question.
A conservative ideologically driven judge in Texas ruled the ACA (Obamacare if I
dare whisper that name) as unConstitutional. Try as I might, I can't find
much legal analysis that supports this decision. The accolades of his legal
reasoning are political rather than based on firm mainstream Constitutional
interpretations.The Texas Attorney General shopped this case to a
sympathetic judge. This clearly is yet another in a long series of attacks on
our healthcare system. Yet we have never seen nor heard what the
alternative GOP plans might be. Frankly I don't know how the GOP gets away
with the crime and won't do the time for the health care theft perpetrated
on the country by conservatives.
It's funny that Trump and company are promising a "new and
improved" healthcare program since they don't have anything in the
works.For 25 years Orrin Hatch has been telling us he has the best
healthcare program around. The thing is, he wouldn't tell anyone
what's in it, and wouldn't tell us when he would tell us what's
in it. I suspect the current GOP is relying on the non-existent Hatch type
program.Trump said he would cooperate with Dems on a healthcare
program. Translation; "gimme the wall and I'll give a little
healthcare to the peasants.""On the assumption that the
Supreme Court upholds, we will get great, great health care for our people,"
President Donald Trump told reporters during a visit Saturday to Arlington
National Cemetery. "We'll have to sit down with the Democrats to do it,
but I'm sure they want to do it also.""Economist Gail
Wilensky, said the state attorneys general from GOP strongholds who filed the
lawsuit really weren't very considerate of their fellow
Republicans.""The fact that they could cause their fellow
Republicans harm did not seem to bother them" The funny thing is
that Republicans that lose healthcare will still vote for Republicans.
How do the actions of our local politicians impact this situation?Our Attorney General Sean Reyes was one of the GOP Attorney Generals pushing
this law suit. Now he seems to be conspicuously silent.Please
correct me if I am wrong didn’t our Republican Senator Hatch say two
years ago that we have a plan to replace Obama Care. Where is it?Again
Before it was called Obamacare it was called Romney care. The plan originated
from the conservative think tank “The Heritage Foundation.” Conservatives used to believe in personal responsibility. They knew that
the more liberal solution was a single payer system - the “Medicare for
All” being proposed now. They preferred a system where people purchased
their own insurance. Romney made is work. The problem was that
republicans vowed to oppose anything Obama tried to do. So when he chose the
take romneycare nationwide they were stuck...now they had to hate it, even
though it was their idea.Funny how they are thrilled about the court
ruling but are keeping it in place. It is as if they are afraid to really own
it. Maybe they don’t want to face the millions of people that
will loose coverage?
As we are seeing and will see, Obamacare is done! Failed miserably by ruling of
a federal judge! This will end at the SCOTUS! Good riddance!
GOP = ALL about the RICH!
Thid.... those people who don't have insurance by choice.... they still
cost every single person who uses the system money. When they go to the
emergency room, and don't have insurance, the hospital eats a lot of their
cost. That expense doesn't disappear into the a magic money tree.... it
gets added into the base prices everyone who does have insurance pays. Those
expenses are then passed on to those who actually pay for insurance. Hospitals
have to by law provide stabilizing services regardless of the persons ability to
pay.The idea that somehow these expenses disappear into the system
and don't end up coming out of everyone who uses those facilities pockets
is just fantasy. Trades people are some of the worst abusers of that part of
the system.And when something really major happens, and the bills
get really big, results in people filling for bankruptcy. Over 60 percent of
bankruptcies in this country are over medical bills. And yes, we all play the
bill for those forced into using the courts for relief. It's
not a matter of how much it cost to provide health care services, but out of
what pocket it comes.
I don’t know how everyone’s deductible and premiums are rising. Mine
have not gone have not gone up at all and I doubt it is because my employer is
picking up the tab for me.
Thid wrote: Healthy Americans do not usually purchase health insurance meaning
millions will have no health insurance BY CHOICE! But Thid you are
ignoring the FACT that when of those people get sick, costs of their care are
passed to the rest of us when they show up at an ER or other place and then
cannot pay their bills.That's exactly the same reasons that ALL
states require us to not only purchase auto insurance if we are going to drive
-- and why we are also required to purchase insurance that covers accidents
involving uninsured drivers.We are all FORCED to buy auto insurance
if we wan't to drive. Why don't we hear anyone objecting to auto
insurance?I'd really appreciate a good logical answer to that
@Gil:A few facts to consider:1. The AP does, in fact,
sometimes identify judges as liberal, just as it sometimes identifies other
judges as conservative. Check it out.2. Judge Sullivan (the Texas
federal judge who ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional) is a conservative
and a member of the Federalist Society. I don't imagine he's ashamed
of either fact. The AP is simply giving you some helpful contextual
information.3. The AP is consistently rated among the "least
biased" news sources. (See the mediabiasfactcheck website, for example.) If
you want to call out a news organization for bias (either liberal or
conservative), there are many far more biased outlets. The AP isn't one of
@Gil"It's funny that the AP never calls out "liberal"
federal judges when they block a government action."I seem to remember
multiple times the AP, the conservative media and right wing pundits have
referred to the 9th circuit court in San Francisco as a liberal bench. We
often only hear and see what we have conditioned ourselves for.
Hugh: They are numbers from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) not mine and
they certainly do add up. Healthy Americans do not usually purchase health
insurance meaning millions will have no health insurance BY CHOICE! Those who
get free/subsided healthcare are costing taxpayers, according the CBO, $50K per
person. I don't know about you but I can find a lot of healthcare insurance
that doesn't cost anywhere near $50K. Only in Obamacare! Why do taxpayers
put up with such blatant waste?
Maybe this will mean that the Democrats will actually legislate instead of
saying that "we'll know what's in it once we pass it." And
them ram it through with no input from anyone but themselves.That
means it goes through the committee process, the amending process, congressional
hearings, and the whole shebang. Pass an actual law, if they can, that actually
has some give and take before passage.Frankly, the Gubment needs to
get totally out of the health care industry except for protecting those most in
need, as a temporary safety net, and the Veterans. And they do a very poor job
of taking care of our vets.Frankly, I think Obama Care was written
by the big insurers. I never had a deductible before Obama Care, now I have a
big one. My coverage has actually gotten worse because of Obama Care and I pay
way more out of pocket which means my health care costs have gone up, a lot in
the last 7 or 8 years which includes increased premiums.Good for
this judge. Maybe it will get to the Supremes and they will dump it and make
Congress do their job.
@Thid Barker"The Congressional Budget Office reports that the
government will spend $1.993 TRILLION over a decade and take in a paltry $643
BILLION in new taxes, penalties and fees related to Obamacare. "I tried to find the reference for this and eventually got to a January 2015
Breitbart piece. The title of which is:"ObamaCare: $2 Trillion In
Spending, $643M In Taxes, Insurance For $50k a Head"So I took a
look at a June 2015 report from CBO called: Budgetary and Economic Effects of
Repealing the Affordable Care Act and it says this."repealing
the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over the
2016–2025 period."So it seems you were off by about 1.4
The Real Maverick: Imagine a person buys a home but for whatever reason, they do
not buy fire insurance. Sure enough their house burns to the ground! They now
demand the insurer cover their house for "pre-existing conditions"
therefore forcing their neighbors to pay for their lack insurance responsibility
with triple digit premium increases and impossible deductibles. Now millions of
people have fire insurance that they can not use, pre-existing conditions or
not! This is Obamacare! Is that fair or just? Really?
Did you catch that? Right in the first line. It reads, "A conservative
federal judge."It's funny that the AP never calls out
"liberal" federal judges when they block a government action.Caught you again, biased media. Convicted by your adjectives...again.
re: Thid Barker - Victor, IDYour numbers don't add up, not even
on this superficial level.What does this mean? >>The $1.35
trillion net cost will result in between 24 million and 27 million fewer
Americans being uninsured.>a $50,000 price tag per person and will still
leave between 29 million and 31 million nonelderly Americans without medical
insurance. Imagine that, taxpayers!
So are repubs really cheering that 20 million people will now lose their health
care? Are repubs really happy about people being denied now over pre-existing
conditions? Apparently they learned nothing from this midterm beat down? WowGuess we’ll have to continue to gut their part through elections
until they learn.
When the ACA was passed, supporters knew it would need to be altered, just like
Medicare and Social Security have been.No legislation is perfect,
and changes are needed throught time.This gives the incoming
Democratic House something constructive to work on while the national
distraction of investigating Trump's expanding ecosystem of illegal
behavior moves forward.
The Congressional Budget Office reports that the government will spend $1.993
TRILLION over a decade and take in a paltry $643 BILLION in new taxes, penalties
and fees related to Obamacare. The $1.35 trillion net cost will result in
between 24 million and 27 million fewer Americans being uninsured – a
$50,000 price tag per person and will still leave between 29 million and 31
million nonelderly Americans without medical insurance. Imagine that, taxpayers!
For every person getting Obamacare health care YOU are paying $50K! Why oh why
would any rational person defend Obamacare? What a magnificent failure! Classic
government overreaching and under delivering with staggering costs and so very
few benefiting! Please get this mess off our backs!
After Chief Justice Roberts did his exceedingly strange justification in finding
the Obamacare law constitutional, it is refreshing to see the legislative change
of the penalty (tax) cause the fall of this entire sloppily written and
strangely enforced law. Not much doubt that the whole costly morass will be
found unconstitutional when it again reaches SCOTUS. One hopes that out of the
ensuing disarray will come some rational healthcare alternatives by the states
as the feds cannot agree on anything.
You hated Obamacare? You won! Congratulations! This was, "the first order
of business," of the President and the Republican Congress.Health care emergency? Don't have insurance? Don't call 911, call
you're Republican Congressman. Republicans, now you own it, good luck. Now
pay for it.
I don't understand why a replacement law isn't in works, now. Why
wait for the court to decide if the current law - which both sides agrees has
issues - should be replaced. It should be replaced now, period.I
early retired in June. My health insurance bill is more much more than my house
payment. Much more. Since I don't qualify for subsidized coverage I will
spend somewhere around $40,000 on health care insurances for my family.Between now and when I can join medicare (about 10 years) - I will spend
nearly a half million dollars on insurance because earlier my wife had cancer.
I am lucky I can pay this, or self insure. But many can't - and that is
the crime in all this. My wife cancer was caught because of early detection.
If you can't afford preventive care, outcomes are much different.Congress needs to start fixing the system now. No one should die because
corporatized medicine is too expensive.
"Numerous high-ranking Republican lawmakers have said they did not intend to
also strike down popular provisions such as protection for people with
pre-existing medical conditions when they repealed the ACA's fines for
people who can afford coverage but remain uninsured.""Along
with the requirement to have health insurance, the administration said the parts
of the law that should go included:— The requirement that insurers
must take all applicants for comprehensive coverage regardless of prior health
history, including pre-existing conditions."They must think
voters don't pay attention to the things they do.
If pulling the mandate out of the ACA makes for an unconstitutional situation
(by making the penalty 0), then the law that should be affected is the one that
law that created an unconstitutional situation, and that is the GOP tax cut bill
which is where the removal of the mandate came from. Of course, a reasonable
judge would sever the broken part from the rest of it so no, I'm not saying
the entire tax cut bill should be thrown out (not this way at least, I certainly
support repealing it).