# Supreme Court Rules 7-2 on Obamacare



## Dana7360

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


----------



## Synthaholic

Republicans and Conservatives lose again.


----------



## L.K.Eder

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf


----------



## Synthaholic

Even Thomas joined the majority. Maybe he's looking for leniency for his wife.


----------



## Dana7360

L.K.Eder said:


> https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-840_6jfm.pdf




Yes I put a link in my OP. Thanks for the link.


----------



## dblack

Dana7360 said:


> 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.


----------



## Dana7360

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




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.


----------



## Magnus

Affordable Care Act Survives Latest Supreme Court Challenge (Published 2021)
					

The court sidestepped the larger issue in the case, whether the 2010 health care law can stand without a provision that required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.




					www.nytimes.com
				




Affordable Care Act Survives Latest Supreme Court Challenge​The court sidestepped the larger issue in the case, whether the 2010 health care law can stand without a provision that required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.

In the years since the enactment of the law in 2010, Republicans have worked hard to destroy it, and President Donald J. Trump relentlessly criticized it. But attempts to repeal it failed, as did two earlier Supreme Court challenges, in 2012 and 2015. With the passing years, the law gained in popularity and was woven into the fabric of the health care system. Its future now seems secure.

A ruling against the law would also have doomed its protections for Americans with past or current health problems — or pre-existing conditions. The protections bar insurers from denying them coverage or charging them more for it.


----------



## bodecea

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

bodecea said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
Click to expand...

Yes all your incessant bellyaching when he nominated them seems to have been pointless lol


----------



## BlindBoo

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

You still have to choose an insurance plan.


----------



## dblack

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## JimH52

Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Obama health law
					

The Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge from GOP-led states and the Trump administration to Obamacare Thursday, preserving insurance coverage for millions of Americans.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				




Victory for the ACA and the American People!


----------



## Astrostar

Dana7360 said:


> 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


Somebody go wake up Trump and tell him that he and his cult lost again, and it wasn't even close!  Bigly!!!


----------



## danielpalos

Our welfare clause is General, not limited or common!


----------



## skews13

Magnus said:


> Affordable Care Act Survives Latest Supreme Court Challenge (Published 2021)
> 
> 
> The court sidestepped the larger issue in the case, whether the 2010 health care law can stand without a provision that required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Affordable Care Act Survives Latest Supreme Court Challenge​The court sidestepped the larger issue in the case, whether the 2010 health care law can stand without a provision that required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.
> 
> In the years since the enactment of the law in 2010, Republicans have worked hard to destroy it, and President Donald J. Trump relentlessly criticized it. But attempts to repeal it failed, as did two earlier Supreme Court challenges, in 2012 and 2015. With the passing years, the law gained in popularity and was woven into the fabric of the health care system. Its future now seems secure.
> 
> A ruling against the law would also have doomed its protections for Americans with past or current health problems — or pre-existing conditions. The protections bar insurers from denying them coverage or charging them more for it.



We do not reach these questions of the Act’s validity, however, for Texas and the other plaintiffs in this suit lack the standing necessary to raise them,” Breyer wrote.


----------



## Astrostar

Magnus said:


> Affordable Care Act Survives Latest Supreme Court Challenge (Published 2021)
> 
> 
> The court sidestepped the larger issue in the case, whether the 2010 health care law can stand without a provision that required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Affordable Care Act Survives Latest Supreme Court Challenge​The court sidestepped the larger issue in the case, whether the 2010 health care law can stand without a provision that required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.
> 
> In the years since the enactment of the law in 2010, Republicans have worked hard to destroy it, and President Donald J. Trump relentlessly criticized it. But attempts to repeal it failed, as did two earlier Supreme Court challenges, in 2012 and 2015. With the passing years, the law gained in popularity and was woven into the fabric of the health care system. Its future now seems secure.
> 
> A ruling against the law would also have doomed its protections for Americans with past or current health problems — or pre-existing conditions. The protections bar insurers from denying them coverage or charging them more for it.


Major defeat for Scumpty; it was his signature campaign promise, to repeal Obamacare and replace it "with something better."  Problem was, he couldn't come up with something better.  Had he worked harder and perhaps gave up a few rounds of golf, perhaps he could have come up with something better.  Yeah, right!  Bigly!!!


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

This is a sad day for America........

Not just because 2 of the newest conservative appointments betrayed America and Jesus....

But because now we are going to have to keep hearing Republican candidates campaign on repealing and replacing Obamacare for 10 more years.........

If a bozo like Obama was able to get a healthcare plan put in place during his first couple of years....why can't republicans do it in over 10 plus years??

Those Dems are pretty crafty...


----------



## Oddball

Third or fourth thread on this in the last half hour.

You're just ignoring the search function that* IS DONE FOR YOU AND IN YOUR FACE*, aren't you?


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

*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?...


----------



## skews13

Astrostar said:


> Magnus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Affordable Care Act Survives Latest Supreme Court Challenge (Published 2021)
> 
> 
> The court sidestepped the larger issue in the case, whether the 2010 health care law can stand without a provision that required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Affordable Care Act Survives Latest Supreme Court Challenge​The court sidestepped the larger issue in the case, whether the 2010 health care law can stand without a provision that required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.
> 
> In the years since the enactment of the law in 2010, Republicans have worked hard to destroy it, and President Donald J. Trump relentlessly criticized it. But attempts to repeal it failed, as did two earlier Supreme Court challenges, in 2012 and 2015. With the passing years, the law gained in popularity and was woven into the fabric of the health care system. Its future now seems secure.
> 
> A ruling against the law would also have doomed its protections for Americans with past or current health problems — or pre-existing conditions. The protections bar insurers from denying them coverage or charging them more for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Major defeat for Scumpty; it was his signature campaign promise, to repeal Obamacare and replace it "with something better."  Problem was, he couldn't come up with something better.  Had he worked harder and perhaps gave up a few rounds of golf, perhaps he could have come up with something better.  Yeah, right!  Bigly!!!
Click to expand...


Obamacare is still here, Collin Kapernick is making millions in sponsorship, Biden has 60% approval ratings, and the orange loser has been impeached twice, and facing indictment.

Bad year for trumphumpers


----------



## Rambunctious

Fine with me...I'm not stuck with it....Obama care is over priced and unaffordable and has high deductibles....people with obamacare that come down with severe illness still end up in bankruptcy court.....


----------



## dblack

Harry Dresden said:


> *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?...


And the irony of ACA is that it forces people to buy insurance.


----------



## dblack

JimH52 said:


> Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Obama health law
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge from GOP-led states and the Trump administration to Obamacare Thursday, preserving insurance coverage for millions of Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory for the ACA and the American People!


Victory for the insurance industry!


----------



## danielpalos

Nobody takes right wingers understanding of the law, Constitutional or otherwise, seriously.


----------



## Donald H

Rambunctious said:


> Fine with me...I'm not stuck with it....Obama care is over priced and unaffordable and has high deductibles....people with obamacare that come down with severe illness still end up in bankruptcy court.....


Yes, US greed and corruption have prevented the ACA from being what Obama inteneded it to be.

The rest of the modern industrialized world can only laugh at America's health care system.

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?


----------



## AntonToo

dblack said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?...
> 
> 
> 
> And the irony of ACA is that it forces people to buy insurance.
Click to expand...


How? How can ACA force you?


----------



## Sinajuavi

skews13 said:


> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Magnus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Affordable Care Act Survives Latest Supreme Court Challenge (Published 2021)
> 
> 
> The court sidestepped the larger issue in the case, whether the 2010 health care law can stand without a provision that required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Affordable Care Act Survives Latest Supreme Court Challenge​The court sidestepped the larger issue in the case, whether the 2010 health care law can stand without a provision that required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.
> 
> In the years since the enactment of the law in 2010, Republicans have worked hard to destroy it, and President Donald J. Trump relentlessly criticized it. But attempts to repeal it failed, as did two earlier Supreme Court challenges, in 2012 and 2015. With the passing years, the law gained in popularity and was woven into the fabric of the health care system. Its future now seems secure.
> 
> A ruling against the law would also have doomed its protections for Americans with past or current health problems — or pre-existing conditions. The protections bar insurers from denying them coverage or charging them more for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Major defeat for Scumpty; it was his signature campaign promise, to repeal Obamacare and replace it "with something better."  Problem was, he couldn't come up with something better.  Had he worked harder and perhaps gave up a few rounds of golf, perhaps he could have come up with something better.  Yeah, right!  Bigly!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obamacare is still here, Collin Kapernick is making millions in sponsorship, Biden has 60% approval ratings, and the orange loser has been impeached twice, and facing indictment.
> 
> Bad year for trumphumpers
Click to expand...

That's why so many of them are planning another insurgency in August. They know that they cannot win by democratic means, and they are fascists who don't care HOW they get power.


----------



## Rambunctious

Donald H said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine with me...I'm not stuck with it....Obama care is over priced and unaffordable and has high deductibles....people with obamacare that come down with severe illness still end up in bankruptcy court.....
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, US greed and corruption have prevented the ACA from being what Obama inteneded it to be.
> 
> The rest of the modern industrialized world can only laugh at America's health care system.
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

Its exactly what Obama wanted it to be....middle class folks paying for poor folks health care.....


----------



## Orangecat

Dana7360 said:


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





Dana7360 said:


> Our health care system is a total mess.


Lol@cognitive dissonance.


----------



## Sinajuavi

Donald H said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine with me...I'm not stuck with it....Obama care is over priced and unaffordable and has high deductibles....people with obamacare that come down with severe illness still end up in bankruptcy court.....
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, US greed and corruption have prevented the ACA from being what Obama inteneded it to be.
> 
> The rest of the modern industrialized world can only laugh at America's health care system.
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

uh... because... uh... George Soros! Hillary's emails! Communists! Globalists!

If we had a decent health care system, Republicans would feel less "free".


----------



## Anathema

You can enact the legislation. The Supreme Court can uphold it. However, you can NEVER make me use Government Healthcare.

I”LL DIE FIRST!!!!


----------



## MarcATL

Conservatives lose and hence *Americans* win again. 

*Thanks* Obama!!!


----------



## citygator

Who were the 2 morons? Oh. Gorsuch and Alito.


----------



## Mac1958

Seven different and separate health care delivery and/or payment systems, none of which communicate directly with the others:

Individual Health/ACA
Group Health
Medicare
Medicaid
VA
Worker's Comp
Indigent
"Absurd" isn't nearly a strong enough word to describe this.


----------



## MarcATL

Anathema said:


> You can enact the legislation. The Supreme Court can uphold it. However, you can NEVER make me use Government Healthcare.
> 
> ILL DIE FIRST!!!!


Well, what are you *waiting* for?


----------



## BlindBoo

antontoo said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?...
> 
> 
> 
> And the irony of ACA is that it forces people to buy insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How? How can ACA force you?
Click to expand...

Without a public option the only other choice is to go without insurance.


----------



## Rigby5

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Your post is contradictory.
Obamacare is mandated private health insurance, which can never morph into a better health care system.

What we need to do instead it get the federal government, the employers, and private health insurance companies out of health care entirely.  Which can easily be done by eliminating the employer tax write off for employee benefits.
The federal government has no business doing anything with heath care, so Obamacare is no legal.


----------



## bodecea

Grampa Murked U said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes all your incessant bellyaching when he nominated them seems to have been pointless lol
Click to expand...

"all my incessant bellyaching"?    Feel free to show that I did that.   I'm sure "advanced search" will help you with that one.


----------



## Jets

Not sure what is unconstitutional about PPACA at this point.

The defunct mandate was the original sticking point.


----------



## Anathema

Donald H said:


> 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.


----------



## Blenda

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Robert Creamer is a political consultant who wrote over 600 pages of Obamacare while in prison for tax violations and bank fraud.

Insurance rates and deductible are soaring and the exchanges are failing. Jonathan Gruber, the one labeled as the "architect" - who said they relied on stupid American voters to get Obamacare passed - claims that the plan is working as designed. Huh, imagine that. 

Wow, great plan! Lie to Americans to pass a bill that's destroying health care so everyone has to rely on the government. Typical Democrat policy.


----------



## skews13

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


----------



## bodecea

Sinajuavi said:


> skews13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Magnus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Affordable Care Act Survives Latest Supreme Court Challenge (Published 2021)
> 
> 
> The court sidestepped the larger issue in the case, whether the 2010 health care law can stand without a provision that required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Affordable Care Act Survives Latest Supreme Court Challenge​The court sidestepped the larger issue in the case, whether the 2010 health care law can stand without a provision that required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.
> 
> In the years since the enactment of the law in 2010, Republicans have worked hard to destroy it, and President Donald J. Trump relentlessly criticized it. But attempts to repeal it failed, as did two earlier Supreme Court challenges, in 2012 and 2015. With the passing years, the law gained in popularity and was woven into the fabric of the health care system. Its future now seems secure.
> 
> A ruling against the law would also have doomed its protections for Americans with past or current health problems — or pre-existing conditions. The protections bar insurers from denying them coverage or charging them more for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Major defeat for Scumpty; it was his signature campaign promise, to repeal Obamacare and replace it "with something better."  Problem was, he couldn't come up with something better.  Had he worked harder and perhaps gave up a few rounds of golf, perhaps he could have come up with something better.  Yeah, right!  Bigly!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obamacare is still here, Collin Kapernick is making millions in sponsorship, Biden has 60% approval ratings, and the orange loser has been impeached twice, and facing indictment.
> 
> Bad year for trumphumpers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why so many of them are planning another insurgency in August. They know that they cannot win by democratic means, and they are fascists who don't care HOW they get power.
Click to expand...

Let them try.....they just might be in for some rude awakening.


----------



## Donald H

Anathema said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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!


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Harry Dresden said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
Click to expand...

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



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....


----------



## AntonToo

Blenda said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Robert Creamer is a political consultant who wrote over 600 pages of Obamacare while in prison for tax violations and bank fraud.
> 
> Insurance rates and deductible are soaring and the exchanges are failing. Jonathan Gruber, the one labeled as the "architect" - who said they relied on stupid American voters to get Obamacare passed - claims that the plan is working as designed. Huh, imagine that.
> 
> Wow, great plan! Lie to Americans to pass a bill that's destroying health care so everyone has to rely on the government. Typical Democrat policy.
Click to expand...


No problem, Republicans will fix that travesty as soon as they have the Presidency, the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court...oh wait.


----------



## ElmerMudd

Dana7360 said:


> 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


Another loss for Trump and his minions. THE BIGGEST LOSERS IN THE HISTORY OF POLITICS.


----------



## Anathema

Donald H said:


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


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

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


----------



## Blenda

antontoo said:


> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Robert Creamer is a political consultant who wrote over 600 pages of Obamacare while in prison for tax violations and bank fraud.
> 
> Insurance rates and deductible are soaring and the exchanges are failing. Jonathan Gruber, the one labeled as the "architect" - who said they relied on stupid American voters to get Obamacare passed - claims that the plan is working as designed. Huh, imagine that.
> 
> Wow, great plan! Lie to Americans to pass a bill that's destroying health care so everyone has to rely on the government. Typical Democrat policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem, Republicans will fix that travesty as soon as they have the Presidency, the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court...oh wait.
Click to expand...

Just because Republicans are too weak-spined to stand up to the anti-American left doesn't mean that Obamacare is good for America. 

What vile filth you are, putting your political ideology ahead of Americans. Typical leftist twit.


----------



## Blenda

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
Click to expand...

Why, exactly should ANYONE in Congress propose giving the federal goverment more power? Why do you support a bigger, more bloated government with the power to control even your health? Why would any red blooded patriot support creating an even bigger government directly against the founding principle of limited government? Of federalism?

It's truly astounding how narrow minded you leftist twits are. "We want free stuff - that really costs us far more both financially and in our physical health - and other stupid, selfish people like us want "free" stuff paid for by others. What freebies do you have to offer? None? Then you fail!"

You tried to prove the superiority of the left's policies and all you did was prove you're a government leech.


----------



## Claudette

Synthaholic said:


> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.


No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for. 

If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.


----------



## AntonToo

Blenda said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Robert Creamer is a political consultant who wrote over 600 pages of Obamacare while in prison for tax violations and bank fraud.
> 
> Insurance rates and deductible are soaring and the exchanges are failing. Jonathan Gruber, the one labeled as the "architect" - who said they relied on stupid American voters to get Obamacare passed - claims that the plan is working as designed. Huh, imagine that.
> 
> Wow, great plan! Lie to Americans to pass a bill that's destroying health care so everyone has to rely on the government. Typical Democrat policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem, Republicans will fix that travesty as soon as they have the Presidency, the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court...oh wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because Republicans are too weak-spined to stand up to the anti-American left doesn't mean that Obamacare is good for America.
> 
> What vile filth you are, putting your political ideology ahead of Americans. Typical leftist twit.
Click to expand...


Nope, moron. It means that their "fix" was even worse than what they were saying needs fixing.

It's easy to shit on a policy, but when it came time to put up a better alternative your side had nothing Americans would be even close to supporting.

Trump promissed he had a wonderful plan that would cover everyone at a fraction of the costs under Obamacare....but like most things that come out of his mouth that was proven to be total bullshit.


----------



## Astrostar

Biff_Poindexter said:


> This is a sad day for America........
> 
> Not just because 2 of the newest conservative appointments betrayed America and Jesus....
> 
> But because now we are going to have to keep hearing Republican candidates campaign on repealing and replacing Obamacare for 10 more years.........
> 
> If a bozo like Obama was able to get a healthcare plan put in place during his first couple of years....why can't republicans do it in over 10 plus years??
> 
> Those Dems are pretty crafty...


Absolutely!  We're so crafty that Trump and his cult members could not stop us from stealing the last presidential election and relegating him to the dust bin of history!  Bigly!!!


----------



## Donald H

Anathema said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.
> 
> It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.
Click to expand...

No, I actually do understand how many of you don't want anything from the government.
Roughly the same number who are under crazy illusions that you're getting nothing from government.

Elevate the discussion to an adult level with me or be ignored.

oh, and make believe souls can't be a part of it!


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Blenda said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why, exactly should ANYONE in Congress propose giving the federal goverment more power? Why do you support a bigger, more bloated government with the power to control even your health? Why would any red blooded patriot support creating an even bigger government directly against the founding principle of limited government? Of federalism?
> 
> It's truly astounding how narrow minded you leftist twits are. "We want free stuff - that really costs us far more both financially and in our physical health - and other stupid, selfish people like us want "free" stuff paid for by others. What freebies do you have to offer? None? Then you fail!"
> 
> You tried to prove the superiority of the left's policies and all you did was prove you're a government leech.
Click to expand...

So you acknowledge that when Trump campaigned on having a better and more affordable healthcare plan that would cover everyone....he was just bullshitting...got it...

Tell you what.....every Republican running for office should campaign next time on repealing Medicare....I'm sure it would be a winning campaign promise...


----------



## Blenda

antontoo said:


> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Robert Creamer is a political consultant who wrote over 600 pages of Obamacare while in prison for tax violations and bank fraud.
> 
> Insurance rates and deductible are soaring and the exchanges are failing. Jonathan Gruber, the one labeled as the "architect" - who said they relied on stupid American voters to get Obamacare passed - claims that the plan is working as designed. Huh, imagine that.
> 
> Wow, great plan! Lie to Americans to pass a bill that's destroying health care so everyone has to rely on the government. Typical Democrat policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem, Republicans will fix that travesty as soon as they have the Presidency, the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court...oh wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because Republicans are too weak-spined to stand up to the anti-American left doesn't mean that Obamacare is good for America.
> 
> What vile filth you are, putting your political ideology ahead of Americans. Typical leftist twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dummy, it means that their "fixing" was even worse than what they were saying needs fixing.
> 
> It's easy to talk shit about a policy, but when it come time to put up a better alternative your side had nothing Americans would be even close to supporting.
Click to expand...

I get it. You hate America and want more free stuff. You think by pretending that one party is far superior to the other you don't have to face that you're a useful idiot. 

A truly better alternative would to be leave it to the states. You know, as prescribed in the US Constitution. Instead, like the slave to the big state you are, you ignore the very principles upon which America was founded. 

And FYI, I know this is a really big struggle to understand for someone with severely limited critical thinking skills, but just because I see the Democrats as the domestic enemies of the US Constitution I took an oath to defend against, doesn't mean I'm a Republican. But that can't be! Thanks for the laughs!

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Astrostar

Claudette said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
Click to expand...

So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."


----------



## Billy000

Oddball said:


> Third or fourth thread on this in the last half hour.
> 
> You're just ignoring the search function that* IS DONE FOR YOU AND IN YOUR FACE*, aren't you?


Well it is fun to rub it in your face so….


----------



## Papageorgio

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Obamacare is doing the opposite of what you want it to do. It is requiring more people to use insurance companies for healthcare.


----------



## Donald H

A huge hit to Trump by his 'loaded' Scotus. 

Complete 'crazy' won't go the distance for Trump. Between this and the positive spin for Biden with Putin, this is Trump's worst day since the voters took him down.

Trump's supporters on this board are now isolated background noise.


----------



## SavannahMann

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


As one who has battled the Insurance Companies before. And will again. It is honestly not a concern of mine. Frankly the longer I spend trying to get the insurance companies to care for my wife as they are supposed to, the better Single Payer sounds. 

Every month it is a battle over meds. They wanted some changed before they would cover. The meds were changed. And the insurance company still won’t cover them. 

Therapy. Oh she would appear to qualify on paper. But in reality not so much. The Insurance Company operates on a simple business plan. Take money in, never pay any out if it can be avoided. 

This has been going on for years. Predating the ACA. Nothing has changed. So bring on single payer. Chances are the care would not improve and the covered items wouldn’t improve. But a bunch of insurance companies would go bankrupt and close their doors for good. And that would be a good thing. 

Oh. And despite voting for Obama, I was not in favor of the ACA. That is part of the reasons why I point out that the Republicans were right when they said that care should be between you and your Doctor. Because right now it’s between me and my Doctor with the Insurance company always saying.


----------



## AntonToo

Blenda said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Robert Creamer is a political consultant who wrote over 600 pages of Obamacare while in prison for tax violations and bank fraud.
> 
> Insurance rates and deductible are soaring and the exchanges are failing. Jonathan Gruber, the one labeled as the "architect" - who said they relied on stupid American voters to get Obamacare passed - claims that the plan is working as designed. Huh, imagine that.
> 
> Wow, great plan! Lie to Americans to pass a bill that's destroying health care so everyone has to rely on the government. Typical Democrat policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem, Republicans will fix that travesty as soon as they have the Presidency, the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court...oh wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because Republicans are too weak-spined to stand up to the anti-American left doesn't mean that Obamacare is good for America.
> 
> What vile filth you are, putting your political ideology ahead of Americans. Typical leftist twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dummy, it means that their "fixing" was even worse than what they were saying needs fixing.
> 
> It's easy to talk shit about a policy, but when it come time to put up a better alternative your side had nothing Americans would be even close to supporting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get it. You hate America and want more free stuff.
Click to expand...


Wrong again moron, I love America and probably pay more in taxes than your whole salary.

So why don't you take your silly drivel and shove it up your ass.


----------



## Astrostar

skews13 said:


> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Magnus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Affordable Care Act Survives Latest Supreme Court Challenge (Published 2021)
> 
> 
> The court sidestepped the larger issue in the case, whether the 2010 health care law can stand without a provision that required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Affordable Care Act Survives Latest Supreme Court Challenge​The court sidestepped the larger issue in the case, whether the 2010 health care law can stand without a provision that required most Americans to obtain insurance or pay a penalty.
> 
> In the years since the enactment of the law in 2010, Republicans have worked hard to destroy it, and President Donald J. Trump relentlessly criticized it. But attempts to repeal it failed, as did two earlier Supreme Court challenges, in 2012 and 2015. With the passing years, the law gained in popularity and was woven into the fabric of the health care system. Its future now seems secure.
> 
> A ruling against the law would also have doomed its protections for Americans with past or current health problems — or pre-existing conditions. The protections bar insurers from denying them coverage or charging them more for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Major defeat for Scumpty; it was his signature campaign promise, to repeal Obamacare and replace it "with something better."  Problem was, he couldn't come up with something better.  Had he worked harder and perhaps gave up a few rounds of golf, perhaps he could have come up with something better.  Yeah, right!  Bigly!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obamacare is still here, Collin Kapernick is making millions in sponsorship, Biden has 60% approval ratings, and the orange loser has been impeached twice, and facing indictment.
> 
> Bad year for trumphumpers
Click to expand...

Woa, back off a bit, August is coming when Trump will be "reinstated,"  and the faithful will proclaim "He is risen!"  Bigly


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Blenda said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Robert Creamer is a political consultant who wrote over 600 pages of Obamacare while in prison for tax violations and bank fraud.
> 
> Insurance rates and deductible are soaring and the exchanges are failing. Jonathan Gruber, the one labeled as the "architect" - who said they relied on stupid American voters to get Obamacare passed - claims that the plan is working as designed. Huh, imagine that.
> 
> Wow, great plan! Lie to Americans to pass a bill that's destroying health care so everyone has to rely on the government. Typical Democrat policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem, Republicans will fix that travesty as soon as they have the Presidency, the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court...oh wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because Republicans are too weak-spined to stand up to the anti-American left doesn't mean that Obamacare is good for America.
> 
> What vile filth you are, putting your political ideology ahead of Americans. Typical leftist twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dummy, it means that their "fixing" was even worse than what they were saying needs fixing.
> 
> It's easy to talk shit about a policy, but when it come time to put up a better alternative your side had nothing Americans would be even close to supporting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get it. You hate America and want more free stuff. You think by pretending that one party is far superior to the other you don't have to face that you're a useful idiot.
> 
> A truly better alternative would to be leave it to the states. You know, as prescribed in the US Constitution. Instead, like the slave to the big state you are, you ignore the very principles upon which America was founded.
> 
> And FYI, I know this is a really big struggle to understand for someone with severely limited critical thinking skills, but just because I see the Democrats as the domestic enemies of the US Constitution I took an oath to defend against, doesn't mean I'm a Republican. But that can't be! Thanks for the laughs!
> 
> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Click to expand...

Did Benji say this before or after he demanded "government" establish post offices, roads, etc??

Why didn't they just leave that stuff to the states......

PS -- the states are still "America" -- so this bullshit talking point about "leave it up to the states" is as full of shit as when Conservatives wanted to leave the issue of slavery up to the states


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Anathema said:


> You can enact the legislation. The Supreme Court can uphold it. However, you can NEVER make me use Government Healthcare.
> 
> I”LL DIE FIRST!!!!


The ACA isn't government healthcare.


----------



## Blenda

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why, exactly should ANYONE in Congress propose giving the federal goverment more power? Why do you support a bigger, more bloated government with the power to control even your health? Why would any red blooded patriot support creating an even bigger government directly against the founding principle of limited government? Of federalism?
> 
> It's truly astounding how narrow minded you leftist twits are. "We want free stuff - that really costs us far more both financially and in our physical health - and other stupid, selfish people like us want "free" stuff paid for by others. What freebies do you have to offer? None? Then you fail!"
> 
> You tried to prove the superiority of the left's policies and all you did was prove you're a government leech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you acknowledge that when Trump campaigned on having a better and more affordable healthcare plan that would cover everyone....he was just bullshitting...got it...
> 
> Tell you what.....every Republican running for office should campaign next time on repealing Medicare....I'm sure it would be a winning campaign promise...
Click to expand...

Considering that the America First movement and the Convention of States are exploding in popularity, and that many are starting to actual read what is written in our founding documents, yes. I do think it would be wise to run on giving states back the power the federal goverment took from them.

The states created the federal goverment. Not the other way around. There are not one, but TWO Amendments in the Bill of Rights directly related to the power divide between the states and the federal government. They reiterate that the states have the bulk of the power.

In fact, one of the best ways to reduce the cost of health insurance is allow companies to compete across state lines and tort reform. Which can and needs to be done at the state level.

The federal goverment has never done anything well nor has it ever saved a dime. Quit being a sheep looking to be taken care of by people who see you as nothing but a pawn.

Or you can keep amusing me with your idiotic justications for more government control. Your choice, both are a win for me!


----------



## otto105

Dana7360 said:


> 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


It's over.

Move On.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Blenda said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why, exactly should ANYONE in Congress propose giving the federal goverment more power? Why do you support a bigger, more bloated government with the power to control even your health? Why would any red blooded patriot support creating an even bigger government directly against the founding principle of limited government? Of federalism?
> 
> It's truly astounding how narrow minded you leftist twits are. "We want free stuff - that really costs us far more both financially and in our physical health - and other stupid, selfish people like us want "free" stuff paid for by others. What freebies do you have to offer? None? Then you fail!"
> 
> You tried to prove the superiority of the left's policies and all you did was prove you're a government leech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you acknowledge that when Trump campaigned on having a better and more affordable healthcare plan that would cover everyone....he was just bullshitting...got it...
> 
> Tell you what.....every Republican running for office should campaign next time on repealing Medicare....I'm sure it would be a winning campaign promise...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering that the America First movement and the Convention of States are exploding in popularity, and that many are starting to actual read what is written in our founding documents, yes. I do think it would be wise to run on giving states back the power the federal goverment took from them.
> 
> The states created the federal goverment. Not the other way around. There are not one, but TWO Amendments in the Bill of Rights directly related to the power divide between the states and the federal government. They reiterate that the states have the bulk of the power.
> 
> In fact, one of the best ways to reduce the cost of health insurance is allow companies to compete across state lines and tort reform. Which can and needs to be done at the state level.
> 
> The federal goverment has never done anything well nor has it ever saved a dime. Quit being a sheep looking to be taken care of by people who see you as nothing but a pawn.
> 
> Or you can keep amusing me with your idiotic justications for more government control. Your choice, both are a win for me!
Click to expand...

"The government has never done anything well" is another popular Conservative talking point

That is why they invest billions into being elected to that "government" they despise so much......

It's almost as if they want a chance to show us all how government never does anything well.....when they are in charge......

Maybe they should stay out of government


----------



## Claudette

Astrostar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
Click to expand...

HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can enact the legislation. The Supreme Court can uphold it. However, you can NEVER make me use Government Healthcare.
> 
> I”LL DIE FIRST!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA isn't government healthcare.
Click to expand...

These people want to be oppressed so bad......


----------



## otto105

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, providing much needed healthcare is a travesty....


----------



## otto105

Claudette said:


> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Provide for the common welfare....


----------



## d0gbreath

Claudette said:


> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.


Health insurance hadn't been invented yet, like so many other things that weren't around when it was written, you Constitutional scholar you.


----------



## Claudette

otto105 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide for the common welfare....
Click to expand...

There is no health care in the constitution. You think the FF even thought of health care?? 

Common welfare means everyone has the same chance to be all they can be. It has nothing to do with HC which you won't fine anywhere in the Constitution.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Claudette said:


> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You won't find lots of things in the Constitution.......but that is an extremely childish justification for not wanting more people to have health care....

But anyhoo....The first federal public healthcare law was signed in 1798....by one of those "Founders" you love to worship.....was he a socialist marxist??


----------



## Claudette

Hidden said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Health insurance hadn't been invented yet, like so many other things that weren't around when it was written, you Constitutional scholar you.
Click to expand...

I'd say you are the constitutional scholar because you see just what I see.


----------



## dblack

ElmerMudd said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another loss for Trump and his minions. THE BIGGEST LOSERS IN THE HISTORY OF POLITICS.
Click to expand...

Republicans never seriously opposed ACA. They were just grandstanding. At the end of the day, they want to be in control of health care as much as the Democrats do.


----------



## Claudette

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't find lots of things in the Constitution.......but that is an extremely childish justification for not wanting more people to have health care....
> 
> But anyhoo....The first federal public healthcare law was signed in 1798....by one of those "Founders" you love to worship.....was he a socialist marxist??
Click to expand...

You want health care then you buy it like everyone else does. You want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.


----------



## Jets

PPACA was supposed to be repealed and replaced during the last administration. What happened?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Claudette said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't find lots of things in the Constitution.......but that is an extremely childish justification for not wanting more people to have health care....
> 
> But anyhoo....The first federal public healthcare law was signed in 1798....by one of those "Founders" you love to worship.....was he a socialist marxist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want health care then you buy it like everyone else does. You want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
Click to expand...

You are subsidizing someone's healthcare regardless...or do you not know how insurance companies work??

Fact is.....you are subsidizing someone else's healthcare in a more ineffective way in the private market than you would be in the public market....


But aside from that point...do you not care that Republicans lie to you over and over again about their healthcare plans??  Did you already know Trump was being full of shit about promising everyone affordable healthcare with his non-existent plan?? Was that one of those lies you didn't mind because your cult leader said it?


----------



## d0gbreath

Jets said:


> PPACA was supposed to be repealed and replaced during the last administration. What happened?


That was the longest two weeks in history.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Jets said:


> PPACA was supposed to be repealed and replaced during the last administration. What happened?


Most Trump supporters rely on the ACA for access to affordable healthcare.


----------



## Donald H

SavannahMann said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As one who has battled the Insurance Companies before. And will again. It is honestly not a concern of mine. Frankly the longer I spend trying to get the insurance companies to care for my wife as they are supposed to, the better Single Payer sounds.
> 
> Every month it is a battle over meds. They wanted some changed before they would cover. The meds were changed. And the insurance company still won’t cover them.
> 
> Therapy. Oh she would appear to qualify on paper. But in reality not so much. The Insurance Company operates on a simple business plan. Take money in, never pay any out if it can be avoided.
> 
> This has been going on for years. Predating the ACA. Nothing has changed. So bring on single payer. Chances are the care would not improve and the covered items wouldn’t improve. But a bunch of insurance companies would go bankrupt and close their doors for good. And that would be a good thing.
> 
> Oh. And despite voting for Obama, I was not in favor of the ACA. That is part of the reasons why I point out that the Republicans were right when they said that care should be between you and your Doctor. Because right now it’s between me and my Doctor with the Insurance company always saying.
Click to expand...

The R party, on behalf of big insurance companies, worked diligently to destroy nearly all of the posltive aspects of the ACA, leaving only enough intact for it to still appeal to many.

Obama's intention would have been single payer, universal health care if the American mindest could have been adjusted to give it a chance.

Your post was an appeal for help. 

Maybe America will finally get what it needs through Medicare? One way or another, the status quo ripoff can't endure the political climate much longer. Even the Trumpers want better on health care, but can't contemplate how to get it.

best wished from Canada.


----------



## Faun

Synthaholic said:


> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.


A loss for Republicans is a win for America.


----------



## otto105

Claudette said:


> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The PPACA is already in the private sector.


----------



## Donald H

Claudette said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide for the common welfare....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no health care in the constitution. You think the FF even thought of health care??
> 
> Common welfare means everyone has the same chance to be all they can be. It has nothing to do with HC which you won't fine anywhere in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You could refer to it as the US Constipation, because that's its equivalent. Literally!


----------



## blackhawk

So the Supreme Court that everyone was wringing their hands over makes rulings that are not based on the politics of the President who nominated them.


----------



## otto105

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Previous post is again another example of how little conservatives know about the world around them.


----------



## otto105

blackhawk said:


> So the Supreme Court that everyone was wringing their hands over makes rulings that are not based on the politics of the President who nominated them.


Until the issue of abortion comes up or enforcing environmental rules.


----------



## blackhawk

otto105 said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Supreme Court that everyone was wringing their hands over makes rulings that are not based on the politics of the President who nominated them.
> 
> 
> 
> Until the issue of abortion comes up or enforcing environmental rules.
Click to expand...

I suspect many said the same about this before the ruling came down.


----------



## Anathema

Donald H said:


> oh, and make believe souls can't be a part of it!


In that one line… straight to the Ignore List.


----------



## Donald H

The right's pushing of the abortion issue to the extreme will be another big strike against freedom in America. 

To the benefit of the rest of the world's 'free' countries.


----------



## Anathema

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The ACA isn't government healthcare


By forcing people to purchase insurance, even if they don’t want to, it may as well be Government Healthcare.

It’s also a major step to acceptance of Government involvement in health care, which is immoral and unconstitutional.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

blackhawk said:


> So the Supreme Court that everyone was wringing their hands over makes rulings that are not based on the politics of the President who nominated them.


You mean the Supreme Court that Trumpers including Trump himself LITERALLY CLAIMED that in getting a 6-3 Supreme Court meant Obamacare would be struck down, all of those 70 plus voter fraud cases would be won, etc, etc, etc.....


I guarantee you that conservatives are more willing to say this ruling proves the Supreme Court is part of the Deep State than any sane person would.....


----------



## playtime

otto105 said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Supreme Court that everyone was wringing their hands over makes rulings that are not based on the politics of the President who nominated them.
> 
> 
> 
> Until the issue of abortion comes up or enforcing environmental rules.
Click to expand...


& discrimination against gay couples regarding adoption & fostering children.


----------



## rightwinger

_Two of President Donald Trump's three appointees to the court, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented._


Thanks Donnie!


----------



## otto105

Donald H said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide for the common welfare....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no health care in the constitution. You think the FF even thought of health care??
> 
> Common welfare means everyone has the same chance to be all they can be. It has nothing to do with HC which you won't fine anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could refer to it as the US Constipation, because that's its equivalent. Literally!
Click to expand...




Anathema said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA isn't government healthcare
> 
> 
> 
> By forcing people to purchase insurance, even if they don’t want to, it may as well be Government Healthcare.
> 
> It’s also a major step to acceptance of Government involvement in health care, which is immoral and unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It's neither.


----------



## d0gbreath

blackhawk said:


> So the Supreme Court that everyone was wringing their hands over makes rulings that are not based on the politics of the President who nominated them.


Ssh, don't jinx it.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Anathema said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA isn't government healthcare
> 
> 
> 
> By forcing people to purchase insurance, even if they don’t want to, it may as well be Government Healthcare.
> 
> It’s also a major step to acceptance of Government involvement in health care, which is immoral and unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

You mean that conservative idea of funding the healthcare subsidies??

Yea, I thought that was a shitty idea too....but Obama still went with the shitty conservative idea than what we progressives wanted....

Sadly, nobody really wants your shittier idea of a health care solution either....if they did, you wouldn't be whining about it so much


----------



## Claudette

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't find lots of things in the Constitution.......but that is an extremely childish justification for not wanting more people to have health care....
> 
> But anyhoo....The first federal public healthcare law was signed in 1798....by one of those "Founders" you love to worship.....was he a socialist marxist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want health care then you buy it like everyone else does. You want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are subsidizing someone's healthcare regardless...or do you not know how insurance companies work??
> 
> Fact is.....you are subsidizing someone else's healthcare in a more ineffective way in the private market than you would be in the public market....
> 
> 
> But aside from that point...do you not care that Republicans lie to you over and over again about their healthcare plans??  Did you already know Trump was being full of shit about promising everyone affordable healthcare with his non-existent plan?? Was that one of those lies you didn't mind because your cult leader said it?
Click to expand...

Well since I'm not a Rep I really don't care what they say.

As for me. I'm on Medicare. Which I've paid for my whole working life. If you want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.


----------



## Donald H

otto105 said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide for the common welfare....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no health care in the constitution. You think the FF even thought of health care??
> 
> Common welfare means everyone has the same chance to be all they can be. It has nothing to do with HC which you won't fine anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could refer to it as the US Constipation, because that's its equivalent. Literally!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA isn't government healthcare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By forcing people to purchase insurance, even if they don’t want to, it may as well be Government Healthcare.
> 
> It’s also a major step to acceptance of Government involvement in health care, which is immoral and unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's neither.
Click to expand...

People who won't purchace health care insurance are expecting a free ride on other people's dime.

How's that for a conservative agenda? You fkng American bozos just refuse to 'get it'!


----------



## otto105

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA isn't government healthcare
> 
> 
> 
> By forcing people to purchase insurance, even if they don’t want to, it may as well be Government Healthcare.
> 
> It’s also a major step to acceptance of Government involvement in health care, which is immoral and unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean that conservative idea of funding the healthcare subsidies??
> 
> Yea, I thought that was a shitty idea too....but Obama still went with the shitty conservative idea than what we progressives wanted....
> 
> Sadly, nobody really wants your shittier idea of a health care solution either....if they did, you wouldn't be whining about it so much
Click to expand...

Correct, the idea of healthcare exchanges was a Heritage Foundation idea from the 1970's. Before the org went all conservative stupid.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Claudette said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't find lots of things in the Constitution.......but that is an extremely childish justification for not wanting more people to have health care....
> 
> But anyhoo....The first federal public healthcare law was signed in 1798....by one of those "Founders" you love to worship.....was he a socialist marxist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want health care then you buy it like everyone else does. You want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are subsidizing someone's healthcare regardless...or do you not know how insurance companies work??
> 
> Fact is.....you are subsidizing someone else's healthcare in a more ineffective way in the private market than you would be in the public market....
> 
> 
> But aside from that point...do you not care that Republicans lie to you over and over again about their healthcare plans??  Did you already know Trump was being full of shit about promising everyone affordable healthcare with his non-existent plan?? Was that one of those lies you didn't mind because your cult leader said it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well since I'm not a Rep I really don't care what they say.
> 
> As for me. I'm on Medicare. Which I've paid for my whole working life. If you want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
Click to expand...


Whenever a Trump sycophant opens a statement with "I'm not a Republican" -- I know its about to be followed by some bullshit.....


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Claudette said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't find lots of things in the Constitution.......but that is an extremely childish justification for not wanting more people to have health care....
> 
> But anyhoo....The first federal public healthcare law was signed in 1798....by one of those "Founders" you love to worship.....was he a socialist marxist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want health care then you buy it like everyone else does. You want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are subsidizing someone's healthcare regardless...or do you not know how insurance companies work??
> 
> Fact is.....you are subsidizing someone else's healthcare in a more ineffective way in the private market than you would be in the public market....
> 
> 
> But aside from that point...do you not care that Republicans lie to you over and over again about their healthcare plans??  Did you already know Trump was being full of shit about promising everyone affordable healthcare with his non-existent plan?? Was that one of those lies you didn't mind because your cult leader said it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well since I'm not a Rep I really don't care what they say.
> 
> As for me. I'm on Medicare. Which I've paid for my whole working life. If you want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
Click to expand...

That is how Medicare works...that is how taxes work.....

Do you think that you alone paid for the Medicare benefits you receive now??

Adorable


----------



## Donald H

Claudette said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't find lots of things in the Constitution.......but that is an extremely childish justification for not wanting more people to have health care....
> 
> But anyhoo....The first federal public healthcare law was signed in 1798....by one of those "Founders" you love to worship.....was he a socialist marxist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want health care then you buy it like everyone else does. You want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are subsidizing someone's healthcare regardless...or do you not know how insurance companies work??
> 
> Fact is.....you are subsidizing someone else's healthcare in a more ineffective way in the private market than you would be in the public market....
> 
> 
> But aside from that point...do you not care that Republicans lie to you over and over again about their healthcare plans??  Did you already know Trump was being full of shit about promising everyone affordable healthcare with his non-existent plan?? Was that one of those lies you didn't mind because your cult leader said it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well since I'm not a Rep I really don't care what they say.
> 
> As for me. I'm on Medicare. Which I've paid for my whole working life. If you want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
Click to expand...

If you're on Medicare then you have other people paying for your health care.

You people are so full of racism and hate for each other that you've lost track of reality in the real world. fkng losers!


----------



## Anathema

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Sadly, nobody really wants your shittier idea of a health care solution either....if they did, you wouldn't be whining about it so much


I’m not whining about my healthcare at all. I have excellent “Cadillac” health insurance through my employer.

My concern is that the more people become accepting of extended Government interference in health services the more likely a “Medicare for All” system is and then I have no health care at all.


----------



## Donald H

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't find lots of things in the Constitution.......but that is an extremely childish justification for not wanting more people to have health care....
> 
> But anyhoo....The first federal public healthcare law was signed in 1798....by one of those "Founders" you love to worship.....was he a socialist marxist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want health care then you buy it like everyone else does. You want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are subsidizing someone's healthcare regardless...or do you not know how insurance companies work??
> 
> Fact is.....you are subsidizing someone else's healthcare in a more ineffective way in the private market than you would be in the public market....
> 
> 
> But aside from that point...do you not care that Republicans lie to you over and over again about their healthcare plans??  Did you already know Trump was being full of shit about promising everyone affordable healthcare with his non-existent plan?? Was that one of those lies you didn't mind because your cult leader said it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well since I'm not a Rep I really don't care what they say.
> 
> As for me. I'm on Medicare. Which I've paid for my whole working life. If you want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is how Medicare works...that is how taxes work.....
> 
> Do you think that you alone paid for the Medicare benefits you receive now??
> 
> Adorable
Click to expand...

Good for you! 
Sometimes it's just too obvious isn't it! 
Trouble is, this board is full of hardnosed and fully indoctrinated fools for Trump. A really bad place for trying to drive home some sense.


----------



## Anathema

Claudette said:


> As for me. I'm on Medicare. Which I've paid for my whole working life. If you want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest


You’re on Medicare; that’s nice. What are folks like me who won’t take Medicare benefits supposed to do when we eventually retire and can’t get private insurance?


----------



## Donald H

Anathema said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, nobody really wants your shittier idea of a health care solution either....if they did, you wouldn't be whining about it so much
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not whining about my healthcare at all. I have excellent “Cadillac” health insurance through my employer.
> 
> My concern is that the more people become accepting of extended Government interference in health services the more likely a “Medicare for All” system is and then I have no health care at all.
Click to expand...

Your fellow Americans want the same too. So eventually their ambitions will take down yours.

You fail to understand that everybody in your country can have what you enjoy. But never mind, they're not as white as you and so they don't deserve it.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
Click to expand...

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


----------



## dblack

SavannahMann said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've managed to put politicians in charge of our health care. Congrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As one who has battled the Insurance Companies before. And will again. It is honestly not a concern of mine. Frankly the longer I spend trying to get the insurance companies to care for my wife as they are supposed to, the better Single Payer sounds.
Click to expand...


As long as you don't mind every single election being a referendum on whether grandma lives or dies.


----------



## dblack

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can enact the legislation. The Supreme Court can uphold it. However, you can NEVER make me use Government Healthcare.
> 
> I”LL DIE FIRST!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA isn't government healthcare.
Click to expand...

It's not even government health insurance. It's just government colluding with insurance companies to herd consumers.


----------



## dblack

otto105 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, providing much needed healthcare is a travesty....
Click to expand...

ACA doesn't provide shit, much less "much needed healthcare". It's a corporatist scheme to extend a failed business model.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

otto105 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The PPACA is already in the private sector.
Click to expand...

Correct. 

Private companies provide the insurance.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




dblack said:


> 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.


You were fucked the moment you decided to stand against democracy and reality.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Biff_Poindexter said:


> This is a sad day for America........
> 
> Not just because 2 of the newest conservative appointments betrayed America and Jesus....
> 
> But because now we are going to have to keep hearing Republican candidates campaign on repealing and replacing Obamacare for 10 more years.........
> 
> If a bozo like Obama was able to get a healthcare plan put in place during his first couple of years....why can't republicans do it in over 10 plus years??
> 
> Those Dems are pretty crafty...





Biff_Poindexter said:


> This is a sad day for America........
> 
> Not just because 2 of the newest conservative appointments betrayed America and Jesus....


----------



## ElmerMudd

Anathema said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.
> 
> It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## dblack

ElmerMudd said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.
> 
> It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die.
Click to expand...

If you don't want free markets, then please refrain from using a computer, produced by greedy capitalists, to spout your nonsense.


----------



## FA_Q2

Astrostar said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
Click to expand...

Simply divorcing healthcare from your job would have solved a hefty portion of the current problems we have with healthcare.  Add tort reform and we would be better off than the garbage the ACA left us with.

Insurance companies have never been given a bigger gift than the ACA.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Rigby5 said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your post is contradictory.
> Obamacare is mandated private health insurance, which can never morph into a better health care system.
> 
> What we need to do instead it get the federal government, the employers, and private health insurance companies out of health care entirely.  Which can easily be done by eliminating the employer tax write off for employee benefits.
> The federal government has no business doing anything with heath care, so Obamacare is no legal.
Click to expand...




Rigby5 said:


> Your post is contradictory.
> Obamacare is mandated private health insurance, which can never morph into a better health care system


The goal with the ACA was to reach universal coverage. By default, universal coverage is better than not.


----------



## dblack

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never convince a Statist that anything is wrong with a government program.
Click to expand...

What gets me is that they pass this shit, presumably, with the assumption that the "other side" will never, ever, be in power again. Do they really want miscreants like Trump (or worse) in charge of their health care???


----------



## otto105

Donald H said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't find lots of things in the Constitution.......but that is an extremely childish justification for not wanting more people to have health care....
> 
> But anyhoo....The first federal public healthcare law was signed in 1798....by one of those "Founders" you love to worship.....was he a socialist marxist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want health care then you buy it like everyone else does. You want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are subsidizing someone's healthcare regardless...or do you not know how insurance companies work??
> 
> Fact is.....you are subsidizing someone else's healthcare in a more ineffective way in the private market than you would be in the public market....
> 
> 
> But aside from that point...do you not care that Republicans lie to you over and over again about their healthcare plans??  Did you already know Trump was being full of shit about promising everyone affordable healthcare with his non-existent plan?? Was that one of those lies you didn't mind because your cult leader said it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well since I'm not a Rep I really don't care what they say.
> 
> As for me. I'm on Medicare. Which I've paid for my whole working life. If you want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're on Medicare then you have other people paying for your health care.
> 
> You people are so full of racism and hate for each other that you've lost track of reality in the real world. fkng losers!
Click to expand...

Fail


----------



## Dana7360

MarcATL said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can enact the legislation. The Supreme Court can uphold it. However, you can NEVER make me use Government Healthcare.
> 
> ILL DIE FIRST!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Well, what are you *waiting* for?
Click to expand...



The thing is, the only government health care in America is the VA system. That is doctors who are government employees.

Buying insurance from a private for profit insurance company then seeing a private for profit doctor isn't government health care.

Obamacare isn't government health care.

It's the government putting long needed regulations on private for profit insurance companies.


----------



## dudmuck

Anathema said:


> You can enact the legislation. The Supreme Court can uphold it. However, you can NEVER make me use Government Healthcare.
> 
> I”LL DIE FIRST!!!!


or sell your maga hat:


----------



## kaz

Dana7360 said:


> 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



The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud


----------



## Dana7360

BlindBoo said:


> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?...
> 
> 
> 
> And the irony of ACA is that it forces people to buy insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How? How can ACA force you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without a public option the only other choice is to go without insurance.
Click to expand...



They left out the one and only way to properly bring some competition to the health care insurance industry.

I wish they had included a public option but the republicans said if that happened no one would buy private for profit insurance. 

Which should tell everyone that Americans can't stand private for profit insurance companies. 

If we had real choice like the republicans say they want us to have, there would have been a public option. Those who are sick and tired of the private for profit insurance companies can finally tell them to bite me. Those who want to stay with that system can. 

That is real choice.


----------



## Papageorgio

Dana7360 said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?...
> 
> 
> 
> And the irony of ACA is that it forces people to buy insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How? How can ACA force you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without a public option the only other choice is to go without insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They left out the one and only way to properly bring some competition to the health care insurance industry.
> 
> I wish they had included a public option but the republicans said if that happened no one would buy private for profit insurance.
> 
> Which should tell everyone that Americans can't stand private for profit insurance companies.
> 
> If we had real choice like the republicans say they want us to have, there would have been a public option. Those who are sick and tired of the private for profit insurance companies can finally tell them to bite me. Those who want to stay with that system can.
> 
> That is real choice.
Click to expand...

The Republicans did not have the votes to stop public option. Democrats stopped it. They had the 60 votes needed and they didn't pass it.


----------



## otto105

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never convince a Statist that anything is wrong with a government program.
Click to expand...

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

Say, just where is libertarianism practiced on this planet?


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Donald H said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
Click to expand...




Donald H said:


> 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.


----------



## XponentialChaos

7-2.

Have Trumpsters called for an audit yet?


----------



## Synthaholic




----------



## Dana7360

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Robert Creamer is a political consultant who wrote over 600 pages of Obamacare while in prison for tax violations and bank fraud.
> 
> Insurance rates and deductible are soaring and the exchanges are failing. Jonathan Gruber, the one labeled as the "architect" - who said they relied on stupid American voters to get Obamacare passed - claims that the plan is working as designed. Huh, imagine that.
> 
> Wow, great plan! Lie to Americans to pass a bill that's destroying health care so everyone has to rely on the government. Typical Democrat policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No problem, Republicans will fix that travesty as soon as they have the Presidency, the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court...oh wait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because Republicans are too weak-spined to stand up to the anti-American left doesn't mean that Obamacare is good for America.
> 
> What vile filth you are, putting your political ideology ahead of Americans. Typical leftist twit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dummy, it means that their "fixing" was even worse than what they were saying needs fixing.
> 
> It's easy to talk shit about a policy, but when it come time to put up a better alternative your side had nothing Americans would be even close to supporting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get it. You hate America and want more free stuff. You think by pretending that one party is far superior to the other you don't have to face that you're a useful idiot.
> 
> A truly better alternative would to be leave it to the states. You know, as prescribed in the US Constitution. Instead, like the slave to the big state you are, you ignore the very principles upon which America was founded.
> 
> And FYI, I know this is a really big struggle to understand for someone with severely limited critical thinking skills, but just because I see the Democrats as the domestic enemies of the US Constitution I took an oath to defend against, doesn't mean I'm a Republican. But that can't be! Thanks for the laughs!
> 
> "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did Benji say this before or after he demanded "government" establish post offices, roads, etc??
> 
> Why didn't they just leave that stuff to the states......
> 
> PS -- the states are still "America" -- so this bullshit talking point about "leave it up to the states" is as full of shit as when Conservatives wanted to leave the issue of slavery up to the states
Click to expand...




The Supreme Court left it to the states whether they would expand medicaid and join the exchange. 

So what did the red states do? 

The didn't expand medicaid and they didn't join the exchange.

The result being they have the highest rates of uninsured in the nation. The worst health care and least healthy populations.


----------



## kaz

Hutch Starskey said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Synthaholic




----------



## Dana7360

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why, exactly should ANYONE in Congress propose giving the federal goverment more power? Why do you support a bigger, more bloated government with the power to control even your health? Why would any red blooded patriot support creating an even bigger government directly against the founding principle of limited government? Of federalism?
> 
> It's truly astounding how narrow minded you leftist twits are. "We want free stuff - that really costs us far more both financially and in our physical health - and other stupid, selfish people like us want "free" stuff paid for by others. What freebies do you have to offer? None? Then you fail!"
> 
> You tried to prove the superiority of the left's policies and all you did was prove you're a government leech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you acknowledge that when Trump campaigned on having a better and more affordable healthcare plan that would cover everyone....he was just bullshitting...got it...
> 
> Tell you what.....every Republican running for office should campaign next time on repealing Medicare....I'm sure it would be a winning campaign promise...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering that the America First movement and the Convention of States are exploding in popularity, and that many are starting to actual read what is written in our founding documents, yes. I do think it would be wise to run on giving states back the power the federal goverment took from them.
> 
> The states created the federal goverment. Not the other way around. There are not one, but TWO Amendments in the Bill of Rights directly related to the power divide between the states and the federal government. They reiterate that the states have the bulk of the power.
> 
> In fact, one of the best ways to reduce the cost of health insurance is allow companies to compete across state lines and tort reform. Which can and needs to be done at the state level.
> 
> The federal goverment has never done anything well nor has it ever saved a dime. Quit being a sheep looking to be taken care of by people who see you as nothing but a pawn.
> 
> Or you can keep amusing me with your idiotic justications for more government control. Your choice, both are a win for me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The government has never done anything well" is another popular Conservative talking point
> 
> That is why they invest billions into being elected to that "government" they despise so much......
> 
> It's almost as if they want a chance to show us all how government never does anything well.....when they are in charge......
> 
> Maybe they should stay out of government
Click to expand...



The government does a lot of things very well.

For example, the internet. The very medium that far right winger is using to spew it's lies and propaganda.

The US government invented and established the internet. It was used by the government agencies, universities and engineers mainly to communicate.

In the 1990s it was deregulated to become what it is today. 

Then there's NASA, FEMA and so may government agencies that do a very necessary and good job.

I suggest to all who don't believe that government does anything well to stop using the internet, stop drinking water, stop using electricity, stop using our roads. Don't call the fire department when your house is on fire. Don't call 9-11 when you have a life threatening situation. Don't use the skills such as reading, math and reasoning that you learned from the government schools you attended.

I can go on but I'm sure all intelligent people get the point.


----------



## jbrownson0831

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

People can get any healthcare plan they want, there are several and all you have to do is choose one and pay the premiums.  Obammycare makes us pay for the dregs to get free healthcare and that is not right.


----------



## jbrownson0831

Dana7360 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blenda said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why, exactly should ANYONE in Congress propose giving the federal goverment more power? Why do you support a bigger, more bloated government with the power to control even your health? Why would any red blooded patriot support creating an even bigger government directly against the founding principle of limited government? Of federalism?
> 
> It's truly astounding how narrow minded you leftist twits are. "We want free stuff - that really costs us far more both financially and in our physical health - and other stupid, selfish people like us want "free" stuff paid for by others. What freebies do you have to offer? None? Then you fail!"
> 
> You tried to prove the superiority of the left's policies and all you did was prove you're a government leech.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you acknowledge that when Trump campaigned on having a better and more affordable healthcare plan that would cover everyone....he was just bullshitting...got it...
> 
> Tell you what.....every Republican running for office should campaign next time on repealing Medicare....I'm sure it would be a winning campaign promise...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Considering that the America First movement and the Convention of States are exploding in popularity, and that many are starting to actual read what is written in our founding documents, yes. I do think it would be wise to run on giving states back the power the federal goverment took from them.
> 
> The states created the federal goverment. Not the other way around. There are not one, but TWO Amendments in the Bill of Rights directly related to the power divide between the states and the federal government. They reiterate that the states have the bulk of the power.
> 
> In fact, one of the best ways to reduce the cost of health insurance is allow companies to compete across state lines and tort reform. Which can and needs to be done at the state level.
> 
> The federal goverment has never done anything well nor has it ever saved a dime. Quit being a sheep looking to be taken care of by people who see you as nothing but a pawn.
> 
> Or you can keep amusing me with your idiotic justications for more government control. Your choice, both are a win for me!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "The government has never done anything well" is another popular Conservative talking point
> 
> That is why they invest billions into being elected to that "government" they despise so much......
> 
> It's almost as if they want a chance to show us all how government never does anything well.....when they are in charge......
> 
> Maybe they should stay out of government
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The government does a lot of things very well.
> 
> For example, the internet. The very medium that far right winger is using to spew it's lies and propaganda.
> 
> The US government invented and established the internet. It was used by the government agencies, universities and engineers mainly to communicate.
> 
> In the 1990s it was deregulated to become what it is today.
> 
> Then there's NASA, FEMA and so may government agencies that do a very necessary and good job.
> 
> I suggest to all who don't believe that government does anything well to stop using the internet, stop drinking water, stop using electricity, stop using our roads. Don't call the fire department when your house is on fire. Don't call 9-11 when you have a life threatening situation. Don't use the skills such as reading, math and reasoning that you learned from the government schools you attended.
> 
> I can go on but I'm sure all intelligent people get the point.
Click to expand...

We get the point that some things are done well by the government, others are not.  Like taking away individual choices or making me pay for a dregs healthcare.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Claudette said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't find lots of things in the Constitution.......but that is an extremely childish justification for not wanting more people to have health care....
> 
> But anyhoo....The first federal public healthcare law was signed in 1798....by one of those "Founders" you love to worship.....was he a socialist marxist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want health care then you buy it like everyone else does. You want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
Click to expand...




Claudette said:


> You want health care then you buy it like everyone else does. You want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.


You pay for other peoples’ healthcare all the time. When you are enrolled in a plan, you become part of a risk group made up of mostly healthy people. It’s the premiums of those healthy people that pay for those in the group who are sick. The group is formulated and managed by the insurer to guarantee coverage for all in the group and a profit for themselves.


----------



## Flash

This is just another example of why we can't trust the Judicial to protect our Liberties any more than we can trust the Legislative or Executive Branches.

Just remember that the first Obamacare ruling was that it was legal because it was a fucking tax.  Even though the Obama administration argued that it wasn't a tax.  How friggin stupid was that?


----------



## XponentialChaos

*10/24/2016: * "On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.  It's a set of promises for what I'll do in my first 100 days. It includes getting rid of immediately Obamacare, which is a disaster."

*10/25/2016:*     "My first day in office, I am going to ask Congress to put a bill on my desk getting rid of this disastrous law and replacing it with reforms that expand choice, freedom, affordability.  You're going to have such great health care at a tiny fraction of the cost. And it's going to be so easy."

*2/27/2017:  * "Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated."


----------



## blackhawk

Biff_Poindexter said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Supreme Court that everyone was wringing their hands over makes rulings that are not based on the politics of the President who nominated them.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean the Supreme Court that Trumpers including Trump himself LITERALLY CLAIMED that in getting a 6-3 Supreme Court meant Obamacare would be struck down, all of those 70 plus voter fraud cases would be won, etc, etc, etc.....
> 
> 
> I guarantee you that conservatives are more willing to say this ruling proves the Supreme Court is part of the Deep State than any sane person would.....
Click to expand...

As soon as the Court hands down a ruling the liberals don’t like they will be out in force with their talking points. Partisans no matter which side they are on are nothing if not consistent.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

jbrownson0831 said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People can get any healthcare plan they want, there are several and all you have to do is choose one and pay the premiums.  Obammycare makes us pay for the dregs to get free healthcare and that is not right.
Click to expand...




jbrownson0831 said:


> People can get any healthcare plan they want, there are several and all you have to do is choose one and pay the premiums. Obammycare makes us pay for the dregs to get free healthcare and that is not right.


Those dregs get healthcare and the govt pays even before the ACA. Federal law says ERs cannot turn anyone away based on their ability to pay. The govt reimburses those hospitals for their indigent care given.  The ACA was an attempt to achieve universal coverage. For some, that coverage is subsidized. Just at a much lower and more controlled rate than reimbursing indigent care after the fact.


----------



## BlindBoo

Papageorgio said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?...
> 
> 
> 
> And the irony of ACA is that it forces people to buy insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How? How can ACA force you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without a public option the only other choice is to go without insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They left out the one and only way to properly bring some competition to the health care insurance industry.
> 
> I wish they had included a public option but the republicans said if that happened no one would buy private for profit insurance.
> 
> Which should tell everyone that Americans can't stand private for profit insurance companies.
> 
> If we had real choice like the republicans say they want us to have, there would have been a public option. Those who are sick and tired of the private for profit insurance companies can finally tell them to bite me. Those who want to stay with that system can.
> 
> That is real choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Republicans did not have the votes to stop public option. Democrats stopped it. They had the 60 votes needed and they didn't pass it.
Click to expand...


Obama caved right away took it off the table when the negotiations barely started.


----------



## SavannahMann

dblack said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've managed to put politicians in charge of our health care. Congrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As one who has battled the Insurance Companies before. And will again. It is honestly not a concern of mine. Frankly the longer I spend trying to get the insurance companies to care for my wife as they are supposed to, the better Single Payer sounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as you don't mind every single election being a referendum on whether grandma lives or dies.
Click to expand...


That referendum is being fought out monthly now. You mean I can make it a fight I have to deal with every couple years instead? My God. That sounds like paradise.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Anathema said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, nobody really wants your shittier idea of a health care solution either....if they did, you wouldn't be whining about it so much
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not whining about my healthcare at all. I have excellent “Cadillac” health insurance through my employer.
> 
> My concern is that the more people become accepting of extended Government interference in health services the more likely a “Medicare for All” system is and then I have no health care at all.
Click to expand...

Your concern is wrong and unwarranted.


----------



## Dana7360

Donald H said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide for the common welfare....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no health care in the constitution. You think the FF even thought of health care??
> 
> Common welfare means everyone has the same chance to be all they can be. It has nothing to do with HC which you won't fine anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could refer to it as the US Constipation, because that's its equivalent. Literally!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA isn't government healthcare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By forcing people to purchase insurance, even if they don’t want to, it may as well be Government Healthcare.
> 
> It’s also a major step to acceptance of Government involvement in health care, which is immoral and unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who won't purchace health care insurance are expecting a free ride on other people's dime.
> 
> How's that for a conservative agenda? You fkng American bozos just refuse to 'get it'!
Click to expand...



Exactly. 

They don't pay insurance then when they get sick or are in an accident not covered by car insurance they deadbeat on the bills. 

Then those bills are "cost shifted" to those of us who are responsible, do buy insurance and pay our bills. 

It's one of the biggest reasons why health care is much more expensive in America. 

Right now if you go to a doctor's office or hospital you're not just paying for yourself but you're paying for all those deadbeats who refuse to be responsible. 

When all medical bills are paid, everyone has lower insurance premiums and medical costs. 

Example, Hawaii had single payer health care until Obamacare. That means every medical bill for everyone was paid properly.

I was in a life threatening accident with monster 15 ft waves in Hawaii. I first went through the ER then was admitted to the ICU. I was in a coma. Almost every type of doctor helped me from cardiologists to breathing specialists and everything in between. 

When the bill came from the hospital I expected it to be at the very least 50 thousand dollars. 

The bill from the hospital was 26 thousand dollars. The bills from the labs and doctors were equally as low.

Because there is no "cost shifting" of medical bills. There are no unpaid bills to cause everyone else to have to pay many times more than it should cost.


----------



## Donald H

kaz said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...

Insurance is a business and always a very profitable one. US health care insurance has turned health care into a money making proposition for big insurance companies, at the expense of those who require health care.

Government can do it better, mainly because big profits aren't necessary.

But to your point, America's government has been corrupted to the point where it has little or no ambition to care for the American people. Not even the Democrats want real meaningful change! 

Don't try to support or argue for America's failed HC system. Even the extreme right can't place any confidence in that anymore. 

Even Trump admitted it needed fixing. But sadly, he had no remedy for fixing it and certainly no intention to ever do so. 

Trump, a corporate psychopath, expected to take huge profits away from private insurance companies?? Not fkng likely my friend!

The American people have been bound and gagged by your failing system, but you'll still continue to claim you are FREE.


----------



## blackhawk

Here is a court ruling some on the left might not be to happy with.
Supreme Court sides with Catholic foster agency that excludes same-sex couples in 9-0 ruling | Fox News


----------



## Jets

XponentialChaos said:


> *10/24/2016: * "On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.  It's a set of promises for what I'll do in my first 100 days. It includes getting rid of immediately Obamacare, which is a disaster."
> 
> *10/25/2016:*     "My first day in office, I am going to ask Congress to put a bill on my desk getting rid of this disastrous law and replacing it with reforms that expand choice, freedom, affordability.  You're going to have such great health care at a tiny fraction of the cost. And it's going to be so easy."
> 
> *2/27/2017:  * "Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated."


----------



## Dana7360

Donald H said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't find lots of things in the Constitution.......but that is an extremely childish justification for not wanting more people to have health care....
> 
> But anyhoo....The first federal public healthcare law was signed in 1798....by one of those "Founders" you love to worship.....was he a socialist marxist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want health care then you buy it like everyone else does. You want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are subsidizing someone's healthcare regardless...or do you not know how insurance companies work??
> 
> Fact is.....you are subsidizing someone else's healthcare in a more ineffective way in the private market than you would be in the public market....
> 
> 
> But aside from that point...do you not care that Republicans lie to you over and over again about their healthcare plans??  Did you already know Trump was being full of shit about promising everyone affordable healthcare with his non-existent plan?? Was that one of those lies you didn't mind because your cult leader said it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well since I'm not a Rep I really don't care what they say.
> 
> As for me. I'm on Medicare. Which I've paid for my whole working life. If you want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're on Medicare then you have other people paying for your health care.
> 
> You people are so full of racism and hate for each other that you've lost track of reality in the real world. fkng losers!
Click to expand...




Not just medicare.

If anyone is on any insurance, other people are paying for their health care. 

That's how insurance works. 

It's almost like single payer except it's more expensive, the insurance company takes a percentage off the top to put in their pockets, the insurance company controls what health care you can have and can deny any bill for just about any reason. 

Insurance is just a group of people paying money in for everyone in the group to have their medical bills paid. 


Single pay is just a nationwide group paying money in for everyone's medical bills. Only the government doesn't take a percentage off the top to put in their pockets, don't control what health care you have and don't deny to pay bills for no real reason at all. Nor can the government kick you off your health care because you got sick.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

kaz said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
Click to expand...




kaz said:


> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud


Exactly!
Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.


----------



## Donald H

XponentialChaos said:


> *10/24/2016: * "On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare.  It's a set of promises for what I'll do in my first 100 days. It includes getting rid of immediately Obamacare, which is a disaster."
> 
> *10/25/2016:*     "My first day in office, I am going to ask Congress to put a bill on my desk getting rid of this disastrous law and replacing it with reforms that expand choice, freedom, affordability.  You're going to have such great health care at a tiny fraction of the cost. And it's going to be so easy."
> 
> *2/27/2017:  * "Nobody knew that healthcare could be so complicated."


You were supposed to believe that Trump, a corporate psychopath, would take away huge profits from the big insurance companies. Not in a million fkng years. He duped his followers into believing in his lies. 

There's only one possible fix for 'FOR PROFIT' health care.
*elminate the big profit.*


----------



## Donald H

Dana7360 said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't find lots of things in the Constitution.......but that is an extremely childish justification for not wanting more people to have health care....
> 
> But anyhoo....The first federal public healthcare law was signed in 1798....by one of those "Founders" you love to worship.....was he a socialist marxist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want health care then you buy it like everyone else does. You want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are subsidizing someone's healthcare regardless...or do you not know how insurance companies work??
> 
> Fact is.....you are subsidizing someone else's healthcare in a more ineffective way in the private market than you would be in the public market....
> 
> 
> But aside from that point...do you not care that Republicans lie to you over and over again about their healthcare plans??  Did you already know Trump was being full of shit about promising everyone affordable healthcare with his non-existent plan?? Was that one of those lies you didn't mind because your cult leader said it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well since I'm not a Rep I really don't care what they say.
> 
> As for me. I'm on Medicare. Which I've paid for my whole working life. If you want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're on Medicare then you have other people paying for your health care.
> 
> You people are so full of racism and hate for each other that you've lost track of reality in the real world. fkng losers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not just medicare.
> 
> If anyone is on any insurance, other people are paying for their health care.
> 
> That's how insurance works.
> 
> It's almost like single payer except it's more expensive, the insurance company takes a percentage off the top to put in their pockets, the insurance company controls what health care you can have and can deny any bill for just about any reason.
> 
> Insurance is just a group of people paying money in for everyone in the group to have their medical bills paid.
> 
> 
> Single pay is just a nationwide group paying money in for everyone's medical bills. Only the government doesn't take a percentage off the top to put in their pockets, don't control what health care you have and don't deny to pay bills for no real reason at all. Nor can the government kick you off your health care because you got sick.
Click to expand...

Exactly! 
Take the insurance company's huge profits out of the equation and America's health care can all of a sudden be competitive on quality and availability with the world's leading countries.
And you obviously know that corrupt government that is bought and paid by those companies, makes any of that quite impossible.

That is, *until the American people force change on government.*


----------



## kaz

Donald H said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Insurance is a business and always a very profitable one. US health care insurance has turned health care into a money making proposition for big insurance companies, at the expense of those who require health care.
> 
> Government can do it better, mainly because big profits aren't necessary.
> 
> But to your point, America's government has been corrupted to the point where it has little or no ambition to care for the American people. Not even the Democrats want real meaningful change!
> 
> Don't try to support or argue for America's failed HC system. Even the extreme right can't place any confidence in that anymore.
> 
> Even Trump admitted it needed fixing. But sadly, he had no remedy for fixing it and certainly no intention to ever do so.
> 
> Trump, a corporate psychopath, expected to take huge profits away from private insurance companies?? Not fkng likely my friend!
> 
> The American people have been bound and gagged by your failing system, but you'll still continue to claim you are FREE.
Click to expand...


Just more of your stupid Marxist propaganda.   Companies provide a service for a marketable cost.   You want them to shut down giving away free shit because you want it.

As I pointed out, charity should be the LAST option, not the first, which is why our medical system is failing


----------



## Donald H

Dana7360 said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide for the common welfare....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no health care in the constitution. You think the FF even thought of health care??
> 
> Common welfare means everyone has the same chance to be all they can be. It has nothing to do with HC which you won't fine anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could refer to it as the US Constipation, because that's its equivalent. Literally!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA isn't government healthcare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By forcing people to purchase insurance, even if they don’t want to, it may as well be Government Healthcare.
> 
> It’s also a major step to acceptance of Government involvement in health care, which is immoral and unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who won't purchace health care insurance are expecting a free ride on other people's dime.
> 
> How's that for a conservative agenda? You fkng American bozos just refuse to 'get it'!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> They don't pay insurance then when they get sick or are in an accident not covered by car insurance they deadbeat on the bills.
> 
> Then those bills are "cost shifted" to those of us who are responsible, do buy insurance and pay our bills.
> 
> It's one of the biggest reasons why health care is much more expensive in America.
> 
> Right now if you go to a doctor's office or hospital you're not just paying for yourself but you're paying for all those deadbeats who refuse to be responsible.
> 
> When all medical bills are paid, everyone has lower insurance premiums and medical costs.
> 
> Example, Hawaii had single payer health care until Obamacare. That means every medical bill for everyone was paid properly.
> 
> I was in a life threatening accident with monster 15 ft waves in Hawaii. I first went through the ER then was admitted to the ICU. I was in a coma. Almost every type of doctor helped me from cardiologists to breathing specialists and everything in between.
> 
> When the bill came from the hospital I expected it to be at the very least 50 thousand dollars.
> 
> The bill from the hospital was 26 thousand dollars. The bills from the labs and doctors were equally as low.
> 
> Because there is no "cost shifting" of medical bills. There are no unpaid bills to cause everyone else to have to pay many times more than it should cost.
Click to expand...

My latest bill from the hospital was $0,000,000.
And the next one is going to be even higher if it's not lower.

What is freedom?


----------



## jbrownson0831

Dana7360 said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide for the common welfare....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no health care in the constitution. You think the FF even thought of health care??
> 
> Common welfare means everyone has the same chance to be all they can be. It has nothing to do with HC which you won't fine anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could refer to it as the US Constipation, because that's its equivalent. Literally!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA isn't government healthcare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By forcing people to purchase insurance, even if they don’t want to, it may as well be Government Healthcare.
> 
> It’s also a major step to acceptance of Government involvement in health care, which is immoral and unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who won't purchace health care insurance are expecting a free ride on other people's dime.
> 
> How's that for a conservative agenda? You fkng American bozos just refuse to 'get it'!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> They don't pay insurance then when they get sick or are in an accident not covered by car insurance they deadbeat on the bills.
> 
> Then those bills are "cost shifted" to those of us who are responsible, do buy insurance and pay our bills.
> 
> It's one of the biggest reasons why health care is much more expensive in America.
> 
> Right now if you go to a doctor's office or hospital you're not just paying for yourself but you're paying for all those deadbeats who refuse to be responsible.
> 
> When all medical bills are paid, everyone has lower insurance premiums and medical costs.
> 
> Example, Hawaii had single payer health care until Obamacare. That means every medical bill for everyone was paid properly.
> 
> I was in a life threatening accident with monster 15 ft waves in Hawaii. I first went through the ER then was admitted to the ICU. I was in a coma. Almost every type of doctor helped me from cardiologists to breathing specialists and everything in between.
> 
> When the bill came from the hospital I expected it to be at the very least 50 thousand dollars.
> 
> The bill from the hospital was 26 thousand dollars. The bills from the labs and doctors were equally as low.
> 
> Because there is no "cost shifting" of medical bills. There are no unpaid bills to cause everyone else to have to pay many times more than it should cost.
Click to expand...

And you wait months for needed surgeries.


----------



## kaz

Hutch Starskey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
> Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.
Click to expand...


That isn't what I said.  God you're stupid


----------



## toobfreak

Dana7360 said:


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



Don't have standing.  Just like the cases brought by Trump and others on election fraud.  This ACA case has been dismissed, just like the election fraud, NOT on lack of evidence, but on lack of STANDING.


----------



## Donald H

kaz said:


> Just more of your stupid Marxist propaganda.   Companies provide a service for a marketable cost.   You want them to shut down giving away free shit because you want it.
> 
> As I pointed out, charity should be the LAST option, not the first, which is why our medical system is failing


I won't lie to you and say that my wife and I can have better quality HC in Canada for about $150 a month.

No American would ever buy that kind of big lie!

fkng losers!


----------



## Hutch Starskey

kaz said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...




kaz said:


> 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.


----------



## kaz

Donald H said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just more of your stupid Marxist propaganda.   Companies provide a service for a marketable cost.   You want them to shut down giving away free shit because you want it.
> 
> As I pointed out, charity should be the LAST option, not the first, which is why our medical system is failing
> 
> 
> 
> I won't lie to you and say that my wife can have better quality HC in Canada for about $150 a month.
> 
> No American would ever buy that kind of big lie!
> 
> fkng losers!
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's what it costs, $150 a month.   That's all you pay.  Total cost.  Sure it is, LOL


----------



## jc456

bodecea said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
Click to expand...

Now you like them? Amazing a demofk


----------



## Donald H

kaz said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just more of your stupid Marxist propaganda.   Companies provide a service for a marketable cost.   You want them to shut down giving away free shit because you want it.
> 
> As I pointed out, charity should be the LAST option, not the first, which is why our medical system is failing
> 
> 
> 
> I won't lie to you and say that my wife can have better quality HC in Canada for about $150 a month.
> 
> No American would ever buy that kind of big lie!
> 
> fkng losers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's what it costs, $150 a month.   That's all you pay.  Total cost.  Sure it is, LOL
Click to expand...

We pay more in taxes for some goods and services.

But again I won't lie to you and say that taxes in Canada and the US are roughly equal. fkng losers!


----------



## Papageorgio

BlindBoo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?...
> 
> 
> 
> And the irony of ACA is that it forces people to buy insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How? How can ACA force you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without a public option the only other choice is to go without insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They left out the one and only way to properly bring some competition to the health care insurance industry.
> 
> I wish they had included a public option but the republicans said if that happened no one would buy private for profit insurance.
> 
> Which should tell everyone that Americans can't stand private for profit insurance companies.
> 
> If we had real choice like the republicans say they want us to have, there would have been a public option. Those who are sick and tired of the private for profit insurance companies can finally tell them to bite me. Those who want to stay with that system can.
> 
> That is real choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Republicans did not have the votes to stop public option. Democrats stopped it. They had the 60 votes needed and they didn't pass it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama caved right away took it off the table when the negotiations barely started.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that because he knew early on that it had no chance of passing? I didn't know he conceded that early.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Anathema said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, nobody really wants your shittier idea of a health care solution either....if they did, you wouldn't be whining about it so much
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not whining about my healthcare at all. I have excellent “Cadillac” health insurance through my employer.
> 
> My concern is that the more people become accepting of extended Government interference in health services the more likely a “Medicare for All” system is and then I have no health care at all.
Click to expand...

and your employer subsidizes your healthcare....

What makes employers subsidizing your healthcare some sacred right but taxpayers subsidizing healthcare is Communist?

If employers didn't have to burden the costs of covering healthcare  for their employees -- they can use that money to buy back more stocks and artificially inflate their value so execs can have bigger bonuses...

Because it damn sure won't be used on wage increases


----------



## kaz

Hutch Starskey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## kaz

Donald H said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just more of your stupid Marxist propaganda.   Companies provide a service for a marketable cost.   You want them to shut down giving away free shit because you want it.
> 
> As I pointed out, charity should be the LAST option, not the first, which is why our medical system is failing
> 
> 
> 
> I won't lie to you and say that my wife can have better quality HC in Canada for about $150 a month.
> 
> No American would ever buy that kind of big lie!
> 
> fkng losers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's what it costs, $150 a month.   That's all you pay.  Total cost.  Sure it is, LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We pay more in taxes for some goods and services.
> 
> But again I won't lie to you and say that taxes in Canada and the US are roughly equal. fkng losers!
Click to expand...


Canada is a tiny fraction the size of the US and a lot of costs are way lower.    But you're still paying a lot more than you grasp


----------



## Dana7360

Donald H said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide for the common welfare....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no health care in the constitution. You think the FF even thought of health care??
> 
> Common welfare means everyone has the same chance to be all they can be. It has nothing to do with HC which you won't fine anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could refer to it as the US Constipation, because that's its equivalent. Literally!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA isn't government healthcare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By forcing people to purchase insurance, even if they don’t want to, it may as well be Government Healthcare.
> 
> It’s also a major step to acceptance of Government involvement in health care, which is immoral and unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who won't purchace health care insurance are expecting a free ride on other people's dime.
> 
> How's that for a conservative agenda? You fkng American bozos just refuse to 'get it'!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> They don't pay insurance then when they get sick or are in an accident not covered by car insurance they deadbeat on the bills.
> 
> Then those bills are "cost shifted" to those of us who are responsible, do buy insurance and pay our bills.
> 
> It's one of the biggest reasons why health care is much more expensive in America.
> 
> Right now if you go to a doctor's office or hospital you're not just paying for yourself but you're paying for all those deadbeats who refuse to be responsible.
> 
> When all medical bills are paid, everyone has lower insurance premiums and medical costs.
> 
> Example, Hawaii had single payer health care until Obamacare. That means every medical bill for everyone was paid properly.
> 
> I was in a life threatening accident with monster 15 ft waves in Hawaii. I first went through the ER then was admitted to the ICU. I was in a coma. Almost every type of doctor helped me from cardiologists to breathing specialists and everything in between.
> 
> When the bill came from the hospital I expected it to be at the very least 50 thousand dollars.
> 
> The bill from the hospital was 26 thousand dollars. The bills from the labs and doctors were equally as low.
> 
> Because there is no "cost shifting" of medical bills. There are no unpaid bills to cause everyone else to have to pay many times more than it should cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My latest bill from the hospital was $0,000,000.
> And the next one is going to be even higher if it's not lower.
> 
> What is freedom?
Click to expand...




I didn't have to pay that bill. I had employer provided insurance at the time.

It was union negotiated insurance so any medical care incurred out of state is paid at 100%.

All of the care I received for that accident was paid 100%.

The thing is, that is the exception in America. Most people even with insurance would have been left with a very large medical bill to pay.

Some people have proper medical care in America. Most people don't. It all depends on your employer. If you have a jerk for an employer who doesn't offer proper insurance or not a member of a union or have no employer provided insurance, you have sub standard and very expensive health care.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

dblack said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never convince a Statist that anything is wrong with a government program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What gets me is that they pass this shit, presumably, with the assumption that the "other side" will never, ever, be in power again. Do they really want miscreants like Trump (or worse) in charge of their health care???
Click to expand...

Trump nor Biden is in charge of your health insurance


Why do you think private healthcare execs are so trustworthy with being in charge of your insurance??

Are they Gods that are impervious to scamming their customers for their own profit?






__





						4 healthcare execs sentenced in $189M fraud scheme
					

Four executives at a hospital management company based in Texas were sentenced for their roles in a $189 million healthcare fraud scheme, the U.S. Justice Department said April 23.




					www.beckershospitalreview.com


----------



## bodecea

jc456 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now you like them? Amazing a demofk
Click to expand...

Did I say I liked them?    I'm laughing at this entire "con-servative justices" schtick.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

kaz said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
> Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said.  God you're stupid
Click to expand...




kaz said:


> That isn't what I said. God you're stupid


It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.


----------



## jc456

bodecea said:


> Did I say I liked them? I'm laughing at this entire "con-servative justices" schtick.


so the ruling you disagree with?


----------



## Donald H

Dana7360 said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Provide for the common welfare....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no health care in the constitution. You think the FF even thought of health care??
> 
> Common welfare means everyone has the same chance to be all they can be. It has nothing to do with HC which you won't fine anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You could refer to it as the US Constipation, because that's its equivalent. Literally!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ACA isn't government healthcare
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By forcing people to purchase insurance, even if they don’t want to, it may as well be Government Healthcare.
> 
> It’s also a major step to acceptance of Government involvement in health care, which is immoral and unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> People who won't purchace health care insurance are expecting a free ride on other people's dime.
> 
> How's that for a conservative agenda? You fkng American bozos just refuse to 'get it'!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
> They don't pay insurance then when they get sick or are in an accident not covered by car insurance they deadbeat on the bills.
> 
> Then those bills are "cost shifted" to those of us who are responsible, do buy insurance and pay our bills.
> 
> It's one of the biggest reasons why health care is much more expensive in America.
> 
> Right now if you go to a doctor's office or hospital you're not just paying for yourself but you're paying for all those deadbeats who refuse to be responsible.
> 
> When all medical bills are paid, everyone has lower insurance premiums and medical costs.
> 
> Example, Hawaii had single payer health care until Obamacare. That means every medical bill for everyone was paid properly.
> 
> I was in a life threatening accident with monster 15 ft waves in Hawaii. I first went through the ER then was admitted to the ICU. I was in a coma. Almost every type of doctor helped me from cardiologists to breathing specialists and everything in between.
> 
> When the bill came from the hospital I expected it to be at the very least 50 thousand dollars.
> 
> The bill from the hospital was 26 thousand dollars. The bills from the labs and doctors were equally as low.
> 
> Because there is no "cost shifting" of medical bills. There are no unpaid bills to cause everyone else to have to pay many times more than it should cost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My latest bill from the hospital was $0,000,000.
> And the next one is going to be even higher if it's not lower.
> 
> What is freedom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't have to pay that bill. I had employer provided insurance at the time.
> 
> It was union negotiated insurance so any medical care incurred out of state is paid at 100%.
> 
> All of the care I received for that accident was paid 100%.
> 
> The thing is, that is the exception in America. Most people even with insurance would have been left with a very large medical bill to pay.
> 
> Some people have proper medical care in America. Most people don't. It all depends on your employer. If you have a jerk for an employer who doesn't offer proper insurance or not a member of a union or have no employer provided insurance, you have sub standard and very expensive health care.
Click to expand...

I know. 
Everybody knows but some pretend they don't.

The tone of this board is shifting with each of the discussions that make the point of facing up to reality.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

kaz said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...




kaz said:


> 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.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

kaz said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...

Most things only work because of the government's monopolization of force

Or you think things like contracts, or intellectual property are protected by nature??


----------



## BlindBoo

Papageorgio said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?...
> 
> 
> 
> And the irony of ACA is that it forces people to buy insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How? How can ACA force you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without a public option the only other choice is to go without insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They left out the one and only way to properly bring some competition to the health care insurance industry.
> 
> I wish they had included a public option but the republicans said if that happened no one would buy private for profit insurance.
> 
> Which should tell everyone that Americans can't stand private for profit insurance companies.
> 
> If we had real choice like the republicans say they want us to have, there would have been a public option. Those who are sick and tired of the private for profit insurance companies can finally tell them to bite me. Those who want to stay with that system can.
> 
> That is real choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Republicans did not have the votes to stop public option. Democrats stopped it. They had the 60 votes needed and they didn't pass it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama caved right away took it off the table when the negotiations barely started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't that because he knew early on that it had no chance of passing? I didn't know he conceded that early.
Click to expand...

That might have been the single payer option.  The House passed a public option but the Senate didn't


----------



## Anathema

ElmerMudd said:


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


I want nothing from the Government except what they’re specifically given power over in founding documents, and which I pay taxes for:

From the Feds thst would be interstate roads and defense of the nation (not other nations). From the state that would be state roads. From the local Government that would be fire, police, local roads. Schools should be a private affair.

The Government should not have its nose or fingers in most of people’s affairs. Definitely not our health care.


----------



## Anathema

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Your concern is wrong and unwarranted


How is that?

My pension doesn’t include health insurance. I will not use Medicare/Medicaid. I will not have an income to buy insurance, even if there were to be some available. So, what insurance would there be for me?


----------



## Papageorgio

BlindBoo said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?...
> 
> 
> 
> And the irony of ACA is that it forces people to buy insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How? How can ACA force you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without a public option the only other choice is to go without insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They left out the one and only way to properly bring some competition to the health care insurance industry.
> 
> I wish they had included a public option but the republicans said if that happened no one would buy private for profit insurance.
> 
> Which should tell everyone that Americans can't stand private for profit insurance companies.
> 
> If we had real choice like the republicans say they want us to have, there would have been a public option. Those who are sick and tired of the private for profit insurance companies can finally tell them to bite me. Those who want to stay with that system can.
> 
> That is real choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Republicans did not have the votes to stop public option. Democrats stopped it. They had the 60 votes needed and they didn't pass it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama caved right away took it off the table when the negotiations barely started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't that because he knew early on that it had no chance of passing? I didn't know he conceded that early.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That might have been the single payer option.  The House passed a public option but the Senate didn't
Click to expand...

Ok, that sounds familiar, thanks


----------



## Magnus

bodecea said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
Click to expand...

Yeah, not only did they not take down Obamacare but they also booted out Trump's election cases. Poor trumptards. They just can't win.


----------



## Anathema

Biff_Poindexter said:


> What makes employers subsidizing your healthcare some sacred right but taxpayers subsidizing healthcare is Communist?
> 
> If employers didn't have to burden the costs of covering healthcare for their employees -- they can use that money to buy back more stocks and artificially inflate their value so execs can have bigger bonuses...
> 
> Because it damn sure won't be used on wage increases


Employers subsidize healthcare as part of a contractual obligation with their employees. Both sides get a day in that negotiation.

The Founding documents of this nation do not specify any government involvement in any facet of health, wellness or insurance.

as a Union employee, trust me the Company knows the compensation equivalent for health care would be beyond their wildest nightmares.


----------



## BlindBoo

Papageorgio said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> antontoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> *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?...
> 
> 
> 
> And the irony of ACA is that it forces people to buy insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How? How can ACA force you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without a public option the only other choice is to go without insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They left out the one and only way to properly bring some competition to the health care insurance industry.
> 
> I wish they had included a public option but the republicans said if that happened no one would buy private for profit insurance.
> 
> Which should tell everyone that Americans can't stand private for profit insurance companies.
> 
> If we had real choice like the republicans say they want us to have, there would have been a public option. Those who are sick and tired of the private for profit insurance companies can finally tell them to bite me. Those who want to stay with that system can.
> 
> That is real choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Republicans did not have the votes to stop public option. Democrats stopped it. They had the 60 votes needed and they didn't pass it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama caved right away took it off the table when the negotiations barely started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wasn't that because he knew early on that it had no chance of passing? I didn't know he conceded that early.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That might have been the single payer option.  The House passed a public option but the Senate didn't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, that sounds familiar, thanks
Click to expand...

I may have confused them myself.


----------



## Death-Ninja

So, lets here from all of you fine folk who are so excited over this group of scumbags being poised to shred the 2nd next summer???? They ruled that the 18 states "lacked standing," a make believe legal argument that is in no shape or fashion enumerated in the constitution!


----------



## Wyatt earp

ElmerMudd said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.
> 
> It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die.
Click to expand...

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


Who knew?


----------



## Wyatt earp

How cute look at all these posts trying to convince me to pay for them
















Not


----------



## dblack

otto105 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never convince a Statist that anything is wrong with a government program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Black or white.....white or black.
> 
> Say, just where is libertarianism practiced on this planet?
Click to expand...

Everywhere. Most of the time.


----------



## dblack

SavannahMann said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've managed to put politicians in charge of our health care. Congrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As one who has battled the Insurance Companies before. And will again. It is honestly not a concern of mine. Frankly the longer I spend trying to get the insurance companies to care for my wife as they are supposed to, the better Single Payer sounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as you don't mind every single election being a referendum on whether grandma lives or dies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That referendum is being fought out monthly now. You mean I can make it a fight I have to deal with every couple years instead? My God. That sounds like paradise.
Click to expand...


No, I'm talking about something radically different. I'm talking about majority rules decisions, where we take a vote and we're stuck with whatever the majority wants. That's not necessary.


----------



## dblack

Biff_Poindexter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never convince a Statist that anything is wrong with a government program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What gets me is that they pass this shit, presumably, with the assumption that the "other side" will never, ever, be in power again. Do they really want miscreants like Trump (or worse) in charge of their health care???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump nor Biden is in charge of your health insurance.
Click to expand...


To the extent that government regulations, distributes or controls health care - yes, they are.




> Why do you think private healthcare execs are so trustworthy with being in charge of your insurance??



Not necessarily. But I can fire them if I don't like what they're selling. With government, I have no such option. The best I can do is wait for the next vote and *hope* that the majority is on my side. They usually aren't, so that's very little comfort.


----------



## ElmerMudd

dblack said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.
> 
> It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't want free markets, then please refrain from using a computer, produced by greedy capitalists, to spout your nonsense.
Click to expand...

Only the dumbest of the dumb would say "If you don't want free markets, then please refrain from using a computer, produced by greedy capitalists, to spout your nonsense.". A person who is so simple minded, if they have a mind at all would say this. They cannot comprehend a blended system, which all governments and all economies in the world are. There are no 100% free market economies nor is there any economy controlled by the government 100%. This idiot is too stupid to comprehend the real world.


----------



## dblack

ElmerMudd said:


> Only the dumbest of the dumb would say ...


Well, there you go. You really know how to make a persuasive argument!



> There are no 100% free market economies nor is there any economy controlled by the government 100%.


So what? The question is whether we want to pile on, with more and more government control over our lives. I don't. That's all.


> This idiot is too stupid to comprehend the real world.


If you think that's idiotic, then I have a pretty clear picture of your politics. Thanks.


----------



## ElmerMudd

bear513 said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.
> 
> It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't die if you have health care..
> 
> 
> Who knew?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Wyatt earp

ElmerMudd said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.
> 
> It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't die if you have health care..
> 
> 
> Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Bear, you do die with insurance and/or a lot of money, but most likely not as fast as if you were only given healthcare if you could pay for it or had insurance.
> I know this is a very complex idea. Have your mother explain it to you.
Click to expand...

Talk about drinking the Kool aid


----------



## Papageorgio

dblack said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never convince a Statist that anything is wrong with a government program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Black or white.....white or black.
> 
> Say, just where is libertarianism practiced on this planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everywhere. Most of the time.
Click to expand...

I see libertarians of today like I used to see liberals in the 60's and 70's. Back then it was don't trust government and question everything. Not a bad idea.


----------



## ElmerMudd

dblack said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the dumbest of the dumb would say "If you don't want free markets, then please refrain from using a computer, produced by greedy capitalists, to spout your nonsense."
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there you go. You really know how to make a persuasive argument!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no 100% free market economies nor is there any economy controlled by the government 100%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what? The question is whether we want to pile on, with more and more government control over our lives. I don't. That's all.
> 
> 
> 
> This idiot is too stupid to comprehend the real world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you think that's idiotic, then I have a pretty clear picture of your politics. Thanks.
Click to expand...

You speak in absolutes, that is not the real world. You criticize all government involvement in our lives but take advantage of government provided benefits that you need. If you need them, they are OK.
Those who only understand their own needs and their own world are the dumbest among us. You are one of those.


----------



## ElmerMudd

bear513 said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.
> 
> It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't die if you have health care..
> 
> 
> Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Bear, you do die with insurance and/or a lot of money, but most likely not as fast as if you were only given healthcare if you could pay for it or had insurance.
> I know this is a very complex idea. Have your mother explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about drinking the Kool aid
Click to expand...

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


----------



## 22lcidw

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

It is the real cost that will turn Government healthcare into a trough of destruction. Progs will get it through and then leave for other agendas as they always do. the massive shit that comes from it will be blamed on someone. As we see the blame today.


----------



## dblack

ElmerMudd said:


> You speak in absolutes, that is not the real world.



No, I don't. That's a strawman you cling to. I'm just saying we shouldn't make matters worse.



> You criticize all government involvement in our lives but take advantage of government provided benefits that you need. If you need them, they are OK.


If I'm forced to pay for something, I'm definitely going to use/abuse it to the fullest of my ability. And I'll keep complaining about it.

How would you like it if corporate CEOs could force you to buy their products whether you wanted them or not? Hmmm... I guess that's pretty much what ACA does, so maybe you'd really dig it.


> Those who only understand their own needs and their own world are the dumbest among us. You are one of those.


No I'm not. You just want to label me as such because it's easier than addressing my arguments. Ad hominem, I think it's called.


----------



## Flash

The only thing this case decided was since now there is no penalty for telling the Democrat assholes to shove it where the sun don't shine with Obamacare there was no standing to challenge it.

At least that is what the yahoos said.


----------



## FA_Q2

Hutch Starskey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
> Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said.  God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
> SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.
Click to expand...

No, the literally did not.  That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means.  The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings.  Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.


----------



## SavannahMann

dblack said:


> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've managed to put politicians in charge of our health care. Congrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As one who has battled the Insurance Companies before. And will again. It is honestly not a concern of mine. Frankly the longer I spend trying to get the insurance companies to care for my wife as they are supposed to, the better Single Payer sounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as you don't mind every single election being a referendum on whether grandma lives or dies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That referendum is being fought out monthly now. You mean I can make it a fight I have to deal with every couple years instead? My God. That sounds like paradise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm talking about something radically different. I'm talking about majority rules decisions, where we take a vote and we're stuck with whatever the majority wants. That's not necessary.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. The Republicans want to cut funding. But don’t want to actually be blamed for it. After all it was Bush who pushed through the Medicare Prescription Drug plan. Which wasn’t much of a help. But it was some help. 

The idea that care for my loved ones will come down to a vote is insane. 

The battles will be fought over procedures and coverage. Republicans will scream and shout about not covering Abortion. Democrats will scream and shout over the issue. 

Republicans will demand that services be cut. Democrats will campaign on raising taxes on the rich to pay for more services. 

In other words. Exactly where we are now.


----------



## FA_Q2

Flash said:


> This is just another example of why we can't trust the Judicial to protect our Liberties any more than we can trust the Legislative or Executive Branches.
> 
> Just remember that the first Obamacare ruling was that it was legal because it was a fucking tax.  Even though the Obama administration argued that it wasn't a tax.  How friggin stupid was that?


What is really ironic is that the left always seems to think that the judges the right appoints are going to be just like the ones they appoint - judicial activists married to an ideology.  You rarely see the left leaning court appointees break away and vote against the block.  The right leaning judges do it all the time.


----------



## FA_Q2

SavannahMann said:


> The idea that care for my loved ones will come down to a vote is insane.


Huh?

That is exactly what government healthcare is.  If the government controls your care it will always come down to a vote by definition, at least as long as we keep this form of government.  I guess a totalitarian government would not depend on a vote.


----------



## kaz

Hutch Starskey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
> Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said.  God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
> SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.
Click to expand...


You're a total fucking retard.

The only double standard is your Democrat one that your rules don't apply to you


----------



## Flash

FA_Q2 said:


> Flash said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is just another example of why we can't trust the Judicial to protect our Liberties any more than we can trust the Legislative or Executive Branches.
> 
> Just remember that the first Obamacare ruling was that it was legal because it was a fucking tax.  Even though the Obama administration argued that it wasn't a tax.  How friggin stupid was that?
> 
> 
> 
> What is really ironic is that the left always seems to think that the judges the right appoints are going to be just like the ones they appoint - judicial activists married to an ideology.  You rarely see the left leaning court appointees break away and vote against the block.  The right leaning judges do it all the time.
Click to expand...



I don't trust judges with my Liberty.

However, this was really a decision of standing.   Since the penalty for not having Obamacare has been removed then there was no damages, thus no standing. 

Not as bad as a Supreme Court decision to allow a mother to kill her unborn child.


----------



## otto105

Anathema said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> f you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die
> 
> 
> 
> I want nothing from the Government except what they’re specifically given power over in founding documents, and which I pay taxes for:
> 
> From the Feds thst would be interstate roads and defense of the nation (not other nations). From the state that would be state roads. From the local Government that would be fire, police, local roads. Schools should be a private affair.
> 
> The Government should not have its nose or fingers in most of people’s affairs. Definitely not our health care.
Click to expand...

Libertarianism doesn't work.

Try to keep up.


----------



## kaz

Hutch Starskey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## otto105

dblack said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never convince a Statist that anything is wrong with a government program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Black or white.....white or black.
> 
> Say, just where is libertarianism practiced on this planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everywhere. Most of the time.
Click to expand...

Where exactly?


----------



## kaz

Biff_Poindexter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most things only work because of the government's monopolization of force
> 
> Or you think things like contracts, or intellectual property are protected by nature??
Click to expand...


Yes, retard, I think mother nature enforces contracts.

What the fuck are you talking about?  That doesn't address anything I said.  Want to read it again and try 2/3 to at least address the subject?


----------



## Anathema

otto105 said:


> Libertarianism doesn't work.


Then maybe it’s time to blow this whole place up and start over from scratch.


----------



## otto105

Anathema said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarianism doesn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe it’s time to blow this whole place up and start over from scratch.
Click to expand...

Why? Our country doesn't practice a failed economic theory.


----------



## Anathema

otto105 said:


> Why? Our country doesn't practice a failed economic theory


You mean like Democracy or the Republic? I would suggest what we need is a Constitutional Authoritarian government. That would be a nice change.


----------



## otto105

Anathema said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Our country doesn't practice a failed economic theory
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Democracy or the Republic? I would suggest what we need is a Constitutional Authoritarian government. That would be a nice change.
Click to expand...

I get the sarcasm.


----------



## FA_Q2

otto105 said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Our country doesn't practice a failed economic theory
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Democracy or the Republic? I would suggest what we need is a Constitutional Authoritarian government. That would be a nice change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the sarcasm.
Click to expand...

...

That is not sarcasm.  Anathema is quite honest in his support of authoritarianism.  Has been since he started posting here iirc.


----------



## otto105

FA_Q2 said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Our country doesn't practice a failed economic theory
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like Democracy or the Republic? I would suggest what we need is a Constitutional Authoritarian government. That would be a nice change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get the sarcasm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...
> 
> That is not sarcasm.  Anathema is quite honest in his support of authoritarianism.  Has been since he started posting here iirc.
Click to expand...

What a waste of time posting by him.

Thanks FA_Q2


----------



## Anathema

otto105 said:


> I get the sarcasm


No sarcasm involved. I have zero interest in seeing this nation maintain a Democratic government.,Democracy has been proven a failure. We need to move on.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rambunctious said:


> Fine with me...I'm not stuck with it....Obama care is over priced and unaffordable and has high deductibles....people with obamacare that come down with severe illness still end up in bankruptcy court.....


This is a lie as well as a sour grapes fallacy.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Claudette said:


> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.


lol

Blame your fellow Republicans and the idiot Trump:

‘Breyer wrote that none of the challengers, including Texas and 17 other states and the individual plaintiffs, could trace a legal injury to the individual mandate, partly because a Republican-backed tax law signed by Trump in 2017 had wiped out the financial penalty.

"Unsurprisingly, the states have not demonstrated that an unenforceable mandate will cause their residents to enroll in valuable benefits programs that they would otherwise forgo," Breyer wrote.’









						U.S. Supreme Court rejects Trump-backed challenge to Obamacare
					

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a Republican bid backed by former President Donald Trump's administration to invalidate Obamacare, preserving the landmark healthcare law for the third time since its 2010 enactment.




					www.reuters.com
				




Absent a financial penalty, the constitutionality of the IM is moot.


----------



## Rambunctious

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine with me...I'm not stuck with it....Obama care is over priced and unaffordable and has high deductibles....people with obamacare that come down with severe illness still end up in bankruptcy court.....
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie as well as a sour grapes fallacy.
Click to expand...

Its not a lie...if you claim it is show the proof....


----------



## Hutch Starskey

FA_Q2 said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
> Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said.  God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
> SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the literally did not.  That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means.  The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings.  Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.
Click to expand...




FA_Q2 said:


> No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.


You’ve literally no sense of humor.
It is pretty dumb though to appeal such a weak case all the way to the SCOTUS.  Lack of standing in this case meant that the states were not damaged sufficiently enough to even make the case against the ACA in the first place.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

kaz said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
> Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said.  God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
> SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a total fucking retard.
> 
> The only double standard is your Democrat one that your rules don't apply to you
Click to expand...




kaz said:


> You're a total fucking retard.
> 
> The only double standard is your Democrat one that your rules don't apply to you


You’re clearly confused per usual.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

kaz said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...




kaz said:


> 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.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Anathema said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarianism doesn't work.
> 
> 
> 
> Then maybe it’s time to blow this whole place up and start over from scratch.
Click to expand...




Anathema said:


> Then maybe it’s time to blow this whole place up and start over from scratch.


Or maybe just yourself


----------



## dblack

SavannahMann said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SavannahMann said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've managed to put politicians in charge of our health care. Congrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As one who has battled the Insurance Companies before. And will again. It is honestly not a concern of mine. Frankly the longer I spend trying to get the insurance companies to care for my wife as they are supposed to, the better Single Payer sounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as you don't mind every single election being a referendum on whether grandma lives or dies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That referendum is being fought out monthly now. You mean I can make it a fight I have to deal with every couple years instead? My God. That sounds like paradise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm talking about something radically different. I'm talking about majority rules decisions, where we take a vote and we're stuck with whatever the majority wants. That's not necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. The Republicans want to cut funding. But don’t want to actually be blamed for it. After all it was Bush who pushed through the Medicare Prescription Drug plan. Which wasn’t much of a help. But it was some help.
> 
> The idea that care for my loved ones will come down to a vote is insane.
> 
> The battles will be fought over procedures and coverage. Republicans will scream and shout about not covering Abortion. Democrats will scream and shout over the issue.
> 
> Republicans will demand that services be cut. Democrats will campaign on raising taxes on the rich to pay for more services.
> 
> In other words. Exactly where we are now.
Click to expand...


I agree. Except for the "nonsense" party.  How does your post conflict with mine?


----------



## dblack

otto105 said:


> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> f you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die
> 
> 
> 
> I want nothing from the Government except what they’re specifically given power over in founding documents, and which I pay taxes for:
> 
> From the Feds thst would be interstate roads and defense of the nation (not other nations). From the state that would be state roads. From the local Government that would be fire, police, local roads. Schools should be a private affair.
> 
> The Government should not have its nose or fingers in most of people’s affairs. Definitely not our health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Libertarianism doesn't work.
> 
> Try to keep up.
Click to expand...


It works brilliantly. It's the default mode of society. 

Try to pay attention.


----------



## dblack

otto105 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never convince a Statist that anything is wrong with a government program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Black or white.....white or black.
> 
> Say, just where is libertarianism practiced on this planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everywhere. Most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where exactly?
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Flopper

Dana7360 said:


> 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


It should be pretty clear that Obamacare is not going to be overturn by the Supreme Court.  Conservatives have 3 times tried and struck out.  The only way it is going to be overturned is if republican in congress do it.   Republicans had a chance when they controlled Congress during the Trump administration.  Instead of making it a priority, they punted and left it to the courts. The fact is conservatives want Obamacare gone but they don't want to have to offer a replacement because of the problems it will cause them at the ballot box. 28 million people have health insurance due to Obamacare. 38 states have adopted Medicaid Expansion, a part of Obamacare.  Without Obamacare, those states would be faced with either a huge cut to Medicaid or replacing federal funds with state funds.


----------



## Ben Thomson

They ruled Texas does not have standing in that it was not injured in anyway by the ACA. Texas tried to claim it did suffer..due to the higher cost of more Texans being insured. Texans..(rolls eyes)


----------



## Colin norris

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Is it really a joke? Are you still crying about them refusing to her trumps challenges? 
How sad.  My heart bleeds for you.


----------



## Colin norris

Flopper said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should be pretty clear that Obamacare is not going to be overturn by the Supreme Court.  Conservatives have 3 times tried and struck out.  The only way it is going to be overturned is if republican in congress do it.   Republicans had a chance when they controlled Congress during the Trump administration.  Instead of making it a priority, they punted and left it to the courts. The fact is conservatives want Obamacare gone but they don't want to have to offer a replacement because of the problems it will cause them at the ballot box. 28 million people have health insurance due to Obamacare. 38 states have adopted Medicaid Expansion, a part of Obamacare.  Without Obamacare, those states would be faced with either a huge cut to Medicaid or replacing federal funds with state funds.
Click to expand...


They will pay with election defeat if they attempt to remove it. 
28 million will swing any election.


----------



## Wyatt earp

ElmerMudd said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.
> 
> It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't die if you have health care..
> 
> 
> Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Bear, you do die with insurance and/or a lot of money, but most likely not as fast as if you were only given healthcare if you could pay for it or had insurance.
> I know this is a very complex idea. Have your mother explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about drinking the Kool aid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not Kool Aid, that is the real world; no sugar added. How old are you. You sound like a person who has not experienced much in life or are very stupid or both.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## debbiedowner

Donald H said:


> A huge hit to Trump by his 'loaded' Scotus.
> 
> Complete 'crazy' won't go the distance for Trump. Between this and the positive spin for Biden with Putin, this is Trump's worst day since the voters took him down.
> 
> Trump's supporters on this board are now isolated background noise.


His loaded SCOTUS I don't believe has given the right a big win. I always said if a justice was following the law it doesn't matter what President nominated them.


----------



## debbiedowner

Claudette said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't find lots of things in the Constitution.......but that is an extremely childish justification for not wanting more people to have health care....
> 
> But anyhoo....The first federal public healthcare law was signed in 1798....by one of those "Founders" you love to worship.....was he a socialist marxist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want health care then you buy it like everyone else does. You want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
Click to expand...

Damn, you amaze me and I always thought you were a Walmart employee but you in earlier posts prove you are a constitutional scholar who probably has health insurance and pays for other's.


----------



## debbiedowner

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astrostar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Working Americans loose again. The only people who like Obamacare are those the rest of us are paying for.
> 
> If Renquist had still been alive and Chief Justice of the SC, Obamacare would have been kicked to the curb. Right where it belongs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, please thrill us with your idea of "something better."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't find lots of things in the Constitution.......but that is an extremely childish justification for not wanting more people to have health care....
> 
> But anyhoo....The first federal public healthcare law was signed in 1798....by one of those "Founders" you love to worship.....was he a socialist marxist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You want health care then you buy it like everyone else does. You want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are subsidizing someone's healthcare regardless...or do you not know how insurance companies work??
> 
> Fact is.....you are subsidizing someone else's healthcare in a more ineffective way in the private market than you would be in the public market....
> 
> 
> But aside from that point...do you not care that Republicans lie to you over and over again about their healthcare plans??  Did you already know Trump was being full of shit about promising everyone affordable healthcare with his non-existent plan?? Was that one of those lies you didn't mind because your cult leader said it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well since I'm not a Rep I really don't care what they say.
> 
> As for me. I'm on Medicare. Which I've paid for my whole working life. If you want to pay for someone else's health care then be my guest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is how Medicare works...that is how taxes work.....
> 
> Do you think that you alone paid for the Medicare benefits you receive now??
> 
> Adorable
Click to expand...

She's clueless.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Harry Dresden said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they dont cover everything.....so they also tell you what health care you can have....
Click to expand...

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??


----------



## kaz

Hutch Starskey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
> Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said.  God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
> SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a total fucking retard.
> 
> The only double standard is your Democrat one that your rules don't apply to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a total fucking retard.
> 
> The only double standard is your Democrat one that your rules don't apply to you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re clearly confused per usual.
Click to expand...


You looked at a post and said that is clearly not the same, you clearly aren't going to hold Democrats to the same standard you hold Republicans to.  It's lame, you're a total hypocrite


----------



## kaz

Hutch Starskey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still confused I see.
> I said nothing about welfare, dope.
> 
> Yes. Risk pooling. Now explain why they are arranged as such.
Click to expand...


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 ...


----------



## colfax_m

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.


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> 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


----------



## Harry Dresden

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they dont cover everything.....so they also tell you what health care you can have....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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??
Click to expand...

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


----------



## BS Filter

Synthaholic said:


> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.


America loses.  You and Omar can celebrate with a terrorist attack and a roasted goat.


----------



## Dana7360

colfax_m said:


> 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.




If they were harmed by buying insurance then every adult in America who buys health insurance is harmed.

What the far right is saying is that they don't want to be forced to be responsible. That they won't be responsible no matter what.

What the far right wants is to not pay for insurance then when they need health care take all the health care they can get then not pay for it. 

Leaving the thousands to be paid by those of us who are responsible.


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

colfax_m said:


> 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.


Elie Mystal is a brilliant Harvard educated lawyer.....he summed what the Supreme Court's "standing" ruling meant in regular language perfectly....


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Harry Dresden said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they dont cover everything.....so they also tell you what health care you can have....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all i said was ...medicare does not cover many things,just like private ins.....am i wrong or not?....
Click to expand...

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...


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...

Standing in Federal Court​At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy). 

In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue

The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury









						Standing
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...

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.....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they dont cover everything.....so they also tell you what health care you can have....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all i said was ...medicare does not cover many things,just like private ins.....am i wrong or not?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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...
Click to expand...

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


----------



## meaner gene

colfax_m said:


> Standing in Federal Court​At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).



The irony is that, after removing the penalty (setting the tax to $0 for not having insurance)  they removed any "injury in fact".


----------



## Donald H

debbiedowner said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> A huge hit to Trump by his 'loaded' Scotus.
> 
> Complete 'crazy' won't go the distance for Trump. Between this and the positive spin for Biden with Putin, this is Trump's worst day since the voters took him down.
> 
> Trump's supporters on this board are now isolated background noise.
> 
> 
> 
> His loaded SCOTUS I don't believe has given the right a big win. I always said if a justice was following the law it doesn't matter what President nominated them.
Click to expand...

The reason why that's wrong in the US is because the political right is extremist and out of sync with the reality of the 21st. century, and they try to make their own new laws. Outlawing abortion for one instance. 
However, on this question some sanity overruled.


----------



## dblack

Biff_Poindexter said:


> 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.....



Right. But the profit motive works both ways. Their efforts to deny coverage are mitigated by their need to satisfy customers. If people get fed up, they can tell their insurance company to piss off. Your tax dollars will pay for Medicare regardless of whether you use it or not.

It's also interesting to note that Medicare claims processing is farmed out to insurance companies, often the same companies running your "for-profit" group insurance. These companies bid on the contracts for different regions - low bidder wins and then they make profits by, you guessed it, denying claims. Medicare is basically just the usual group insurance, paid for by the government rather than by employers.


----------



## meaner gene

Biff_Poindexter said:


> 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.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Harry Dresden said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they dont cover everything.....so they also tell you what health care you can have....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all i said was ...medicare does not cover many things,just like private ins.....am i wrong or not?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes it is because if it doesnt cover what i need done than it failed me....no different than private ins....
Click to expand...

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....


----------



## Rigby5

Jets said:


> Not sure what is unconstitutional about PPACA at this point.
> 
> The defunct mandate was the original sticking point.



The whole problem started when the IRS changed the tax laws in 1957, to allow employers to write off employee benefits like health insurance.
That was essentially illegal for many reasons, but mainly because it made health care more expensive for the poor but cheaper for the wealthy, and in effect forced the poor to subsidize health care for the wealthy.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

dblack said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. But the profit motive works both ways. Their efforts to deny coverage are mitigated by their need to satisfy customers. If people get fed up, they can tell their insurance company to piss off. Your tax dollars will pay for Medicare regardless of whether you use it or not.
> 
> It's also interesting to note that Medicare claims processing is farmed out to insurance companies, often the same companies running your "for-profit" group insurance. These companies bid on the contracts for different regions - low bidder wins and then they make profits by, you guessed it, denying claims. Medicare is basically just the usual group insurance, paid for by the government rather than by employers.
Click to expand...

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

_*"Ronald Reagan: “If you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”*









						Flashback: Republicans Opposed Medicare In 1960s By Warning Of Rationing, ‘Socialized Medicine’
					






					archive.thinkprogress.org
				



_

So instead of it leading to America not being free (which is rich because this was said at a time when black Americans were LITERALLY NOT FREE) -- you are saying it is just regular insurance that is funded by taxpayers instead of employers??

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


----------



## Rigby5

Dana7360 said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they were harmed by buying insurance then every adult in America who buys health insurance is harmed.
> 
> What the far right is saying is that they don't want to be forced to be responsible. That they won't be responsible no matter what.
> 
> What the far right wants is to not pay for insurance then when they need health care take all the health care they can get then not pay for it.
> 
> Leaving the thousands to be paid by those of us who are responsible.
Click to expand...


Wrong.
Buying health insurance is so stupid as to be criminal.
Buying health insurance means prepaying, so that then you get no say as to cost or quality.
Buying health insurance means paying double to a financial institution that adds absolutely nothing to your health care.
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.

No liberal would ever support private health insurance, at all, in any way.


----------



## sartre play

ACA has problems because every political entity stuck there finger in the pie to enhance  them self's, We have had years to work on improving it, instead as with everything else it has been turned into a political party tool, SO nothing gets done, no new better plan has come forward.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## colfax_m

Rigby5 said:


> Buying health insurance is so stupid as to be criminal.


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


Rigby5 said:


> 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

meaner gene said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

kaz said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still confused I see.
> I said nothing about welfare, dope.
> 
> Yes. Risk pooling. Now explain why they are arranged as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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 ...
Click to expand...




kaz said:


> 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

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

Biff_Poindexter said:


> 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

dblack said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in my post did you consider "goofy ass hyperbole"?
Click to expand...

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

Biff_Poindexter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in my post did you consider "goofy ass hyperbole"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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......
Click to expand...


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

Claudette said:


> 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

Donald H said:


> 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

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they dont cover everything.....so they also tell you what health care you can have....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all i said was ...medicare does not cover many things,just like private ins.....am i wrong or not?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes it is because if it doesnt cover what i need done than it failed me....no different than private ins....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
Click to expand...

you are talking about something different than me...


----------



## Rigby5

Biff_Poindexter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.....
Click to expand...


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

dblack said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

dblack said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in my post did you consider "goofy ass hyperbole"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as it's clear that Medicare doesn't take insurance company profits out of the equation. It ensures them.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Rigby5 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

Rigby5 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

dblack said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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...
Click to expand...

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?


----------



## Rigby5

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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...
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Donald H

Rigby5 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Nothing can improve until the political hate for Obama is eliminated.

If there weren't desirable qualities in the ACA, the political right wouldn't be tearing it's hair out over the Scotus decision.

The benefits of changing to something that works for all Americans, far outweighs the benefits of hating for political reasons.


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Standing in Federal Court​At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
> 
> In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue
> 
> The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
> There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
> It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
Click to expand...


Right, that isn't what you said it means


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Standing in Federal Court​At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
> 
> In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue
> 
> The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
> There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
> It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, that isn't what you said it means
Click to expand...

Sure it is. To have standing you have to have a legitimate complaint. What constitutes a legitimate complaint is described above, starting with an injury in fact.

You seem confused by what standing means.


----------



## Donald H

Rigby5 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Employer contributipmd are a part of the world's most successful HC systems.

Understand that Americans really don't have the credibility to even start to make suggestions. Your system is a dismal failure in all ways.


----------



## TNHarley

Hidden said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Health insurance hadn't been invented yet, like so many other things that weren't around when it was written, you Constitutional scholar you.
Click to expand...

Indeed. So, going by what you just pointed out, a Constitutional Amendment is required.


----------



## kaz

Biff_Poindexter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.....
Click to expand...


There is more to it than that


----------



## TNHarley

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.


----------



## Donald H

Rigby5 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

You're lost in your lack of understanding of how a successful HC system works. 

But you Americans already know all the answers so what's to do but to  watch the sideshow as the wealthy ruling class stick it up you asses for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Donald H

TNHarley said:


> 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.


----------



## TNHarley

Donald H said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either


----------



## TNHarley

Donald H said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're lost in your lack of understanding of how a successful HC system works.
> 
> But you Americans already know all the answers so what's to do but to  watch the sideshow as the wealthy ruling class stick it up you asses for the foreseeable future.
Click to expand...

This ACA you have been discussing was written by the wealthy class, for the wealthy class.
But you dont care about facts. Authoritarians never do. If you idiots cared about facts, you wouldnt suck off big govt dick.


----------



## Donald H

TNHarley said:


> Hidden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Health insurance hadn't been invented yet, like so many other things that weren't around when it was written, you Constitutional scholar you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. So, going by what you just pointed out, a Constitutional Amendment is required.
Click to expand...

America's HC system is the example of complete failure to the rest of the modern world mr. Harley.
What more needs to be said?


----------



## dblack

Biff_Poindexter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in my post did you consider "goofy ass hyperbole"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as it's clear that Medicare doesn't take insurance company profits out of the equation. It ensures them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But Medicare itself isn't a for-profit enterprise...which is why their overhead can be so low......
Click to expand...


What makes you think "for-profit" entails _more_ overhead?


----------



## TNHarley

Donald H said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hidden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> HC should be kicked back to the private sector where it belongs. Check the Constitution. You won't find health care anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Health insurance hadn't been invented yet, like so many other things that weren't around when it was written, you Constitutional scholar you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed. So, going by what you just pointed out, a Constitutional Amendment is required.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> America's HC system is the example of complete failure to the rest of the modern world mr. Harley.
> What more needs to be said?
Click to expand...

Because of the federal govt. Not from the lack thereof. Thats what you dipshits dont understand. Or ignore.


----------



## dblack

Donald H said:


> Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.



Why?


----------



## meaner gene

meaner gene said:


> 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.





Biff_Poindexter said:


> 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."*


Look up the record on the "line item veto"
Six senators took it to court, as a violation of the constitution, and it was tossed out because of lack of standing.  And this was a case coming from the people who wrote the law.

Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia

But it took na actual controversy, and not just principle, to make it judgeable.  

Clinton v. City of New York - Wikipedia


----------



## Donald H

TNHarley said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either
Click to expand...

You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
America's HC system is a complete fkng failure. 
Lose all your wrong ideas on HC and start from scratch. 
When you're ready to learn by acting like rational adults, the rest of the world has some answers.


----------



## TNHarley

Donald H said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
> America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
> Lose all your wrong ideas on HC and start from scratch.
> When you're ready to learn by acting like rational adults, the rest of the world has some answers.
Click to expand...

I know its a failure. How many times must i say it? Does Canada not teach reading and comprehension?


----------



## kaz

Hutch Starskey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still confused I see.
> I said nothing about welfare, dope.
> 
> Yes. Risk pooling. Now explain why they are arranged as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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 ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said nothing of redistributing wealth, dope. It’s your fundamental inability to understand that leads you to such retarded conclusions.
Click to expand...


Winston Churchill:   I can explain it to you.  I cannot comprehend it for you


----------



## Donald H

dblack said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

Because it's a part of the world's leading HC systems and it works.
There's no danger in leaving an employer that provides HC in a proper system that works. Health care for all the people is guaranteed in those other countries and it's also rated as higher quality than America in all cases of modern industrialized countries.


----------



## Donald H

TNHarley said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
> America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
> Lose all your wrong ideas on HC and start from scratch.
> When you're ready to learn by acting like rational adults, the rest of the world has some answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know its a failure. How many times must i say it? Does Canada not teach reading and comprehension?
Click to expand...

If you understand that America's system is a failure then you should be ready for some learning of new ideas on what works. 

You're not, you're still headfkd by your politics. 
But I'm here to help if you're ever ready.
Impress me with something you're learning!


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Donald H said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

Employers don't need to subsidize HC in the way it is currently situated.....

Most of the universal HC's in places like Sweden and Denmark are not funded by employers...the same can be done here


----------



## dblack

Donald H said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
> America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Standing in Federal Court​At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
> 
> In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue
> 
> The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
> There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
> It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, that isn't what you said it means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is. To have standing you have to have a legitimate complaint. What constitutes a legitimate complaint is described above, starting with an injury in fact.
> 
> You seem confused by what standing means.
Click to expand...


The term "legitimate" is so ambiguous there that it could mean anything


----------



## dblack

Donald H said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's a part of the world's leading HC systems and it works.
> There's no danger in leaving an employer that provides HC in a proper system that works. Health care for all the people is guaranteed in those other countries and it's also rated as higher quality than America in all cases of modern industrialized countries.
Click to expand...

Why should employers remains as contributors to their employees' HC?


----------



## Donald H

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employers don't need to subsidize HC in the way it is currently situated.....
> 
> Most of the universal HC's in places like Sweden and Denmark are not funded by employers...the same can be done here
Click to expand...

Americans know nothing about how HC works in other countries and should stfu and listen to others who do.




__





						Sweden
					

By Anna H. Glenngård, Lund University School of Economics and Management  Sweden’s universal health system is nationally regulated and locally administered. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs sets overall health policy, the regions finance and deliver health care services, and the...




					www.commonwealthfund.org


----------



## Donald H

dblack said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's a part of the world's leading HC systems and it works.
> There's no danger in leaving an employer that provides HC in a proper system that works. Health care for all the people is guaranteed in those other countries and it's also rated as higher quality than America in all cases of modern industrialized countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should employers remains as contributors to their employees' HC?
Click to expand...

Los you American 'know everything' attitude and start listening to what others can teach you.


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Standing in Federal Court​At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
> 
> In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue
> 
> The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
> There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
> It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, that isn't what you said it means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is. To have standing you have to have a legitimate complaint. What constitutes a legitimate complaint is described above, starting with an injury in fact.
> 
> You seem confused by what standing means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "legitimate" is so ambiguous there that it could mean anything
Click to expand...

It feels like the goalposts are moving. 

The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.

The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.


----------



## Donald H

dblack said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
> America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Group insurance plans are a proven effective way to reduce costs. You still haven't learned to stfu and open your head to learning the answers from people of other countries.

I can't waste more time on you ignorant louts until you can fully accept the concept of single payer, government run universal HC for all the people. 

(and that includes even the black and brown ones too)


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Donald H said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employers don't need to subsidize HC in the way it is currently situated.....
> 
> Most of the universal HC's in places like Sweden and Denmark are not funded by employers...the same can be done here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Americans know nothing about how HC works in other countries and should stfu and listen to others who do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweden
> 
> 
> By Anna H. Glenngård, Lund University School of Economics and Management  Sweden’s universal health system is nationally regulated and locally administered. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs sets overall health policy, the regions finance and deliver health care services, and the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.commonwealthfund.org
Click to expand...

Show me the part that says employers fund most of the HC in Sweden?? Or better yet, just give me a percentage ...is it 75% 60%, 51%??


"*Sweden’s health expenditure represents a little over 11% of its GDP, most of which is funded by municipal and regional taxes"*


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

meaner gene said:


> meaner gene said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look up the record on the "line item veto"
> Six senators took it to court, as a violation of the constitution, and it was tossed out because of lack of standing.  And this was a case coming from the people who wrote the law.
> 
> Line Item Veto Act of 1996 - Wikipedia
> 
> But it took na actual controversy, and not just principle, to make it judgeable.
> 
> Clinton v. City of New York - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Does this explain why Conservatives have continued to fail at repealing the ACA at the Supreme Court??


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standing in Federal Court​At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
> 
> In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue
> 
> The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
> There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
> It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, that isn't what you said it means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is. To have standing you have to have a legitimate complaint. What constitutes a legitimate complaint is described above, starting with an injury in fact.
> 
> You seem confused by what standing means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "legitimate" is so ambiguous there that it could mean anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It feels like the goalposts are moving.
> 
> The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.
> 
> The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.
Click to expand...


I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you.  Go fuck yourself


----------



## Donald H

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employers don't need to subsidize HC in the way it is currently situated.....
> 
> Most of the universal HC's in places like Sweden and Denmark are not funded by employers...the same can be done here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Americans know nothing about how HC works in other countries and should stfu and listen to others who do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweden
> 
> 
> By Anna H. Glenngård, Lund University School of Economics and Management  Sweden’s universal health system is nationally regulated and locally administered. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs sets overall health policy, the regions finance and deliver health care services, and the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.commonwealthfund.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me the part that says employers fund most of the HC in Sweden?? Or better yet, just give me a percentage ...is it 75% 60%, 51%??
> 
> 
> "*Sweden’s health expenditure represents a little over 11% of its GDP, most of which is funded by municipal and regional taxes"*
Click to expand...

I'm not here to debate Americans who already know everything.

Get with the program on government run, universal HC and stop the bullshit attempts to deflect. from the issues.


----------



## dblack

Donald H said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's a part of the world's leading HC systems and it works.
> There's no danger in leaving an employer that provides HC in a proper system that works. Health care for all the people is guaranteed in those other countries and it's also rated as higher quality than America in all cases of modern industrialized countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should employers remains as contributors to their employees' HC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Los you American 'know everything' attitude and start listening to what others can teach you.
Click to expand...

Likewise.


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standing in Federal Court​At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
> 
> In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue
> 
> The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
> There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
> It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, that isn't what you said it means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is. To have standing you have to have a legitimate complaint. What constitutes a legitimate complaint is described above, starting with an injury in fact.
> 
> You seem confused by what standing means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "legitimate" is so ambiguous there that it could mean anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It feels like the goalposts are moving.
> 
> The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.
> 
> The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you.  Go fuck yourself
Click to expand...

Whatever dude.

You made a dumb, ignorant statement and now you're going to take out your anger on me because I attempted to explain it to you.


----------



## dblack

Donald H said:


> Group insurance plans are a proven effective way to reduce costs.


Please site the proof of that claim. The widespread adoption of 'group insurance' has tracked pretty squarely with spiraling health costs. It breaks market incentives and pushes prices for health care higher and higher. 



> You still haven't learned to stfu and open your head to learning the answers from people of other countries.
> 
> I can't waste more time on you ignorant louts until you can fully accept the concept of single payer, government run universal HC for all the people.
> 
> (and that includes even the black and brown ones too)



Then by all means, don't waste any more time!  I'm more interested discussing the topic than hurling insults, so you won't be missed.


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standing in Federal Court​At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
> 
> In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue
> 
> The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
> There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
> It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, that isn't what you said it means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is. To have standing you have to have a legitimate complaint. What constitutes a legitimate complaint is described above, starting with an injury in fact.
> 
> You seem confused by what standing means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "legitimate" is so ambiguous there that it could mean anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It feels like the goalposts are moving.
> 
> The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.
> 
> The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you.  Go fuck yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever dude.
> 
> You made a dumb, ignorant statement and now you're going to take out your anger on me because I attempted to explain it to you.
Click to expand...


You do like to bicker, it's why I keep putting you on ignore to calm you down


----------



## Donald H

After all the childish spamming shit on this board over US fkd up HC, there's still a positive feeling being conveyed that Americans are starting to come to an understanding that the rubber meets the road  on the need for proper single payer, government run, universal HC, similar to the world's leading countries.

Didn't the last psychopath president actually help to bring that message home with his complete failure on HC reform?

Given another ten years and a few hundred thousand more murders by gun, America could be starting to grow up?


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standing in Federal Court​At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
> 
> In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (90-1424), 504 U.S. 555 (1992), the Supreme Court created a three-part test to determine whether a party has standing to sue
> 
> The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
> There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
> It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, that isn't what you said it means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure it is. To have standing you have to have a legitimate complaint. What constitutes a legitimate complaint is described above, starting with an injury in fact.
> 
> You seem confused by what standing means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The term "legitimate" is so ambiguous there that it could mean anything
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It feels like the goalposts are moving.
> 
> The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.
> 
> The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you.  Go fuck yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever dude.
> 
> You made a dumb, ignorant statement and now you're going to take out your anger on me because I attempted to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do like to bicker, it's why I keep putting you on ignore to calm you down
Click to expand...

I was actually pretty polite to you. Maybe you learned something today before putting me on ignore. 

Ciao loser.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Donald H said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Employers don't need to subsidize HC in the way it is currently situated.....
> 
> Most of the universal HC's in places like Sweden and Denmark are not funded by employers...the same can be done here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Americans know nothing about how HC works in other countries and should stfu and listen to others who do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweden
> 
> 
> By Anna H. Glenngård, Lund University School of Economics and Management  Sweden’s universal health system is nationally regulated and locally administered. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs sets overall health policy, the regions finance and deliver health care services, and the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.commonwealthfund.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me the part that says employers fund most of the HC in Sweden?? Or better yet, just give me a percentage ...is it 75% 60%, 51%??
> 
> 
> "*Sweden’s health expenditure represents a little over 11% of its GDP, most of which is funded by municipal and regional taxes"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not here to debate Americans who already know everything.
> 
> Get with the program on government run, universal HC and stop the bullshit attempts to deflect. from the issues.
Click to expand...

I didn't expect you to answer that...

I knew you didn't know what you were talking about a few comments ago....


----------



## Flopper

Colin norris said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should be pretty clear that Obamacare is not going to be overturn by the Supreme Court.  Conservatives have 3 times tried and struck out.  The only way it is going to be overturned is if republican in congress do it.   Republicans had a chance when they controlled Congress during the Trump administration.  Instead of making it a priority, they punted and left it to the courts. The fact is conservatives want Obamacare gone but they don't want to have to offer a replacement because of the problems it will cause them at the ballot box. 28 million people have health insurance due to Obamacare. 38 states have adopted Medicaid Expansion, a part of Obamacare.  Without Obamacare, those states would be faced with either a huge cut to Medicaid or replacing federal funds with state funds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They will pay with election defeat if they attempt to remove it.
> 28 million will swing any election.
Click to expand...

There would be  problems for both parties if the court actually threw out the ACA but republicans would suffer the most.


----------



## Winston

dblack said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's a part of the world's leading HC systems and it works.
> There's no danger in leaving an employer that provides HC in a proper system that works. Health care for all the people is guaranteed in those other countries and it's also rated as higher quality than America in all cases of modern industrialized countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should employers remains as contributors to their employees' HC?
Click to expand...

Our system, of health insurance that is based on employment, is totally dysfunctional, at least when it comes to serving the worker.  No other enterprise reveals the workings of the American political system than employer sponsored health care.  While it is a total injustice to the worker, it is a golden egg for both employers and insurance companies.  First, the employers.

Prior to the ACA, and in some extent it is still prevalent, many employees were "trapped" in their job.  They were dependent, not on the income, but on the health insurance coverage.  Leaving their employer would mean a period of time without health insurance, or a period of excessively high COBRA premiums.  Neither choice would be acceptable if you have a spouse or child with a chronic illness.  Another scenario is the self-employed individuals, small business owners, who had a spouse working, not for the income, but for the insurance.  This was vividly displayed after the passage of the ACA, when literally millions of women left the workforce.

The effect of this dysfunctional tying of health insurance to a job allowed companies to pay less than a "free market" would dictate.  If Joe Sixpack had a wife with MS, well he couldn't up and leave his job for better pay.  And plumber Pete's wife worked at Walmart, not for the income, but for health insurance.  In both cases, the insurance was the vehicle holding the employee to the job, it was not the salary, as it should be.

But the insurance companies made out even better.  Health insurance, at it's core, is a diversification of risk.  I ran a successful insurance agency for more than twenty years.  My intention, when I started, was to work the group market.  I ran away from that as fast as I could and settled into the Medicare market because the group market was such a damn racket.  When health insurance is based on employment, insurance companies can effectively segment the market.  My son is a research scientist.  Most of his fellow employees have graduate degrees and it is not like they are doing any physical labor.  He has a badass health insurance plan that is dirt cheap, because the risk pool, his fellow employees, are very low risk.  But, if you work in a coal mine, well your risk is only diversified among other coal miners and the premiums reflect as much.  This inherent segmentation of the market allows insurance companies to maximize profits.


----------



## dblack

Donald H said:


> After all the childish spamming shit on this board over US fkd up HC, there's still a positive feeling being conveyed that Americans are starting to come to an understanding that the rubber meets the road  on the need for proper single payer, government run, universal HC, similar to the world's leading countries.
> 
> Didn't the last psychopath president actually help to bring that message home with his complete failure on HC reform?



The message the last psychopath president brought home is that Republicans like power as much Democrats.


----------



## Dana7360

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...




You keep saying what legal standing isn't yet you don't say what it is.

The reason being is either you don't know what it is or you do and you just like to lie.

Here is the meaning of legal standing. 

Notice you are TOTALLY WRONG.

Now be a good little boy.  Hush, stop making a fool of yourself and leave reality to adults who have a real grasp of reality.

You don't.









						Legal Definition of Standing: Everything You Need to Know
					

Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit and to do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand.




					www.upcounsel.com
				




Legal Definition of Standing: Everything You Need to Know​_*Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit and to do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand.2 min read*_

1. Requirements for Standing Based on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
2. Requirements for Standing Based on Warth v. Seldin
3. Other Requirements for Standing

*Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit*. *To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.*
Requirements for Standing Based on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife​According to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan), there are *three requirements *for Article III standing:

*Injury in fact*, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
*A causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct*, which means that the injury can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court.
*A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision*, which means the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.
The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements.
Requirements for Standing Based on Warth v. Seldin​In deciding whether a person has standing, a court must *consider the allegations of fact contained in this person's declaration* and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing, according to Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth).
This case also notes that when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must *accept as true all material allegations of the complaint* and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing.
Standing is founded "in concern about the proper — and properly limited — role of the courts in a democratic society." Warth, 422 U.S. at 498.
Other Requirements for Standing​When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for 'concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.'" Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.
Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief "must show a very significant possibility of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit." Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).


----------



## Dana7360

meaner gene said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standing in Federal Court​At the federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law. Federal courts only have constitutional authority to resolve actual disputes (see Case or Controversy).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is that, after removing the penalty (setting the tax to $0 for not having insurance)  they removed any "injury in fact".
Click to expand...




Yup.

They stabbed themselves right in the back with their own hate and foolishness.


----------



## dblack

Winston said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's a part of the world's leading HC systems and it works.
> There's no danger in leaving an employer that provides HC in a proper system that works. Health care for all the people is guaranteed in those other countries and it's also rated as higher quality than America in all cases of modern industrialized countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should employers remains as contributors to their employees' HC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our system, of health insurance that is based on employment, is totally dysfunctional, at least when it comes to serving the worker.  No other enterprise reveals the workings of the American political system than employer sponsored health care.  While it is a total injustice to the worker, it is a golden egg for both employers and insurance companies.  First, the employers.
> 
> Prior to the ACA, and in some extent it is still prevalent, many employees were "trapped" in their job.  They were dependent, not on the income, but on the health insurance coverage.  Leaving their employer would mean a period of time without health insurance, or a period of excessively high COBRA premiums.  Neither choice would be acceptable if you have a spouse or child with a chronic illness.  Another scenario is the self-employed individuals, small business owners, who had a spouse working, not for the income, but for the insurance.  This was vividly displayed after the passage of the ACA, when literally millions of women left the workforce.
> 
> The effect of this dysfunctional tying of health insurance to a job allowed companies to pay less than a "free market" would dictate.  If Joe Sixpack had a wife with MS, well he couldn't up and leave his job for better pay.  And plumber Pete's wife worked at Walmart, not for the income, but for health insurance.  In both cases, the insurance was the vehicle holding the employee to the job, it was not the salary, as it should be.
> 
> But the insurance companies made out even better.  Health insurance, at it's core, is a diversification of risk.  I ran a successful insurance agency for more than twenty years.  My intention, when I started, was to work the group market.  I ran away from that as fast as I could and settled into the Medicare market because the group market was such a damn racket.  When health insurance is based on employment, insurance companies can effectively segment the market.  My son is a research scientist.  Most of his fellow employees have graduate degrees and it is not like they are doing any physical labor.  He has a badass health insurance plan that is dirt cheap, because the risk pool, his fellow employees, are very low risk.  But, if you work in a coal mine, well your risk is only diversified among other coal miners and the premiums reflect as much.  This inherent segmentation of the market allows insurance companies to maximize profits.
Click to expand...


That's what I've seen as well. 

Group health insurance is also destructive to the market. By breaking the normal consumer incentives, it drives prices higher and higher - to the point that most people think of healthcare as something you can't afford without insurance. Which is kinda nuts when you stop and think about it.


----------



## TNHarley

Donald H said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
> America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
> Lose all your wrong ideas on HC and start from scratch.
> When you're ready to learn by acting like rational adults, the rest of the world has some answers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know its a failure. How many times must i say it? Does Canada not teach reading and comprehension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you understand that America's system is a failure then you should be ready for some learning of new ideas on what works.
> 
> You're not, you're still headfkd by your politics.
> But I'm here to help if you're ever ready.
> Impress me with something you're learning!
Click to expand...

We need a govt free healthcare industry. Thats it.
Simple really.


----------



## TNHarley

Donald H said:


> Group insurance plans are a proven effective way to reduce costs.


No shit?


----------



## colfax_m

Dana7360 said:


> You keep saying what legal standing isn't yet you don't say what it is.


Kaz didn’t know. They just repeated a common trope among the right without knowing what they’re talking about.

I swear, the groupthink is hard to penetrate. Especially when you see how they react to attempts to disabuse them of their bullshit


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> It feels like the goalposts are moving.
> 
> The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.
> 
> The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you.  Go fuck yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever dude.
> 
> You made a dumb, ignorant statement and now you're going to take out your anger on me because I attempted to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do like to bicker, it's why I keep putting you on ignore to calm you down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was actually pretty polite to you. Maybe you learned something today before putting me on ignore.
> 
> Ciao loser.
Click to expand...


Sounded like your normal useless bickering, still does.

You didn't understand what standing meant when you said it and you read the definition then didn't know how you were wrong.     Useless bickering is your bag, it's all you do.    My policy for bickering is putting you on temporary ignore, and I've done that to you like three times at least as anyone else.  I try to save permanent ignore for people who do more serious things


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying what legal standing isn't yet you don't say what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Kaz didn’t know. They just repeated a common trope among the right without knowing what they’re talking about.
> 
> I swear, the groupthink is hard to penetrate. Especially when you see how they react to attempts to disabuse them of their bullshit
Click to expand...


More of your bickering because you didn't understand what standing means.  As I just pointed out, you still don't.

BTW, I never defined standing, stupid fuck.   So how would you even know that I don't know what it means?   More of your stupid, useless bickering bull shit


----------



## Dana7360

dblack said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
> America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




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? 

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

How do people pay their medical bills?


----------



## JimH52

JimH52 said:


> Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Obama health law
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge from GOP-led states and the Trump administration to Obamacare Thursday, preserving insurance coverage for millions of Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory for the ACA and the American People!


Why does the repub party hate the average American so much, that they are willing to let them suffer , without health insurance?  Every developed nation in the world has some kind of universal healthy care,  The US, with the repub party aka Taliban of the United States, has the most expensive health care costs in the world.  And due to stupidity of the repub party, we have people dying in the streets without health care insurance.









						List of Countries with Universal Healthcare
					

Update 1/21/2013: With the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ACA (aka Obamacare), and President Obama’s inauguration to a second term today, the US will have universal health care …




					truecostblog.com
				












						Infographic: The U.S. Has the Most Expensive Healthcare System in the World
					

This chart shows health spending per capita in selected countries.




					www.statista.com


----------



## kaz

Dana7360 said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying what legal standing isn't yet you don't say what it is.
> 
> The reason being is either you don't know what it is or you do and you just like to lie.
> 
> Here is the meaning of legal standing.
> 
> Notice you are TOTALLY WRONG.
> 
> Now be a good little boy.  Hush, stop making a fool of yourself and leave reality to adults who have a real grasp of reality.
> 
> You don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legal Definition of Standing: Everything You Need to Know
> 
> 
> Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit and to do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.upcounsel.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Legal Definition of Standing: Everything You Need to Know​_*Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit and to do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand.2 min read*_
> 
> 1. Requirements for Standing Based on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife
> 2. Requirements for Standing Based on Warth v. Seldin
> 3. Other Requirements for Standing
> 
> *Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit*. *To do so, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action.*
> Requirements for Standing Based on Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife​According to Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992) (Lujan), there are *three requirements *for Article III standing:
> 
> *Injury in fact*, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.
> *A causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct*, which means that the injury can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court.
> *A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision*, which means the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative.
> The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing each of these elements.
> Requirements for Standing Based on Warth v. Seldin​In deciding whether a person has standing, a court must *consider the allegations of fact contained in this person's declaration* and other affidavits in support of his assertion of standing, according to Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1974) (Warth).
> This case also notes that when addressing motion to dismiss for lack of standing, both district court and court of appeals must *accept as true all material allegations of the complaint* and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing.
> Standing is founded "in concern about the proper — and properly limited — role of the courts in a democratic society." Warth, 422 U.S. at 498.
> Other Requirements for Standing​When an individual seeks to avail himself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, he must show that he "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." Ex parte Levitt, 302 U.S. 633, 634 (1937). This requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for 'concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions.'" Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1406 (9th Cir. 1991) (quoting United Public Workers, 330 U.S. at 89), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 1670 (1992). National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. S 4331, et seq.
> Someone who seeks injunctive or declaratory relief "must show a very significant possibility of future harm in order to have standing to bring suit." Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d 1248, 1250 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 112 S. Ct. 875 (1992).
Click to expand...

"You keep saying what legal standing isn't yet you don't say what it is."

Correct, none of the other leftists noticed that.    colfax_m even responded by telling me I was wrong even though I didn't define it!     Nicely noticed

"The reason being is either you don't know what it is or you do and you just like to lie."

After separating yourself from your moron leftist friends, you go right back and tell me what I think.   Fuck you bitch, you can't read my mind.  If you want to know what I think, ask me, don't tell me.   I didn't read the rest of it since it was based on your claim you're a mind reader


----------



## Dana7360

dblack said:


> Winston said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> Employers should remain as contributors to their employees' HC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's a part of the world's leading HC systems and it works.
> There's no danger in leaving an employer that provides HC in a proper system that works. Health care for all the people is guaranteed in those other countries and it's also rated as higher quality than America in all cases of modern industrialized countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should employers remains as contributors to their employees' HC?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our system, of health insurance that is based on employment, is totally dysfunctional, at least when it comes to serving the worker.  No other enterprise reveals the workings of the American political system than employer sponsored health care.  While it is a total injustice to the worker, it is a golden egg for both employers and insurance companies.  First, the employers.
> 
> Prior to the ACA, and in some extent it is still prevalent, many employees were "trapped" in their job.  They were dependent, not on the income, but on the health insurance coverage.  Leaving their employer would mean a period of time without health insurance, or a period of excessively high COBRA premiums.  Neither choice would be acceptable if you have a spouse or child with a chronic illness.  Another scenario is the self-employed individuals, small business owners, who had a spouse working, not for the income, but for the insurance.  This was vividly displayed after the passage of the ACA, when literally millions of women left the workforce.
> 
> The effect of this dysfunctional tying of health insurance to a job allowed companies to pay less than a "free market" would dictate.  If Joe Sixpack had a wife with MS, well he couldn't up and leave his job for better pay.  And plumber Pete's wife worked at Walmart, not for the income, but for health insurance.  In both cases, the insurance was the vehicle holding the employee to the job, it was not the salary, as it should be.
> 
> But the insurance companies made out even better.  Health insurance, at it's core, is a diversification of risk.  I ran a successful insurance agency for more than twenty years.  My intention, when I started, was to work the group market.  I ran away from that as fast as I could and settled into the Medicare market because the group market was such a damn racket.  When health insurance is based on employment, insurance companies can effectively segment the market.  My son is a research scientist.  Most of his fellow employees have graduate degrees and it is not like they are doing any physical labor.  He has a badass health insurance plan that is dirt cheap, because the risk pool, his fellow employees, are very low risk.  But, if you work in a coal mine, well your risk is only diversified among other coal miners and the premiums reflect as much.  This inherent segmentation of the market allows insurance companies to maximize profits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I've seen as well.
> 
> Group health insurance is also destructive to the market. By breaking the normal consumer incentives, it drives prices higher and higher - to the point that most people think of healthcare as something you can't afford without insurance. Which is kinda nuts when you stop and think about it.
Click to expand...




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.


----------



## kaz

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
> America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> So we don't have insurance. We don't have single payer.
> 
> How do people pay their medical bills?
Click to expand...

"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?"

They could buy insurance


----------



## kaz

JimH52 said:


> JimH52 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Obama health law
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge from GOP-led states and the Trump administration to Obamacare Thursday, preserving insurance coverage for millions of Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory for the ACA and the American People!
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the repub party hate the average American so much, that they are willing to let them suffer , without health insurance?  Every developed nation in the world has some kind of universal healthy care,  The US, with the repub party aka Taliban of the United States, has the most expensive health care costs in the world.  And due to stupidity of the repub party, we have people dying in the streets without health care insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> List of Countries with Universal Healthcare
> 
> 
> Update 1/21/2013: With the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ACA (aka Obamacare), and President Obama’s inauguration to a second term today, the US will have universal health care …
> 
> 
> 
> 
> truecostblog.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Infographic: The U.S. Has the Most Expensive Healthcare System in the World
> 
> 
> This chart shows health spending per capita in selected countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.statista.com
Click to expand...


JimH52:   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!   You're a racist!  ...

JimH42:  Why do Republicans hate people so much

You're a jackass, racist


----------



## Dana7360

colfax_m said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying what legal standing isn't yet you don't say what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Kaz didn’t know. They just repeated a common trope among the right without knowing what they’re talking about.
> 
> I swear, the groupthink is hard to penetrate. Especially when you see how they react to attempts to disabuse them of their bullshit
Click to expand...



I know.

It's incredible. 

However, when you're dealing with people who believe Barak Obama is a muslim from Kenya and Michelle is a man, you aren't dealing with a person who has any grasp of reality, truth and honest facts.


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> It feels like the goalposts are moving.
> 
> The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.
> 
> The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you.  Go fuck yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever dude.
> 
> You made a dumb, ignorant statement and now you're going to take out your anger on me because I attempted to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do like to bicker, it's why I keep putting you on ignore to calm you down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was actually pretty polite to you. Maybe you learned something today before putting me on ignore.
> 
> Ciao loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounded like your normal useless bickering, still does.
> 
> You didn't understand what standing meant when you said it and you read the definition then didn't know how you were wrong.     Useless bickering is your bag, it's all you do.    My policy for bickering is putting you on temporary ignore, and I've done that to you like three times at least as anyone else.  I try to save permanent ignore for people who do more serious things
Click to expand...

There was nothing wrong about what I said. You should have stuck with ambiguous, that would be fine. It was not incorrect. 

If you weren't such an unsufferable jerk, you might learn something.,


----------



## Wyatt earp

Donald H said:


> debbiedowner said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> A huge hit to Trump by his 'loaded' Scotus.
> 
> Complete 'crazy' won't go the distance for Trump. Between this and the positive spin for Biden with Putin, this is Trump's worst day since the voters took him down.
> 
> Trump's supporters on this board are now isolated background noise.
> 
> 
> 
> His loaded SCOTUS I don't believe has given the right a big win. I always said if a justice was following the law it doesn't matter what President nominated them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason why that's wrong in the US is because the political right is extremist and out of sync with the reality of the 21st. century, and they try to make their own new laws. Outlawing abortion for one instance.
> However, on this question some sanity overruled.
Click to expand...

Murder is sanity?







You're fucking nuts


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> It feels like the goalposts are moving.
> 
> The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.
> 
> The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you.  Go fuck yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever dude.
> 
> You made a dumb, ignorant statement and now you're going to take out your anger on me because I attempted to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do like to bicker, it's why I keep putting you on ignore to calm you down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was actually pretty polite to you. Maybe you learned something today before putting me on ignore.
> 
> Ciao loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounded like your normal useless bickering, still does.
> 
> You didn't understand what standing meant when you said it and you read the definition then didn't know how you were wrong.     Useless bickering is your bag, it's all you do.    My policy for bickering is putting you on temporary ignore, and I've done that to you like three times at least as anyone else.  I try to save permanent ignore for people who do more serious things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was nothing wrong about what I said. You should have stuck with ambiguous, that would be fine. It was not incorrect.
> 
> If you weren't such an unsufferable jerk, you might learn something.,
Click to expand...


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


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> It feels like the goalposts are moving.
> 
> The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.
> 
> The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you.  Go fuck yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever dude.
> 
> You made a dumb, ignorant statement and now you're going to take out your anger on me because I attempted to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do like to bicker, it's why I keep putting you on ignore to calm you down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was actually pretty polite to you. Maybe you learned something today before putting me on ignore.
> 
> Ciao loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounded like your normal useless bickering, still does.
> 
> You didn't understand what standing meant when you said it and you read the definition then didn't know how you were wrong.     Useless bickering is your bag, it's all you do.    My policy for bickering is putting you on temporary ignore, and I've done that to you like three times at least as anyone else.  I try to save permanent ignore for people who do more serious things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was nothing wrong about what I said. You should have stuck with ambiguous, that would be fine. It was not incorrect.
> 
> If you weren't such an unsufferable jerk, you might learn something.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
Click to expand...

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

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

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


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Rambunctious said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine with me...I'm not stuck with it....Obama care is over priced and unaffordable and has high deductibles....people with obamacare that come down with severe illness still end up in bankruptcy court.....
> 
> 
> 
> This is a lie as well as a sour grapes fallacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its not a lie...if you claim it is show the proof....
Click to expand...

You're a liar.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. But the profit motive works both ways. Their efforts to deny coverage are mitigated by their need to satisfy customers. If people get fed up, they can tell their insurance company to piss off. Your tax dollars will pay for Medicare regardless of whether you use it or not.
> 
> It's also interesting to note that Medicare claims processing is farmed out to insurance companies, often the same companies running your "for-profit" group insurance. These companies bid on the contracts for different regions - low bidder wins and then they make profits by, you guessed it, denying claims. Medicare is basically just the usual group insurance, paid for by the government rather than by employers.
Click to expand...


No, the profit motive does not work both ways.
Since your employer prepays for you, you get no say in whether or what the insurance company or their medical providers, get paid.
Medicare is much better on feedback, because it is administered by people who only want to please you and no one else.
As far as you paying into Medicare whether you use it or not, that is the whole point of any social system, to pool risk.
And no, Medicare does not profit from denying claims.
Medicare has no similarity to private, for profit, health insurance, which has about 50% overhead costs, compared to only 10% for Medicare.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Hutch Starskey said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
> Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said.  God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
> SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the literally did not.  That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means.  The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings.  Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’ve literally no sense of humor.
> It is pretty dumb though to appeal such a weak case all the way to the SCOTUS.  Lack of standing in this case meant that the states were not damaged sufficiently enough to even make the case against the ACA in the first place.
Click to expand...

And again,  the right's unwarranted hatred of the ACA has nothing to do with its provisions and everything to do with the president who signed it into law.


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounded like your normal useless bickering, still does.
> 
> You didn't understand what standing meant when you said it and you read the definition then didn't know how you were wrong.     Useless bickering is your bag, it's all you do.    My policy for bickering is putting you on temporary ignore, and I've done that to you like three times at least as anyone else.  I try to save permanent ignore for people who do more serious things
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing wrong about what I said. You should have stuck with ambiguous, that would be fine. It was not incorrect.
> 
> If you weren't such an unsufferable jerk, you might learn something.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
Click to expand...

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

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it


----------



## Rigby5

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> It feels like the goalposts are moving.
> 
> The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.
> 
> The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you.  Go fuck yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever dude.
> 
> You made a dumb, ignorant statement and now you're going to take out your anger on me because I attempted to explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do like to bicker, it's why I keep putting you on ignore to calm you down
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was actually pretty polite to you. Maybe you learned something today before putting me on ignore.
> 
> Ciao loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounded like your normal useless bickering, still does.
> 
> You didn't understand what standing meant when you said it and you read the definition then didn't know how you were wrong.     Useless bickering is your bag, it's all you do.    My policy for bickering is putting you on temporary ignore, and I've done that to you like three times at least as anyone else.  I try to save permanent ignore for people who do more serious things
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was nothing wrong about what I said. You should have stuck with ambiguous, that would be fine. It was not incorrect.
> 
> If you weren't such an unsufferable jerk, you might learn something.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
Click to expand...


Well yes it likely is correct that the SCOTUS did not see a case for how ACA harms individuals.
But should not that be obvious?
Mandating private, for profit, health insurance is not only bound to make prices increase, but to lower accountability to individuals, who then are forced to negotiate against group employers and made to prepay for health care.
It is obvious that ACA is illegal compared to many better options, such as just helping people finance health care costs after any catastrophic costs.
The courts just chickened out to avoid controversy and responsibility because they secretly benefit from what essentially is a Healthcare Industrial Complex, just as the Military Industrial Complex has taken over almost everything else.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounded like your normal useless bickering, still does.
> 
> You didn't understand what standing meant when you said it and you read the definition then didn't know how you were wrong.     Useless bickering is your bag, it's all you do.    My policy for bickering is putting you on temporary ignore, and I've done that to you like three times at least as anyone else.  I try to save permanent ignore for people who do more serious things
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing wrong about what I said. You should have stuck with ambiguous, that would be fine. It was not incorrect.
> 
> If you weren't such an unsufferable jerk, you might learn something.,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
Click to expand...

What about this part:

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

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

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

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


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
> Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said.  God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
> SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the literally did not.  That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means.  The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings.  Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’ve literally no sense of humor.
> It is pretty dumb though to appeal such a weak case all the way to the SCOTUS.  Lack of standing in this case meant that the states were not damaged sufficiently enough to even make the case against the ACA in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again,  the right's unwarranted hatred of the ACA has nothing to do with its provisions and everything to do with the president who signed it into law.
Click to expand...


I disagree.
The only thing good about ACA is that it tried to standardize prices and coverage a little, such as not allowing denials over pre-existing.
Otherwise it still is private, for profit, prepaid, 3rd party, totally out of control costs, and no means of enforcing quality.


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
> Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said.  God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
> SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the literally did not.  That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means.  The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings.  Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’ve literally no sense of humor.
> It is pretty dumb though to appeal such a weak case all the way to the SCOTUS.  Lack of standing in this case meant that the states were not damaged sufficiently enough to even make the case against the ACA in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again,  the right's unwarranted hatred of the ACA has nothing to do with its provisions and everything to do with the president who signed it into law.
Click to expand...


We hate all government redistribution of wealth schemes.

Fund your own programs, don't rob us to fund it for you, Captain Blowhard


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

kaz said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
> Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said.  God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
> SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the literally did not.  That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means.  The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings.  Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’ve literally no sense of humor.
> It is pretty dumb though to appeal such a weak case all the way to the SCOTUS.  Lack of standing in this case meant that the states were not damaged sufficiently enough to even make the case against the ACA in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again,  the right's unwarranted hatred of the ACA has nothing to do with its provisions and everything to do with the president who signed it into law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We hate all government redistribution of wealth schemes.
> 
> Fund your own programs, don't rob us to fund it for you, Captain Blowhard
Click to expand...

I bet you think this re-distribution of wealth to the top happened naturally huh?

So you have no problem with it


----------



## kaz

Biff_Poindexter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
Click to expand...


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


----------



## kaz

Biff_Poindexter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
> Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said.  God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
> SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the literally did not.  That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means.  The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings.  Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’ve literally no sense of humor.
> It is pretty dumb though to appeal such a weak case all the way to the SCOTUS.  Lack of standing in this case meant that the states were not damaged sufficiently enough to even make the case against the ACA in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again,  the right's unwarranted hatred of the ACA has nothing to do with its provisions and everything to do with the president who signed it into law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We hate all government redistribution of wealth schemes.
> 
> Fund your own programs, don't rob us to fund it for you, Captain Blowhard
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I bet you think this re-distribution of wealth to the top happened naturally huh?
> 
> So you have no problem with itView attachment 502937
Click to expand...


Wow, I hope you don't gamble if that's what you bet your money on that you can read minds.

I just don't care about the wealthy.   I don't have wealth envy like you do, my green friend


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it


And you’ll never say what it does mean. Maybe it means nothing, just empty angry rhetoric.


----------



## theHawk

Dana7360 said:


> 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


So Obama lied it is a tax.


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...

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.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

kaz said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...

I am stating the fact that after 10 plus years....Conservative attempts to repeal Obamacare legislatively and judicially failed....

and the lie of "replace" has been so thoroughly proven to have always been a lie -- that Republicans don't even try to offer a better alternative that would have as much support as Obamacare still has.....despite it being fear-mongered for 10 yrs...

I bet you also think all of those voter fraud conspiracy cases are valid despite the courts laughing at those too....


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> 
> 
> And you’ll never say what it does mean. Maybe it means nothing, just empty angry rhetoric.
Click to expand...


Actually, I would.   Here's the secret.   You have to ask me what I mean, not tell me what I mean.   Not once have you done that.   Don't worry about it, leftists never do.  It's not just you


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> 
> 
> And you’ll never say what it does mean. Maybe it means nothing, just empty angry rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I would.   Here's the secret.   You have to ask me what I mean, not tell me what I mean.   Not once have you done that.   Don't worry about it, leftists never do.  It's not just you
Click to expand...

No one is stopping you from explaining what you meant.

“you need to ask me” is like really passive aggressive.


----------



## kaz

Biff_Poindexter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am stating the fact that after 10 plus years....Conservative attempts to repeal Obamacare legislatively and judicially failed....
> 
> and the lie of "replace" has been so thoroughly proven to have always been a lie -- that Republicans don't even try to offer a better alternative that would have as much support as Obamacare still has.....despite it being fear-mongered for 10 yrs...
> 
> I bet you also think all of those voter fraud conspiracy cases are valid despite the courts laughing at those too....
Click to expand...


Do you look as stupid as you sound?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> 
> 
> And you’ll never say what it does mean. Maybe it means nothing, just empty angry rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I would.   Here's the secret.   You have to ask me what I mean, not tell me what I mean.   Not once have you done that.   Don't worry about it, leftists never do.  It's not just you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is stopping you from explaining what you meant.
> 
> “you need to ask me” is like really passive aggressive.
Click to expand...


I know that no one is stopping me.   That isn't what I said.

You really don't understand, do you Chauncy Gardner?


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...

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?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

kaz said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am stating the fact that after 10 plus years....Conservative attempts to repeal Obamacare legislatively and judicially failed....
> 
> and the lie of "replace" has been so thoroughly proven to have always been a lie -- that Republicans don't even try to offer a better alternative that would have as much support as Obamacare still has.....despite it being fear-mongered for 10 yrs...
> 
> I bet you also think all of those voter fraud conspiracy cases are valid despite the courts laughing at those too....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you look as stupid as you sound?
Click to expand...

Refute a single thing I said instead whining like a bitch.......


in the 10 plus years.....has the ACA been repealed and replaced?  

Nope.....


Have republicans offered a better proposal that garnered majority support among Americans -- or at least more support than what is currently for Obamacare? Nope....

So your hissy fit about facts is just that...a hissy fit


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> 
> 
> And you’ll never say what it does mean. Maybe it means nothing, just empty angry rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I would.   Here's the secret.   You have to ask me what I mean, not tell me what I mean.   Not once have you done that.   Don't worry about it, leftists never do.  It's not just you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is stopping you from explaining what you meant.
> 
> “you need to ask me” is like really passive aggressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that no one is stopping me.   That isn't what I said.
> 
> You really don't understand, do you Chauncy Gardner?
Click to expand...

“You have to ask me” sure makes it seem like you don’t think you can explain without it.

Go ahead and explain what you meant by it. Please. Thank you!


----------



## kaz

Biff_Poindexter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional....
> 
> Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???
Click to expand...


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

I clearly answered that in my original point:​​Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate.  That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax​
"Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???"

You make the falacious assumption that your healthcare is everyone else's job to provide for you.​​The better answer is free markets, something that doesn't exist in the medical industry​


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


Try AGAIN to read what I said.

"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"

You really can't read that, can you?  Be honest.  The color coding didn't help, did it?   Again, be honest


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

kaz said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional....
> 
> Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional...."
> 
> I clearly answered that in my original point:​​Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate.  That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax​
> "Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???"
> 
> You make the falacious assumption that your healthcare is everyone else's job to provide for you.​​The better answer is free markets, something that doesn't exist in the medical industry​
Click to expand...

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??


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional....
> 
> Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional...."
> 
> I clearly answered that in my original point:​​Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate.  That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax​
> "Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???"
> 
> You make the falacious assumption that your healthcare is everyone else's job to provide for you.​​The better answer is free markets, something that doesn't exist in the medical industry​
Click to expand...

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

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

Glad we can clear that up.


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> 
> 
> And you’ll never say what it does mean. Maybe it means nothing, just empty angry rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I would.   Here's the secret.   You have to ask me what I mean, not tell me what I mean.   Not once have you done that.   Don't worry about it, leftists never do.  It's not just you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is stopping you from explaining what you meant.
> 
> “you need to ask me” is like really passive aggressive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that no one is stopping me.   That isn't what I said.
> 
> You really don't understand, do you Chauncy Gardner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “You have to ask me” sure makes it seem like you don’t think you can explain without it.
> 
> Go ahead and explain what you meant by it. Please. Thank you!
Click to expand...


LOL, you can't not be a dick, can you?

I will point out that I am not begging to tell you what I think it means, you are begging me to tell you.  You keep talking about it. I told you how to do that and you want to be a dick rather than do it.    I don't care if you ask me or not.   But your being a dick isn't going to get me to do something that YOU want ME to do.   I'd say think about it, but that wouldn't really help in your case, would it?   You could think the rest of the day about it and you'd come up with nothing


----------



## kaz

Biff_Poindexter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional....
> 
> Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional...."
> 
> I clearly answered that in my original point:​​Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate.  That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax​
> "Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???"
> 
> You make the falacious assumption that your healthcare is everyone else's job to provide for you.​​The better answer is free markets, something that doesn't exist in the medical industry​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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??
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Wyatt earp

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
> Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said.  God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
> SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the literally did not.  That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means.  The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings.  Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’ve literally no sense of humor.
> It is pretty dumb though to appeal such a weak case all the way to the SCOTUS.  Lack of standing in this case meant that the states were not damaged sufficiently enough to even make the case against the ACA in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again,  the right's unwarranted hatred of the ACA has nothing to do with its provisions and everything to do with the president who signed it into law.
Click to expand...

Bullshit it was all about forcing people to buy something


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional...."
> 
> I clearly answered that in my original point:​​Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate.  That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax​
> "Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???"
> 
> You make the falacious assumption that your healthcare is everyone else's job to provide for you.​​The better answer is free markets, something that doesn't exist in the medical industry​
> 
> 
> 
> The "whole thing" wasn't a tax. The individual mandate was a tax. The healthcare exchanges and the regulation of healthcare is not a tax.
> 
> The individual mandate is a tax. That's how the individual mandate is constitutional. That doesn't have anything to do with exchanges or regulation of healthcare.
> 
> Glad we can clear that up.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

kaz said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional....
> 
> Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional...."
> 
> I clearly answered that in my original point:​​Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate.  That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax​
> "Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???"
> 
> You make the falacious assumption that your healthcare is everyone else's job to provide for you.​​The better answer is free markets, something that doesn't exist in the medical industry​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roberts SAID in his RULING it was a tax.  How stupid are you?
Click to expand...

"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??


----------



## Wyatt earp

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## kaz

Biff_Poindexter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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??
Click to expand...


I've continually explained why I say this


----------



## kaz

bear513 said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house
Click to expand...


Nice, I hadn't thought of that.  That's a great point.   Roberts obviously didn't care, he had one bizarre ruling after another to justify Obamacare, but that is yet another on the pile


----------



## dblack

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
> America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Question......if the so-called mandate is now zero.....how is that causing harm to anyone?? it is effectively non-existent so that also means its not unconstitutional...."
> 
> I clearly answered that in my original point:​​Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate.  That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax​
> "Second question that I have not seen a simple conservative answer.....How was Trump going to present a healthcare plan that would provide better quality healthcare and cover everyone for lower costs???"
> 
> You make the falacious assumption that your healthcare is everyone else's job to provide for you.​​The better answer is free markets, something that doesn't exist in the medical industry​
> 
> 
> 
> The "whole thing" wasn't a tax. The individual mandate was a tax. The healthcare exchanges and the regulation of healthcare is not a tax.
> 
> The individual mandate is a tax. That's how the individual mandate is constitutional. That doesn't have anything to do with exchanges or regulation of healthcare.
> 
> Glad we can clear that up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

kaz said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've continually explained why I say this
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## colfax_m

bear513 said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house
Click to expand...

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

That's precedent for you.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

colfax_m said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## colfax_m

Biff_Poindexter said:


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


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


----------



## Wyatt earp

Biff_Poindexter said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Wyatt earp

colfax_m said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

bear513 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will never get why you want to force people to pay for others reckless and unhealthy lifestyles, pay for it yourself
Click to expand...

That happens anyway, dunce...

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

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

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


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


----------



## ElmerMudd

bear513 said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.
> 
> It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't die if you have health care..
> 
> 
> Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Bear, you do die with insurance and/or a lot of money, but most likely not as fast as if you were only given healthcare if you could pay for it or had insurance.
> I know this is a very complex idea. Have your mother explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about drinking the Kool aid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not Kool Aid, that is the real world; no sugar added. How old are you. You sound like a person who has not experienced much in life or are very stupid or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Old enough to know I don't need health insurance and am not paying for your fat ass
Click to expand...

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


----------



## colfax_m

bear513 said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again bullshit, this is about forcing people to buy something they don't want
Click to expand...

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

Easy peasy.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Biff_Poindexter said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will never get why you want to force people to pay for others reckless and unhealthy lifestyles, pay for it yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

bear513 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coldfax says:  Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.
> 
> You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.
> 
> Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."
> 
> No, it doesn't mean that or imply it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What about this part:
> 
> *"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."*
> 
> Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??
> 
> Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results
> 
> Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will never get why you want to force people to pay for others reckless and unhealthy lifestyles, pay for it yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
Click to expand...

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

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

Cool


----------



## Wyatt earp

ElmerMudd said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.
> 
> It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't die if you have health care..
> 
> 
> Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Bear, you do die with insurance and/or a lot of money, but most likely not as fast as if you were only given healthcare if you could pay for it or had insurance.
> I know this is a very complex idea. Have your mother explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about drinking the Kool aid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not Kool Aid, that is the real world; no sugar added. How old are you. You sound like a person who has not experienced much in life or are very stupid or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Old enough to know I don't need health insurance and am not paying for your fat ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have health insurance so you will not pay for my fat ass. Actually, I do not have a fat ass. A big gut but not a fat ass. What happens when you end up with a medical emergency and a $400,000 medical bill? Who pays it? Or do you tell the hospital to stop all treatment after your $1500 life savings is used up so you will not be a burden on the rest of us who are responsible enough to have insurance.
> Then who pays for your burial because your life savings is used up.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## dblack

Dana7360 said:


> You are leaving out one of the biggest causes of the high cost of health care.
> 
> Unpaid bills.
> 
> People don't pay their bill so the provider jacks up everyone else's bill to pay for the bills the deadbeats don't pay.
> 
> Then add in the high cost of the education to become a doctor.
> 
> Add in the high cost of equipment and an office to actually practice medicine.
> 
> Then add in the greed factor.
> 
> All of that causes the high cost of health care and it's not going to change no matter what you want.
> 
> I don't like insurance companies but that's the system that has been forced on us. We don't have any choice. Either have insurance or don't have proper health care.
> 
> That is the only system we have so we have to work with it.
> 
> You don't want insurance companies but you also don't want a single payer government system.
> 
> You don't offer any alternative that is based on reality.
> 
> That reality is people can't afford to pay their own medical bills. The bills are thousands to millions and no normal person can afford to pay it themselves.
> 
> So the reality is that it's either insurance and the mess we have now or a single payer system that has been working for the rest of the world for many, many decades.



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

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

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


----------



## Wyatt earp

colfax_m said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again bullshit, this is about forcing people to buy something they don't want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, now with no individual mandate, no one's forced to do anything.
> 
> Easy peasy.
Click to expand...

The mandate is still there.


----------



## colfax_m

bear513 said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again bullshit, this is about forcing people to buy something they don't want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, now with no individual mandate, no one's forced to do anything.
> 
> Easy peasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mandate is still there.
Click to expand...

So what happens if you don't buy insurance? 

Nothing. 

It's not a mandate.


----------



## Wyatt earp

colfax_m said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again bullshit, this is about forcing people to buy something they don't want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, now with no individual mandate, no one's forced to do anything.
> 
> Easy peasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mandate is still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what happens if you don't buy insurance?
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> It's not a mandate.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


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


Clearly, you've never been to the DMV


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


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


> And no, Medicare does not profit from denying claims.


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









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

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




					medicareadvocacy.org
				












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

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




					thehill.com


----------



## dblack

colfax_m said:


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



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

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



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



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


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are leaving out one of the biggest causes of the high cost of health care.
> 
> Unpaid bills.
> 
> People don't pay their bill so the provider jacks up everyone else's bill to pay for the bills the deadbeats don't pay.
> 
> Then add in the high cost of the education to become a doctor.
> 
> Add in the high cost of equipment and an office to actually practice medicine.
> 
> Then add in the greed factor.
> 
> All of that causes the high cost of health care and it's not going to change no matter what you want.
> 
> I don't like insurance companies but that's the system that has been forced on us. We don't have any choice. Either have insurance or don't have proper health care.
> 
> That is the only system we have so we have to work with it.
> 
> You don't want insurance companies but you also don't want a single payer government system.
> 
> You don't offer any alternative that is based on reality.
> 
> That reality is people can't afford to pay their own medical bills. The bills are thousands to millions and no normal person can afford to pay it themselves.
> 
> So the reality is that it's either insurance and the mess we have now or a single payer system that has been working for the rest of the world for many, many decades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cover a lot of ground here, but most of it seems predicated on the assumption that I oppose insurance, and that's not the case. Insurance is fine. But group insurance isn't really insurance. It's just employer provided (or government provided, whichever) health care. Normal insurance has counter-incentives that help prevent abuse, and keep costs down - ie your premiums will go up if you use it a lot. Group insurance has no such counter-incentives.
> 
> The problem is that we've been sold the idea that the only way to afford regular healthcare is to get an employer, or the government, to pay for it on your behalf. But that's just dumb when you think about it, and it no way sustainable. Employers, or the government, might like it because it establishes dependency, but it obliterates market incentives and drives prices higher and higher. Which reinforces the self-fulfilling prophecy that healthcare is too expensive to pay for your own.
> 
> As others here have mentioned, we need to do away with the tax incentives, and other policies, that promote employer provided healthcare. People should buy their own insurance policies and, if they're smart, they'll get high-deductible, catastrophic policies and pay for as much as they can out-of-pocket. And once people are paying for most of their healthcare costs out-of-pocket, prices will come down.
Click to expand...

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....


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

dblack said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to liberals, regulation of every. single. fucking. thing. is constitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause.
Click to expand...

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

colfax_m said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again bullshit, this is about forcing people to buy something they don't want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, now with no individual mandate, no one's forced to do anything.
> 
> Easy peasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mandate is still there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what happens if you don't buy insurance?
> 
> Nothing.
> 
> It's not a mandate.
Click to expand...

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

Biff_Poindexter said:


> 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

Biff_Poindexter said:


> 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

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


You're just babbling your inane nonsense again


----------



## kaz

Biff_Poindexter said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "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??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've continually explained why I say this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## kaz

Biff_Poindexter said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......
Click to expand...


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


----------



## kaz

bear513 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it should of been ruled illegal because all taxes start in the house
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll never understand all of the legal and mental gymnastics one does to justify taking healthcare away from millions of people......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will never get why you want to force people to pay for others reckless and unhealthy lifestyles, pay for it yourself
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Flopper

Harry Dresden said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they dont cover everything.....so they also tell you what health care you can have....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all i said was ...medicare does not cover many things,just like private ins.....am i wrong or not?....
Click to expand...

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

Flopper said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they dont cover everything.....so they also tell you what health care you can have....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all i said was ...medicare does not cover many things,just like private ins.....am i wrong or not?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## colfax_m

kaz said:


> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just babbling your inane nonsense again
Click to expand...

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

kaz said:


> 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

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
> America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insurance itself isn't a bad idea, for catastrophes. It's low-deductible, group insurance that corrodes markets.
Click to expand...




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

BasicHumanUnit said:


> 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

Rigby5 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

Dana7360 said:


> 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

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




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

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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

Harry Dresden said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they dont cover everything.....so they also tell you what health care you can have....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all i said was ...medicare does not cover many things,just like private ins.....am i wrong or not?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats great but we were talking about medicare.....
Click to expand...

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

dblack said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never convince a Statist that anything is wrong with a government program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Black or white.....white or black.
> 
> Say, just where is libertarianism practiced on this planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everywhere. Most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Flopper

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Under the ACA it is illegal to based a person's premiums on usage. The insurer can base premiums on the group but not the individual.   Prior to the ACA, insurers could and increase premiums, deny claims when a person's claims reach a certain dollar amount, and some companies would cut them off all together when their policy came up for renewal..  Thus insurance companies were allowed to deny coverage to people who needed it most and the pre-existing conditions policy protected other companies from offering coverage that would damage their bottom line. What they were doing went against the whole idea of having insurance; that is, paying for major healthcare costs that a person could never afford.

What insurance companies did was readily pay the small claims even thou there were a lot of them because that made for lots of happy subscribers and thus lots of renewals.  The small number of subscribers that had very serious health problems and thus large claims effected their bottom-line.   So they cut them off when claims got too high and since their numbers were small as were their voices, it really made good business sense.  This is how health insurance companies raked in big profits for over a hundred years and this why they spent millions fighting the passage of Obamacare.


----------



## Flopper

otto105 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never convince a Statist that anything is wrong with a government program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Black or white.....white or black.
> 
> Say, just where is libertarianism practiced on this planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everywhere. Most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Voters are why 20,000,000 more people have health insurance with a base level of care.
Click to expand...

It is now about 31 million.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Flopper said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they dont cover everything.....so they also tell you what health care you can have....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all i said was ...medicare does not cover many things,just like private ins.....am i wrong or not?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats great but we were talking about medicare.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

sorry i have medicare and have been turned down by procedures my doctor wanted done......


----------



## Rigby5

Biff_Poindexter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to liberals, regulation of every. single. fucking. thing. is constitutional on the grounds of the commerce clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


No, not every state requires auto insurance.
States like WI only insist on "financial responsibility", which means if you cause an accident and fail to pay, then you are required to get insurance if you want to drive again.
Before the 70's,  no state required insurance.
I think it is illegal to require car insurance.
But cars are not exactly an individual right either.


----------



## Rigby5

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just babbling your inane nonsense again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


ACA mandate penalty is no more legal as a tax than it is as a penalty.
It is not equal to everyone, as taxes must be.


----------



## Rigby5

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


But it also does not fix anything.
The whole problem was due to employers of large work forces being able to negotiate lower rates than individual could, having to prepay and then loose any means or holding providers accountable, 3rd party payers who want high provider rates to make insurance more necessary, employers getting the illegal tax write off for employee health benefits, etc.


----------



## Rigby5

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody gives a shit what other countries do. Nobody gives a shit what a foreign authoritarian says either
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
> America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Insurance itself isn't a bad idea, for catastrophes. It's low-deductible, group insurance that corrodes markets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Except if you remove the employer tax exemption for employee benefits like health insurance, then the wealthy would be in the same boat as the poor, and then would quickly see the benefits of public health care.
The reason we don't have public health care now is entirely because the upper 70% of the population on an economic scale, already is getting what seems like free health care, to them.
You have to take that away before they will realize how unfair and expensive the current system is.


----------



## Rigby5

Flopper said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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 government and this is where the responsibility for providing health coverage should rest.
Click to expand...


All correct, but you forgot to acknowledge that fact the IRS giving employers the ability to write off employee benefits, was totally and completely illegal.
The whole point of income taxes is to tax employee benefits, all benefits.
Clearly it should never have been legal because it was extremely unfair to the poor, who did not get employer benefits, but then had to pay higher taxes to makeup for all the loss or tax revenue from all the wealthy employees getting these tax exempt benefits they could not get.

The only reason why this illegal employer tax write off for employee benefits has not been struck down is that poor people would have to be the ones to challenge it, and they don't have the means.

Clearly it is totally and completely wrong to not tax all employee benefits paid out by employers.

But I agree the final solution has to be public health care.
Anything else is always going to be unfair and expensive.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


I disagree.
Forcing everyone into the safety net will reduce the high health care costs we are now all paying, by at least half.
That will allow the vast majority to be able to pay for their health care and the health care of the poor through slightly higher taxes, and still save them money.
It will also decrease the production costs of US products by a third, making our products more marketable.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never convince a Statist that anything is wrong with a government program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Black or white.....white or black.
> 
> Say, just where is libertarianism practiced on this planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everywhere. Most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


There are lots of good similarities between Anarchism and Libertarianism.
But what Libertarians forget is that in a modern industrialized society, there are unfair business practices that can be used to essentially make economic slaves out of people.
One way if for insurance companies to buy up all the medical providers until they have a vertical monopoly.
They create the effect of a horizontal monopoly by price fixing.
So going back to around 1890, the only way for individuals to be protected from illegal trust was through government regulation.
Anarchists and Libertarians who do not acknowledge the need for government protection from corporate abuse, like health care monopolies, is just naïve.
And ultimately, the least expensive and most efficient and fair way to pay for health care is through public health care.
Otherwise you just add layers of skimming that add nothing to services.


----------



## Rigby5

Hutch Starskey said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still confused I see.
> I said nothing about welfare, dope.
> 
> Yes. Risk pooling. Now explain why they are arranged as such.
Click to expand...


Agreed.
Risk pooling just averages out catastrophes, and government can to that more efficiently than private companies that skim profits.
But there also are always going to be indigent who then do also need welfare, which a public government system can also absorb.
If we use a private health care risk pool, there will still be indigent that will need public finance, but it will then cost more since there will be the private health care skimming.
For example, how much money would be saved if we allowed the indigent to get health care from VA hospitals?


----------



## Rigby5

Hutch Starskey said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly!
> Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said.  God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't what I said. God you're stupid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
> SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the literally did not.  That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means.  The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings.  Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’ve literally no sense of humor.
> It is pretty dumb though to appeal such a weak case all the way to the SCOTUS.  Lack of standing in this case meant that the states were not damaged sufficiently enough to even make the case against the ACA in the first place.
Click to expand...


But I think the SCOTUS was wrong because ACA does nothing to solve the main problem, which is insurance companies deliberately over paying providers in order to make health care unaffordable to anyone who does not have insurance.
Insurance is not a proper means of funding healthy care.
Because it is prepaid, you lose any means of holding anyone accountable.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> f you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die
> 
> 
> 
> I want nothing from the Government except what they’re specifically given power over in founding documents, and which I pay taxes for:
> 
> From the Feds thst would be interstate roads and defense of the nation (not other nations). From the state that would be state roads. From the local Government that would be fire, police, local roads. Schools should be a private affair.
> 
> The Government should not have its nose or fingers in most of people’s affairs. Definitely not our health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Libertarianism doesn't work.
> 
> Try to keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It works brilliantly. It's the default mode of society.
> 
> Try to pay attention.
Click to expand...


Libertarianism was the default mode of society, until around the industrial revolution.
Then cottage industries could not keep up because they could not afford the expensive machines that could produce goods at a fraction of the price of cottage good.

Various means have been tried to prevent unfair business practices, such as the collective bargaining of unions, etc., but government trust busting and anti-trust laws against monopolies are the only things that work at all, and even they are not effective enough.

Health care currently is costing more than double what it should or it cost anywhere else on the planet, so clearly we do have a problem.
And it is not from the government doing too much, but too little.
We definitely do want government to try to fix it.
But actually it may be that a more Libertarian approach could be the solution.
If we cut the employer tax exemption for employee benefits, then perhaps the health insurance monopoly would end?


----------



## Rigby5

Flopper said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should be pretty clear that Obamacare is not going to be overturn by the Supreme Court.  Conservatives have 3 times tried and struck out.  The only way it is going to be overturned is if republican in congress do it.   Republicans had a chance when they controlled Congress during the Trump administration.  Instead of making it a priority, they punted and left it to the courts. The fact is conservatives want Obamacare gone but they don't want to have to offer a replacement because of the problems it will cause them at the ballot box. 28 million people have health insurance due to Obamacare. 38 states have adopted Medicaid Expansion, a part of Obamacare.  Without Obamacare, those states would be faced with either a huge cut to Medicaid or replacing federal funds with state funds.
Click to expand...


ACA will be obsolete when something better is devised.
And I think that is the public option.
How to get that?
Easy, just end the employer tax exemption for employee benefits.
Then almost all private health insurance will disappear.


----------



## Rigby5

bear513 said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.
> 
> It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't die if you have health care..
> 
> 
> Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Bear, you do die with insurance and/or a lot of money, but most likely not as fast as if you were only given healthcare if you could pay for it or had insurance.
> I know this is a very complex idea. Have your mother explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about drinking the Kool aid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not Kool Aid, that is the real world; no sugar added. How old are you. You sound like a person who has not experienced much in life or are very stupid or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Old enough to know I don't need health insurance and am not paying for your fat ass
Click to expand...


Right now, if you do not have health insurance, you basically can't get an appointment to see a doctor.
Instead you have to go to the ER, because they are required by law to not turn people away.
But they giver really bad health care for most things.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Dana7360 said:


> 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


You fuckers love you some big government. The "Individual Mandate" is unconstitutional. The Fed can not force you to buy goods and services. Calling it a tax is legal bullshit.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Rigby5 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should be pretty clear that Obamacare is not going to be overturn by the Supreme Court.  Conservatives have 3 times tried and struck out.  The only way it is going to be overturned is if republican in congress do it.   Republicans had a chance when they controlled Congress during the Trump administration.  Instead of making it a priority, they punted and left it to the courts. The fact is conservatives want Obamacare gone but they don't want to have to offer a replacement because of the problems it will cause them at the ballot box. 28 million people have health insurance due to Obamacare. 38 states have adopted Medicaid Expansion, a part of Obamacare.  Without Obamacare, those states would be faced with either a huge cut to Medicaid or replacing federal funds with state funds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACA will be obsolete when something better is devised.
> And I think that is the public option.
> How to get that?
> Easy, just end the employer tax exemption for employee benefits.
> Then almost all private health insurance will disappear.
Click to expand...

Single payer right ? I've been through the Government run healthcare system. The VA is a fucking nightmare.


----------



## Rigby5

kaz said:


> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hutch Starskey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still confused I see.
> I said nothing about welfare, dope.
> 
> Yes. Risk pooling. Now explain why they are arranged as such.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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 ...
Click to expand...


No it is not welfare.
When the healthy help pay for the health care of those who are unhealthy, that is pooling the risk not welfare or economic redistribution.
That is because it could happen to anyone, and the odds are all pretty much equal.
And no one can afford catastrophic health care.
Insurance is not welfare.
If government runs the insurance so that it is less unfair and less expensive, that is still not welfare.
And what private insurance companies are charging is abusive.
Health care could and should cost less than half what we are being charged.
The rest of the world is proof of that.


----------



## Rigby5

colfax_m said:


> 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.



So then a lawsuit is not the fix.
The way to fix it is to end the IRS tax exemption for employee benefits.
That clearly is unfair to all poor people who don't get employee benefits.


----------



## Mr. Friscus

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

AMAzing to see the SCOTUS decide that the government forcing its citizens to buy something isn’t a “penalty”, but a “tax”.  John Roberts is simply against reviewing anything from a clear view.  He thinks any changes might look bad for the court, so he’s 100 % establishment


----------



## Rigby5

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It should be pretty clear that Obamacare is not going to be overturn by the Supreme Court.  Conservatives have 3 times tried and struck out.  The only way it is going to be overturned is if republican in congress do it.   Republicans had a chance when they controlled Congress during the Trump administration.  Instead of making it a priority, they punted and left it to the courts. The fact is conservatives want Obamacare gone but they don't want to have to offer a replacement because of the problems it will cause them at the ballot box. 28 million people have health insurance due to Obamacare. 38 states have adopted Medicaid Expansion, a part of Obamacare.  Without Obamacare, those states would be faced with either a huge cut to Medicaid or replacing federal funds with state funds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ACA will be obsolete when something better is devised.
> And I think that is the public option.
> How to get that?
> Easy, just end the employer tax exemption for employee benefits.
> Then almost all private health insurance will disappear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Single payer right ? I've been through the Government run healthcare system. The VA is a fucking nightmare.
Click to expand...


Sure VA is not great, but private health insurance is even worse because it cost too much for about 40% of the population.
If insurance companies were not deliberately buying up all the good doctors and nurses, then VA would have better staff.
Single payer is better because then the payer is on your side and you have collective bargaining power we don't have now.
Right now the insurance companies are not on our side because they want to control profits.
Single payer is not out for profit, so it is not trying to scrimp on pooled money it does not care about.
Single payer is not skimming off profits.
Single payer works in all other countries.


----------



## Flopper

Harry Dresden said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *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?...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> they dont cover everything.....so they also tell you what health care you can have....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> all i said was ...medicare does not cover many things,just like private ins.....am i wrong or not?....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats great but we were talking about medicare.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sorry i have medicare and have been turned down by procedures my doctor wanted done......
Click to expand...

That does happen if those procedures are not recognized as common diagnostic or treatment procedures. The way Medicare works in regard to new treatments is your doctor submits data showing that this treatment is needed and there is data  showing that it is effective. It then goes to a panel of  physicians who evaluate the request.  Most requests are granted.  Insurance companies rely on Medicare for approval.  As long as there is sound research indicating that the requested procedure has been determined to be safe and effective, it will be approval on a case by case evaluation.  Approval by Medicare is the gold standard for both Medicaid and insurance company approval.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.
> 
> It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't die if you have health care..
> 
> 
> Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Bear, you do die with insurance and/or a lot of money, but most likely not as fast as if you were only given healthcare if you could pay for it or had insurance.
> I know this is a very complex idea. Have your mother explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about drinking the Kool aid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not Kool Aid, that is the real world; no sugar added. How old are you. You sound like a person who has not experienced much in life or are very stupid or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Old enough to know I don't need health insurance and am not paying for your fat ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now, if you do not have health insurance, you basically can't get an appointment to see a doctor.
> Instead you have to go to the ER, because they are required by law to not turn people away.
> But they giver really bad health care for most things.
Click to expand...

I have no idea, haven't been to a doctor in like 30 years except for employees mandated drug tests


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

dblack said:


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

Lol @ it's just a wrong....

Really??

That's funny because I didn't see any conservatives doing performance art and "crusading" against it like they do the ACA.....in fact, to this day, I still don't see any conservatives fighting against it...so I doubt they feel it is wrong at all

Kinda tells me their opposition to ACA is full of shit and mostly predicated on "opposing what the black guy did"


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Rigby5 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You will never convince a Statist that anything is wrong with a government program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Black or white.....white or black.
> 
> Say, just where is libertarianism practiced on this planet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everywhere. Most of the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are lots of good similarities between Anarchism and Libertarianism.
> But what Libertarians forget is that in a modern industrialized society, there are unfair business practices that can be used to essentially make economic slaves out of people.
> One way if for insurance companies to buy up all the medical providers until they have a vertical monopoly.
> They create the effect of a horizontal monopoly by price fixing.
> So going back to around 1890, the only way for individuals to be protected from illegal trust was through government regulation.
> Anarchists and Libertarians who do not acknowledge the need for government protection from corporate abuse, like health care monopolies, is just naïve.
> And ultimately, the least expensive and most efficient and fair way to pay for health care is through public health care.
> Otherwise you just add layers of skimming that add nothing to services.
Click to expand...

*"But what Libertarians forget is that in a modern industrialized society, there are unfair business practices that can be used to essentially make economic slaves out of people."*

Libertarians didn't forget that....they know full well that is what happens....they just don't care.....which is why libertarianism is a joke....


----------



## dblack

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fuckers love you some big government. The "Individual Mandate" is unconstitutional. The Fed can not force you to buy goods and services. Calling it a tax is legal bullshit.
Click to expand...


They want what they want. Some people want to be taken care of and there's no convincing them it's a bad idea.

Of course they also want to force the rest of us into their pens, and that's where the problem lies.


----------



## dblack

Biff_Poindexter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. But with health insurance, they saw a way to skip all the state-by-state lobbying, and go straight for the (federal) jugular.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol @ it's just a wrong....
> 
> Really??
Click to expand...

Yeah. Pointing that out usually just evokes nervous laughter. But give it some thought. It's the same thing. The insurance companies lobbied to mandate themselves some customers. And we let them.


Biff_Poindexter said:


> That's funny because I didn't see any conservatives doing performance art and "crusading" against it like they do the ACA.....in fact, to this day, I still don't see any conservatives fighting against it...so I doubt they feel it is wrong at all


Yes. I realize most people don't see it. But it's the same shit.


Biff_Poindexter said:


> Kinda tells me their opposition to ACA is full of shit and mostly predicated on "opposing what the black guy did"


Sure. That was obvious when they refused to repeal it.


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> f you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die
> 
> 
> 
> I want nothing from the Government except what they’re specifically given power over in founding documents, and which I pay taxes for:
> 
> From the Feds thst would be interstate roads and defense of the nation (not other nations). From the state that would be state roads. From the local Government that would be fire, police, local roads. Schools should be a private affair.
> 
> The Government should not have its nose or fingers in most of people’s affairs. Definitely not our health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Libertarianism doesn't work.
> 
> Try to keep up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It works brilliantly. It's the default mode of society.
> 
> Try to pay attention.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarianism was the ...
Click to expand...

Uh huh. I'm really bored with all the equivocation on labels and definitions. 

Regarding this issue, I simply don't want healthcare to be political concern. I don't want people like Donald Trump, or any number of amoral, power hungry leaders, making health care decisions for my family.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> Under the ACA it is illegal to based a person's premiums on usage.



Right. The entire premise of ACA is a denial of the basic concept of insurance. We're trying to turn it into a social safety net. It won't work, it will just become more and more dysfunctional and eventually the government will take over altogether. But hey, it will make the insurance companies a boatload of money in the process!

We should have this kind "insurance" for all of life's necessities. Won't that be fun!


----------



## Dana7360

dblack said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fuckers love you some big government. The "Individual Mandate" is unconstitutional. The Fed can not force you to buy goods and services. Calling it a tax is legal bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want what they want. Some people want to be taken care of and there's no convincing them it's a bad idea.
Click to expand...




Well that would include your hero and creator of the libertarian policy.

ayn rand.

Most of her life she swore she would never take a penny from the government. She said it was slavery to do so. 

When she got cancer, she ran to the federal government for help to not die.

That's the thing. When a libertarian doesn't need health care they have your impractical and unworkable policy.

When it comes to the real world, that policy is thrown right out the window and they very quickly run to the federal government.

That is why your libertarian policy only exists in a fiction novel. 

It can only exist in fiction because it doesn't work, destroys economies and nations, kills people and turns most of the society into slaves. 

When you have a medical problem that you can't pay for you will either die or you will take all the medical help you can get but won't be able to pay all the thousands of dollars it costs so you won't pay for it leaving responsible people like me to pay for it in higher health care costs.

Or are you a hypocrite and have that health insurance you hate and are advocating to get rid of?


----------



## dblack

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fuckers love you some big government. The "Individual Mandate" is unconstitutional. The Fed can not force you to buy goods and services. Calling it a tax is legal bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want what they want. Some people want to be taken care of and there's no convincing them it's a bad idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would include your hero and creator of the libertarian policy.
> 
> ayn rand.
> 
> Most of her life she swore she would never take a penny from the government. She said it was slavery to do so.
> 
> When she got cancer, she ran to the federal government for help to not die.
> 
> That's the thing. When a libertarian doesn't need health care they have your impractical and unworkable policy.
> 
> When it comes to the real world, that policy is thrown right out the window and they very quickly run to the federal government.
> 
> That is why your libertarian policy only exists in a fiction novel.
> 
> It can only exist in fiction because it doesn't work, destroys economies and nations, kills people and turns most of the society into slaves.
> 
> When you have a medical problem that you can't pay for you will either die or you will take all the medical help you can get but won't be able to pay all the thousands of dollars it costs so you won't pay for it leaving responsible people like me to pay for it in higher health care costs.
> 
> Or are you a hypocrite and have that health insurance you hate and are advocating to get rid of?
Click to expand...


LOL - like I said, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. The government loves you.


----------



## Dana7360

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fuckers love you some big government. The "Individual Mandate" is unconstitutional. The Fed can not force you to buy goods and services. Calling it a tax is legal bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want what they want. Some people want to be taken care of and there's no convincing them it's a bad idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would include your hero and creator of the libertarian policy.
> 
> ayn rand.
> 
> Most of her life she swore she would never take a penny from the government. She said it was slavery to do so.
> 
> When she got cancer, she ran to the federal government for help to not die.
> 
> That's the thing. When a libertarian doesn't need health care they have your impractical and unworkable policy.
> 
> When it comes to the real world, that policy is thrown right out the window and they very quickly run to the federal government.
> 
> That is why your libertarian policy only exists in a fiction novel.
> 
> It can only exist in fiction because it doesn't work, destroys economies and nations, kills people and turns most of the society into slaves.
> 
> When you have a medical problem that you can't pay for you will either die or you will take all the medical help you can get but won't be able to pay all the thousands of dollars it costs so you won't pay for it leaving responsible people like me to pay for it in higher health care costs.
> 
> Or are you a hypocrite and have that health insurance you hate and are advocating to get rid of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL - like I said, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. The government loves you.
Click to expand...



Like I said in my post, your libertarian policies can't work.

I noticed you didn't answer my question about you having insurance.

That leads me to believe you didn't answer it because you are a hypocrite and have that insurance you hate and want to do away with. Leaving millions to die.

I tore your libertarian policy to shreds and that's all you have for a reply?

You would have been better off not replying. 

The government loves you too. You are as much a part of the health care mess as everyone else in our nation. 

Thankfully your libertarian policies will never be implemented.


----------



## meaner gene

dblack said:


> Regarding this issue, I simply don't want healthcare to be political concern. I don't want people like Donald Trump, or any number of amoral, power hungry leaders, making health care decisions for my family.


Did you vote for Trump?   Did you do so, because he promised to repeal obamacare?

Be honest.

Or did you oppose Trump meddling with healthcare?


----------



## dblack

meaner gene said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding this issue, I simply don't want healthcare to be political concern. I don't want people like Donald Trump, or any number of amoral, power hungry leaders, making health care decisions for my family.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you vote for Trump?   Did you do so, because he promised to repeal obamacare?
> 
> Be honest.
Click to expand...


Gawd no. In part, because I never believed he would. I was right.



> Or did you oppose Trump meddling with healthcare?



I oppose Trump for a long list of reasons.


----------



## dblack

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fuckers love you some big government. The "Individual Mandate" is unconstitutional. The Fed can not force you to buy goods and services. Calling it a tax is legal bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want what they want. Some people want to be taken care of and there's no convincing them it's a bad idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would include your hero and creator of the libertarian policy.
> 
> ayn rand.
> 
> Most of her life she swore she would never take a penny from the government. She said it was slavery to do so.
> 
> When she got cancer, she ran to the federal government for help to not die.
> 
> That's the thing. When a libertarian doesn't need health care they have your impractical and unworkable policy.
> 
> When it comes to the real world, that policy is thrown right out the window and they very quickly run to the federal government.
> 
> That is why your libertarian policy only exists in a fiction novel.
> 
> It can only exist in fiction because it doesn't work, destroys economies and nations, kills people and turns most of the society into slaves.
> 
> When you have a medical problem that you can't pay for you will either die or you will take all the medical help you can get but won't be able to pay all the thousands of dollars it costs so you won't pay for it leaving responsible people like me to pay for it in higher health care costs.
> 
> Or are you a hypocrite and have that health insurance you hate and are advocating to get rid of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL - like I said, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. The government loves you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said in my post, your libertarian policies can't work.
> 
> I noticed you didn't answer my question about you having insurance.
> 
> That leads me to believe you didn't answer it because you are a hypocrite and have that insurance you hate and want to do away with. Leaving millions to die.
> 
> I tore your libertarian policy to shreds and that's all you have for a reply?
> 
> You would have been better off not replying.
> 
> The government loves you too. You are as much a part of the health care mess as everyone else in our nation.
> 
> Thankfully your libertarian policies will never be implemented.
Click to expand...


OK. Got it. The government is your lord and savior. And there's no point debating religious faith. 

I just wish you weren't so hell bent on forcing your faith on everyone else.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fuckers love you some big government. The "Individual Mandate" is unconstitutional. The Fed can not force you to buy goods and services. Calling it a tax is legal bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want what they want. Some people want to be taken care of and there's no convincing them it's a bad idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would include your hero and creator of the libertarian policy.
> 
> ayn rand.
> 
> Most of her life she swore she would never take a penny from the government. She said it was slavery to do so.
> 
> When she got cancer, she ran to the federal government for help to not die.
> 
> That's the thing. When a libertarian doesn't need health care they have your impractical and unworkable policy.
> 
> When it comes to the real world, that policy is thrown right out the window and they very quickly run to the federal government.
> 
> That is why your libertarian policy only exists in a fiction novel.
> 
> It can only exist in fiction because it doesn't work, destroys economies and nations, kills people and turns most of the society into slaves.
> 
> When you have a medical problem that you can't pay for you will either die or you will take all the medical help you can get but won't be able to pay all the thousands of dollars it costs so you won't pay for it leaving responsible people like me to pay for it in higher health care costs.
> 
> Or are you a hypocrite and have that health insurance you hate and are advocating to get rid of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL - like I said, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. The government loves you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said in my post, your libertarian policies can't work.
> 
> I noticed you didn't answer my question about you having insurance.
> 
> That leads me to believe you didn't answer it because you are a hypocrite and have that insurance you hate and want to do away with. Leaving millions to die.
> 
> I tore your libertarian policy to shreds and that's all you have for a reply?
> 
> You would have been better off not replying.
> 
> The government loves you too. You are as much a part of the health care mess as everyone else in our nation.
> 
> Thankfully your libertarian policies will never be implemented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. Got it. The government is your lord and savior. And there's no point debating religious faith.
> 
> I just wish you weren't so hell bent on forcing your faith on everyone else.
Click to expand...

Since you claim to be a libertarian; I understand why you could never provide any examples of this "normal health insurance" in practice...

Because being a libertarian, you similarly can't provide any examples of a successful libertarian country existing today or ever


----------



## dblack

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Since you claim to be a libertarian...



I don't "claim to be a libertarian" - I'm tired of arm-wrestling over labels and definitions. I just don't want politicians fucking with healthcare.


----------



## kaz

colfax_m said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colfax_m said:
> 
> 
> 
> 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just babbling your inane nonsense again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Translation, you are writing your normal unintelligible crap, you can't read a post and you LOVE to bicker


----------



## kaz

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


Thanks for splitting hairs, Captain Blowhard


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you claim to be a libertarian...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "claim to be a libertarian" - I'm tired of arm-wrestling over labels and definitions. I just don't want politicians fucking with healthcare.
Click to expand...


You never could explain how you're libertarian or why totalitarian leftists love you and they are the only ones you ever agree with


----------



## dblack

kaz said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you claim to be a libertarian...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "claim to be a libertarian" - I'm tired of arm-wrestling over labels and definitions. I just don't want politicians fucking with healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never could explain how you're libertarian or why totalitarian leftists love you and they are the only ones you ever agree with
Click to expand...

LOL. Yeah. I'm really feeling the love from the totalitarian leftists.


----------



## kaz

dblack said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you claim to be a libertarian...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't "claim to be a libertarian" - I'm tired of arm-wrestling over labels and definitions. I just don't want politicians fucking with healthcare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You never could explain how you're libertarian or why totalitarian leftists love you and they are the only ones you ever agree with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL. Yeah. I'm really feeling the love from the totalitarian leftists.
Click to expand...


   Democrats calling you a racist and a fascist and a Nazi like they do everyone else?  Wait, they aren't doing that ...  Yeah, you're in some pretty heavy slap and tickle fights, it's brutal, huh?


----------



## Dana7360

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fuckers love you some big government. The "Individual Mandate" is unconstitutional. The Fed can not force you to buy goods and services. Calling it a tax is legal bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want what they want. Some people want to be taken care of and there's no convincing them it's a bad idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would include your hero and creator of the libertarian policy.
> 
> ayn rand.
> 
> Most of her life she swore she would never take a penny from the government. She said it was slavery to do so.
> 
> When she got cancer, she ran to the federal government for help to not die.
> 
> That's the thing. When a libertarian doesn't need health care they have your impractical and unworkable policy.
> 
> When it comes to the real world, that policy is thrown right out the window and they very quickly run to the federal government.
> 
> That is why your libertarian policy only exists in a fiction novel.
> 
> It can only exist in fiction because it doesn't work, destroys economies and nations, kills people and turns most of the society into slaves.
> 
> When you have a medical problem that you can't pay for you will either die or you will take all the medical help you can get but won't be able to pay all the thousands of dollars it costs so you won't pay for it leaving responsible people like me to pay for it in higher health care costs.
> 
> Or are you a hypocrite and have that health insurance you hate and are advocating to get rid of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL - like I said, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. The government loves you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said in my post, your libertarian policies can't work.
> 
> I noticed you didn't answer my question about you having insurance.
> 
> That leads me to believe you didn't answer it because you are a hypocrite and have that insurance you hate and want to do away with. Leaving millions to die.
> 
> I tore your libertarian policy to shreds and that's all you have for a reply?
> 
> You would have been better off not replying.
> 
> The government loves you too. You are as much a part of the health care mess as everyone else in our nation.
> 
> Thankfully your libertarian policies will never be implemented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. Got it. The government is your lord and savior. And there's no point debating religious faith.
> 
> I just wish you weren't so hell bent on forcing your faith on everyone else.
Click to expand...




I'm not christian or any of the religions that most people are. So leave religion out of this. It has absolutely nothing to do with health care and the fact that the Supreme Court threw out the case because the plaintiffs have no standing.

The government isn't my lord and savior. In fact, the only thing I've ever taken from the government is an IRS refund of my own money due to overpaying through the year in federal taxes.

As I've said, I don't like the system we have now. However it's the only system we can have thanks to conservatives and greedy people.

So instead of whining about it. Instead of advocating a system that doesn't work and kills people, I choose to work within the system we do have.

I can't change the system so I do the mature and adult thing. Accept what I can't change and work within it so I have proper medical care.

You are what you claim I am since you buy health insurance. So look in a mirror, you are seeing what you claim I am.  That's on top of you being a hypocrite.


----------



## Dana7360

Biff_Poindexter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fuckers love you some big government. The "Individual Mandate" is unconstitutional. The Fed can not force you to buy goods and services. Calling it a tax is legal bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want what they want. Some people want to be taken care of and there's no convincing them it's a bad idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would include your hero and creator of the libertarian policy.
> 
> ayn rand.
> 
> Most of her life she swore she would never take a penny from the government. She said it was slavery to do so.
> 
> When she got cancer, she ran to the federal government for help to not die.
> 
> That's the thing. When a libertarian doesn't need health care they have your impractical and unworkable policy.
> 
> When it comes to the real world, that policy is thrown right out the window and they very quickly run to the federal government.
> 
> That is why your libertarian policy only exists in a fiction novel.
> 
> It can only exist in fiction because it doesn't work, destroys economies and nations, kills people and turns most of the society into slaves.
> 
> When you have a medical problem that you can't pay for you will either die or you will take all the medical help you can get but won't be able to pay all the thousands of dollars it costs so you won't pay for it leaving responsible people like me to pay for it in higher health care costs.
> 
> Or are you a hypocrite and have that health insurance you hate and are advocating to get rid of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL - like I said, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. The government loves you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said in my post, your libertarian policies can't work.
> 
> I noticed you didn't answer my question about you having insurance.
> 
> That leads me to believe you didn't answer it because you are a hypocrite and have that insurance you hate and want to do away with. Leaving millions to die.
> 
> I tore your libertarian policy to shreds and that's all you have for a reply?
> 
> You would have been better off not replying.
> 
> The government loves you too. You are as much a part of the health care mess as everyone else in our nation.
> 
> Thankfully your libertarian policies will never be implemented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. Got it. The government is your lord and savior. And there's no point debating religious faith.
> 
> I just wish you weren't so hell bent on forcing your faith on everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you claim to be a libertarian; I understand why you could never provide any examples of this "normal health insurance" in practice...
> 
> Because being a libertarian, you similarly can't provide any examples of a successful libertarian country existing today or ever
Click to expand...



That's because it can only exist where it came from. 

A FICTION NOVEL. 

There's a reason why it's fiction. It's not real and can never work if implemented.


----------



## dblack

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fuckers love you some big government. The "Individual Mandate" is unconstitutional. The Fed can not force you to buy goods and services. Calling it a tax is legal bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want what they want. Some people want to be taken care of and there's no convincing them it's a bad idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would include your hero and creator of the libertarian policy.
> 
> ayn rand.
> 
> Most of her life she swore she would never take a penny from the government. She said it was slavery to do so.
> 
> When she got cancer, she ran to the federal government for help to not die.
> 
> That's the thing. When a libertarian doesn't need health care they have your impractical and unworkable policy.
> 
> When it comes to the real world, that policy is thrown right out the window and they very quickly run to the federal government.
> 
> That is why your libertarian policy only exists in a fiction novel.
> 
> It can only exist in fiction because it doesn't work, destroys economies and nations, kills people and turns most of the society into slaves.
> 
> When you have a medical problem that you can't pay for you will either die or you will take all the medical help you can get but won't be able to pay all the thousands of dollars it costs so you won't pay for it leaving responsible people like me to pay for it in higher health care costs.
> 
> Or are you a hypocrite and have that health insurance you hate and are advocating to get rid of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL - like I said, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. The government loves you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said in my post, your libertarian policies can't work.
> 
> I noticed you didn't answer my question about you having insurance.
> 
> That leads me to believe you didn't answer it because you are a hypocrite and have that insurance you hate and want to do away with. Leaving millions to die.
> 
> I tore your libertarian policy to shreds and that's all you have for a reply?
> 
> You would have been better off not replying.
> 
> The government loves you too. You are as much a part of the health care mess as everyone else in our nation.
> 
> Thankfully your libertarian policies will never be implemented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. Got it. The government is your lord and savior. And there's no point debating religious faith.
> 
> I just wish you weren't so hell bent on forcing your faith on everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not christian or any of the religions that most people are. So leave religion out of this. It has absolutely nothing to do with health care and the fact that the Supreme Court threw out the case because the plaintiffs have no standing.
> 
> The government isn't my lord and savior. In fact, the only thing I've ever taken from the government is an IRS refund of my own money due to overpaying through the year in federal taxes.
> 
> As I've said, I don't like the system we have now. However it's the only system we can have thanks to conservatives and greedy people.
> 
> So instead of whining about it. Instead of advocating a system that doesn't work and kills people, I choose to work within the system we do have.
> 
> I can't change the system so I do the mature and adult thing. Accept what I can't change and work within it so I have proper medical care.
> 
> You are what you claim I am since you buy health insurance. So look in a mirror, you are seeing what you claim I am.  That's on top of you being a hypocrite.
Click to expand...

Whatever. I respect that you have a different view. I just wish you'd refrain from trying to force it on others.


----------



## Flopper

bear513 said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.
> 
> It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't die if you have health care..
> 
> 
> Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Bear, you do die with insurance and/or a lot of money, but most likely not as fast as if you were only given healthcare if you could pay for it or had insurance.
> I know this is a very complex idea. Have your mother explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about drinking the Kool aid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not Kool Aid, that is the real world; no sugar added. How old are you. You sound like a person who has not experienced much in life or are very stupid or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Old enough to know I don't need health insurance and am not paying for your fat ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now, if you do not have health insurance, you basically can't get an appointment to see a doctor.
> Instead you have to go to the ER, because they are required by law to not turn people away.
> But they giver really bad health care for most things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no idea, haven't been to a doctor in like 30 years except for employees mandated drug tests
Click to expand...




Rigby5 said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anathema said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the mindset that holds Americans back from demanding better. And yes, some of you still, after many years of torture, still think that for profit health care is going to come to the rescue
> 
> 
> 
> Do you undercut? I don’t think you do. I don’t think that you truly understand how many of us do not want anything from the Government; whether we’ve paid for it or not.
> 
> It’s not that we somehow believe the insure companies have our best interests at heart. We know they don’t. We’d just rather take the chance of getting care for our bodies there than doing harm to our Souls by dealing with the Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want nothing from the government then only drive on your roads, go to your schools, have your own military, have your own fire fighters, have your own police, if you cannot pay for health care, die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't die if you have health care..
> 
> 
> Who knew?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well Bear, you do die with insurance and/or a lot of money, but most likely not as fast as if you were only given healthcare if you could pay for it or had insurance.
> I know this is a very complex idea. Have your mother explain it to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about drinking the Kool aid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is not Kool Aid, that is the real world; no sugar added. How old are you. You sound like a person who has not experienced much in life or are very stupid or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Old enough to know I don't need health insurance and am not paying for your fat ass
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now, if you do not have health insurance, you basically can't get an appointment to see a doctor.
> Instead you have to go to the ER, because they are required by law to not turn people away.
> But they giver really bad health care for most things.
Click to expand...

If  you don't have insurance and you are not an established patient you are likely to be sent to the ER.  However, if you look at small practices and walk-ins you will find someone that will see you but they probably will want an imprint of your credit card before you see the doctor.  Places like this usually treat minor infections and injuries, such as sore throats, FLU,  small cuts and burns, required medical exams, etc.  The most common treatment is something to relieve the symptoms.  If the doctor suspects that it could be something more serious going on, they will refer you to an ER.  And that is where the uninsured find themselves between the rock and the hard place. Skip the ER and hope for best or go and face some potentially huge bills.


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the ACA it is illegal to based a person's premiums on usage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right. The entire premise of ACA is a denial of the basic concept of insurance. We're trying to turn it into a social safety net. It won't work, it will just become more and more dysfunctional and eventually the government will take over altogether. But hey, it will make the insurance companies a boatload of money in the process!
> 
> We should have this kind "insurance" for all of life's necessities. Won't that be fun!
Click to expand...

Under the ACA, what we call health insurance plans are really healthcare plans.  Insurance protects you against unlikely medical conditions that would likely wipe you out financially.  Healthcare plans provide you with coverage against all healthcare peril, large or small plus providing you with preventive care that will stop or prevent potentially life threating medical conditions.  Healthcare plans protect both the individual and society because society benefits when their members are healthier.


----------



## Dana7360

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fuckers love you some big government. The "Individual Mandate" is unconstitutional. The Fed can not force you to buy goods and services. Calling it a tax is legal bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want what they want. Some people want to be taken care of and there's no convincing them it's a bad idea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would include your hero and creator of the libertarian policy.
> 
> ayn rand.
> 
> Most of her life she swore she would never take a penny from the government. She said it was slavery to do so.
> 
> When she got cancer, she ran to the federal government for help to not die.
> 
> That's the thing. When a libertarian doesn't need health care they have your impractical and unworkable policy.
> 
> When it comes to the real world, that policy is thrown right out the window and they very quickly run to the federal government.
> 
> That is why your libertarian policy only exists in a fiction novel.
> 
> It can only exist in fiction because it doesn't work, destroys economies and nations, kills people and turns most of the society into slaves.
> 
> When you have a medical problem that you can't pay for you will either die or you will take all the medical help you can get but won't be able to pay all the thousands of dollars it costs so you won't pay for it leaving responsible people like me to pay for it in higher health care costs.
> 
> Or are you a hypocrite and have that health insurance you hate and are advocating to get rid of?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL - like I said, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise. The government loves you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said in my post, your libertarian policies can't work.
> 
> I noticed you didn't answer my question about you having insurance.
> 
> That leads me to believe you didn't answer it because you are a hypocrite and have that insurance you hate and want to do away with. Leaving millions to die.
> 
> I tore your libertarian policy to shreds and that's all you have for a reply?
> 
> You would have been better off not replying.
> 
> The government loves you too. You are as much a part of the health care mess as everyone else in our nation.
> 
> Thankfully your libertarian policies will never be implemented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK. Got it. The government is your lord and savior. And there's no point debating religious faith.
> 
> I just wish you weren't so hell bent on forcing your faith on everyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not christian or any of the religions that most people are. So leave religion out of this. It has absolutely nothing to do with health care and the fact that the Supreme Court threw out the case because the plaintiffs have no standing.
> 
> The government isn't my lord and savior. In fact, the only thing I've ever taken from the government is an IRS refund of my own money due to overpaying through the year in federal taxes.
> 
> As I've said, I don't like the system we have now. However it's the only system we can have thanks to conservatives and greedy people.
> 
> So instead of whining about it. Instead of advocating a system that doesn't work and kills people, I choose to work within the system we do have.
> 
> I can't change the system so I do the mature and adult thing. Accept what I can't change and work within it so I have proper medical care.
> 
> You are what you claim I am since you buy health insurance. So look in a mirror, you are seeing what you claim I am.  That's on top of you being a hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever. I respect that you have a different view. I just wish you'd refrain from trying to force it on others.
Click to expand...



I respect you have a different view. 

I don't force my views on other people.


----------



## dblack

Dana7360 said:


> 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?


----------



## Westender

Synthaholic said:


> Republicans and Conservatives lose again.


You mean middle class loses again. Obamacare raised healthcare on the middle class to give free healthcare to people that are to sorry to pay for their own.


----------



## Donald H

America's health care system?

What a pathetic and cruel hoax the system is playing on the American people!

And best of all, some thoroughly indoctrinated lameasses are defending it still!
OH, and claiming to be free while they screech on about the rest of the world being hijacked out of HC by their COMMUNIST systems.


----------



## dblack

Donald H said:


> America's health care system?
> 
> What a pathetic and cruel hoax the system is playing on the American people!
> 
> And best of all, some thoroughly indoctrinated lameasses are defending it still!



I'm not defending it. I just want to make things better, rather than worse. Unfortunately, most reform proposals are simply doubling down on the same bad ideas that drove us into this corner in the first place.


----------



## Donald H

dblack said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> America's health care system?
> 
> What a pathetic and cruel hoax the system is playing on the American people!
> 
> And best of all, some thoroughly indoctrinated lameasses are defending it still!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defending it. I just want to make things better, rather than worse. Unfortunately, most reform proposals are simply doubling down on the same bad ideas that drove us into this corner in the first place.
Click to expand...

Big business stands in the way of the only obvious answer. And politicians on both sides in America are paid to ensure that big business, for profit HC survives.
 Only government can do it on HC.
But that's not to say that America's government can do it. It's too corrupt, for the above mentioned reasons, to fix it.

I see no way forward other than the people rising up and demanding reform on HC and many other issues.

The Trumpers protesting on Jan.6 were an indication of the people beginning to make something happen, even though the movement was hijacked by Trump for his personal gain.


----------



## dblack

Donald H said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> America's health care system?
> 
> What a pathetic and cruel hoax the system is playing on the American people!
> 
> And best of all, some thoroughly indoctrinated lameasses are defending it still!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defending it. I just want to make things better, rather than worse. Unfortunately, most reform proposals are simply doubling down on the same bad ideas that drove us into this corner in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Big business stands in the way of the only obvious answer.
Click to expand...


The "only obvious answer" is the problem. Sometimes, "obvious" is just plain wrong. 



> But that's not to say that America's government can do it. It's too corrupt, for the above mentioned reasons, to fix it.



Yep. We won't get socialism. Our country isn't designed for socialism. If we try, we'll just get corporatism, socialism's kissin' cousin.



> I see no way forward other than the people rising up and demanding reform on HC and many other issues.



What sort of reform did you have in mind? Anything besides putting politicians in charge?



> The Trumpers protesting on Jan.6 were an indication of the people beginning to make something happen, even though the movement was hijacked by Trump for his personal gain.



The Trumpers protesting on Jan. 6th were an indication of just how fucking stupid and destructive people can be, especially when led by an amoral populist.


----------



## Donald H

dblack said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> America's health care system?
> 
> What a pathetic and cruel hoax the system is playing on the American people!
> 
> And best of all, some thoroughly indoctrinated lameasses are defending it still!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defending it. I just want to make things better, rather than worse. Unfortunately, most reform proposals are simply doubling down on the same bad ideas that drove us into this corner in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Big business stands in the way of the only obvious answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "only obvious answer" is the problem. Sometimes, "obvious" is just plain wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not to say that America's government can do it. It's too corrupt, for the above mentioned reasons, to fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. We won't get socialism. Our country isn't designed for socialism. If we try, we'll just get corporatism, socialism's kissin' cousin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no way forward other than the people rising up and demanding reform on HC and many other issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What sort of reform did you have in mind? Anything besides putting politicians in charge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Trumpers protesting on Jan.6 were an indication of the people beginning to make something happen, even though the movement was hijacked by Trump for his personal gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been handed the straight answers on HC and there's nothing left to debate on that.
> 
> The Trumpers protesting on Jan. 6th were an indication of just how fucking stupid and destructive people can be, especially when led by an amoral populist.
Click to expand...

There's truth in what you say, but also misunderstanding. 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 ..................................


----------



## dblack

Donald H said:


> 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.


----------



## Donald H

dblack said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Your domestic politics is of no interest to me.
You give little indication of understanding what I've told you.
Certainly not enough for me to continue.


----------



## dblack

Donald H said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your domestic politics is of no interest to me.
> You give little indication of understanding what I've told you.
> Certainly not enough for me to continue.
Click to expand...

Well then. I guess I've been told.


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> America's health care system?
> 
> What a pathetic and cruel hoax the system is playing on the American people!
> 
> And best of all, some thoroughly indoctrinated lameasses are defending it still!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defending it. I just want to make things better, rather than worse. Unfortunately, most reform proposals are simply doubling down on the same bad ideas that drove us into this corner in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Big business stands in the way of the only obvious answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "only obvious answer" is the problem. Sometimes, "obvious" is just plain wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that's not to say that America's government can do it. It's too corrupt, for the above mentioned reasons, to fix it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. We won't get socialism. Our country isn't designed for socialism. If we try, we'll just get corporatism, socialism's kissin' cousin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see no way forward other than the people rising up and demanding reform on HC and many other issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What sort of reform did you have in mind? Anything besides putting politicians in charge?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Trumpers protesting on Jan.6 were an indication of the people beginning to make something happen, even though the movement was hijacked by Trump for his personal gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Trumpers protesting on Jan. 6th were an indication of just how fucking stupid and destructive people can be, especially when led by an amoral populist.
Click to expand...

You speak of socialism as if it either existed in a nation or  didn't.  The fact is socialism and capitalism exist in every nation on earth with only a few exceptions.  These ideologies are idealist goals which are not sustainable over the long term.   Achieving the right balance between the two, which is not the same for all nations should be our goal. 

I believe a more socialist system is inevitable because the productivity of the American worker has been increasing for a century and has doubled in the last 20 years and there is no end in sight.  As the productive of workers keeps rise, two things occur. The need for menial workers keeps falls as the demand for better trained and educated workers keeps rising.  And the trend of earlier retirement continues.  All of this creates more demand for social services.  Someday we will reach a point where machines are doing almost all of our work and people will need resources to survive and prosper which will have to come from the government.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

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


----------



## FA_Q2

dblack said:


> Donald H said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

LordBrownTrout said:


> 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

FA_Q2 said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

dudmuck said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Dana7360

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...



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

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

Dana7360 said:


> 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

bodecea said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
Click to expand...

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

schmidlap said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​
Click to expand...




schmidlap said:


> ​


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

Flopper said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

schmidlap said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

Flopper said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

schmidlap said:


> 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

schmidlap said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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']       ​
Click to expand...

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

schmidlap said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​​​​​​​
Click to expand...

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

Flopper said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



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

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.’
Click to expand...

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


----------



## dblack

Dana7360 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

Dana7360 said:


> ...





Dana7360 said:


> 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.


----------



## Rigby5

Flopper said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​​​​​​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.

So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.


----------



## Flopper

Dana7360 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

The problem with opting out and not being able to return, is it would opt out not just the policy holder but all the dependents. It would be an unmanageable situation.


----------



## Flopper

Rigby5 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​​​​​​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
> And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.
> 
> So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
> That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
> Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
> So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.
Click to expand...

It's not a tax exemption.  The expense of providing health insurance to employees is considered an  ordinary business expense like advertising or the cost of goods sold.  How much of a tax advantage it is for the employer depends on their their tax bracket and the employer's share of the expense of the insurance premiums.  For a low income small single proprietor business it can be a very significant tax break because the person's health insurance becomes a business expense which reduces adjusted gross income which helps in getting addition tax breaks and qualifying for various types of financial aid from both states and the federal government.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​​​​​​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
> And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.
> 
> So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
> That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
> Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
> So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a tax exemption.  The expense of providing health insurance to employees is considered an  ordinary business expense like advertising or the cost of goods sold.
Click to expand...


It's not a legitimate business expense. No more so than providing for any other arbitrary needs of the employee would be. Unless we're thinking of employees as company property, that must be maintained and properly "cared for", benefits like health insurance are just different forms of compensation and should be taxed likewise.


----------



## Dana7360

dblack said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...




I have said all along, I don't like insurance and wish it was done away with. 

However.

I don't make those decisions. I have to live with the decisions made by politicians who make those decisions. So I work with the system that's available to me. I only have two choices. Insurance or die from no health care.

So I do the mature thing and accept what I can't change and work with what is available. 

The problem with your idea of no one having insurance with no replacement, COVID 19. Or any of the many health conditions that people get. Or an accident.

I believe one of the reasons why the virus got so out of control is because of so many in America who don't have insurance and don't see a doctor. So they spread it all over the nation. 

People get sick. People get into accidents. A normal person who isn't filthy rich can't afford medical costs. Which I've pointed out many times but you totally ignore it.

Where is a person going to come up with the money to pay for cancer? Or heart disease? Or alzhemiers? Or any one of the many conditions that people have to deal with.

Do you expect them to just die? They can't afford to see a doctor. Much less get any treatment for the condition. So I guess you expect them to die and do it quickly. 

That is the problem with your ideas. You only consider young and very health people who never get sick or never are in any sort of accident.

That isn't the reality of life.


----------



## Dana7360

Flopper said:


> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with opting out and not being able to return, is it would opt out not just the policy holder but all the dependents. It would be an unmanageable situation.
Click to expand...




I can't agree with you more.

Which is another reason why I believe the ideas of the person I was replying to will never work.

We will see a lot of infants and women die.

No one expects to give birth to a child who has health problems that need tens or even hundreds of thousand of dollars in health care to stay alive. Yet that happens every day.

The ideas of the person I replied to would kill that baby. 

That baby wouldn't have been born in a hospital so it won't have access to proper medical care that saves it's life. The baby wouldn't have any sort of health care whether it was born in a hospital or not. Same with the mom. If she's also in distress, there is no medical care for her. She would't have had any prenatal care either. The best she could have done is take prenatal vitamins.


----------



## Flopper

Rigby5 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​​​​​​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
> And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.
> 
> So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
> That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
> Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
> So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.
Click to expand...

I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:

Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.  

Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees.    The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies.  This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment. 

The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit.  Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium.  What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.



And that should be the first step in any reform effort. Making ourselves dependent on "employment" for health care was a mistake. 



> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers ...



Would bring health insurance premiums, and health care prices themselves, back down to earth.

The core problem with health care is that prices are inflated beyond all reason. We've reached a point where the average person can't get average health care without begging someone else (an employer, government, charity) to pay for it. There's no (good) reason for things to be that way. We've made them that way with ill-conceived regulation and tax policy. The first thing need to do is eliminate those regulations and tax policies.


----------



## schmidlap

Flopper said:


> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees.    The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies.  This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.
> 
> The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit.  Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium.  What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.


During the war [WWII], wages were capped by the federal government, so employers needed another means to entice and keep employees. The incentive they decided on were benefits like health insurance. These health benefits packages were not considered a part of employees’ wages and the employers could deduct what they spent on these benefits packages from their corporate taxes. A win-win situation!​[When did employer-sponsored health insurance begin? | Health Insurance]​
There are reasons that what had begun as an employment perquisite of little value - an employer picking up the then negligible tab for an employee's medical insurance - has grown to become a monumentally expensive and inefficient method of covering Americans.

There is nothing unique about Americans employed by businesses administering health insurance plans needing health insurance. _All_ Americans are subject to the risk of incurring medical expenses, sometimes ruinously high. There is no rationale for subjecting Americans who are between jobs, for whatever reason, to the potential of devastating loss if a family member should incur substantial medical expenses during such an hiatus.

The need for businesses to divert a portion of their operations to administer such plans is only one unnecessary imposition. The expectancy of an American to have his health insurance provided by an employer is a barrier to enterprise, one more impediment to potential start-ups, and an incentive to remain with a company out of fear of losing coverage rather than progressing in one's career. It was a coercive measure calculated to keep employees in their place during wartime.

Differentiating Americans working for companies who administer healthcare plans from other Americans is counter to the economic advantage of economy of scale, administrative functions assumed by the employer being repeatedly duplicated by every employer rather than all Americans, employed or otherwise, being under a single plan that minimizes the bureaucratic requirements and most efficiently distributes risk as it creates the largest risk pool, an actuarial reality.

The federal and state tax systems provide significant financial benefits for people with private health insurance. The largest group of beneficiaries is people who enroll in coverage through their jobs. There also are tax benefits for people who are self-employed and for people with high medical costs...​
 The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013... the largest tax incentive for private insurance — the exclusion of the cost of ESI — is an indirect subsidy that is never actually reported to the individuals and families who benefit from it. Many people with employer coverage are probably not aware that the federal and state tax exclusions for private health insurance provides them with a subsidy worth several thousands of dollars a year.​​








						Tax Subsidies for Private Health Insurance
					

This brief describes the different forms of tax assistance for private health insurance, including subsidies offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and benefits for people who…




					www.kff.org
				



​​No competent individuals designing a nation's healthcare system would have ever attached coverage to the plethora of private employers. It was an unforeseeable, insidious development.


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that should be the first step in any reform effort. Making ourselves dependent on "employment" for health care was a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would bring health insurance premiums, and health care prices themselves, back down to earth.
> 
> The core problem with health care is that prices are inflated beyond all reason. We've reached a point where the average person can't get average health care without begging someone else (an employer, government, charity) to pay for it. There's no (good) reason for things to be that way. We've made them that way with ill-conceived regulation and tax policy. The first thing need to do is eliminate those regulations and tax policies.
Click to expand...

I agree that making ourselves dependent on "employment" for healthcare insurance was a mistake. However, the fallout from reversing the course would create a huge mess and could end with far higher premiums for employees. Employers pay on average 70% of employees healthcare benefits and nearly half of all Americans depend on employers for health insurance.   If employers were not allowed to deduct their cost of of providing health insurance from their taxable income, they would drop health insurance as fast as the law allowed. Those additional cost would fall on either the employee or the government.   The only sure winner would be employers who would save nearly a hundred billion dollars.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that should be the first step in any reform effort. Making ourselves dependent on "employment" for health care was a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would bring health insurance premiums, and health care prices themselves, back down to earth.
> 
> The core problem with health care is that prices are inflated beyond all reason. We've reached a point where the average person can't get average health care without begging someone else (an employer, government, charity) to pay for it. There's no (good) reason for things to be that way. We've made them that way with ill-conceived regulation and tax policy. The first thing need to do is eliminate those regulations and tax policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that making ourselves dependent on "employment" for healthcare insurance was a mistake. However, the fallout from reversing the course would create a huge mess and could end with far higher premiums for employees. Employers pay on average 70% of employees healthcare benefits and nearly half of all Americans depend on employers for health insurance.
Click to expand...

Correcting a mistake can often be painful. But not as damaging as continuing down the wrong path.



> If employers were not allowed to deduct their cost of of providing health insurance from their taxable income, they would drop health insurance as fast as the law allowed.



Yes, that's the point. The law should have never pushed them in that direction in the first place.



> Those additional cost would fall on either the employee or the government.   The only sure winner would be employers who would save nearly a hundred billion dollars.



That's debatable. If they stopped offering healthcare for employees, they would need to compensate them in other ways. Regardless, it's no reason to continue investing in the wrong solution.


----------



## Flopper

schmidlap said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees.    The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies.  This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.
> 
> The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit.  Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium.  What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> During the war [WWII], wages were capped by the federal government, so employers needed another means to entice and keep employees. The incentive they decided on were benefits like health insurance. These health benefits packages were not considered a part of employees’ wages and the employers could deduct what they spent on these benefits packages from their corporate taxes. A win-win situation!​[When did employer-sponsored health insurance begin? | Health Insurance]​
> There are reasons that what had begun as an employment perquisite of little value - an employer picking up the then negligible tab for an employee's medical insurance - has grown to become a monumentally expensive and inefficient method of covering Americans.
> 
> There is nothing unique about Americans employed by businesses administering health insurance plans needing health insurance. _All_ Americans are subject to the risk of incurring medical expenses, sometimes ruinously high. There is no rationale for subjecting Americans who are between jobs, for whatever reason, to the potential of devastating loss if a family member should incur substantial medical expenses during such an hiatus.
> 
> The need for businesses to divert a portion of their operations to administer such plans is only one unnecessary imposition. The expectancy of an American to have his health insurance provided by an employer is a barrier to enterprise, one more impediment to potential start-ups, and an incentive to remain with a company out of fear of losing coverage rather than progressing in one's career. It was a coercive measure calculated to keep employees in their place during wartime.
> 
> Differentiating Americans working for companies who administer healthcare plans from other Americans is counter to the economic advantage of economy of scale, administrative functions assumed by the employer being repeatedly duplicated by every employer rather than all Americans, employed or otherwise, being under a single plan that minimizes the bureaucratic requirements and most efficiently distributes risk as it creates the largest risk pool, an actuarial reality.
> 
> The federal and state tax systems provide significant financial benefits for people with private health insurance. The largest group of beneficiaries is people who enroll in coverage through their jobs. There also are tax benefits for people who are self-employed and for people with high medical costs...​
> The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013... the largest tax incentive for private insurance — the exclusion of the cost of ESI — is an indirect subsidy that is never actually reported to the individuals and families who benefit from it. Many people with employer coverage are probably not aware that the federal and state tax exclusions for private health insurance provides them with a subsidy worth several thousands of dollars a year.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Subsidies for Private Health Insurance
> 
> 
> This brief describes the different forms of tax assistance for private health insurance, including subsidies offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and benefits for people who…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kff.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​​No competent individuals designing a nation's healthcare system would have ever attached coverage to the plethora of private employers. It was an unforeseeable, insidious development.
Click to expand...

During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures.  Everything else was the subscribers responsibility. 

The cost of healthcare over the last 75 years has increased as much as 40 times; that is, a $100 procedure then would cost about $4,000 today.  When people see figures like this, the usual first question is what is the cause.  We have heard the answers many times, goverment, greedy insurance companies, Obamacare, overpaid healthcare workers, big government, drug companies, etc.  What you don't hear is  people are utilizing healthcare 5 times as much as they did in1950.  The number of medical treatments have tripled since 1960.   You might like paying $5 to go to the doctor 75 years ago, but you wouldn't like hearing him tell you that there was no cure for your lung cancer or your heart disease, or your son has polio and he will probably spend the rest of his life in an iron lung, etc. etc.

In large part due to better healthcare, life expectancy has increased from 65 in 1950 to 79 in 2020 and is expected to increase to 89 by 2070.  Today 11 times as many people are living to 100 compared to 1950.  When looking at the increase in healthcare cost we need to ask our selves how important is living a longer and healthier life.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

schmidlap said:


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


Along with their contempt for the rule of law, the Constitution, and our democratic institutions.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Flopper said:


> During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures. Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.


Correct.

At that time health insurance as like automobile insurance and homeowners’ insurance – something you likely weren’t going to use.

Health insurance was never designed or intended for ongoing healthcare/health maintenance.


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that should be the first step in any reform effort. Making ourselves dependent on "employment" for health care was a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would bring health insurance premiums, and health care prices themselves, back down to earth.
> 
> The core problem with health care is that prices are inflated beyond all reason. We've reached a point where the average person can't get average health care without begging someone else (an employer, government, charity) to pay for it. There's no (good) reason for things to be that way. We've made them that way with ill-conceived regulation and tax policy. The first thing need to do is eliminate those regulations and tax policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that making ourselves dependent on "employment" for healthcare insurance was a mistake. However, the fallout from reversing the course would create a huge mess and could end with far higher premiums for employees. Employers pay on average 70% of employees healthcare benefits and nearly half of all Americans depend on employers for health insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correcting a mistake can often be painful. But not as damaging as continuing down the wrong path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If employers were not allowed to deduct their cost of of providing health insurance from their taxable income, they would drop health insurance as fast as the law allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's the point. The law should have never pushed them in that direction in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those additional cost would fall on either the employee or the government.   The only sure winner would be employers who would save nearly a hundred billion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's debatable. If they stopped offering healthcare for employees, they would need to compensate them in other ways. Regardless, it's no reason to continue investing in the wrong solution.
Click to expand...

You say if companies stopped subsidizing employee healthcare insurance, they should compensate them in some other way. Why?  The only reason they offer healthcare insurance to their employees today is they have no choice.  Businesses have never wanted to provide health insurance.  In WWII, the government forced it on them.  Then unions did. Then state governments and finally the federal government did.  Healthcare like other necessities of life is an induvial expense or some would argue that it should be an expense to all society, that is,  the goverment, but requiring businesses to either supply healthcare insurance or compensate employees  to buy it makes no sense at all.


----------



## Flopper

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures. Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> At that time health insurance as like automobile insurance and homeowners’ insurance – something you likely weren’t going to use.
> 
> Health insurance was never designed or intended for ongoing healthcare/health maintenance.
Click to expand...

I agree with you.  However, what insurance companies sell today is not health insurance.  They sell healthcare plans that cover just about every type of healthcare problem which is what the public wants but at a much lower cost.


----------



## Rigby5

Flopper said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​​​​​​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
> And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.
> 
> So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
> That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
> Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
> So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a tax exemption.  The expense of providing health insurance to employees is considered an  ordinary business expense like advertising or the cost of goods sold.  How much of a tax advantage it is for the employer depends on their their tax bracket and the employer's share of the expense of the insurance premiums.  For a low income small single proprietor business it can be a very significant tax break because the person's health insurance becomes a business expense which reduces adjusted gross income which helps in getting addition tax breaks and qualifying for various types of financial aid from both states and the federal government.
Click to expand...


You are misunderstanding.
Employee health insurance is NOT at all a valid business expense, in any way.
It is entirely an employee benefit, and as such, should be taxable to the employee.
The IRS exemption for employee health insurance benefits has never been fair or along any legal principle.
It is totally contrary all tax laws and should never have been allowed.
What makes it so corrupt is that poor people do not get to take advantage of it, so then when everyone has to have their taxes increased to pay for the shortfall this insurance exemption causes, then effectively poor people end up subsidizing the health care of the wealthy.


----------



## Rigby5

Flopper said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​​​​​​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
> And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.
> 
> So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
> That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
> Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
> So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees.    The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies.  This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.
> 
> The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit.  Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium.  What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.
Click to expand...


But you again are ignoring the fact employer paid health insurance is a benefit and therefore should not only be taxable, but it is very unfair to poor people who do not get employer health insurance and have to pay much more in order to get any health care access, due to the unfair tax exempt health insurance of the wealthy.

And you are also forgetting that NO ONE should be using insurance to finance health care.
Insurance is prepaid, so then prevent you from having any control over costs or quality.
Third party payer simply does not and can not work.

Forcing millions of people out of their cushy prepaid employer health care would not at all increase the cost of health care, but would greatly decrease it.  That is because we would go back to the way it was before 1957, where you did not prepay your health care.
You paid after the fact, and hospitals would make arrangements for long term financing as necessary.

Forget about insurance.
That has never been a reasonable way to pay for anything, and should never have been allowed to take over our health care system.
Insurance companies only add cost, not quality or service.  In fact, they greatly reduce quality and service.


----------



## Rigby5

Flopper said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees.    The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies.  This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.
> 
> The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit.  Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium.  What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> During the war [WWII], wages were capped by the federal government, so employers needed another means to entice and keep employees. The incentive they decided on were benefits like health insurance. These health benefits packages were not considered a part of employees’ wages and the employers could deduct what they spent on these benefits packages from their corporate taxes. A win-win situation!​[When did employer-sponsored health insurance begin? | Health Insurance]​
> There are reasons that what had begun as an employment perquisite of little value - an employer picking up the then negligible tab for an employee's medical insurance - has grown to become a monumentally expensive and inefficient method of covering Americans.
> 
> There is nothing unique about Americans employed by businesses administering health insurance plans needing health insurance. _All_ Americans are subject to the risk of incurring medical expenses, sometimes ruinously high. There is no rationale for subjecting Americans who are between jobs, for whatever reason, to the potential of devastating loss if a family member should incur substantial medical expenses during such an hiatus.
> 
> The need for businesses to divert a portion of their operations to administer such plans is only one unnecessary imposition. The expectancy of an American to have his health insurance provided by an employer is a barrier to enterprise, one more impediment to potential start-ups, and an incentive to remain with a company out of fear of losing coverage rather than progressing in one's career. It was a coercive measure calculated to keep employees in their place during wartime.
> 
> Differentiating Americans working for companies who administer healthcare plans from other Americans is counter to the economic advantage of economy of scale, administrative functions assumed by the employer being repeatedly duplicated by every employer rather than all Americans, employed or otherwise, being under a single plan that minimizes the bureaucratic requirements and most efficiently distributes risk as it creates the largest risk pool, an actuarial reality.
> 
> The federal and state tax systems provide significant financial benefits for people with private health insurance. The largest group of beneficiaries is people who enroll in coverage through their jobs. There also are tax benefits for people who are self-employed and for people with high medical costs...​
> The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013... the largest tax incentive for private insurance — the exclusion of the cost of ESI — is an indirect subsidy that is never actually reported to the individuals and families who benefit from it. Many people with employer coverage are probably not aware that the federal and state tax exclusions for private health insurance provides them with a subsidy worth several thousands of dollars a year.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Subsidies for Private Health Insurance
> 
> 
> This brief describes the different forms of tax assistance for private health insurance, including subsidies offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and benefits for people who…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kff.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​​No competent individuals designing a nation's healthcare system would have ever attached coverage to the plethora of private employers. It was an unforeseeable, insidious development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures.  Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.
> 
> The cost of healthcare over the last 75 years has increased as much as 40 times; that is, a $100 procedure then would cost about $4,000 today.  When people see figures like this, the usual first question is what is the cause.  We have heard the answers many times, goverment, greedy insurance companies, Obamacare, overpaid healthcare workers, big government, drug companies, etc.  What you don't hear is  people are utilizing healthcare 5 times as much as they did in1950.  The number of medical treatments have tripled since 1960.   You might like paying $5 to go to the doctor 75 years ago, but you wouldn't like hearing him tell you that there was no cure for your lung cancer or your heart disease, or your son has polio and he will probably spend the rest of his life in an iron lung, etc. etc.
> 
> In large part due to better healthcare, life expectancy has increased from 65 in 1950 to 79 in 2020 and is expected to increase to 89 by 2070.  Today 11 times as many people are living to 100 compared to 1950.  When looking at the increase in healthcare cost we need to ask our selves how important is living a longer and healthier life.
Click to expand...


You again are looking at this backwards.
My brother recently had a heart valve replacement, and the surgeon had 6 of the exact same procedure lined up back to back for the day.  Took less than an hour.  They were only 4 staff involved.  So then actually health care now should cost only a tiny fraction of what it used to cost, when you consider all the experience and useful equipment we have now that we did not have then.  Just one heart valve procedure used to take several days, when you count the prep to get the valve. 
So then no, utilization is not 5 times higher.

The real reason health care costs have risen so high is entirely due to insurance companies.
We can tell because we can compare with the rest of the world, and they have health care quality higher than ours, but less than half the cost.
Third party payer not only never works, but actually encourages providers to over charge, because then customers need insurance all the more.  It essentially then is a monopoly, where the insurance companies try to make themselves indispensable.
But the insurance companies add nothing at all to the service, except to cause the price to double.

Sure we are living longer, but that is because health care is so much easier to provide and is so much more reliable.
The health care profession is not working harder, but much less hard compared to what they used to have to do.
For example, a pacemaker was rare because it meant cracking the chest for a full day of surgery, but now is a 1 hour angioscope procedure.

Actual health care should not cost more now, but MUCH MUCH less.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that should be the first step in any reform effort. Making ourselves dependent on "employment" for health care was a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would bring health insurance premiums, and health care prices themselves, back down to earth.
> 
> The core problem with health care is that prices are inflated beyond all reason. We've reached a point where the average person can't get average health care without begging someone else (an employer, government, charity) to pay for it. There's no (good) reason for things to be that way. We've made them that way with ill-conceived regulation and tax policy. The first thing need to do is eliminate those regulations and tax policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that making ourselves dependent on "employment" for healthcare insurance was a mistake. However, the fallout from reversing the course would create a huge mess and could end with far higher premiums for employees. Employers pay on average 70% of employees healthcare benefits and nearly half of all Americans depend on employers for health insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correcting a mistake can often be painful. But not as damaging as continuing down the wrong path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If employers were not allowed to deduct their cost of of providing health insurance from their taxable income, they would drop health insurance as fast as the law allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's the point. The law should have never pushed them in that direction in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those additional cost would fall on either the employee or the government.   The only sure winner would be employers who would save nearly a hundred billion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's debatable. If they stopped offering healthcare for employees, they would need to compensate them in other ways. Regardless, it's no reason to continue investing in the wrong solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say if companies stopped subsidizing employee healthcare insurance, they should compensate them in some other way. Why?
Click to expand...


Because that's how they compete for quality employees. If you had a choice between two jobs, one that offered healthcare and one that didn't, and the salary was the same, which would you choose? The only way the employer not offering healthcare could compete would be increase their offer to compensate.  



> The only reason they offer healthcare insurance to their employees today is they have no choice.



Traditionally, they have had that choice, and many made it. I've worked for several companies that didn't offer health care. More recently, asinine regulations have tried force them into it. Another part of the problem, certainly not a solution. 



> Businesses have never wanted to provide health insurance.  In WWII, the government forced it on them. Then unions did. Then state governments and finally the federal government did.



Yep. That's the problem alright. The first thing we need to do is get rid of that kind of legislation.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that should be the first step in any reform effort. Making ourselves dependent on "employment" for health care was a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would bring health insurance premiums, and health care prices themselves, back down to earth.
> 
> The core problem with health care is that prices are inflated beyond all reason. We've reached a point where the average person can't get average health care without begging someone else (an employer, government, charity) to pay for it. There's no (good) reason for things to be that way. We've made them that way with ill-conceived regulation and tax policy. The first thing need to do is eliminate those regulations and tax policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that making ourselves dependent on "employment" for healthcare insurance was a mistake. However, the fallout from reversing the course would create a huge mess and could end with far higher premiums for employees. Employers pay on average 70% of employees healthcare benefits and nearly half of all Americans depend on employers for health insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correcting a mistake can often be painful. But not as damaging as continuing down the wrong path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If employers were not allowed to deduct their cost of of providing health insurance from their taxable income, they would drop health insurance as fast as the law allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's the point. The law should have never pushed them in that direction in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those additional cost would fall on either the employee or the government.   The only sure winner would be employers who would save nearly a hundred billion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's debatable. If they stopped offering healthcare for employees, they would need to compensate them in other ways. Regardless, it's no reason to continue investing in the wrong solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say if companies stopped subsidizing employee healthcare insurance, they should compensate them in some other way. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because that's how they compete for quality employees. If you had a choice between two jobs, one that offered healthcare and one that didn't, and the salary was the same, which would you choose? The only way the employer not offering healthcare could compete would be increase their offer to compensate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason they offer healthcare insurance to their employees today is they have no choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Traditionally, they have had that choice, and many made it. I've worked for several companies that didn't offer health care. More recently, asinine regulations have tried force them into it. Another part of the problem, certainly not a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses have never wanted to provide health insurance.  In WWII, the government forced it on them. Then unions did. Then state governments and finally the federal government did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. That's the problem alright. The first thing we need to do is get rid of that kind of legislation.
Click to expand...


Actually is was the IRS.
They allowed the companies to not pay taxes on employee benefits like health insurance.
That is like being able to pay employees $1200/month more without having to pay taxes on it.
Which is then another 25% savings.
Employers should never be involved in health care since it makes it harder to change jobs.
It is also unfair to those who do not get employer health care.

{...
Then, in 1943, the Internal Revenue Service decided that employer-based health insurance should be exempt from taxation. This made it cheaper to get health insurance through a job than by other means.
...
One effect of this system is job lock. People become dependent on their employment for their health insurance, and they are loath to leave their jobs, even when doing so might make their lives better. They are afraid that market exchange coverage might not be as good as what they have (and they’re most likely right). They’re afraid if they retire, Medicare won’t be as good (they’re right, too). They’re afraid that if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, they might not be able to find affordable insurance at all.

This system is expensive. The single largest tax expenditure in the United States is for employer-based health insurance. It’s even more than the mortgage interest deduction. In 2017, this exclusion cost the federal government about $260 billion in lost income and payroll taxes. This is significantly more than the cost of the Affordable Care Act each year.

This system is regressive. The tax break for employer-sponsored health insurance is worth more to people making a lot of money than people making little. Let’s take a hypothetical married pediatrician with a couple of children living in Indiana who makes $125,000 (which is below average). Let’s also assume his family insurance plan costs $15,000 (which is below average as well).

The tax break the family would get for insurance is worth over $6,200. That’s far more than a similar-earning family would get in terms of a subsidy on the exchanges. The tax break alone could fund about two people on Medicaid. Moreover, the more one makes, the more one saves at the expense of more spending by the government. The less one makes, the less of a benefit one receives.
...}








						The Real Reason the U.S. Has Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance (Published 2017)
					

More an accident of history than anything else, a product of World War II and tax policy, it is the system we seem to be stuck with.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## Flopper

Rigby5 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​​​​​​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
> And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.
> 
> So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
> That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
> Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
> So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a tax exemption.  The expense of providing health insurance to employees is considered an  ordinary business expense like advertising or the cost of goods sold.  How much of a tax advantage it is for the employer depends on their their tax bracket and the employer's share of the expense of the insurance premiums.  For a low income small single proprietor business it can be a very significant tax break because the person's health insurance becomes a business expense which reduces adjusted gross income which helps in getting addition tax breaks and qualifying for various types of financial aid from both states and the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are misunderstanding.
> Employee health insurance is NOT at all a valid business expense, in any way.
> It is entirely an employee benefit, and as such, should be taxable to the employee.
> The IRS exemption for employee health insurance benefits has never been fair or along any legal principle.
> It is totally contrary all tax laws and should never have been allowed.
> What makes it so corrupt is that poor people do not get to take advantage of it, so then when everyone has to have their taxes increased to pay for the shortfall this insurance exemption causes, then effectively poor people end up subsidizing the health care of the wealthy.
Click to expand...

*The part of the employees healthcare premium paid by the employer*, the employer's contributions to  401Ks, and other benefits are deductible expenses from business's taxable income just as any other operating expense such as wages and cost of goods sold.  

The portion of the premium paid by the employee can be include as a medical expense on the employee's 1040.  It may or may not be a deductible depending on the employee's total medical expenses. 

I don't understand why you don't consider the cost of providing employee benefits a business expense.


----------



## Flopper

Rigby5 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that should be the first step in any reform effort. Making ourselves dependent on "employment" for health care was a mistake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would bring health insurance premiums, and health care prices themselves, back down to earth.
> 
> The core problem with health care is that prices are inflated beyond all reason. We've reached a point where the average person can't get average health care without begging someone else (an employer, government, charity) to pay for it. There's no (good) reason for things to be that way. We've made them that way with ill-conceived regulation and tax policy. The first thing need to do is eliminate those regulations and tax policies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that making ourselves dependent on "employment" for healthcare insurance was a mistake. However, the fallout from reversing the course would create a huge mess and could end with far higher premiums for employees. Employers pay on average 70% of employees healthcare benefits and nearly half of all Americans depend on employers for health insurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correcting a mistake can often be painful. But not as damaging as continuing down the wrong path.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If employers were not allowed to deduct their cost of of providing health insurance from their taxable income, they would drop health insurance as fast as the law allowed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that's the point. The law should have never pushed them in that direction in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those additional cost would fall on either the employee or the government.   The only sure winner would be employers who would save nearly a hundred billion dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's debatable. If they stopped offering healthcare for employees, they would need to compensate them in other ways. Regardless, it's no reason to continue investing in the wrong solution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You say if companies stopped subsidizing employee healthcare insurance, they should compensate them in some other way. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because that's how they compete for quality employees. If you had a choice between two jobs, one that offered healthcare and one that didn't, and the salary was the same, which would you choose? The only way the employer not offering healthcare could compete would be increase their offer to compensate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason they offer healthcare insurance to their employees today is they have no choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Traditionally, they have had that choice, and many made it. I've worked for several companies that didn't offer health care. More recently, asinine regulations have tried force them into it. Another part of the problem, certainly not a solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Businesses have never wanted to provide health insurance.  In WWII, the government forced it on them. Then unions did. Then state governments and finally the federal government did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. That's the problem alright. The first thing we need to do is get rid of that kind of legislation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually is was the IRS.
> They allowed the companies to not pay taxes on employee benefits like health insurance.
> That is like being able to pay employees $1200/month more without having to pay taxes on it.
> Which is then another 25% savings.
> Employers should never be involved in health care since it makes it harder to change jobs.
> It is also unfair to those who do not get employer health care.
> 
> {...
> Then, in 1943, the Internal Revenue Service decided that employer-based health insurance should be exempt from taxation. This made it cheaper to get health insurance through a job than by other means.
> ...
> One effect of this system is job lock. People become dependent on their employment for their health insurance, and they are loath to leave their jobs, even when doing so might make their lives better. They are afraid that market exchange coverage might not be as good as what they have (and they’re most likely right). They’re afraid if they retire, Medicare won’t be as good (they’re right, too). They’re afraid that if the Affordable Care Act is repealed, they might not be able to find affordable insurance at all.
> 
> This system is expensive. The single largest tax expenditure in the United States is for employer-based health insurance. It’s even more than the mortgage interest deduction. In 2017, this exclusion cost the federal government about $260 billion in lost income and payroll taxes. This is significantly more than the cost of the Affordable Care Act each year.
> 
> This system is regressive. The tax break for employer-sponsored health insurance is worth more to people making a lot of money than people making little. Let’s take a hypothetical married pediatrician with a couple of children living in Indiana who makes $125,000 (which is below average). Let’s also assume his family insurance plan costs $15,000 (which is below average as well).
> 
> The tax break the family would get for insurance is worth over $6,200. That’s far more than a similar-earning family would get in terms of a subsidy on the exchanges. The tax break alone could fund about two people on Medicaid. Moreover, the more one makes, the more one saves at the expense of more spending by the government. The less one makes, the less of a benefit one receives.
> ...}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Real Reason the U.S. Has Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance (Published 2017)
> 
> 
> More an accident of history than anything else, a product of World War II and tax policy, it is the system we seem to be stuck with.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...

Both wages and  employer contributions to employee benefits are considered to be a cost of doing business, and therefore it is considered a business expense and is deductible.  I don't see how the IRS could rule otherwise because however the employer compensates his employees for labor, wages, commissions, bonuses, or other benefits they would have to be considered a business expense.   Had the government not recognize employee benefits as a cost of doing business, there would be no employee benefits.


----------



## schmidlap

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over 80 judges considered the evidence, and dismissed the fantasy. That resulted in Trump goons exhibiting their contempt for evidence:
> 
> 
> 
> Along with their contempt for the rule of law, the Constitution, and our democratic institutions.
Click to expand...

That the most fervent of Trump cultists would blatantly lie about the identity of the Trump goons even as hundreds of Trump goons were being identified, apprehended, and prosecuted, with all the graphic footage of the Trump goons' violence and first-person testimony to Trump goon violence, or insist that they were merely conducting themselves like typical tourists despite confessions by Trump goons to the contrary, confirms that decent, reality-acknowledging Americans are being confronted by a fanaticism that is impervious to both overwhelming evidence and rational discourse.


----------



## schmidlap

Flopper said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees.    The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies.  This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.
> 
> The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit.  Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium.  What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> During the war [WWII], wages were capped by the federal government, so employers needed another means to entice and keep employees. The incentive they decided on were benefits like health insurance. These health benefits packages were not considered a part of employees’ wages and the employers could deduct what they spent on these benefits packages from their corporate taxes. A win-win situation!​[When did employer-sponsored health insurance begin? | Health Insurance]​
> There are reasons that what had begun as an employment perquisite of little value - an employer picking up the then negligible tab for an employee's medical insurance - has grown to become a monumentally expensive and inefficient method of covering Americans.
> 
> There is nothing unique about Americans employed by businesses administering health insurance plans needing health insurance. _All_ Americans are subject to the risk of incurring medical expenses, sometimes ruinously high. There is no rationale for subjecting Americans who are between jobs, for whatever reason, to the potential of devastating loss if a family member should incur substantial medical expenses during such an hiatus.
> 
> The need for businesses to divert a portion of their operations to administer such plans is only one unnecessary imposition. The expectancy of an American to have his health insurance provided by an employer is a barrier to enterprise, one more impediment to potential start-ups, and an incentive to remain with a company out of fear of losing coverage rather than progressing in one's career. It was a coercive measure calculated to keep employees in their place during wartime.
> 
> Differentiating Americans working for companies who administer healthcare plans from other Americans is counter to the economic advantage of economy of scale, administrative functions assumed by the employer being repeatedly duplicated by every employer rather than all Americans, employed or otherwise, being under a single plan that minimizes the bureaucratic requirements and most efficiently distributes risk as it creates the largest risk pool, an actuarial reality.
> 
> The federal and state tax systems provide significant financial benefits for people with private health insurance. The largest group of beneficiaries is people who enroll in coverage through their jobs. There also are tax benefits for people who are self-employed and for people with high medical costs...​
> The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013... the largest tax incentive for private insurance — the exclusion of the cost of ESI — is an indirect subsidy that is never actually reported to the individuals and families who benefit from it. Many people with employer coverage are probably not aware that the federal and state tax exclusions for private health insurance provides them with a subsidy worth several thousands of dollars a year.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Subsidies for Private Health Insurance
> 
> 
> This brief describes the different forms of tax assistance for private health insurance, including subsidies offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and benefits for people who…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kff.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​​No competent individuals designing a nation's healthcare system would have ever attached coverage to the plethora of private employers. It was an unforeseeable, insidious development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures.  Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.
> 
> The cost of healthcare over the last 75 years has increased as much as 40 times; that is, a $100 procedure then would cost about $4,000 today.  When people see figures like this, the usual first question is what is the cause.  We have heard the answers many times, goverment, greedy insurance companies, Obamacare, overpaid healthcare workers, big government, drug companies, etc.  What you don't hear is  people are utilizing healthcare 5 times as much as they did in1950.  The number of medical treatments have tripled since 1960.   You might like paying $5 to go to the doctor 75 years ago, but you wouldn't like hearing him tell you that there was no cure for your lung cancer or your heart disease, or your son has polio and he will probably spend the rest of his life in an iron lung, etc. etc.
> 
> In large part due to better healthcare, life expectancy has increased from 65 in 1950 to 79 in 2020 and is expected to increase to 89 by 2070.  Today 11 times as many people are living to 100 compared to 1950.  When looking at the increase in healthcare cost we need to ask our selves how important is living a longer and healthier life.
Click to expand...

Had it not begun as a perquisite to encourage employees to remain in their jobs during wartime, an incidental incentive from which it metastasized, no one designing the nation's ideal healthcare system would have conflated coverage with employment. Employment  is irrelevant to every American's risk of incurring significant medical expenses.


----------



## Rigby5

Flopper said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​​​​​​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
> And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.
> 
> So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
> That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
> Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
> So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a tax exemption.  The expense of providing health insurance to employees is considered an  ordinary business expense like advertising or the cost of goods sold.  How much of a tax advantage it is for the employer depends on their their tax bracket and the employer's share of the expense of the insurance premiums.  For a low income small single proprietor business it can be a very significant tax break because the person's health insurance becomes a business expense which reduces adjusted gross income which helps in getting addition tax breaks and qualifying for various types of financial aid from both states and the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are misunderstanding.
> Employee health insurance is NOT at all a valid business expense, in any way.
> It is entirely an employee benefit, and as such, should be taxable to the employee.
> The IRS exemption for employee health insurance benefits has never been fair or along any legal principle.
> It is totally contrary all tax laws and should never have been allowed.
> What makes it so corrupt is that poor people do not get to take advantage of it, so then when everyone has to have their taxes increased to pay for the shortfall this insurance exemption causes, then effectively poor people end up subsidizing the health care of the wealthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The part of the employees healthcare premium paid by the employer*, the employer's contributions to  401Ks, and other benefits are deductible expenses from business's taxable income just as any other operating expense such as wages and cost of goods sold.
> 
> The portion of the premium paid by the employee can be include as a medical expense on the employee's 1040.  It may or may not be a deductible depending on the employee's total medical expenses.
> 
> I don't understand why you don't consider the cost of providing employee benefits a business expense.
Click to expand...


That is the point, that all other employee benefits are identical to wages and therefore should be taxed.
Health insurance for employees is a benefit to the employee, and should then be taxed.
401k contributions also are taxed, but the taxes are just deferred.
No employee benefit is ever supposed to be untaxed.

Whether the employee can deduct health insurance costs is an entirely different matter, and depends on if they itemize, and it’s limited to the total amount of your overall costs that exceed 10% of your adjusted gross income.

You are not reading what I wrote.
I said, "It is entirely an employee benefit, and as such, should be taxable to the employee."
I am not saying the employer should be paying taxes on it, but that the employee should.
All employee benefits should be listed on the W-2 and taxable to the employee.

To not tax health insurance would be like allowing employees to pay no income tax at all if the employer compensates then through free housing, free food, etc., instead of wages.  Food and housing are just as valid of a cost of doing business for the employee as health care is.


----------



## Flopper

Rigby5 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​​​​​​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
> And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.
> 
> So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
> That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
> Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
> So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a tax exemption.  The expense of providing health insurance to employees is considered an  ordinary business expense like advertising or the cost of goods sold.  How much of a tax advantage it is for the employer depends on their their tax bracket and the employer's share of the expense of the insurance premiums.  For a low income small single proprietor business it can be a very significant tax break because the person's health insurance becomes a business expense which reduces adjusted gross income which helps in getting addition tax breaks and qualifying for various types of financial aid from both states and the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are misunderstanding.
> Employee health insurance is NOT at all a valid business expense, in any way.
> It is entirely an employee benefit, and as such, should be taxable to the employee.
> The IRS exemption for employee health insurance benefits has never been fair or along any legal principle.
> It is totally contrary all tax laws and should never have been allowed.
> What makes it so corrupt is that poor people do not get to take advantage of it, so then when everyone has to have their taxes increased to pay for the shortfall this insurance exemption causes, then effectively poor people end up subsidizing the health care of the wealthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The part of the employees healthcare premium paid by the employer*, the employer's contributions to  401Ks, and other benefits are deductible expenses from business's taxable income just as any other operating expense such as wages and cost of goods sold.
> 
> The portion of the premium paid by the employee can be include as a medical expense on the employee's 1040.  It may or may not be a deductible depending on the employee's total medical expenses.
> 
> I don't understand why you don't consider the cost of providing employee benefits a business expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the point, that all other employee benefits are identical to wages and therefore should be taxed.
> Health insurance for employees is a benefit to the employee, and should then be taxed.
> 401k contributions also are taxed, but the taxes are just deferred.
> No employee benefit is ever supposed to be untaxed.
> 
> Whether the employee can deduct health insurance costs is an entirely different matter, and depends on if they itemize, and it’s limited to the total amount of your overall costs that exceed 10% of your adjusted gross income.
> 
> You are not reading what I wrote.
> I said, "It is entirely an employee benefit, and as such, should be taxable to the employee."
> I am not saying the employer should be paying taxes on it, but that the employee should.
> All employee benefits should be listed on the W-2 and taxable to the employee.
> 
> To not tax health insurance would be like allowing employees to pay no income tax at all if the employer compensates then through free housing, free food, etc., instead of wages.  Food and housing are just as valid of a cost of doing business for the employee as health care is.
Click to expand...

Ok, I think I understand your position. You want to tax employee health insurance benefits that are currently not being tax to make employer provided health insurance less attractive..  Is that correct?


----------



## Flopper

schmidlap said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees.    The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies.  This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.
> 
> The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit.  Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium.  What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> During the war [WWII], wages were capped by the federal government, so employers needed another means to entice and keep employees. The incentive they decided on were benefits like health insurance. These health benefits packages were not considered a part of employees’ wages and the employers could deduct what they spent on these benefits packages from their corporate taxes. A win-win situation!​[When did employer-sponsored health insurance begin? | Health Insurance]​
> There are reasons that what had begun as an employment perquisite of little value - an employer picking up the then negligible tab for an employee's medical insurance - has grown to become a monumentally expensive and inefficient method of covering Americans.
> 
> There is nothing unique about Americans employed by businesses administering health insurance plans needing health insurance. _All_ Americans are subject to the risk of incurring medical expenses, sometimes ruinously high. There is no rationale for subjecting Americans who are between jobs, for whatever reason, to the potential of devastating loss if a family member should incur substantial medical expenses during such an hiatus.
> 
> The need for businesses to divert a portion of their operations to administer such plans is only one unnecessary imposition. The expectancy of an American to have his health insurance provided by an employer is a barrier to enterprise, one more impediment to potential start-ups, and an incentive to remain with a company out of fear of losing coverage rather than progressing in one's career. It was a coercive measure calculated to keep employees in their place during wartime.
> 
> Differentiating Americans working for companies who administer healthcare plans from other Americans is counter to the economic advantage of economy of scale, administrative functions assumed by the employer being repeatedly duplicated by every employer rather than all Americans, employed or otherwise, being under a single plan that minimizes the bureaucratic requirements and most efficiently distributes risk as it creates the largest risk pool, an actuarial reality.
> 
> The federal and state tax systems provide significant financial benefits for people with private health insurance. The largest group of beneficiaries is people who enroll in coverage through their jobs. There also are tax benefits for people who are self-employed and for people with high medical costs...​
> The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013... the largest tax incentive for private insurance — the exclusion of the cost of ESI — is an indirect subsidy that is never actually reported to the individuals and families who benefit from it. Many people with employer coverage are probably not aware that the federal and state tax exclusions for private health insurance provides them with a subsidy worth several thousands of dollars a year.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Subsidies for Private Health Insurance
> 
> 
> This brief describes the different forms of tax assistance for private health insurance, including subsidies offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and benefits for people who…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kff.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​​No competent individuals designing a nation's healthcare system would have ever attached coverage to the plethora of private employers. It was an unforeseeable, insidious development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures.  Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.
> 
> The cost of healthcare over the last 75 years has increased as much as 40 times; that is, a $100 procedure then would cost about $4,000 today.  When people see figures like this, the usual first question is what is the cause.  We have heard the answers many times, goverment, greedy insurance companies, Obamacare, overpaid healthcare workers, big government, drug companies, etc.  What you don't hear is  people are utilizing healthcare 5 times as much as they did in1950.  The number of medical treatments have tripled since 1960.   You might like paying $5 to go to the doctor 75 years ago, but you wouldn't like hearing him tell you that there was no cure for your lung cancer or your heart disease, or your son has polio and he will probably spend the rest of his life in an iron lung, etc. etc.
> 
> In large part due to better healthcare, life expectancy has increased from 65 in 1950 to 79 in 2020 and is expected to increase to 89 by 2070.  Today 11 times as many people are living to 100 compared to 1950.  When looking at the increase in healthcare cost we need to ask our selves how important is living a longer and healthier life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had it not begun as a perquisite to encourage employees to remain in their jobs during wartime, an incidental incentive from which it metastasized, no one designing the nation's ideal healthcare system would have conflated coverage with employment. Employment  is irrelevant to every American's risk of incurring significant medical expenses.
Click to expand...

Health insurance paid by the employer is just one of many employee benefits that are either only partially taxed or not taxed at all. Most of these benefits came about at different times for different reasons.  Often the reason for exempting the benefit from taxes has disappeared but the tax policy remains the same.  Today, tax breaks for employees with employee health insurance helps reduce the number of uninsured, which is heavily supported by democrats and begrudgingly support by republicans.  Thus it's not likely to change.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees.    The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies.  This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.
> 
> The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit.  Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium.  What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> During the war [WWII], wages were capped by the federal government, so employers needed another means to entice and keep employees. The incentive they decided on were benefits like health insurance. These health benefits packages were not considered a part of employees’ wages and the employers could deduct what they spent on these benefits packages from their corporate taxes. A win-win situation!​[When did employer-sponsored health insurance begin? | Health Insurance]​
> There are reasons that what had begun as an employment perquisite of little value - an employer picking up the then negligible tab for an employee's medical insurance - has grown to become a monumentally expensive and inefficient method of covering Americans.
> 
> There is nothing unique about Americans employed by businesses administering health insurance plans needing health insurance. _All_ Americans are subject to the risk of incurring medical expenses, sometimes ruinously high. There is no rationale for subjecting Americans who are between jobs, for whatever reason, to the potential of devastating loss if a family member should incur substantial medical expenses during such an hiatus.
> 
> The need for businesses to divert a portion of their operations to administer such plans is only one unnecessary imposition. The expectancy of an American to have his health insurance provided by an employer is a barrier to enterprise, one more impediment to potential start-ups, and an incentive to remain with a company out of fear of losing coverage rather than progressing in one's career. It was a coercive measure calculated to keep employees in their place during wartime.
> 
> Differentiating Americans working for companies who administer healthcare plans from other Americans is counter to the economic advantage of economy of scale, administrative functions assumed by the employer being repeatedly duplicated by every employer rather than all Americans, employed or otherwise, being under a single plan that minimizes the bureaucratic requirements and most efficiently distributes risk as it creates the largest risk pool, an actuarial reality.
> 
> The federal and state tax systems provide significant financial benefits for people with private health insurance. The largest group of beneficiaries is people who enroll in coverage through their jobs. There also are tax benefits for people who are self-employed and for people with high medical costs...​
> The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013... the largest tax incentive for private insurance — the exclusion of the cost of ESI — is an indirect subsidy that is never actually reported to the individuals and families who benefit from it. Many people with employer coverage are probably not aware that the federal and state tax exclusions for private health insurance provides them with a subsidy worth several thousands of dollars a year.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Subsidies for Private Health Insurance
> 
> 
> This brief describes the different forms of tax assistance for private health insurance, including subsidies offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and benefits for people who…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kff.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​​No competent individuals designing a nation's healthcare system would have ever attached coverage to the plethora of private employers. It was an unforeseeable, insidious development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures.  Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.
> 
> The cost of healthcare over the last 75 years has increased as much as 40 times; that is, a $100 procedure then would cost about $4,000 today.  When people see figures like this, the usual first question is what is the cause.  We have heard the answers many times, goverment, greedy insurance companies, Obamacare, overpaid healthcare workers, big government, drug companies, etc.  What you don't hear is  people are utilizing healthcare 5 times as much as they did in1950.  The number of medical treatments have tripled since 1960.   You might like paying $5 to go to the doctor 75 years ago, but you wouldn't like hearing him tell you that there was no cure for your lung cancer or your heart disease, or your son has polio and he will probably spend the rest of his life in an iron lung, etc. etc.
> 
> In large part due to better healthcare, life expectancy has increased from 65 in 1950 to 79 in 2020 and is expected to increase to 89 by 2070.  Today 11 times as many people are living to 100 compared to 1950.  When looking at the increase in healthcare cost we need to ask our selves how important is living a longer and healthier life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had it not begun as a perquisite to encourage employees to remain in their jobs during wartime, an incidental incentive from which it metastasized, no one designing the nation's ideal healthcare system would have conflated coverage with employment. Employment  is irrelevant to every American's risk of incurring significant medical expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Health insurance paid by the employer is just one of many employee benefits that are either only partially taxed or not taxed at all. Most of these benefits came about at different times for different reasons.  Often the reason for exempting the benefit from taxes has disappeared but the tax policy remains the same.  Today, tax breaks for employees with employee health insurance helps reduce the number of uninsured, which is heavily supported by democrats and begrudgingly support by republicans.  Thus it's not likely to change.
Click to expand...


It may not be likely, but it's necessary. 

It also points out the broader problem of government using tax incentives as a means of manipulating society. But that deserves a thread of its own.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

citygator said:


> Who were the 2 morons? Oh. Gorsuch and Alito.


So people are morons for having a disparate opinion now?


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​​​​​​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
> And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.
> 
> So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
> That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
> Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
> So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a tax exemption.  The expense of providing health insurance to employees is considered an  ordinary business expense like advertising or the cost of goods sold.  How much of a tax advantage it is for the employer depends on their their tax bracket and the employer's share of the expense of the insurance premiums.  For a low income small single proprietor business it can be a very significant tax break because the person's health insurance becomes a business expense which reduces adjusted gross income which helps in getting addition tax breaks and qualifying for various types of financial aid from both states and the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are misunderstanding.
> Employee health insurance is NOT at all a valid business expense, in any way.
> It is entirely an employee benefit, and as such, should be taxable to the employee.
> The IRS exemption for employee health insurance benefits has never been fair or along any legal principle.
> It is totally contrary all tax laws and should never have been allowed.
> What makes it so corrupt is that poor people do not get to take advantage of it, so then when everyone has to have their taxes increased to pay for the shortfall this insurance exemption causes, then effectively poor people end up subsidizing the health care of the wealthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The part of the employees healthcare premium paid by the employer*, the employer's contributions to  401Ks, and other benefits are deductible expenses from business's taxable income just as any other operating expense such as wages and cost of goods sold.
> 
> The portion of the premium paid by the employee can be include as a medical expense on the employee's 1040.  It may or may not be a deductible depending on the employee's total medical expenses.
> 
> I don't understand why you don't consider the cost of providing employee benefits a business expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the point, that all other employee benefits are identical to wages and therefore should be taxed.
> Health insurance for employees is a benefit to the employee, and should then be taxed.
> 401k contributions also are taxed, but the taxes are just deferred.
> No employee benefit is ever supposed to be untaxed.
> 
> Whether the employee can deduct health insurance costs is an entirely different matter, and depends on if they itemize, and it’s limited to the total amount of your overall costs that exceed 10% of your adjusted gross income.
> 
> You are not reading what I wrote.
> I said, "It is entirely an employee benefit, and as such, should be taxable to the employee."
> I am not saying the employer should be paying taxes on it, but that the employee should.
> All employee benefits should be listed on the W-2 and taxable to the employee.
> 
> To not tax health insurance would be like allowing employees to pay no income tax at all if the employer compensates then through free housing, free food, etc., instead of wages.  Food and housing are just as valid of a cost of doing business for the employee as health care is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, I think I understand your position. You want to tax employee health insurance benefits that are currently not being tax to make employer provided health insurance less attractive..  Is that correct?
Click to expand...


It would make providing health insurance as "attractive" as it actually is, without artificial enticement. Some companies, and some employees, might prefer to stay with the current approach. But the current approach is clearly causing problems, and the tax incentives only serve to keep us mired in those problems.


----------



## schmidlap

Flopper said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees.    The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies.  This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.
> 
> The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit.  Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium.  What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> During the war [WWII], wages were capped by the federal government, so employers needed another means to entice and keep employees. The incentive they decided on were benefits like health insurance. These health benefits packages were not considered a part of employees’ wages and the employers could deduct what they spent on these benefits packages from their corporate taxes. A win-win situation!​[When did employer-sponsored health insurance begin? | Health Insurance]​
> There are reasons that what had begun as an employment perquisite of little value - an employer picking up the then negligible tab for an employee's medical insurance - has grown to become a monumentally expensive and inefficient method of covering Americans.
> 
> There is nothing unique about Americans employed by businesses administering health insurance plans needing health insurance. _All_ Americans are subject to the risk of incurring medical expenses, sometimes ruinously high. There is no rationale for subjecting Americans who are between jobs, for whatever reason, to the potential of devastating loss if a family member should incur substantial medical expenses during such an hiatus.
> 
> The need for businesses to divert a portion of their operations to administer such plans is only one unnecessary imposition. The expectancy of an American to have his health insurance provided by an employer is a barrier to enterprise, one more impediment to potential start-ups, and an incentive to remain with a company out of fear of losing coverage rather than progressing in one's career. It was a coercive measure calculated to keep employees in their place during wartime.
> 
> Differentiating Americans working for companies who administer healthcare plans from other Americans is counter to the economic advantage of economy of scale, administrative functions assumed by the employer being repeatedly duplicated by every employer rather than all Americans, employed or otherwise, being under a single plan that minimizes the bureaucratic requirements and most efficiently distributes risk as it creates the largest risk pool, an actuarial reality.
> 
> The federal and state tax systems provide significant financial benefits for people with private health insurance. The largest group of beneficiaries is people who enroll in coverage through their jobs. There also are tax benefits for people who are self-employed and for people with high medical costs...​
> The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013... the largest tax incentive for private insurance — the exclusion of the cost of ESI — is an indirect subsidy that is never actually reported to the individuals and families who benefit from it. Many people with employer coverage are probably not aware that the federal and state tax exclusions for private health insurance provides them with a subsidy worth several thousands of dollars a year.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Subsidies for Private Health Insurance
> 
> 
> This brief describes the different forms of tax assistance for private health insurance, including subsidies offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and benefits for people who…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kff.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​​No competent individuals designing a nation's healthcare system would have ever attached coverage to the plethora of private employers. It was an unforeseeable, insidious development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures.  Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.
> 
> The cost of healthcare over the last 75 years has increased as much as 40 times; that is, a $100 procedure then would cost about $4,000 today.  When people see figures like this, the usual first question is what is the cause.  We have heard the answers many times, goverment, greedy insurance companies, Obamacare, overpaid healthcare workers, big government, drug companies, etc.  What you don't hear is  people are utilizing healthcare 5 times as much as they did in1950.  The number of medical treatments have tripled since 1960.   You might like paying $5 to go to the doctor 75 years ago, but you wouldn't like hearing him tell you that there was no cure for your lung cancer or your heart disease, or your son has polio and he will probably spend the rest of his life in an iron lung, etc. etc.
> 
> In large part due to better healthcare, life expectancy has increased from 65 in 1950 to 79 in 2020 and is expected to increase to 89 by 2070.  Today 11 times as many people are living to 100 compared to 1950.  When looking at the increase in healthcare cost we need to ask our selves how important is living a longer and healthier life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had it not begun as a perquisite to encourage employees to remain in their jobs during wartime, an incidental incentive from which it metastasized, no one designing the nation's ideal healthcare system would have conflated coverage with employment. Employment  is irrelevant to every American's risk of incurring significant medical expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Health insurance paid by the employer is just one of many employee benefits that are either only partially taxed or not taxed at all. Most of these benefits came about at different times for different reasons.  Often the reason for exempting the benefit from taxes has disappeared but the tax policy remains the same.  Today, tax breaks for employees with employee health insurance helps reduce the number of uninsured, which is heavily supported by democrats and begrudgingly support by republicans.  Thus it's not likely to change.
Click to expand...

There is no special relationship between employment and the potential need for healthcare, nor any need for each employer who provides group health insurance to duplicate the administrative functions of all others. Such a senseless, inefficiant association contributes to the cost for healthcare in the U.S. being nearly twice that of all advanced democratic nations. Free private enterprise from bearing the onus, and eliminate that unnecessary administrative expense.


----------



## citygator

AzogtheDefiler said:


> So people are morons for having a disparate opinion now?


Good point. Bar is pretty low for morons these days. Even telling a nation to inject disinfectant and shining a light up their butts passes for wisdom now a days so I guess bad opinions doesn’t make you a moron either.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

citygator said:


> AzogtheDefiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So people are morons for having a disparate opinion now?
> 
> 
> 
> Good point. Bar is pretty low for morons these days. Even telling a nation to inject disinfectant and shining a light up their butts passes for wisdom now a days so I guess bad opinions doesn’t make you a moron either.
Click to expand...

Never said that. So I guess we know who the moron really is? You!


----------



## theHawk

Rambunctious said:


> people with obamacare that come down with severe illness still end up in bankruptcy court....


Hey now!  Reality isn’t important, just that we can say “they have health insurance”.


----------



## Flopper

dblack said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees.    The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies.  This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.
> 
> The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit.  Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium.  What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> During the war [WWII], wages were capped by the federal government, so employers needed another means to entice and keep employees. The incentive they decided on were benefits like health insurance. These health benefits packages were not considered a part of employees’ wages and the employers could deduct what they spent on these benefits packages from their corporate taxes. A win-win situation!​[When did employer-sponsored health insurance begin? | Health Insurance]​
> There are reasons that what had begun as an employment perquisite of little value - an employer picking up the then negligible tab for an employee's medical insurance - has grown to become a monumentally expensive and inefficient method of covering Americans.
> 
> There is nothing unique about Americans employed by businesses administering health insurance plans needing health insurance. _All_ Americans are subject to the risk of incurring medical expenses, sometimes ruinously high. There is no rationale for subjecting Americans who are between jobs, for whatever reason, to the potential of devastating loss if a family member should incur substantial medical expenses during such an hiatus.
> 
> The need for businesses to divert a portion of their operations to administer such plans is only one unnecessary imposition. The expectancy of an American to have his health insurance provided by an employer is a barrier to enterprise, one more impediment to potential start-ups, and an incentive to remain with a company out of fear of losing coverage rather than progressing in one's career. It was a coercive measure calculated to keep employees in their place during wartime.
> 
> Differentiating Americans working for companies who administer healthcare plans from other Americans is counter to the economic advantage of economy of scale, administrative functions assumed by the employer being repeatedly duplicated by every employer rather than all Americans, employed or otherwise, being under a single plan that minimizes the bureaucratic requirements and most efficiently distributes risk as it creates the largest risk pool, an actuarial reality.
> 
> The federal and state tax systems provide significant financial benefits for people with private health insurance. The largest group of beneficiaries is people who enroll in coverage through their jobs. There also are tax benefits for people who are self-employed and for people with high medical costs...​
> The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013... the largest tax incentive for private insurance — the exclusion of the cost of ESI — is an indirect subsidy that is never actually reported to the individuals and families who benefit from it. Many people with employer coverage are probably not aware that the federal and state tax exclusions for private health insurance provides them with a subsidy worth several thousands of dollars a year.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Subsidies for Private Health Insurance
> 
> 
> This brief describes the different forms of tax assistance for private health insurance, including subsidies offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and benefits for people who…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kff.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​​No competent individuals designing a nation's healthcare system would have ever attached coverage to the plethora of private employers. It was an unforeseeable, insidious development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures.  Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.
> 
> The cost of healthcare over the last 75 years has increased as much as 40 times; that is, a $100 procedure then would cost about $4,000 today.  When people see figures like this, the usual first question is what is the cause.  We have heard the answers many times, goverment, greedy insurance companies, Obamacare, overpaid healthcare workers, big government, drug companies, etc.  What you don't hear is  people are utilizing healthcare 5 times as much as they did in1950.  The number of medical treatments have tripled since 1960.   You might like paying $5 to go to the doctor 75 years ago, but you wouldn't like hearing him tell you that there was no cure for your lung cancer or your heart disease, or your son has polio and he will probably spend the rest of his life in an iron lung, etc. etc.
> 
> In large part due to better healthcare, life expectancy has increased from 65 in 1950 to 79 in 2020 and is expected to increase to 89 by 2070.  Today 11 times as many people are living to 100 compared to 1950.  When looking at the increase in healthcare cost we need to ask our selves how important is living a longer and healthier life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had it not begun as a perquisite to encourage employees to remain in their jobs during wartime, an incidental incentive from which it metastasized, no one designing the nation's ideal healthcare system would have conflated coverage with employment. Employment  is irrelevant to every American's risk of incurring significant medical expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Health insurance paid by the employer is just one of many employee benefits that are either only partially taxed or not taxed at all. Most of these benefits came about at different times for different reasons.  Often the reason for exempting the benefit from taxes has disappeared but the tax policy remains the same.  Today, tax breaks for employees with employee health insurance helps reduce the number of uninsured, which is heavily supported by democrats and begrudgingly support by republicans.  Thus it's not likely to change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may not be likely, but it's necessary.
> 
> It also points out the broader problem of government using tax incentives as a means of manipulating society. But that deserves a thread of its own.
Click to expand...

The pollical party in power in the US has always used the tax policy as means to accomplish it's goals.  In fact, just about all government everywhere does the same. I doubt that will ever change


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees.    The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies.  This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.
> 
> The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit.  Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium.  What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> During the war [WWII], wages were capped by the federal government, so employers needed another means to entice and keep employees. The incentive they decided on were benefits like health insurance. These health benefits packages were not considered a part of employees’ wages and the employers could deduct what they spent on these benefits packages from their corporate taxes. A win-win situation!​[When did employer-sponsored health insurance begin? | Health Insurance]​
> There are reasons that what had begun as an employment perquisite of little value - an employer picking up the then negligible tab for an employee's medical insurance - has grown to become a monumentally expensive and inefficient method of covering Americans.
> 
> There is nothing unique about Americans employed by businesses administering health insurance plans needing health insurance. _All_ Americans are subject to the risk of incurring medical expenses, sometimes ruinously high. There is no rationale for subjecting Americans who are between jobs, for whatever reason, to the potential of devastating loss if a family member should incur substantial medical expenses during such an hiatus.
> 
> The need for businesses to divert a portion of their operations to administer such plans is only one unnecessary imposition. The expectancy of an American to have his health insurance provided by an employer is a barrier to enterprise, one more impediment to potential start-ups, and an incentive to remain with a company out of fear of losing coverage rather than progressing in one's career. It was a coercive measure calculated to keep employees in their place during wartime.
> 
> Differentiating Americans working for companies who administer healthcare plans from other Americans is counter to the economic advantage of economy of scale, administrative functions assumed by the employer being repeatedly duplicated by every employer rather than all Americans, employed or otherwise, being under a single plan that minimizes the bureaucratic requirements and most efficiently distributes risk as it creates the largest risk pool, an actuarial reality.
> 
> The federal and state tax systems provide significant financial benefits for people with private health insurance. The largest group of beneficiaries is people who enroll in coverage through their jobs. There also are tax benefits for people who are self-employed and for people with high medical costs...​
> The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013... the largest tax incentive for private insurance — the exclusion of the cost of ESI — is an indirect subsidy that is never actually reported to the individuals and families who benefit from it. Many people with employer coverage are probably not aware that the federal and state tax exclusions for private health insurance provides them with a subsidy worth several thousands of dollars a year.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Subsidies for Private Health Insurance
> 
> 
> This brief describes the different forms of tax assistance for private health insurance, including subsidies offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and benefits for people who…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kff.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​​No competent individuals designing a nation's healthcare system would have ever attached coverage to the plethora of private employers. It was an unforeseeable, insidious development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures.  Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.
> 
> The cost of healthcare over the last 75 years has increased as much as 40 times; that is, a $100 procedure then would cost about $4,000 today.  When people see figures like this, the usual first question is what is the cause.  We have heard the answers many times, goverment, greedy insurance companies, Obamacare, overpaid healthcare workers, big government, drug companies, etc.  What you don't hear is  people are utilizing healthcare 5 times as much as they did in1950.  The number of medical treatments have tripled since 1960.   You might like paying $5 to go to the doctor 75 years ago, but you wouldn't like hearing him tell you that there was no cure for your lung cancer or your heart disease, or your son has polio and he will probably spend the rest of his life in an iron lung, etc. etc.
> 
> In large part due to better healthcare, life expectancy has increased from 65 in 1950 to 79 in 2020 and is expected to increase to 89 by 2070.  Today 11 times as many people are living to 100 compared to 1950.  When looking at the increase in healthcare cost we need to ask our selves how important is living a longer and healthier life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had it not begun as a perquisite to encourage employees to remain in their jobs during wartime, an incidental incentive from which it metastasized, no one designing the nation's ideal healthcare system would have conflated coverage with employment. Employment  is irrelevant to every American's risk of incurring significant medical expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Health insurance paid by the employer is just one of many employee benefits that are either only partially taxed or not taxed at all. Most of these benefits came about at different times for different reasons.  Often the reason for exempting the benefit from taxes has disappeared but the tax policy remains the same.  Today, tax breaks for employees with employee health insurance helps reduce the number of uninsured, which is heavily supported by democrats and begrudgingly support by republicans.  Thus it's not likely to change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may not be likely, but it's necessary.
> 
> It also points out the broader problem of government using tax incentives as a means of manipulating society. But that deserves a thread of its own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The pollical party in power in the US has always used the tax policy as means to accomplish it's goals.  In fact, just about all government everywhere does the same. I doubt that will ever change
Click to expand...


Doubt all you want. It's egregious abuse of government that basically does an end run around constitutional restrictions on state power. Getting rid of it will be an important step toward better government.


----------



## Flopper

schmidlap said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees.    The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies.  This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.
> 
> The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit.  Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium.  What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> During the war [WWII], wages were capped by the federal government, so employers needed another means to entice and keep employees. The incentive they decided on were benefits like health insurance. These health benefits packages were not considered a part of employees’ wages and the employers could deduct what they spent on these benefits packages from their corporate taxes. A win-win situation!​[When did employer-sponsored health insurance begin? | Health Insurance]​
> There are reasons that what had begun as an employment perquisite of little value - an employer picking up the then negligible tab for an employee's medical insurance - has grown to become a monumentally expensive and inefficient method of covering Americans.
> 
> There is nothing unique about Americans employed by businesses administering health insurance plans needing health insurance. _All_ Americans are subject to the risk of incurring medical expenses, sometimes ruinously high. There is no rationale for subjecting Americans who are between jobs, for whatever reason, to the potential of devastating loss if a family member should incur substantial medical expenses during such an hiatus.
> 
> The need for businesses to divert a portion of their operations to administer such plans is only one unnecessary imposition. The expectancy of an American to have his health insurance provided by an employer is a barrier to enterprise, one more impediment to potential start-ups, and an incentive to remain with a company out of fear of losing coverage rather than progressing in one's career. It was a coercive measure calculated to keep employees in their place during wartime.
> 
> Differentiating Americans working for companies who administer healthcare plans from other Americans is counter to the economic advantage of economy of scale, administrative functions assumed by the employer being repeatedly duplicated by every employer rather than all Americans, employed or otherwise, being under a single plan that minimizes the bureaucratic requirements and most efficiently distributes risk as it creates the largest risk pool, an actuarial reality.
> 
> The federal and state tax systems provide significant financial benefits for people with private health insurance. The largest group of beneficiaries is people who enroll in coverage through their jobs. There also are tax benefits for people who are self-employed and for people with high medical costs...​
> The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013... the largest tax incentive for private insurance — the exclusion of the cost of ESI — is an indirect subsidy that is never actually reported to the individuals and families who benefit from it. Many people with employer coverage are probably not aware that the federal and state tax exclusions for private health insurance provides them with a subsidy worth several thousands of dollars a year.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Subsidies for Private Health Insurance
> 
> 
> This brief describes the different forms of tax assistance for private health insurance, including subsidies offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and benefits for people who…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kff.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​​No competent individuals designing a nation's healthcare system would have ever attached coverage to the plethora of private employers. It was an unforeseeable, insidious development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures.  Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.
> 
> The cost of healthcare over the last 75 years has increased as much as 40 times; that is, a $100 procedure then would cost about $4,000 today.  When people see figures like this, the usual first question is what is the cause.  We have heard the answers many times, goverment, greedy insurance companies, Obamacare, overpaid healthcare workers, big government, drug companies, etc.  What you don't hear is  people are utilizing healthcare 5 times as much as they did in1950.  The number of medical treatments have tripled since 1960.   You might like paying $5 to go to the doctor 75 years ago, but you wouldn't like hearing him tell you that there was no cure for your lung cancer or your heart disease, or your son has polio and he will probably spend the rest of his life in an iron lung, etc. etc.
> 
> In large part due to better healthcare, life expectancy has increased from 65 in 1950 to 79 in 2020 and is expected to increase to 89 by 2070.  Today 11 times as many people are living to 100 compared to 1950.  When looking at the increase in healthcare cost we need to ask our selves how important is living a longer and healthier life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had it not begun as a perquisite to encourage employees to remain in their jobs during wartime, an incidental incentive from which it metastasized, no one designing the nation's ideal healthcare system would have conflated coverage with employment. Employment  is irrelevant to every American's risk of incurring significant medical expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Health insurance paid by the employer is just one of many employee benefits that are either only partially taxed or not taxed at all. Most of these benefits came about at different times for different reasons.  Often the reason for exempting the benefit from taxes has disappeared but the tax policy remains the same.  Today, tax breaks for employees with employee health insurance helps reduce the number of uninsured, which is heavily supported by democrats and begrudgingly support by republicans.  Thus it's not likely to change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no special relationship between employment and the potential need for healthcare, nor any need for each employer who provides group health insurance to duplicate the administrative functions of all others. Such a senseless, inefficiant association contributes to the cost for healthcare in the U.S. being nearly twice that of all advanced democratic nations. Free private enterprise from bearing the onus, and eliminate that unnecessary administrative expense.
Click to expand...

There is no special relationship between and the potential need for employee retirement plans, life insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance or heath insurance other than to help companies compete for the best employees and keeping them.

With or without tax breaks, employees would still take advantage of these benefits because the purchasing power and negotiating power of businesses is almost always better than the individual.    Eliminating employee tax advantaged benefits would impact the highest paid employees far more than the majority of employees whose tax rates are much lower and their need is generally higher.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> Eliminating employee tax advantaged benefits would impact the highest paid employees far more than the majority of employees whose tax rates are much lower and their need is generally higher.



Yes, I think someone in this thread already pointed out the regressive nature of the tax incentive.


----------



## Rigby5

Flopper said:


> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rigby5 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dblack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dana7360 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much for those three trump Justices.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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]​​​​​​​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is the wealthy are benefiting from the current high medical costs, so won't change it.
> And the poor who are subsidizing the wealthy, do not have any representation.
> 
> So the solution is to end the IRS tax exemption for employers over employee benefits.
> That will get employers out of the health insurance business.
> Then the wealthy will no longer have free coverage.
> So then they will join the poor in wanting a public option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a tax exemption.  The expense of providing health insurance to employees is considered an  ordinary business expense like advertising or the cost of goods sold.  How much of a tax advantage it is for the employer depends on their their tax bracket and the employer's share of the expense of the insurance premiums.  For a low income small single proprietor business it can be a very significant tax break because the person's health insurance becomes a business expense which reduces adjusted gross income which helps in getting addition tax breaks and qualifying for various types of financial aid from both states and the federal government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are misunderstanding.
> Employee health insurance is NOT at all a valid business expense, in any way.
> It is entirely an employee benefit, and as such, should be taxable to the employee.
> The IRS exemption for employee health insurance benefits has never been fair or along any legal principle.
> It is totally contrary all tax laws and should never have been allowed.
> What makes it so corrupt is that poor people do not get to take advantage of it, so then when everyone has to have their taxes increased to pay for the shortfall this insurance exemption causes, then effectively poor people end up subsidizing the health care of the wealthy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The part of the employees healthcare premium paid by the employer*, the employer's contributions to  401Ks, and other benefits are deductible expenses from business's taxable income just as any other operating expense such as wages and cost of goods sold.
> 
> The portion of the premium paid by the employee can be include as a medical expense on the employee's 1040.  It may or may not be a deductible depending on the employee's total medical expenses.
> 
> I don't understand why you don't consider the cost of providing employee benefits a business expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the point, that all other employee benefits are identical to wages and therefore should be taxed.
> Health insurance for employees is a benefit to the employee, and should then be taxed.
> 401k contributions also are taxed, but the taxes are just deferred.
> No employee benefit is ever supposed to be untaxed.
> 
> Whether the employee can deduct health insurance costs is an entirely different matter, and depends on if they itemize, and it’s limited to the total amount of your overall costs that exceed 10% of your adjusted gross income.
> 
> You are not reading what I wrote.
> I said, "It is entirely an employee benefit, and as such, should be taxable to the employee."
> I am not saying the employer should be paying taxes on it, but that the employee should.
> All employee benefits should be listed on the W-2 and taxable to the employee.
> 
> To not tax health insurance would be like allowing employees to pay no income tax at all if the employer compensates then through free housing, free food, etc., instead of wages.  Food and housing are just as valid of a cost of doing business for the employee as health care is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, I think I understand your position. You want to tax employee health insurance benefits that are currently not being tax to make employer provided health insurance less attractive..  Is that correct?
Click to expand...


Yes, but the point is not just that I want to make employer provided health insurance benefits less attractive, but that they were always wrong to be tax free.
Not only should all benefits be taxed, but since the poor do not get these health insurance benefits, it is extremely regressive to give them only to the wealthy.


----------



## schmidlap

Flopper said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees.    The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies.  This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.
> 
> The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit.  Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium.  What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> During the war [WWII], wages were capped by the federal government, so employers needed another means to entice and keep employees. The incentive they decided on were benefits like health insurance. These health benefits packages were not considered a part of employees’ wages and the employers could deduct what they spent on these benefits packages from their corporate taxes. A win-win situation!​[When did employer-sponsored health insurance begin? | Health Insurance]​
> There are reasons that what had begun as an employment perquisite of little value - an employer picking up the then negligible tab for an employee's medical insurance - has grown to become a monumentally expensive and inefficient method of covering Americans.
> 
> There is nothing unique about Americans employed by businesses administering health insurance plans needing health insurance. _All_ Americans are subject to the risk of incurring medical expenses, sometimes ruinously high. There is no rationale for subjecting Americans who are between jobs, for whatever reason, to the potential of devastating loss if a family member should incur substantial medical expenses during such an hiatus.
> 
> The need for businesses to divert a portion of their operations to administer such plans is only one unnecessary imposition. The expectancy of an American to have his health insurance provided by an employer is a barrier to enterprise, one more impediment to potential start-ups, and an incentive to remain with a company out of fear of losing coverage rather than progressing in one's career. It was a coercive measure calculated to keep employees in their place during wartime.
> 
> Differentiating Americans working for companies who administer healthcare plans from other Americans is counter to the economic advantage of economy of scale, administrative functions assumed by the employer being repeatedly duplicated by every employer rather than all Americans, employed or otherwise, being under a single plan that minimizes the bureaucratic requirements and most efficiently distributes risk as it creates the largest risk pool, an actuarial reality.
> 
> The federal and state tax systems provide significant financial benefits for people with private health insurance. The largest group of beneficiaries is people who enroll in coverage through their jobs. There also are tax benefits for people who are self-employed and for people with high medical costs...​
> The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013... the largest tax incentive for private insurance — the exclusion of the cost of ESI — is an indirect subsidy that is never actually reported to the individuals and families who benefit from it. Many people with employer coverage are probably not aware that the federal and state tax exclusions for private health insurance provides them with a subsidy worth several thousands of dollars a year.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Subsidies for Private Health Insurance
> 
> 
> This brief describes the different forms of tax assistance for private health insurance, including subsidies offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and benefits for people who…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kff.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​​No competent individuals designing a nation's healthcare system would have ever attached coverage to the plethora of private employers. It was an unforeseeable, insidious development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures.  Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.
> 
> The cost of healthcare over the last 75 years has increased as much as 40 times; that is, a $100 procedure then would cost about $4,000 today.  When people see figures like this, the usual first question is what is the cause.  We have heard the answers many times, goverment, greedy insurance companies, Obamacare, overpaid healthcare workers, big government, drug companies, etc.  What you don't hear is  people are utilizing healthcare 5 times as much as they did in1950.  The number of medical treatments have tripled since 1960.   You might like paying $5 to go to the doctor 75 years ago, but you wouldn't like hearing him tell you that there was no cure for your lung cancer or your heart disease, or your son has polio and he will probably spend the rest of his life in an iron lung, etc. etc.
> 
> In large part due to better healthcare, life expectancy has increased from 65 in 1950 to 79 in 2020 and is expected to increase to 89 by 2070.  Today 11 times as many people are living to 100 compared to 1950.  When looking at the increase in healthcare cost we need to ask our selves how important is living a longer and healthier life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had it not begun as a perquisite to encourage employees to remain in their jobs during wartime, an incidental incentive from which it metastasized, no one designing the nation's ideal healthcare system would have conflated coverage with employment. Employment  is irrelevant to every American's risk of incurring significant medical expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Health insurance paid by the employer is just one of many employee benefits that are either only partially taxed or not taxed at all. Most of these benefits came about at different times for different reasons.  Often the reason for exempting the benefit from taxes has disappeared but the tax policy remains the same.  Today, tax breaks for employees with employee health insurance helps reduce the number of uninsured, which is heavily supported by democrats and begrudgingly support by republicans.  Thus it's not likely to change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no special relationship between employment and the potential need for healthcare, nor any need for each employer who provides group health insurance to duplicate the administrative functions of all others. Such a senseless, inefficiant association contributes to the cost for healthcare in the U.S. being nearly twice that of all advanced democratic nations. Free private enterprise from bearing the onus, and eliminate that unnecessary administrative expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no special relationship between and the potential need for employee retirement plans, life insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance or heath insurance other than to help companies compete for the best employees and keeping them.
> 
> With or without tax breaks, employees would still take advantage of these benefits because the purchasing power and negotiating power of businesses is almost always better than the individual.    Eliminating employee tax advantaged benefits would impact the highest paid employees far more than the majority of employees whose tax rates are much lower and their need is generally higher.
Click to expand...

Thus, the most expensive healthcare cost, by far, exceeding that of all advanced democratic nations that, unlike the U.S., cover virtually_ every _citizen.

 The inefficiency of requiring every one of the millions of private sector employers to assign resources to administer every group plan, and duplicate the operations of every other one, adds enormous cost to the nation's healthcare that leaves millions uninsured whose unpaid  medical costs are still assigned to the taxpayer.

How many of those advanced democracies are clamoring for a U.S.-type system where a citizen's coverage is so much the business of each and every employer?


----------



## Rigby5

Flopper said:


> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> schmidlap said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue against eliminating health insurance as business expense for several reasons:
> 
> Providing healthcare insurance is a business operating expense,  just like all other government required expenses and should remain deductible.    If employers could not deduct the cost of providing healthcare insurance they would either eliminate their contribution to the employees healthcare plan or they would drop health insurance all to together.
> 
> Forcing millions of people to buy their health insurance without the financial support of employers which is typically 50% and without a negotiated employer contract or group contract would make insurance much more expensive for employees.    The only way to lower the premiums would be goverment subsidies.  This would in effect transfer the employers cost to the goverment.
> 
> The fact is employers would love to get rid the burden of providing health insurance because the heath insurance expense is just a a deduction from revenue for most businesses, not at tax credit.  Only very small employers can claim a tax credit which is limited to 50% of the premium.  What this means is employers would have greater profits without having to provide health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> During the war [WWII], wages were capped by the federal government, so employers needed another means to entice and keep employees. The incentive they decided on were benefits like health insurance. These health benefits packages were not considered a part of employees’ wages and the employers could deduct what they spent on these benefits packages from their corporate taxes. A win-win situation!​[When did employer-sponsored health insurance begin? | Health Insurance]​
> There are reasons that what had begun as an employment perquisite of little value - an employer picking up the then negligible tab for an employee's medical insurance - has grown to become a monumentally expensive and inefficient method of covering Americans.
> 
> There is nothing unique about Americans employed by businesses administering health insurance plans needing health insurance. _All_ Americans are subject to the risk of incurring medical expenses, sometimes ruinously high. There is no rationale for subjecting Americans who are between jobs, for whatever reason, to the potential of devastating loss if a family member should incur substantial medical expenses during such an hiatus.
> 
> The need for businesses to divert a portion of their operations to administer such plans is only one unnecessary imposition. The expectancy of an American to have his health insurance provided by an employer is a barrier to enterprise, one more impediment to potential start-ups, and an incentive to remain with a company out of fear of losing coverage rather than progressing in one's career. It was a coercive measure calculated to keep employees in their place during wartime.
> 
> Differentiating Americans working for companies who administer healthcare plans from other Americans is counter to the economic advantage of economy of scale, administrative functions assumed by the employer being repeatedly duplicated by every employer rather than all Americans, employed or otherwise, being under a single plan that minimizes the bureaucratic requirements and most efficiently distributes risk as it creates the largest risk pool, an actuarial reality.
> 
> The federal and state tax systems provide significant financial benefits for people with private health insurance. The largest group of beneficiaries is people who enroll in coverage through their jobs. There also are tax benefits for people who are self-employed and for people with high medical costs...​
> The largest tax subsidy for private health insurance — the exclusion from income and payroll taxes of employer and employee contributions for employer-sponsored insurance (ESI) – was estimated to cost approximately $250 billion in lost federal tax revenue in 2013... the largest tax incentive for private insurance — the exclusion of the cost of ESI — is an indirect subsidy that is never actually reported to the individuals and families who benefit from it. Many people with employer coverage are probably not aware that the federal and state tax exclusions for private health insurance provides them with a subsidy worth several thousands of dollars a year.​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Subsidies for Private Health Insurance
> 
> 
> This brief describes the different forms of tax assistance for private health insurance, including subsidies offered through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplaces and benefits for people who…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kff.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​​No competent individuals designing a nation's healthcare system would have ever attached coverage to the plethora of private employers. It was an unforeseeable, insidious development.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> During and before WWII, health insurance was essentially hospitalization and in many cases only paying for the most costly procedures.  Everything else was the subscribers responsibility.
> 
> The cost of healthcare over the last 75 years has increased as much as 40 times; that is, a $100 procedure then would cost about $4,000 today.  When people see figures like this, the usual first question is what is the cause.  We have heard the answers many times, goverment, greedy insurance companies, Obamacare, overpaid healthcare workers, big government, drug companies, etc.  What you don't hear is  people are utilizing healthcare 5 times as much as they did in1950.  The number of medical treatments have tripled since 1960.   You might like paying $5 to go to the doctor 75 years ago, but you wouldn't like hearing him tell you that there was no cure for your lung cancer or your heart disease, or your son has polio and he will probably spend the rest of his life in an iron lung, etc. etc.
> 
> In large part due to better healthcare, life expectancy has increased from 65 in 1950 to 79 in 2020 and is expected to increase to 89 by 2070.  Today 11 times as many people are living to 100 compared to 1950.  When looking at the increase in healthcare cost we need to ask our selves how important is living a longer and healthier life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Had it not begun as a perquisite to encourage employees to remain in their jobs during wartime, an incidental incentive from which it metastasized, no one designing the nation's ideal healthcare system would have conflated coverage with employment. Employment  is irrelevant to every American's risk of incurring significant medical expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Health insurance paid by the employer is just one of many employee benefits that are either only partially taxed or not taxed at all. Most of these benefits came about at different times for different reasons.  Often the reason for exempting the benefit from taxes has disappeared but the tax policy remains the same.  Today, tax breaks for employees with employee health insurance helps reduce the number of uninsured, which is heavily supported by democrats and begrudgingly support by republicans.  Thus it's not likely to change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no special relationship between employment and the potential need for healthcare, nor any need for each employer who provides group health insurance to duplicate the administrative functions of all others. Such a senseless, inefficiant association contributes to the cost for healthcare in the U.S. being nearly twice that of all advanced democratic nations. Free private enterprise from bearing the onus, and eliminate that unnecessary administrative expense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no special relationship between and the potential need for employee retirement plans, life insurance, dental insurance, disability insurance or heath insurance other than to help companies compete for the best employees and keeping them.
> 
> With or without tax breaks, employees would still take advantage of these benefits because the purchasing power and negotiating power of businesses is almost always better than the individual.    Eliminating employee tax advantaged benefits would impact the highest paid employees far more than the majority of employees whose tax rates are much lower and their need is generally higher.
Click to expand...


That is the point, that employer paid benefits that are tax exempt are extremely regressive.
In fact, the very wealthy can take their pay in stock options, which allows them to pay the low 15% capital gains tax rate.
The poorest 40% of worker are not offered employee paid health insurance, and then as individual have to try to negotiate with insurance companies.  The insurance companies then charge these poor individuals over twice as much as the group rates that employers can demand.  Totally unfair, harmful, and it should be illegal.  But it does more harm then just leaving the poor without health care access, because it also dumps the unbridles extra health care costs on our products, thus making them over priced and difficult to export.  When was the last time computers, cellphones, or consumer electronics were made in the US?


----------



## candycorn

Dana7360 said:


> 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


Can't wait until the GOP gets around to auditing that outcome....right Lastamender 

LOL


----------



## FA_Q2

Flopper said:


> Ok, I think I understand your position. You want to tax employee health insurance benefits that are currently not being tax to make employer provided health insurance less attractive..  Is that correct?


Why does the goal have to be to make anything more or less attractive?  That is the core problem right there, that the thought process concerning governmental tax powers IMMIDEATLY goes to incentive structures and NOT to the stated goal of taxation in the first place: to fund the government.  It seems that the actual purpose of taxation does not even cross your mind, just what those tax structures incentivize.

I would like the government to be honest just one time and actually tell people what their tax plan is actually for (any tax plan seriously devised in the last 100 years): gaining more control over your life because Uncle Sam thinks you are to dumb to make important decisions.

I would state that the goal is to get government out of your healthcare and put you back into it because of all the people represented in the healthcare industry, the patient is NOT one of them.


----------



## dblack

FA_Q2 said:


> Why does the goal have to be to make anything more or less attractive?  That is the core problem right there, that the thought process concerning governmental tax powers IMMIDEATLY goes to incentive structures and NOT to the stated goal of taxation in the first place: to fund the government.  It seems that the actual purpose of taxation does not even cross your mind, just what those tax structures incentivize.
> 
> I would like the government to be honest just one time and actually tell people what their tax plan is actually for (any tax plan seriously devised in the last 100 years): gaining more control over your life because Uncle Sam thinks you are to dumb to make important decisions.



Absolutely. The whole game of steering society with tax incentives amounts to a massive expansion of federal power, far beyond its intended Constitutional limits. And people are so sucked into the "free shit" mindset, that they don't even notice.


----------



## initforme

The richest wealthiest nation in the world can assuredly make health insurance for the bottom 60 percent easily affordable or something is wrong with the country.


----------



## Rigby5

FA_Q2 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I think I understand your position. You want to tax employee health insurance benefits that are currently not being tax to make employer provided health insurance less attractive..  Is that correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the goal have to be to make anything more or less attractive?  That is the core problem right there, that the thought process concerning governmental tax powers IMMIDEATLY goes to incentive structures and NOT to the stated goal of taxation in the first place: to fund the government.  It seems that the actual purpose of taxation does not even cross your mind, just what those tax structures incentivize.
> 
> I would like the government to be honest just one time and actually tell people what their tax plan is actually for (any tax plan seriously devised in the last 100 years): gaining more control over your life because Uncle Sam thinks you are to dumb to make important decisions.
> 
> I would state that the goal is to get government out of your healthcare and put you back into it because of all the people represented in the healthcare industry, the patient is NOT one of them.
Click to expand...


The goal has to be to make the current employer provided health insurance less appealing to the employees, because it is unfair to the minority who do not get it, it also ruins our economy, and the majority who get it and think they like it, do not realize how expensive and terrible it is.

The goal of taxation is supposed to be to fairly and equally fund necessary projects.
But employer based health insurance is not a fair, equal, or necessary project, so should never have had any government involvement in the first place.

However a fair and equitable health care solution is something that should have government involvement.  That is because government can help pool risk between the many who do not need health care most of the time, and the few do, as well as implement collective bargaining with health care providers, to get the best fair prices for everyone.

Private, for profit, insurance companies are terrible because they add nothing, skim profits, force you to prepay, and then do not care about quality or cost.
Public single payer risk pooling adds collective bargaining, costs nothing extra, allows you to pay after the fact, and can totally control quality and cost through voter approval or disapproval.


----------



## Rigby5

initforme said:


> The richest wealthiest nation in the world can assuredly make health insurance for the bottom 60 percent easily affordable or something is wrong with the country.



Except insurance is not a good way to deal with anything.
Insurance skims off profits, adds nothing, forces you to prepay, eliminates any ability for you to complain about cost or quality.

Before the 1960s, almost no one had insurance for anything, and insurance was correctly perceived as a scam.


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, I think I understand your position. You want to tax employee health insurance benefits that are currently not being tax to make employer provided health insurance less attractive..  Is that correct?
> 
> 
> 
> Why does the goal have to be to make anything more or less attractive?  That is the core problem right there, that the thought process concerning governmental tax powers IMMIDEATLY goes to incentive structures and NOT to the stated goal of taxation in the first place: to fund the government.  It seems that the actual purpose of taxation does not even cross your mind, just what those tax structures incentivize.
> 
> I would like the government to be honest just one time and actually tell people what their tax plan is actually for (any tax plan seriously devised in the last 100 years): gaining more control over your life because Uncle Sam thinks you are to dumb to make important decisions.
> 
> I would state that the goal is to get government out of your healthcare and put you back into it because of all the people represented in the healthcare industry, the patient is NOT one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The goal has to be to make the current employer provided health insurance less appealing to the employees ...
Click to expand...


That wouldn't necessarily be my goal. My goal would be to remove all "incentives", pro or con. To make providing health care as appealing as it actually is, with no carrots or sticks getting in the way. Under the current circumstances, that would have the effect of making it less appealing - but I think it's important to note that "tax incentives" are what get us into these kinds of problems in the first place.


----------



## Flopper

I believe that if you made healthcare insurance benefits taxable, it would have little to no effect on employee provided insurance.  The  benefits of having employer contributions of 50% of premiums and group insurance buying power would still make all other insurance alternatives much more expensive.  The only thing taxing healthcare benefits would accomplish is shift more of the tax burden on workers.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> I believe that if you made healthcare insurance benefits taxable, it would have little to no effect on employee provided insurance.



Well, we'd also need to get rid of the various regulations requiring them to offer health care as a benefit. But as I've said - my goal isn't to abolish, or even dis-incentivize it. The goal should be to get rid of all the artificial factors pushing it one way or another. If there IS real value to depending on your employer for health care, if that's what employers and employees really want, then you're right - they'd still do it without the incentives and legal requirements.


----------



## Flopper

I agree a single payer system where the only employer involvement would be to deduct a healthcare plan fee from payroll checks would be far superior to what we have now.   Insurance companies and employers who once served a useful purpose in the healthcare system, today are just costly middlemen in the delivery of healthcare.  In the healthcare system which we have today, that excludes no one, where essentially all healthcare maladies are covered and there are no dollar amount limits on that coverage, these middlemen serve no real purpose.  They just add to cost.

Insurance companies would have you believe that they are the gatekeepers limiting the cost of healthcare.  In the past that may or may not have been true but today over 90%  of the doctor and hospital reimbursements are within a few percent of the Medicare fixed rates.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> I agree a single payer system that the only employer involvement would be to deduct a healthcare plan fee from payroll checks would be far superior to what we have now.


Heh.. ok, but you're not agreeing with me. Just to be clear. Depending on the government for health care is even dumber than depending on an employer.


----------



## dblack

Flopper said:


> Of course their is value in getting your insurance from your employers regradless of whether you taxed on that benefit.  Look at alternative, the healthcare exchange which have much higher premiums and higher deductibles.


Ok. If you're right, then there's no need for tax incentives or other legal mandates.


----------



## Flopper

The purpose of the healthcare exchange is provide coverage for those who can not buy reasonable priced coverage from their employer and can not quality for Medicare or Medicaid.   Even low income workers who get large subsidies on the exchange can rarely get as good a policy as their employer offers.


----------



## Flopper

Eliminating government from healthcare is about  as likely as paying off the national debt.


----------



## Orangecat

danielpalos said:


> Our welfare clause is General,


Indeed, time to end individual welfare. 
Roads, bridges, internet. All improve general welfare. 
Monthly checks made out to individuals based on perceived "need" is the antithesis of "general".


----------



## danielpalos

Orangecat said:


> Indeed, time to end individual welfare.
> Roads, bridges, internet. All improve general welfare.
> Monthly checks made out to individuals based on perceived "need" is the antithesis of "general".


How unfortunate right-wingers seem to have absolutly no problem with the already Rich getting multimillion dollar bonuses from corporate welfare.  Why only hate on the Poor while alleging morality in other threads?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Dana7360 said:


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


I'll take my chances with the private sector any day of the week over commiecare


----------



## Orangecat

danielpalos said:


> How unfortunate right-wingers seem to have absolutly no problem with the already Rich getting multimillion dollar bonuses from corporate welfare.  Why only hate on the Poor while alleging morality in other threads?


A tax cut is not welfare.
No corporation should be receiving welfare. Tax cuts and loans, perhaps, but not welfare.


----------



## FA_Q2

Rigby5 said:


> However a fair and equitable health care solution is something that should have government involvement.  That is because government can help pool risk between the many who do not need health care most of the time, and the few do, as well as implement collective bargaining with health care providers, to get the best fair prices for everyone.


The government does not 'bargain.'  It directs and then points a gun at you should you refuse.  There is noting fair about that idea whatsoever.


----------



## dblack

FA_Q2 said:


> The government does not 'bargain.'  It directs and then points a gun at you should you refuse.  There is noting fair about that idea whatsoever.


This is something I've never had any luck getting a liberal/socialist to recognize. Somehow, in their view, if the coercion is backed by democracy, it's all good.


----------



## danielpalos

Orangecat said:


> A tax cut is not welfare.
> No corporation should be receiving welfare. Tax cuts and loans, perhaps, but not welfare.


Corporate welfare has already paid multimillion dollar bonuses.  Right-wingers only have fake moral outrage when it comes to the Poor.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> That wouldn't necessarily be my goal. My goal would be to remove all "incentives", pro or con. To make providing health care as appealing as it actually is, with no carrots or sticks getting in the way. Under the current circumstances, that would have the effect of making it less appealing - but I think it's important to note that "tax incentives" are what get us into these kinds of problems in the first place.



Well yes, but the problem is there is a current carrot, but only for the wealthy.
Health care costs money, and it is wrong to allow employers a tax exempt benefit like that, to only wealthy employees.
Either all benefits should be taxed, or all employees, even poor ones, should be equally getting them.


----------



## Rigby5

Flopper said:


> I believe that if you made healthcare insurance benefits taxable, it would have little to no effect on employee provided insurance.  The  benefits of having employer contributions of 50% of premiums and group insurance buying power would still make all other insurance alternatives much more expensive.  The only thing taxing healthcare benefits would accomplish is shift more of the tax burden on workers.



Most employees do not make a 50% contribution towards health insurance.
At many companies I worked for, I only paid in as little as 10%.
But I agree collective bargaining is still a problem.
A way to make the tax burden more fair would be to include the cost of health insurance in the standard deduction, based on number of dependents to cover.
The employer needs to be removed from the solution.
Employer based is unfair to self employed, contractors, unemployed, etc.


----------



## Rigby5

dblack said:


> This is something I've never had any luck getting a liberal/socialist to recognize. Somehow, in their view, if the coercion is backed by democracy, it's all good.



There does not have to be any coercion for public health care.
You simply have public doctors, on whatever federal, state, county, or city level you want.
Just like the VA.


----------



## Orangecat

danielpalos said:


> Corporate welfare has already paid multimillion dollar bonuses.


Which corporations received money from fed-gov to give out bonuses? Solyndra?
Again, for the slow, tax cuts are not the same thing as welfare.
Different words for different things.


----------



## danielpalos

Orangecat said:


> Which corporations received money from fed-gov to give out bonuses? Solyndra?
> Again, for the slow, tax cuts are not the same thing as welfare.
> Different words for different things.


Multimillion dollar bonuses are not tax cuts.  I understand words and resort to the fewest fallacies.  Any questions? 





__





						Fact Sheet: Tax Subsidies for CEO Pay - Americans For Tax Fairness
					

Key Facts Closing the CEO pay loophole would save taxpayers $50 billion over 10 years. Walmart dodged $104 million in federal taxes over the past six years by exploiting the CEO pay loophole. Voters strongly oppose the CEO pay loophole. By nearly 2 to 1 (63% to 34%) they want to “prevent...




					americansfortaxfairness.org


----------



## Orangecat

danielpalos said:


> Multimillion dollar bonuses are not tax cuts.


True, nor are they "welfare".


> I understand words and resort to the fewest fallacies.


At least you think you do. In reality, you follow a conversation at a Joe Biden level.


> Any questions?


Do you think a tax cut is the same thing as welfare, yes or no?


----------



## danielpalos

Orangecat said:


> True, nor are they "welfare".
> 
> At least you think you do. In reality, you follow a conversation at a Joe Biden level.
> 
> Do you think a tax cut is the same thing as welfare, yes or no?


Only if you don't believe corporate welfare is a form of welfare.  Why only blame the Poor?

Of course a tax cut is not the same as welfare.  It could be simple and unequal favoritism when the Rich can simply purchase better rules for themselves while the Poor have capital obstacles put in their way.


----------



## Orangecat

danielpalos said:


> Of course a tax cut is not the same as welfare.


Excellent, we agree that cutting a businesses tax rates is not welfare.
Can you give me a few examples of companies that receive welfare?
We might agree on ending that.


----------



## Rigby5

Orangecat said:


> Excellent, we agree that cutting a businesses tax rates is not welfare.
> Can you give me a few examples of companies that receive welfare?
> We might agree on ending that.



Some tax cuts can be welfare, and by that I mean an unearned and undeserved gift.
For example, while it was a good idea to subsidize agriculture originally, that was small farms and was intent on reducing food prices.
But agri-biz has taken advantage of agriculture subsidies and turned agriculture into more of a monopoly that does not pay its fair share.
The employer health care benefits for employees was taken over and abused by insurance companies.
The 15% capital gains tax rate is also such welfare, in that allows the wealthy to just get paid in stock options and pay less tax then the poor.


----------



## Orangecat

Rigby5 said:


> Some tax cuts can be welfare, and by that I mean an unearned and undeserved gift.


Disagree. Any money a tax cut affects would be money already earned by the business, and therefore not "undeserved".
Unless you think the money you've earned is somehow deserved more by another entity.


----------



## Rigby5

Orangecat said:


> Disagree. Any money a tax cut affects would be money already earned by the business, and therefore not "undeserved".
> Unless you think the money you've earned is somehow deserved more by another entity.



The whole point of taxes is to pool resources for communal benefit, like transportation, fire fighting, protection, etc.
So if a company gains the benefits of transportation, fire fighting, protection, etc., but then does not want to pay their fair share, they are being negligent.
They are then being unfairly subsidized by all those who did pay their fair share.


----------



## danielpalos

Orangecat said:


> Excellent, we agree that cutting a businesses tax rates is not welfare.
> Can you give me a few examples of companies that receive welfare?
> We might agree on ending that.


I also agree that tax cut economics is detrimental to our economy and a reason why our Infrastructure is becoming third world or has already failed. 

Bailouts for companies that are too Rich to fail is one example; letting those executives keep their multimillion dollar bonuses while complaining about equal protection of the laws for unemployment compensation for the Poor is another.


----------



## harmonica

Dana7360 
another government failure and waste of taxes = MORE debt!!!








						Report: Obamacare contractors paid to do nothing
					

Private contractor has hired employees to process Obamacare applications, but there's little work to be done, employee tells CBS affiliate




					www.cbsnews.com
				











						Workers at Wentzille Obamacare center played board games, ex-employee says
					

Congress plans to look into claims that workers had so little to do at taxpayer-funded facility, they spent the day playing board games.




					www.stltoday.com


----------



## danielpalos

Sounds more like a management issue.  They still get their bonuses, regardless.  Why complain about That, right-wingers?


----------



## dblack

Rigby5 said:


> Some tax cuts can be welfare, and by that I mean an unearned and undeserved gift.
> For example, while it was a good idea to subsidize agriculture originally, that was small farms and was intent on reducing food prices.
> But agri-biz has taken advantage of agriculture subsidies and turned agriculture into more of a monopoly that does not pay its fair share.
> The employer health care benefits for employees was taken over and abused by insurance companies.
> The 15% capital gains tax rate is also such welfare, in that allows the wealthy to just get paid in stock options and pay less tax then the poor.



Heh.. well, yeah. That's the thing with welfare. Eventually, someone's going to get it who, in your view, doesn't deserve it. Just depends on the who's in charge and which way the political wind is blowing. The only way to avoid that is to get government out of the "free shit" business altogether.


----------



## Orangecat

Rigby5 said:


> but then does not want to pay their fair share, they are being negligent.


"Fair share" is a subjective opinion parroted by marxist useful idiots.


----------



## Orangecat

danielpalos said:


> I also agree that tax cut economics is detrimental to our economy and a reason why our Infrastructure is becoming third world or has already failed.


Agree with whom? I never made that assertion. Pay better attention, gump.


----------



## danielpalos

Orangecat said:


> Agree with whom? I never made that assertion. Pay better attention, gump.


With whomever else may agree that tax cut economics is detrimental to our economy.


----------



## Orangecat

danielpalos said:


> With whomever else may agree that tax cut economics is detrimental to our economy.


You agree with big-gov bootlickers? Quelle surprise.


----------



## danielpalos

Orangecat said:


> You agree with big-gov bootlickers? Quelle surprise.


You must be a very good Big Government nanny-State bootlicker for your right-wing, alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.


----------



## Orangecat

danielpalos said:


> You must be a very good Big Government nanny-State bootlicker for your right-wing, alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror.


Jesus Christ, you're an imbecile who just parrots shit when you've run out of intellectual bandwidth. Dismissed.


----------



## skews13

dblack said:


> 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.



The day politicians started taking bribes from insurance companies, is the day the government was in charge of our healthcare. The only healthcare system in the industrialized world that bankrupts its citizens for getting sick. Which means that anything is better than the current healthcare system.


----------



## Dragonlady

Orangecat said:


> You agree with big-gov bootlickers? Quelle surprise.



Explain to the rest of us how you organize and keep running a nation of 335 million people, over an an expanse of country more than 3000 miles wide, with global economic interests world wide, and a standing army of over 1 million volunteers, with a small government.

Are you prepared to give up your military, or your global economic interests, in the name of shrinking your government?


----------



## progressive hunter

Dragonlady said:


> Explain to the rest of us how you organize and keep running a nation of 335 million people, over an an expanse of country more than 3000 miles wide, with global economic interests world wide, and a standing army of over 1 million volunteers, with a small government.
> 
> Are you prepared to give up your military, or your global economic interests, in the name of shrinking your government?


thats why we 50 separate states you foreign idiot,,,

now go mind your own business,,


----------



## skews13

Biff_Poindexter said:


> This is a sad day for America........
> 
> Not just because 2 of the newest conservative appointments betrayed America and Jesus....
> 
> But because now we are going to have to keep hearing Republican candidates campaign on repealing and replacing Obamacare for 10 more years.........
> 
> If a bozo like Obama was able to get a healthcare plan put in place during his first couple of years....why can't republicans do it in over 10 plus years??
> 
> Those Dems are pretty crafty...



Trump said he was going to replace it with something much better.

We’re still waiting. Anytime now.


----------



## Orangecat

Dragonlady said:


> Explain to the rest of us how you organize and keep running a nation of 335 million people, over an an expanse of country more than 3000 miles wide, with global economic interests world wide, and a standing army of over 1 million volunteers, with a small government.


Liberty and personal responsibility. You might have to look those up.



> Are you prepared to give up your military, or your global economic interests, in the name of shrinking your government?


I'm prepared to shrink them along with the rest of the $28,500,000,000,000-in-debt federal bureaucracy.
Think more, emote less, please.


----------



## Dragonlady

dblack said:


> 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.



Every nation in the first world has put politicians in charge of their health care, and eliminated the insurance companies, which are currently taking about 25% of your health care dollars, both with their overhead and profit, and by having your doctors and hospitals having to employ large numbers of people to handle their billings and collections.

Those of us with socialized medicine are sending half what the USA is spending, and we all had much better outcomes in the pandemic, at a substantially reduced cost.

The USA lost a year and a half off your already declining life expectancy in 2020.  That's the 5th year in a row that life expectancy has declined.  The proof of your health care system is that all the rest of the first world is seeing our life expectancy rise, while yours is going backwards.


----------



## Dragonlady

Orangecat said:


> Liberty and personal responsibility. You might have to look those up.
> 
> 
> I'm prepared to shrink them along with the rest of the $28,500,000,000,000-in-debt federal bureaucracy.
> Think more, emote less, please.



Well those things have never worked well for your so good luck with that.

Good for you.  Getting rid of the military.  What are those 1 million plus soldiers going to do for a living, once they're unemployed, along with the military industrial complex.  Are they just going to become roving bands of angry hungry people who have been trained to kill?


----------



## Orangecat

Dragonlady said:


> Those of us with socialized medicine are sending half what the USA is spending,


Where are you sending it?


----------



## Orangecat

Dragonlady said:


> Well those things have never worked well for your so good luck with that.


They've worked great for me. You wouldn't understand because you're a weak collectivist drone who can't excel without stealing from others.



> Getting rid of the military.  What are those 1 million plus soldiers going to do for a living, once they're unemployed, along with the military industrial complex.  Are they just going to become roving bands of angry hungry people who have been trained to kill?


I didn't advocate getting rid of the military. Try reading for comprehension.
There are millions of ex-military folk in this country who move along just fine without becoming roving bands of killers. STFU with your paranoid emo nonsense.


----------



## dblack

Dragonlady said:


> Every nation in the first world has put politicians in charge of their health care ...



Not all, but most have. And those that have, have made a mistake. There was a time when most "first world" countries were theocracies. They thought it was the way to go. We got over that. We can get over this.



Dragonlady said:


> .... and eliminated the insurance companies, which are currently taking about 25% of your health care dollars, both with their overhead and profit, and by having your doctors and hospitals having to employ large numbers of people to handle their billings and collections.



In the US, neither party wants to get rid of insurance companies. Pretty much every "reform" plan has them front row at the feeding trough.



Dragonlady said:


> Those of us with socialized medicine are sending half what the USA is spending, and we all had much better outcomes in the pandemic, at a substantially reduced cost.



Good for you!



Dragonlady said:


> The USA lost a year and a half off your already declining life expectancy in 2020.  That's the 5th year in a row that life expectancy has declined.  The proof of your health care system is that all the rest of the first world is seeing our life expectancy rise, while yours is going backwards.



Horseshit. It's proof our nation is so politically divided we can't even respond to an emergency without fucking up. Socialized medicine wouldn't have made that better. More likely it would have made it worse - something else for the partisans to bicker about.


----------



## Dragonlady

dblack said:


> Not all, but most have. And those that have, have made a mistake. There was a time when most "first world" countries were theocracies. They thought it was the way to go. We got over that. We can get over this.
> 
> 
> 
> In the US, neither party wants to get rid of insurance companies. Pretty much every "reform" plan has them front row at the feeding trough.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you!
> 
> 
> 
> Horseshit. It's proof our nation is so politically divided we can't even respond to an emergency without fucking up. Socialized medicine wouldn't have made that better. More likely it would have made it worse - something else for the partisans to bicker about.



You don't have a national system.  Every hospital corporation is a stand alone unit, with no planning or coordination.  Nowhere was more apparent than in your covid response, and it's inability to determine what was needed.

As for "both sides want insurance", that is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.  The Medical Industrial Complex has lied about "socialized medicine" and promoted the US system as "the best in the world".  If your system was the "best in the world", you wouldn't have the highest rate of maternal death in childbirth, and the highest rate of infant mortality, in the first world.  You're life expectancy would have declined for the past 5 years running.

Lots of people in the USA want "single payer", but doctors and hospitals oppose it.


----------



## dblack

Dragonlady said:


> You don't have a national system.  Every hospital corporation is a stand alone unit, with no planning or coordination.  Nowhere was more apparent than in your covid response, and it's inability to determine what was needed.


Yep. That's a true fact. For now. Lot's of people are trying to nationalize it though - to put it under political control. Partisan political control. What a fucking mess that would be.


Dragonlady said:


> As for "both sides want insurance", that is COMPLETE BULLSHIT.


Well, they've had the opportunity, and declined. ACA sure as hell doesn't do it. Medicare For All wouldn't do it. Frankly, I can't imagine the US Congress coming up with anything that actually cuts out the insurance companies. Maybe you're just not that familiar with US politics.


----------

