If they delete the ACA , we will have to go all out for the Universal Healthcare!!

[Dana7360]

I'm not wealthy. Which is exactly why I don't want politicians controlling health care.

At least the politicians answer to the people.

When? Where? I've never had a politician answer to me. Ever.

Insurance companies don't answer to anyone.

They answer to their customers. And if the customers don't like the answer, they can fire their insurance company - stop paying them and tell them to piss off. We have no such option with government. You're stuck with whatever idiot voters voted for until the next fool is elected. And even then, there's no guarantee things will change for the better. If at all.

Every politician has to be reelected at some point.

As we saw in 2018, the people spoke. The house tuned into democratic control with over 40 seat majority.

The senate pretty much stayed the same.

We will see how the voters feel about their politicians in November.

That's when they answer to the people.

Have you ever seen anyone quit their job because they don't like the insurance the company offers? Do you know anyone who refuses the insurance they are offered through work without having any sort of other option in insurance? Do you know of any company that offers a wide variety of policies with the option to quit anytime you want?

The reality is that if you want to quit an insurance policy it's not that easy. Especially if you get your insurance through work.

If you buy on the open market, you can't quit your insurance at anytime you want. You have to do so in writing and jump through other hoops just to get out of that insurance. I know, I tried getting out of a policy this year. It took time but I finally got it closed. Meanwhile I have no backup for that coverage.

Tell me when any insurance company ever faced any sort of consequences for their actions without being taken to court.

Insurance companies don't have any real competition.

Offering the choice of a public option would finally introduce at least some form of real competition to the private insurance companies.

There's a reason why republicans rightly say that if a public option was available, private insurance companies would go bankrupt.

That reason is there is no choice in insurance. The insurance companies control what health care you get and how much you will pay for it. You don't have the choice of doctors or how your own money is spent on your health care even though you sent the insurance company thousands of dollars each year for them to pay your health care bills.

Why do you think that people look forward to being on medicare if private insurance so much better?

Sure some people can go without insurance. Those who are young don't need it as much until they get married and have kids. Do know how much a pregnancy labor and delivery costs? Then the costs of the new baby for their shots etc.

I was told when I was young that I'm paying into insurance for those who are older in the pool. That when I'm older the same will be done for me. So those insurance pools need younger people in them to keep being able to pay the medical bills. Now that I'm older, and divorced, I lost that insurance I paid into for decades while not using it beyond a Pap smear and physical every year for decades.

Now I'm older, the pool I paid into for over 30 years was taken from me in divorce.

I basically lost all that money I invested for 30 years. It's gone and I'll never get it back.

Now that I'm older and have preexisting conditions and 5 years from medicare, I have no access to the private insurance I paid into and my own government is going to make it legal for insurance companies to deny me a policy or jack up the premiums so high I can't afford it.

That's one of the many things that is wrong with our system. People pay into it for decades and either through divorce or many other factors, they lose that insurance they paid into for decades and aren't compensated for the money they paid expecting it to be there when we need it.

That won't happen with a single payer plan or a public option. What I invest in it won't be taken from me just when I need it most.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And if Joe Biden wins and the Senate too,

we will have a nuclear option to vote on Universal Healthcare.

See the republicans and tramp don't want to pay for ACA, (its only the wealthy who pay for subsidies)

So they will get up paying even more.

Even Medicare sucks. Universal Healthcare is coming.

All is on the table. All rules are on the table. Maybe Biden can even write an executive order.

If the U.S. government can not handle the mess with the V.A. what make you think they will be able to handle Universal Healthcare or Medicare for All?

While the VA isn't perfect, it's better than the civilian options. It's a good model to use.

No it isn’t and has been a mess for decades!

And if Joe Biden wins and the Senate too,

we will have a nuclear option to vote on Universal Healthcare.

See the republicans and tramp don't want to pay for ACA, (its only the wealthy who pay for subsidies)

So they will get up paying even more.

Even Medicare sucks. Universal Healthcare is coming.

All is on the table. All rules are on the table. Maybe Biden can even write an executive order.

If the U.S. government can not handle the mess with the V.A. what make you think they will be able to handle Universal Healthcare or Medicare for All?

Plenty of examples of socialized medicine working all over the world. It is not a new radical idea at this point.

And most of those countries middle class to rich citizens go to third world countries to get medical procedures done.

Pass a Universal Healthcare Plan here and watch Mexico grow in tourism for people to see Doctors down there and there is nothing you can do!

Canada is a perfect example how their people would come here to avoid the waiting list and before you say it never happened I have seen it happen!

Your scare tactics aren't working so well these days. And it's going to cost you the Senate which is something I don't wish to see. But if it means sending Moscow Mitch to the end of the line for the next two years, the I guess that is something that needs to be done.

If the republicans retained majority in the senate there would be no health care system to replace Obamacare when the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional.

The worst thing for America is if the republicans retain majority in the senate.

There will be absolutely no chance for a replacement for Obamacare.

The problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that until there is a replacement that there can be no getting rid of the ACA. I don't see the new Justices overturning that ruling. Just because Rump says so doesn't mean the Justices are going to vote that way. Pertaining to the way the Justices are going to vote, he's been wrong about everything else.

 

[justoffal]

And if Joe Biden wins and the Senate too,

we will have a nuclear option to vote on Universal Healthcare.

See the republicans and tramp don't want to pay for ACA, (its only the wealthy who pay for subsidies)

So they will get up paying even more.

Even Medicare sucks. Universal Healthcare is coming.

All is on the table. All rules are on the table. Maybe Biden can even write an executive order.

The ACA can be rescinded on paper only....since it's inception it has wormed its way into the infrastructure of the entire healthcare system... it cannot be undone...

Case in point....

super expensive operations performed under the pre-existing conditions clause...currently the back log for full payment is over thirty six months...
If you pull out the rug before then the payors may actually feel disobliged leaving the providers on the hook....this creates a court challenge and even if it went the full federal gambit to the SCOTUS even a 6-3 conservative court is going to vote to reinstate the law just for that reason.

JO

 

[dblack]

We will see how the voters feel about their politicians in November.

That's when they answer to the people.

And that's extremely weak tea. I don't want to wait around four years, with the vain hope that the majority of idiot voters will agree with me.

Have you ever seen anyone quit their job because they don't like the insurance the company offers? Do you know anyone who refuses the insurance they are offered through work without having any sort of other option in insurance? Do you know of any company that offers a wide variety of policies with the option to quit anytime you want?

Yes.

The reality is that if you want to quit an insurance policy it's not that easy.

Nonsense. There are probably a lot of bullshit regulations that make it more difficult than it should be (and those should be repealed), but regardless, it's far, far easier than trying to change your government by voting.

Especially if you get your insurance through work.

Employer provided insurance was a key, early mistake that created the mess we're in. And it was promoted with boneheaded state policy. All we need to do to correct that is reverse the policy. Revoke tax incentives encouraging it, and repeal laws requiring it.

If you buy on the open market, you can't quit your insurance at anytime you want.

Nonsense. Stop paying them. They'll cancel your policy in short order.

Tell me when any insurance company ever faced any sort of consequences for their actions without being taken to court.

Insurance companies don't have any real competition.

Yes, because the dominant companies control regulatory policy and prevent real competition.

Offering the choice of a public option would finally introduce at least some form of real competition to the private insurance companies.

There's a reason why republicans rightly say that if a public option was available, private insurance companies would go bankrupt.

Duh? No private company can compete with government.

That reason is there is no choice in insurance. The insurance companies control what health care you get and how much you will pay for it. You don't have the choice of doctors or how your own money is spent on your health care even though you sent the insurance company thousands of dollars each year for them to pay your health care bills.

Again, deregulate it and that will change.

Sure some people can go without insurance.

We don't need to go without insurance, we just need to stop using insurance so stupidly. We've come to look at insurance as a means of making health care "affordable", when actually it does the opposite. It's made health care far more expensive.

I was told when I was young that I'm paying into insurance for those who are older in the pol.

You were conned. That's not the way insurance works. It's not a "pool" you join. It's not "the good hands people". It's not a social welfare society dedicated to your well being. Insurance is a bet. Sometimes you'll win, but most times you'll lose.

Insurance is a financial tool to protect you from bankruptcy. It's a hedge against risk. But we try to use it like a club you join to score free health care. Our delusions are, literally, killing us.

That won't happen with a single payer plan or a public option. What I invest in it won't be taken from me just when I need it most.

Wanna bet? You're "investment" will be at risk with every single election. Your benefits will be in jeopardy every time a new administration takes over.

 

[justoffal]

I'm not wealthy. Which is exactly why I don't want politicians controlling health care.

At least the politicians answer to the people.

When? Where? I've never had a politician answer to me. Ever.

Insurance companies don't answer to anyone.

They answer to their customers. And if the customers don't like the answer, they can fire their insurance company - stop paying them and tell them to piss off. We have no such option with government. You're stuck with whatever idiot voters voted for until the next fool is elected. And even then, there's no guarantee things will change for the better. If at all.

Every politician has to be reelected at some point.

As we saw in 2018, the people spoke. The house tuned into democratic control with over 40 seat majority.

The senate pretty much stayed the same.

We will see how the voters feel about their politicians in November.

That's when they answer to the people.

Have you ever seen anyone quit their job because they don't like the insurance the company offers? Do you know anyone who refuses the insurance they are offered through work without having any sort of other option in insurance? Do you know of any company that offers a wide variety of policies with the option to quit anytime you want?

The reality is that if you want to quit an insurance policy it's not that easy. Especially if you get your insurance through work.

If you buy on the open market, you can't quit your insurance at anytime you want. You have to do so in writing and jump through other hoops just to get out of that insurance. I know, I tried getting out of a policy this year. It took time but I finally got it closed. Meanwhile I have no backup for that coverage.

Tell me when any insurance company ever faced any sort of consequences for their actions without being taken to court.

Insurance companies don't have any real competition.

Offering the choice of a public option would finally introduce at least some form of real competition to the private insurance companies.

There's a reason why republicans rightly say that if a public option was available, private insurance companies would go bankrupt.

That reason is there is no choice in insurance. The insurance companies control what health care you get and how much you will pay for it. You don't have the choice of doctors or how your own money is spent on your health care even though you sent the insurance company thousands of dollars each year for them to pay your health care bills.

Why do you think that people look forward to being on medicare if private insurance so much better?

Sure some people can go without insurance. Those who are young don't need it as much until they get married and have kids. Do know how much a pregnancy labor and delivery costs? Then the costs of the new baby for their shots etc.

I was told when I was young that I'm paying into insurance for those who are older in the pool. That when I'm older the same will be done for me. So those insurance pools need younger people in them to keep being able to pay the medical bills. Now that I'm older, and divorced, I lost that insurance I paid into for decades while not using it beyond a Pap smear and physical every year for decades.

Now I'm older, the pool I paid into for over 30 years was taken from me in divorce.

I basically lost all that money I invested for 30 years. It's gone and I'll never get it back.

Now that I'm older and have preexisting conditions and 5 years from medicare, I have no access to the private insurance I paid into and my own government is going to make it legal for insurance companies to deny me a policy or jack up the premiums so high I can't afford it.

That's one of the many things that is wrong with our system. People pay into it for decades and either through divorce or many other factors, they lose that insurance they paid into for decades and aren't compensated for the money they paid expecting it to be there when we need it.

That won't happen with a single payer plan or a public option. What I invest in it won't be taken from me just when I need it most.

Paul Ryan worked closely with the democrats ( his wife is a big DNC operative after all ) to ensure that Trump would be fucked...he denied funds to close races and secretly worked against the Trump supporting nominees behind the scenes....the Dems actually have Ryan to thank for that major flip.

JO

 

[dblack]

The problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that until there is a replacement that there can be no getting rid of the ACA.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that until there is a replacement that there can be no getting rid of the ACA.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

And just how many times are you Rumpers going to keep denying this.

2012 Supreme Court Ruling. Ruled that the ACA WAS constitutional.

The only part that has been struck down was the individual mandate in 2019. And it's back in the courts today trying to get the Supreme Court to reverse it's 2012 ruling. So far, until there is a replacement, the ACA is constitutional and will stand. And it you haven't noticed, the Supreme Court really hates to reverse any previous ruling no matter who appointed the Justices.

I think until there is a decent replacement presented, the ACA stands. Plus, Roe V Wade will also stand unless a comparable law can be presented for it as well.

 

[dblack]

The problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that until there is a replacement that there can be no getting rid of the ACA.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

And just how many times are you Rumpers going to keep denying this.

I'm not a Trump supporter.

2012 Supreme Court Ruling. Ruled that the ACA WAS constitutional.

This is just a link to the original court ruling. No indication that ACA can't repealed by Congress.

The only part that has been struck down was the individual mandate in 2019.

The individual mandate hasn't been "struck down". Republicans just set the penalty at zero.

So far, until there is a replacement, the ACA is constitutional and will stand.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

I think you're just confused about how the Court works. Ruling that a law is Constitutional, doesn't mean it can't be repealed. No "replacement" is necessary.

I think until there is a decent replacement presented, the ACA stands.

That's your opinion. But the Court has made no such statement. They merely ruled that the original law could stand. They can't prevent Congress from repealing it if they choose to do so. ie, you're just making shit up.

Plus, Roe V Wade will also stand unless a comparable law can be presented for it as well.

I don't know what this has to do with the argument, but Roe v Wade was not a law, it was a Court decision striking down laws banning abortion. You're not very smart, are you?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that until there is a replacement that there can be no getting rid of the ACA.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

And just how many times are you Rumpers going to keep denying this.

I'm not a Trump supporter.

2012 Supreme Court Ruling. Ruled that the ACA WAS constitutional.

This is just a link to the original court ruling. No indication that ACA can't repealed by Congress.

The only part that has been struck down was the individual mandate in 2019.

The individual mandate hasn't been "struck down". Republicans just set the penalty at zero.

So far, until there is a replacement, the ACA is constitutional and will stand.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

I think you're just confused about how the Court works. Ruling that a law is Constitutional, doesn't mean it can't be repealed. No "replacement" is necessary.

I think until there is a decent replacement presented, the ACA stands.

That's your opinion. But the Court has made no such statement. They merely ruled that the original law could stand. They can't prevent Congress from repealing it if they choose to do so. ie, you're just making shit up.

Plus, Roe V Wade will also stand unless a comparable law can be presented for it as well.

I don't know what this has to do with the argument, but Roe v Wade was not a law, it was a Court decision striking down laws banning abortion. You're not very smart, are you?

Smart enough to be pretty sure how the court is going to rule or not rule in the case of them refusing to hear it.

ACA is hear to stay unless an alternative program can be present and then voted into law by the House, Senate and the President (btw, that completely removes any ruling that the SC can make). And Roe V Wade, same thing. I'll say it again. When the Courts have to rule like that it's a failure of the other two branches to do their jobs.

 

[dblack]

The problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that until there is a replacement that there can be no getting rid of the ACA.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

And just how many times are you Rumpers going to keep denying this.

I'm not a Trump supporter.

2012 Supreme Court Ruling. Ruled that the ACA WAS constitutional.

This is just a link to the original court ruling. No indication that ACA can't repealed by Congress.

The only part that has been struck down was the individual mandate in 2019.

The individual mandate hasn't been "struck down". Republicans just set the penalty at zero.

So far, until there is a replacement, the ACA is constitutional and will stand.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

I think you're just confused about how the Court works. Ruling that a law is Constitutional, doesn't mean it can't be repealed. No "replacement" is necessary.

I think until there is a decent replacement presented, the ACA stands.

That's your opinion. But the Court has made no such statement. They merely ruled that the original law could stand. They can't prevent Congress from repealing it if they choose to do so. ie, you're just making shit up.

Plus, Roe V Wade will also stand unless a comparable law can be presented for it as well.

I don't know what this has to do with the argument, but Roe v Wade was not a law, it was a Court decision striking down laws banning abortion. You're not very smart, are you?

Smart enough to be pretty sure how the court is going to rule or not rule in the case of them refusing to hear it.

ACA is hear to stay unless an alternative program can be present and then voted into law by the House, Senate and the President (btw, that completely removes any ruling that the SC can make).

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Congress can repeal ACA. There's no requirement for the to "replace" it.

And Roe V Wade, same thing. I'll say it again. When the Courts have to rule like that it's a failure of the other two branches to do their jobs.

Roe V Wade is not the same thing. It struck down laws banning abortion. The only way it can be reversed is with a new Court ruling.

 

[Dana7360]

And if Joe Biden wins and the Senate too,

we will have a nuclear option to vote on Universal Healthcare.

See the republicans and tramp don't want to pay for ACA, (its only the wealthy who pay for subsidies)

So they will get up paying even more.

Even Medicare sucks. Universal Healthcare is coming.

All is on the table. All rules are on the table. Maybe Biden can even write an executive order.

If the U.S. government can not handle the mess with the V.A. what make you think they will be able to handle Universal Healthcare or Medicare for All?

While the VA isn't perfect, it's better than the civilian options. It's a good model to use.

No it isn’t and has been a mess for decades!

And if Joe Biden wins and the Senate too,

we will have a nuclear option to vote on Universal Healthcare.

See the republicans and tramp don't want to pay for ACA, (its only the wealthy who pay for subsidies)

So they will get up paying even more.

Even Medicare sucks. Universal Healthcare is coming.

All is on the table. All rules are on the table. Maybe Biden can even write an executive order.

If the U.S. government can not handle the mess with the V.A. what make you think they will be able to handle Universal Healthcare or Medicare for All?

Plenty of examples of socialized medicine working all over the world. It is not a new radical idea at this point.

And most of those countries middle class to rich citizens go to third world countries to get medical procedures done.

Pass a Universal Healthcare Plan here and watch Mexico grow in tourism for people to see Doctors down there and there is nothing you can do!

Canada is a perfect example how their people would come here to avoid the waiting list and before you say it never happened I have seen it happen!

Your scare tactics aren't working so well these days. And it's going to cost you the Senate which is something I don't wish to see. But if it means sending Moscow Mitch to the end of the line for the next two years, the I guess that is something that needs to be done.

If the republicans retained majority in the senate there would be no health care system to replace Obamacare when the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional.

The worst thing for America is if the republicans retain majority in the senate.

There will be absolutely no chance for a replacement for Obamacare.

The problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that until there is a replacement that there can be no getting rid of the ACA. I don't see the new Justices overturning that ruling. Just because Rump says so doesn't mean the Justices are going to vote that way. Pertaining to the way the Justices are going to vote, he's been wrong about everything else.

I have not heard of that ruling. I just looked for it and nothing came up.

Maybe I used the wrong keywords.

Do you have any information on this?

This is very important to me. I will lose my insurance when the Supreme Court rules Obamacare unconstitutional.

I've already started to make arrangements to leave America when it's ruled unconstitutional. I don't see how anything can be passed in the congress to replace it because democrats won't have the 60 seats needed to overcome the republican filibuster.

If you are right and I don't have to leave my home, I sure would love to read about it.

Please, if you have any information on that, send it to me.

 

[Disir]

And if Joe Biden wins and the Senate too,

we will have a nuclear option to vote on Universal Healthcare.

See the republicans and tramp don't want to pay for ACA, (its only the wealthy who pay for subsidies)

So they will get up paying even more.

Even Medicare sucks. Universal Healthcare is coming.

All is on the table. All rules are on the table. Maybe Biden can even write an executive order.

None of the candidates have received a dollar in PAC contributions from the health-related industries — and likely won’t because they are all rejecting corporate PAC contributions entirely. Those who have pledged to reject lobbyist contributions have mostly kept their word as well.

No Democratic candidate has pulled in more from the healthcare and pharmaceutical industries than Biden, who raised more than $97,000. The former vice president took in more than $11,000 from affiliates of industry giant Blue Cross/Blue Shield, including the maximum $2,800 from Daniel Hilferty, CEO of Independence Blue Cross who sits on the board of a major health insurance trade group that is fighting to defeat Sanders’ Medicare for All healthcare plan.

Which 2020 Democrats are taking money from the healthcare industry?

Bernie Sanders wants Democrats to stop taking campaign contributions from pharmaceutical and insurance companies.

www.opensecrets.org

Keep playing.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that until there is a replacement that there can be no getting rid of the ACA.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

And just how many times are you Rumpers going to keep denying this.

I'm not a Trump supporter.

2012 Supreme Court Ruling. Ruled that the ACA WAS constitutional.

This is just a link to the original court ruling. No indication that ACA can't repealed by Congress.

The only part that has been struck down was the individual mandate in 2019.

The individual mandate hasn't been "struck down". Republicans just set the penalty at zero.

So far, until there is a replacement, the ACA is constitutional and will stand.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

I think you're just confused about how the Court works. Ruling that a law is Constitutional, doesn't mean it can't be repealed. No "replacement" is necessary.

I think until there is a decent replacement presented, the ACA stands.

That's your opinion. But the Court has made no such statement. They merely ruled that the original law could stand. They can't prevent Congress from repealing it if they choose to do so. ie, you're just making shit up.

Plus, Roe V Wade will also stand unless a comparable law can be presented for it as well.

I don't know what this has to do with the argument, but Roe v Wade was not a law, it was a Court decision striking down laws banning abortion. You're not very smart, are you?

Smart enough to be pretty sure how the court is going to rule or not rule in the case of them refusing to hear it.

ACA is hear to stay unless an alternative program can be present and then voted into law by the House, Senate and the President (btw, that completely removes any ruling that the SC can make).

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Congress can repeal ACA. There's no requirement for the to "replace" it.

And Roe V Wade, same thing. I'll say it again. When the Courts have to rule like that it's a failure of the other two branches to do their jobs.

Roe V Wade is not the same thing. It struck down laws banning abortion. The only way it can be reversed is with a new Court ruling.

If either is done by the Congress and signed into law by the President it negates the ruling of the Courts and the Court would have to rule (if someone were to contest it) whether that new law was constitutional or not. The ONLY reason the Courts are involved in either of these two is because of the laziness of the Congress.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And if Joe Biden wins and the Senate too,

we will have a nuclear option to vote on Universal Healthcare.

See the republicans and tramp don't want to pay for ACA, (its only the wealthy who pay for subsidies)

So they will get up paying even more.

Even Medicare sucks. Universal Healthcare is coming.

All is on the table. All rules are on the table. Maybe Biden can even write an executive order.

If the U.S. government can not handle the mess with the V.A. what make you think they will be able to handle Universal Healthcare or Medicare for All?

While the VA isn't perfect, it's better than the civilian options. It's a good model to use.

No it isn’t and has been a mess for decades!

And if Joe Biden wins and the Senate too,

we will have a nuclear option to vote on Universal Healthcare.

See the republicans and tramp don't want to pay for ACA, (its only the wealthy who pay for subsidies)

So they will get up paying even more.

Even Medicare sucks. Universal Healthcare is coming.

All is on the table. All rules are on the table. Maybe Biden can even write an executive order.

If the U.S. government can not handle the mess with the V.A. what make you think they will be able to handle Universal Healthcare or Medicare for All?

Plenty of examples of socialized medicine working all over the world. It is not a new radical idea at this point.

And most of those countries middle class to rich citizens go to third world countries to get medical procedures done.

Pass a Universal Healthcare Plan here and watch Mexico grow in tourism for people to see Doctors down there and there is nothing you can do!

Canada is a perfect example how their people would come here to avoid the waiting list and before you say it never happened I have seen it happen!

Your scare tactics aren't working so well these days. And it's going to cost you the Senate which is something I don't wish to see. But if it means sending Moscow Mitch to the end of the line for the next two years, the I guess that is something that needs to be done.

If the republicans retained majority in the senate there would be no health care system to replace Obamacare when the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional.

The worst thing for America is if the republicans retain majority in the senate.

There will be absolutely no chance for a replacement for Obamacare.

The problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that until there is a replacement that there can be no getting rid of the ACA. I don't see the new Justices overturning that ruling. Just because Rump says so doesn't mean the Justices are going to vote that way. Pertaining to the way the Justices are going to vote, he's been wrong about everything else.

I have not heard of that ruling. I just looked for it and nothing came up.

Maybe I used the wrong keywords.

Do you have any information on this?

This is very important to me. I will lose my insurance when the Supreme Court rules Obamacare unconstitutional.

I've already started to make arrangements to leave America when it's ruled unconstitutional. I don't see how anything can be passed in the congress to replace it because democrats won't have the 60 seats needed to overcome the republican filibuster.

If you are right and I don't have to leave my home, I sure would love to read about it.

Please, if you have any information on that, send it to me.

Here, let me help you. Just leave. Don't wait. If you are that misinformed, I suggest one of the Middle Eastern Countries but not Israel.

 

[dblack]

The problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that until there is a replacement that there can be no getting rid of the ACA.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

And just how many times are you Rumpers going to keep denying this.

I'm not a Trump supporter.

2012 Supreme Court Ruling. Ruled that the ACA WAS constitutional.

This is just a link to the original court ruling. No indication that ACA can't repealed by Congress.

The only part that has been struck down was the individual mandate in 2019.

The individual mandate hasn't been "struck down". Republicans just set the penalty at zero.

So far, until there is a replacement, the ACA is constitutional and will stand.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

I think you're just confused about how the Court works. Ruling that a law is Constitutional, doesn't mean it can't be repealed. No "replacement" is necessary.

I think until there is a decent replacement presented, the ACA stands.

That's your opinion. But the Court has made no such statement. They merely ruled that the original law could stand. They can't prevent Congress from repealing it if they choose to do so. ie, you're just making shit up.

Plus, Roe V Wade will also stand unless a comparable law can be presented for it as well.

I don't know what this has to do with the argument, but Roe v Wade was not a law, it was a Court decision striking down laws banning abortion. You're not very smart, are you?

Smart enough to be pretty sure how the court is going to rule or not rule in the case of them refusing to hear it.

ACA is hear to stay unless an alternative program can be present and then voted into law by the House, Senate and the President (btw, that completely removes any ruling that the SC can make).

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Congress can repeal ACA. There's no requirement for the to "replace" it.

And Roe V Wade, same thing. I'll say it again. When the Courts have to rule like that it's a failure of the other two branches to do their jobs.

Roe V Wade is not the same thing. It struck down laws banning abortion. The only way it can be reversed is with a new Court ruling.

If either is done by the Congress and signed into law by the President it negates the ruling of the Courts and the Court would have to rule (if someone were to contest it) whether that new law was constitutional or not.

If Congress repeals ACA, there is no new law to rule on. The Court can't do jack squat about it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that until there is a replacement that there can be no getting rid of the ACA.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

And just how many times are you Rumpers going to keep denying this.

I'm not a Trump supporter.

2012 Supreme Court Ruling. Ruled that the ACA WAS constitutional.

This is just a link to the original court ruling. No indication that ACA can't repealed by Congress.

The only part that has been struck down was the individual mandate in 2019.

The individual mandate hasn't been "struck down". Republicans just set the penalty at zero.

So far, until there is a replacement, the ACA is constitutional and will stand.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

I think you're just confused about how the Court works. Ruling that a law is Constitutional, doesn't mean it can't be repealed. No "replacement" is necessary.

I think until there is a decent replacement presented, the ACA stands.

That's your opinion. But the Court has made no such statement. They merely ruled that the original law could stand. They can't prevent Congress from repealing it if they choose to do so. ie, you're just making shit up.

Plus, Roe V Wade will also stand unless a comparable law can be presented for it as well.

I don't know what this has to do with the argument, but Roe v Wade was not a law, it was a Court decision striking down laws banning abortion. You're not very smart, are you?

Smart enough to be pretty sure how the court is going to rule or not rule in the case of them refusing to hear it.

ACA is hear to stay unless an alternative program can be present and then voted into law by the House, Senate and the President (btw, that completely removes any ruling that the SC can make).

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Congress can repeal ACA. There's no requirement for the to "replace" it.

And Roe V Wade, same thing. I'll say it again. When the Courts have to rule like that it's a failure of the other two branches to do their jobs.

Roe V Wade is not the same thing. It struck down laws banning abortion. The only way it can be reversed is with a new Court ruling.

If either is done by the Congress and signed into law by the President it negates the ruling of the Courts and the Court would have to rule (if someone were to contest it) whether that new law was constitutional or not.

If Congress repeals ACA, there is no new law to rule on. The Court can't do jack squat about it.

That was already tried. And the only thing that was accmplished was the getting rid of the "Tax" part. Until they come with a viable replacement, the ACA stands as constitutional and will not be rescended. Otherwise, it would have been done during the 2 years that the Reps controlled all 3 parts.

 

[dblack]

If either is done by the Congress and signed into law by the President it negates the ruling of the Courts and the Court would have to rule (if someone were to contest it) whether that new law was constitutional or not.

If Congress repeals ACA, there is no new law to rule on. The Court can't do jack squat about it.

That was already tried. And the only thing that was accmplished was the getting rid of the "Tax" part.

Yep. Republicans failed to repeal it. I doubt they ever really wanted to. But they could try again. Or Democrats could come to their senses and repeal it.

Until they come with a viable replacement, the ACA stands as constitutional and will not be rescended.

It can be repealed. No replacement is required. You're just plain wrong on your insistence that it must be "replaced". That's not true. Maybe you just read it wrong or something.

 

[John T. Ford]

Nothing is free in this world

the federal government is already running a budget deficit

in order to increase spending on people who cant pay it will have to reduce services to those who already have health insurance - and raise their taxes

Leftist are really just that Stupid.

 

[JustAGuy1]

I'm not wealthy. Which is exactly why I don't want politicians controlling health care.

At least the politicians answer to the people.

When? Where? I've never had a politician answer to me. Ever.

Insurance companies don't answer to anyone.

They answer to their customers. And if the customers don't like the answer, they can fire their insurance company - stop paying them and tell them to piss off. We have no such option with government. You're stuck with whatever idiot voters voted for until the next fool is elected. And even then, there's no guarantee things will change for the better. If at all.

Every politician has to be reelected at some point.

As we saw in 2018, the people spoke. The house tuned into democratic control with over 40 seat majority.

The senate pretty much stayed the same.

We will see how the voters feel about their politicians in November.

That's when they answer to the people.

Have you ever seen anyone quit their job because they don't like the insurance the company offers? Do you know anyone who refuses the insurance they are offered through work without having any sort of other option in insurance? Do you know of any company that offers a wide variety of policies with the option to quit anytime you want?

The reality is that if you want to quit an insurance policy it's not that easy. Especially if you get your insurance through work.

If you buy on the open market, you can't quit your insurance at anytime you want. You have to do so in writing and jump through other hoops just to get out of that insurance. I know, I tried getting out of a policy this year. It took time but I finally got it closed. Meanwhile I have no backup for that coverage.

Tell me when any insurance company ever faced any sort of consequences for their actions without being taken to court.

Insurance companies don't have any real competition.

Offering the choice of a public option would finally introduce at least some form of real competition to the private insurance companies.

There's a reason why republicans rightly say that if a public option was available, private insurance companies would go bankrupt.

That reason is there is no choice in insurance. The insurance companies control what health care you get and how much you will pay for it. You don't have the choice of doctors or how your own money is spent on your health care even though you sent the insurance company thousands of dollars each year for them to pay your health care bills.

Why do you think that people look forward to being on medicare if private insurance so much better?

Sure some people can go without insurance. Those who are young don't need it as much until they get married and have kids. Do know how much a pregnancy labor and delivery costs? Then the costs of the new baby for their shots etc.

I was told when I was young that I'm paying into insurance for those who are older in the pool. That when I'm older the same will be done for me. So those insurance pools need younger people in them to keep being able to pay the medical bills. Now that I'm older, and divorced, I lost that insurance I paid into for decades while not using it beyond a Pap smear and physical every year for decades.

Now I'm older, the pool I paid into for over 30 years was taken from me in divorce.

I basically lost all that money I invested for 30 years. It's gone and I'll never get it back.

Now that I'm older and have preexisting conditions and 5 years from medicare, I have no access to the private insurance I paid into and my own government is going to make it legal for insurance companies to deny me a policy or jack up the premiums so high I can't afford it.

That's one of the many things that is wrong with our system. People pay into it for decades and either through divorce or many other factors, they lose that insurance they paid into for decades and aren't compensated for the money they paid expecting it to be there when we need it.

That won't happen with a single payer plan or a public option. What I invest in it won't be taken from me just when I need it most.

If you buy on the open market, you can't quit your insurance at anytime you want. You have to do so in writing and jump through other hoops just to get out of that insurance. I know, I tried getting out of a policy this year. It took time but I finally got it closed. Meanwhile I have no backup for that coverage.

Lie. Off exchange one only needs to submit their Term Request in writing and it's granted. On exchange i a little harder because they are extremely slow.

Insurance companies don't have any real competition.

The ACA mandated the coverages, then it caused so much in losses that MOST Insurance Companies pulled out of the market.

That reason is there is no choice in insurance. The insurance companies control what health care you get and how much you will pay for it. You don't have the choice of doctors or how your own money is spent on your health care even though you sent the insurance company thousands of dollars each year for them to pay your health care bills.

Total horse hockey. The ACA drove the "competition" out with horrendous losses. They were promised help through the loss corridors (yes Obama KNEW there would be horrendous losses) and yes, the Republicans sabotaged the Risk Corridors. The insurance companies never got more than 12% of the funds promised to mitigate those losses. The ACA mandated that 80 cents of EVERY premium dollar received HAD to be paid out in claims or the part that wasn't was mandated to be returned to the insureds. That means that they had 20 cents on the dollar to pay all of their overhead. They don't control "what" Health Care you get nor do they control what insureds pay for said "care". 2013 set the premium scale, the insurance companies could do little more than guess at their losses and tried to set premiums as close as they could to cover the losses they knew were coming. Once the premiums were set the ACA mandated that premium increases under 10% could be approved by the State. Premium increases OVER 10% could be approved by the Feds.

Choice of Doctors? Networks are negotiated by lawyers representing both sides, the insurance companies and the Doctors. Once the rates are agreed to both sides sign the agreement and the Network is born. The Doctor's can come and go and they do.

Why do you think that people look forward to being on medicare if private insurance so much better?

Because it costs less.

Now I'm older, the pool I paid into for over 30 years was taken from me in divorce.

No, insurance, ALL insurance is a year to year agreement. The premiums you pay during the year pay for that year it is NOT an "investment.


Now that I'm older and have preexisting conditions and 5 years from medicare, I have no access to the private insurance I paid into and my own government is going to make it legal for insurance companies to deny me a policy or jack up the premiums so high I can't afford it.

Histrionics. If your health is as you say the ACA could help and you would probably get a subsidy and maybe it would cover your entire premium.

debbiedowner
Don't take my word for it, Debbiedowener is a Liberal, ask her

 

[JustAGuy1]

The problem is, the Supreme Court has already ruled that until there is a replacement that there can be no getting rid of the ACA.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

And just how many times are you Rumpers going to keep denying this.

I'm not a Trump supporter.

2012 Supreme Court Ruling. Ruled that the ACA WAS constitutional.

This is just a link to the original court ruling. No indication that ACA can't repealed by Congress.

The only part that has been struck down was the individual mandate in 2019.

The individual mandate hasn't been "struck down". Republicans just set the penalty at zero.

So far, until there is a replacement, the ACA is constitutional and will stand.

You keep saying this. Do you have a link to that decision? Or something corroborating your claim? I've never heard of such a thing, and frankly, it sounds insane. The Court can't prevent Congress from repealing a law.

I think you're just confused about how the Court works. Ruling that a law is Constitutional, doesn't mean it can't be repealed. No "replacement" is necessary.

I think until there is a decent replacement presented, the ACA stands.

That's your opinion. But the Court has made no such statement. They merely ruled that the original law could stand. They can't prevent Congress from repealing it if they choose to do so. ie, you're just making shit up.

Plus, Roe V Wade will also stand unless a comparable law can be presented for it as well.

I don't know what this has to do with the argument, but Roe v Wade was not a law, it was a Court decision striking down laws banning abortion. You're not very smart, are you?

Smart enough to be pretty sure how the court is going to rule or not rule in the case of them refusing to hear it.

ACA is hear to stay unless an alternative program can be present and then voted into law by the House, Senate and the President (btw, that completely removes any ruling that the SC can make).

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Congress can repeal ACA. There's no requirement for the to "replace" it.

And Roe V Wade, same thing. I'll say it again. When the Courts have to rule like that it's a failure of the other two branches to do their jobs.

Roe V Wade is not the same thing. It struck down laws banning abortion. The only way it can be reversed is with a new Court ruling.

If either is done by the Congress and signed into law by the President it negates the ruling of the Courts and the Court would have to rule (if someone were to contest it) whether that new law was constitutional or not. The ONLY reason the Courts are involved in either of these two is because of the laziness of the Congress.

You're right, it' all about CYA, by allowing the Court to Rule abrogates any responsibility of the Government.