Some consequences if AHC is repealed

[Amazed]

I have read the Act.

Most of it is like this:

SEC. 1001. AMENDMENTS TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
8 ACT.
9 Part A of title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act
10 (42 U.S.C. 300gg et seq.) is amended—
11 (1) by striking the part heading and inserting
12 the following:
13 ‘‘PART A—INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP MARKET
14 REFORMS’’;
15 (2) by redesignating sections 2704 through 2707
16 as sections 2725 through 2728, respectively;
17 (3) by redesignating sections 2711 through 2713
18 as sections 2731 through 2733, respectively;
19 (4) by redesignating sections 2721 through 2723
20 as sections 2735 through 2737, respectively; and
21 (5) by inserting after section 2702, the following:
19
HR 3590 EAS/PP
1 ‘‘Subpart II—Improving Coverage
2 ‘‘SEC. 2711. NO LIFETIME OR ANNUAL LIMITS.
3 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan and a health
4 insurance issuer offering group or individual health insur5
ance coverage may not establish—
6 ‘‘(1) lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits
7 for any participant or beneficiary; or
8 ‘‘(2) unreasonable annual limits (within the
9 meaning of section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code
10 of 1986) on the dollar value of benefits for any partic11
ipant or beneficiary.
12 ‘‘(b) PER BENEFICIARY LIMITS.—Subsection (a) shall
13 not be construed to prevent a group health plan or health
14 insurance coverage that is not required to provide essential
15 health benefits under section 1302(b) of the Patient Protec16
tion and Affordable Care Act from placing annual or life17
time per beneficiary limits on specific covered benefits to
18 the extent that such limits are otherwise permitted under
19 Federal or State law.

Read the whole thing here.
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/authorities/patient-protection.pdf

Notice how much of the Act is tied directly into IRS provisions.

The IRS is the enforcement arm

Why do you think they tied up student loans into this thing?

You noticed!

It turns the IRS into our version of the KGB. Which might have been the whole point all along.

I actually believe that the Right is in full knowledge of all of this.

I believe the Mandate to be a red herring...while everyone chases this they are distracted from the rest of it.

The exchanges are being established now....THEY control coverages AND the premium levels.

 

[Polk]

Some consequences if AHC is repealed

Which is why you don't pass unconstitutional legislation to begin with. Follow the Constitution and we don't have problems of "consequences" when the law has to be struck down.

If they don't strike down the ENTIRE Bill Bammy and the Left win, we will have single payor within ten tears. (years)

(That must have been freudian)

Actually, striking down the entire bill makes single payer more likely.

 

[Immanuel]

So its not all bad? Wow. That's a shocker. Maybe if they had stopped at a 1000 pages those people would not die.

The only ones to blame are those who didnt fucking read it.

The ACA is a republican plan, and had it been passed by a republican Congress and signed into law by a republican president, you’d be among its most aggressive supporters.

Opposition to the ACA is partisan, not legal or factual.

And the vast majority of its current supporters would be demanding it be struck down.

As for me, I would still oppose it as I did the Patriot Act.

Immie

 

[Amazed]

You'll have to explain to me why.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So its not all bad? Wow. That's a shocker. Maybe if they had stopped at a 1000 pages those people would not die.

The only ones to blame are those who didnt fucking read it.

Government healthcare is good until you have to pay the bill.

 

[tererun]

So its not all bad? Wow. That's a shocker. Maybe if they had stopped at a 1000 pages those people would not die.

The only ones to blame are those who didnt fucking read it.

It doesn't matter what the length was. You guys would have still opposed it.

Wasn't it republican-black-tokensotheycantbitchbecausetheyareallwhitemen who said all legislation should be 3 pages long? I probably just should have typed out cain which seems to translate from jive to mean motherfuckin uncle tom.

 

[Polk]

You'll have to explain to me why.

Why striking down the Affordable Care Act makes single-payer more likely? Because it'll be seen as the only alternative to the status quo and it's unquestionably constitutional.

 

[Pho_King]

After reading this thread it is obvious there are a lot of folks who have no idea what the hell health care is in this country.

There are lots of things in Obamacare that are already in effect and will be sorely missed if SCOTUS voids the program. The GOP leaders are already scrambling to find ways to keep these provisions in effect. Ironic, isn't it?

If SCOTUS does void this law the GOP will then OWN the healthcare issue. The American healthcare system, if it can be called that, it the most expensive in the world with outcomes comparable to Bulgaria and other third world countries.

Sixty percent of all bankruptcies in this country are due to medical bills. Half of those people had health insurance. The first 15 to 35 percent of all healthcare premiums buys no health care at all. That is the overhead our corporate leaders need. The overhead for medicare is 3%.

Hell, at any given time approximately 20% of our population has no health care at all. For this the premiums are rising, overall, at multiple the general inflation rate.

That's what the GOP will be defending. I wish them luck..........they'll need it.

what a load of shit. The best that can be said is that medical bills contribute to those bankruptcies. As did student loans, credit card debt, auto loans, ad nauseam.

For the record I will then clarify. Medical bills are the CAUSE of those bankruptcies not a "contributing factor"

You are one of those who have no idea in hell what you are talking about. Just parroting the party line, caring little if you are caught in multiple lies and distortions along the way.

So.......how much did all of their other debts "cause" their financial collapse? So, someone going through bankruptcy with 15k medical debt, 15k credit card debt, 40k in student loans, a car note, rent, and utility payments......which debt "caused" their collapse? And more importantly, what does insurance have to do with it?

Talk about parrotting the party line with no idea what you are talking about.... you have just taken some biased conclusions others put together for you, which are based on a rather purposeless study in which Elizabeth Warren heavily contributed. You've gone party line all the way.

I agree that what are (under various definitions of the term) "medical bankruptcies" have risen, and that many people that go through bk do so in part to discharge their medical debt. Almost always with a ton of other debt. Which makes pointing to a single set of debts as "the cause" too simplistic to the even marginally objective, but just perfect for a complete assclown.

 

[Amazed]

You'll have to explain to me why.

Why striking down the Affordable Care Act makes single-payer more likely? Because it'll be seen as the only alternative to the status quo and it's unquestionably constitutional.

Yeah, um no.

 

[Katzndogz]

what a load of shit. The best that can be said is that medical bills contribute to those bankruptcies. As did student loans, credit card debt, auto loans, ad nauseam.

For the record I will then clarify. Medical bills are the CAUSE of those bankruptcies not a "contributing factor"

You are one of those who have no idea in hell what you are talking about. Just parroting the party line, caring little if you are caught in multiple lies and distortions along the way.

So.......how much did all of their other debts "cause" their financial collapse? So, someone going through bankruptcy with 15k medical debt, 15k credit card debt, 40k in student loans, a car note, rent, and utility payments......which debt "caused" their collapse? And more importantly, what does insurance have to do with it?

Talk about parrotting the party line with no idea what you are talking about.... you have just taken some biased conclusions others put together for you, which are based on a rather purposeless study in which Elizabeth Warren heavily contributed. You've gone party line all the way.

I agree that what are (under various definitions of the term) "medical bankruptcies" have risen, and that many people that go through bk do so in part to discharge their medical debt. Almost always with a ton of other debt. Which makes pointing to a single set of debts as "the cause" too simplistic to the even marginally objective, but just perfect for a complete assclown.

I've done thousands of bankruptcies and never seen one caused by medical bills. The primary cause of bankruptcy isn't medical care, it's death. Death with inadequate life insurance and a heavy debt load ends in bankrupty pretty close to universally. The second leading cause of bankruptcy is credit card debt. People start handling their debt like the government does, when they reach their limit, they get a new credit card, sometimes used to make payments on existing credit cards. At some point, a lender looks at the credit history, the number of existing credit cards and realizes what the consumer is doing. The credit cards stop coming. All that's left is bankruptcy or some intervention by a company who does that.

There might be some medical debt causing a bankruptcy, but I've never seen it.

 

[Polk]

You'll have to explain to me why.

Why striking down the Affordable Care Act makes single-payer more likely? Because it'll be seen as the only alternative to the status quo and it's unquestionably constitutional.

Yeah, um no.

What's your objection?

 

[Liability]

You'll have to explain to me why.

Why striking down the Affordable Care Act makes single-payer more likely? Because it'll be seen as the only alternative to the status quo and it's unquestionably constitutional.

It is very much NOT "unquestionably constitutional." It is quite clearly UNconstitutional.

 

[Amazed]

So its not all bad? Wow. That's a shocker. Maybe if they had stopped at a 1000 pages those people would not die.

The only ones to blame are those who didnt fucking read it.

It doesn't matter what the length was. You guys would have still opposed it.

Wasn't it republican-black-tokensotheycantbitchbecausetheyareallwhitemen who said all legislation should be 3 pages long? I probably just should have typed out cain which seems to translate from jive to mean motherfuckin uncle tom.

So you are an angry black woman?

 

[Amazed]

Why striking down the Affordable Care Act makes single-payer more likely? Because it'll be seen as the only alternative to the status quo and it's unquestionably constitutional.

Yeah, um no.

What's your objection?

First of all the unquestioned Constitutionality of it is no more than you opinion.

I disagree....and you are depending upon the Court to interpret the 10th the same th e30's court did...I don't think they will.

Second the largest single payor systme in the world is piece by piece being dismantled....wait for it.....because it isn't working.

 

[Greenbeard]

Were the coverage pieces of the ACA completely erased, I suspect there'd be a Medicare buy-in option for 50-64 year olds (at least) by the end of the decade.

 

[Polk]

You'll have to explain to me why.

Why striking down the Affordable Care Act makes single-payer more likely? Because it'll be seen as the only alternative to the status quo and it's unquestionably constitutional.

It is very much NOT "unquestionably constitutional." It is quite clearly UNconstitutional.

If you really think the Court is prepared to eliminate Medicare and the VA, please continue.

 

[Pho_King]

Why striking down the Affordable Care Act makes single-payer more likely? Because it'll be seen as the only alternative to the status quo and it's unquestionably constitutional.

It is very much NOT "unquestionably constitutional." It is quite clearly UNconstitutional.

If you really think the Court is prepared to eliminate Medicare and the VA, please continue.

The Court does not need to be so prepared. It will be limited to the case before it. And will be expected to issue a narrowly tailored opinion to the facts set forth. Medicare and the VA will not be a part of the decision.

 

[Polk]

Were the coverage pieces of the ACA completely erased, I suspect there'd be a Medicare buy-in option for 50-64 year olds (at least) by the end of the decade.

That sounds like a safe bet.

 

[Polk]

It is very much NOT "unquestionably constitutional." It is quite clearly UNconstitutional.

If you really think the Court is prepared to eliminate Medicare and the VA, please continue.

The Court does not need to be so prepared. It will be limited to the case before it. And will be expected to issue a narrowly tailored opinion to the facts set forth. Medicare and the VA will not be a part of the decision.

But we weren't talking about the current case, we were talking about constitutionality of single payer.

 

[Polk]

Although, for the current case, it's going to be really hard (probably impossible) for the Court, if they decide to strike down the ACA, to do so in such a way that would also permit the Republicans to push through their plans to privatize Social Security and Medicare.