Supreme Court Rules 7-2 on Obamacare

[Flopper]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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

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

Say, just where is libertarianism practiced on this planet?

Everywhere. Most of the time.

Where exactly?

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.

Voters are why 20,000,000 more people have health insurance with a base level of care.

It is now about 31 million.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

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

www.nbcnews.com

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

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

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

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

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

Our health care system is a total mess.

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

and you think Medicare is any different?...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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.

thats great but we were talking about medicare.....

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.

sorry i have medicare and have been turned down by procedures my doctor wanted done......

 

[Rigby5]

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.

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

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]

0

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

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.

You're just babbling your inane nonsense again

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

You're still going to hear it, whether you like it or not.
America's HC system is a complete fkng failure.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, that isn't what standing means

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



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


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

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

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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

Say, just where is libertarianism practiced on this planet?

Everywhere. Most of the time.

Where exactly?

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.

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]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

Libertarianism doesn't work.

Try to keep up.

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

Try to pay attention.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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


Who knew?

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.

Talk about drinking the Kool aid

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.

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

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]

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]

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.

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.

Single payer right ? I've been through the Government run healthcare system. The VA is a fucking nightmare.

 

[Rigby5]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]

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]

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

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

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

www.nbcnews.com

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

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

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

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

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

Our health care system is a total mess.

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.

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