Why is Obamacare so important?

[bendog]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Yes …. and no.

The ACA required people to either buy (or be given govt) insurance or pay a tax. Don't shoot the piano player on that one, but it is not debatable that the ACA did that. It did.

While many many years ago, the taxing and spending power had to be tied to an enumerated power, one of those was regulation of interstate commerce. It's not logically possible to deny that HC in interstate commerce as it's 1/5 of the econ. But since 1980 the goper in the scotus have been reducing the commerce power clause. So, like Roberts found, there's not doubt that congress can tax and spend on HC.

But can they put a tax on requiring a person buy a private insurance contract? I dont' see a concrete answer on that. It does reveal a mindset of the dems. sort of a why not make people buy something that's good for them? lol

And then there's Roe. 60%plus believe the govt shouldn't require a woman to carry a zygot to term, and I agree, but damned if I can find that in the const. LOL

The dilemma that Roberts faced is subtle, but it's real and another conservative appointee will face the same dilemma. Basically, Roberts recognized that the mandate to buy insurance or pay a penalty, was fundamentally no different that any other tax incentive. They're ALL mandates. They're all are of the form "do X or pay a penalty". They all exist to expand Congressional authority to manipulate society.

I think he, and most other sane people, recognized that Congress forcing you to buy insurance from their cronies is wrong. But he also recognized that Congress has been doing that sort of thing for decades, and striking down the mandate would, essentially, put all of those other tax incentives in jeopardy. In other words, he didn't have the balls to do it.

I dunno. I just can't think of an analogy to buying insurance. We pay tax if we choose to work. Or own a car, when even without license and sales tax, we pay gas tax. Or if we choose to not marry, we have to pay more federal tax. But if we choose not to do that, we avoid a tax.
I'm not saying Roberts was wrong. Imo he was right because the power to tax is unlimited, at least in current SC thinking.
It's a badly thought out law. But the gop is just trying to get the Court to give them something they'll never have the votes to undo …. unless they compromise and agree to govt helping people get healthacare with tax dollars …… which ironically they've been agreeing to since at least 1960

 

[bendog]

Judicial picks used to be nearly universally unanimous because the quality of a judge wasn’t based on politics. This is yet another sign that the judiciary has been distorted.

Which is why I proposed a 2/3 majority requirement for confirmation. That would, in most cases, require the majority party to get some crossover to have their way.

Crossover what, exactly? That’s my point. Justices shouldn’t be picked to appeal to politics. They should be picked because they’re competent. The very fact that we are discussing judicial nominees appealing to political parties demonstrates the broken system.

You can "should" all day long, but that won't change the behavior of Congress. What I'm saying is that a 2/3 majority will, in most cases, prevent Justices from being confirmed on a party-line basis. Republicans would have to find some Democrats who agreed with them and vice versa.

It wasn’t like this before, so I hardly think it’s out of reach to want it to go back to the way it was.

I'd say progressives brought it on themselves when Justices began protecting people who want condoms or abortions …. but those people would have eventually won elections.

Possibly its different when states allowed same sex civil unions, but govts treated married gays differently that heteros.

But the 'conservatives" are raising money for Justices who will do their bidding on cutting taxes and cutting enviro protections. So imo Colfax is right that it's a brave new world.

 

[dblack]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Yes …. and no.

The ACA required people to either buy (or be given govt) insurance or pay a tax. Don't shoot the piano player on that one, but it is not debatable that the ACA did that. It did.

While many many years ago, the taxing and spending power had to be tied to an enumerated power, one of those was regulation of interstate commerce. It's not logically possible to deny that HC in interstate commerce as it's 1/5 of the econ. But since 1980 the goper in the scotus have been reducing the commerce power clause. So, like Roberts found, there's not doubt that congress can tax and spend on HC.

But can they put a tax on requiring a person buy a private insurance contract? I dont' see a concrete answer on that. It does reveal a mindset of the dems. sort of a why not make people buy something that's good for them? lol

And then there's Roe. 60%plus believe the govt shouldn't require a woman to carry a zygot to term, and I agree, but damned if I can find that in the const. LOL

The dilemma that Roberts faced is subtle, but it's real and another conservative appointee will face the same dilemma. Basically, Roberts recognized that the mandate to buy insurance or pay a penalty, was fundamentally no different that any other tax incentive. They're ALL mandates. They're all are of the form "do X or pay a penalty". They all exist to expand Congressional authority to manipulate society.

I think he, and most other sane people, recognized that Congress forcing you to buy insurance from their cronies is wrong. But he also recognized that Congress has been doing that sort of thing for decades, and striking down the mandate would, essentially, put all of those other tax incentives in jeopardy. In other words, he didn't have the balls to do it.

I dunno. I just can't think of an analogy to buying insurance. We pay tax if we choose to work. Or own a car, when even without license and sales tax, we pay gas tax. Or if we choose to not marry, we have to pay more federal tax. But if we choose not to do that, we avoid a tax.

Well, there's lot of them. There's the mandate to maintain a home loan. All kinds of mandates to use "green" energy. Mandates to give to government approved charities. Mandates to spend money on pretty much whatever Congress wants you to spend money on.

I'm not saying Roberts was wrong. Imo he was right because the power to tax is unlimited, at least in current SC thinking.

I think it's dead wrong. Tax incentives are essentially discriminatory taxation. They do an end run around limits on Congress. ie while most people would agree it's wrong for Congress to pass laws forcing you to buy things from their buddies, if you re-frame it as a "tax incentive" people will fall for it.

It's a badly thought out law. But the gop is just trying to get the Court to give them something they'll never have the votes to undo …. unless they compromise and agree to govt helping people get healthacare with tax dollars …… which ironically they've been agreeing to since at least 1960

It's not just irony, it's straight up hypocrisy. Both parties play this game. That doesn't make it right.

 

[bendog]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Yes …. and no.

The ACA required people to either buy (or be given govt) insurance or pay a tax. Don't shoot the piano player on that one, but it is not debatable that the ACA did that. It did.

While many many years ago, the taxing and spending power had to be tied to an enumerated power, one of those was regulation of interstate commerce. It's not logically possible to deny that HC in interstate commerce as it's 1/5 of the econ. But since 1980 the goper in the scotus have been reducing the commerce power clause. So, like Roberts found, there's not doubt that congress can tax and spend on HC.

But can they put a tax on requiring a person buy a private insurance contract? I dont' see a concrete answer on that. It does reveal a mindset of the dems. sort of a why not make people buy something that's good for them? lol

And then there's Roe. 60%plus believe the govt shouldn't require a woman to carry a zygot to term, and I agree, but damned if I can find that in the const. LOL

The dilemma that Roberts faced is subtle, but it's real and another conservative appointee will face the same dilemma. Basically, Roberts recognized that the mandate to buy insurance or pay a penalty, was fundamentally no different that any other tax incentive. They're ALL mandates. They're all are of the form "do X or pay a penalty". They all exist to expand Congressional authority to manipulate society.

I think he, and most other sane people, recognized that Congress forcing you to buy insurance from their cronies is wrong. But he also recognized that Congress has been doing that sort of thing for decades, and striking down the mandate would, essentially, put all of those other tax incentives in jeopardy. In other words, he didn't have the balls to do it.

I dunno. I just can't think of an analogy to buying insurance. We pay tax if we choose to work. Or own a car, when even without license and sales tax, we pay gas tax. Or if we choose to not marry, we have to pay more federal tax. But if we choose not to do that, we avoid a tax.

Well, there's lot of them. There's the mandate to maintain a home loan. All kinds of mandates to use "green" energy. Mandates to give to government approved charities. Mandates to spend money on pretty much whatever Congress wants you to spend money on.

I'm not saying Roberts was wrong. Imo he was right because the power to tax is unlimited, at least in current SC thinking.

I think it's dead wrong. Tax incentives are essentially discriminatory taxation. They do an end run around limits on Congress. ie while most people would agree it's wrong for Congress to pass laws forcing you to buy things from their buddies, if you re-frame it as a "tax incentive" people will fall for it.

It's a badly thought out law. But the gop is just trying to get the Court to give them something they'll never have the votes to undo …. unless they compromise and agree to govt helping people get healthacare with tax dollars …… which ironically they've been agreeing to since at least 1960

It's not just irony, it's straight up hypocrisy. Both parties play this game. That doesn't make it right.

I agree. my distinctions are pretty much distinctions without a difference.

 

[Flash]

Health insurance would be a lot more affordable and better coverage without the fithy ass government regulating the hell out of it.

 

[colfax_m]

No, it isn't. The individual mandate was unconstitutional and is now gone. Roberts was wrong. He sided with the 4 liberal judges who ALWAYS vote for liberal policies.

The ACA is effectively gone now. The only semblance left is the high insurance costs for those who do not qualify for heavily subsidized plans and pay through the nose and protection for those with pre-existing conditions. The pre-existing conditions will be protected. That was the single good thing that came out of ACA. The high prices will be gone, hopefully. Just for giggles I priced healthcare for my family on the ACA website several years ago. It is obviously based on income and it was prohibitively expensive. Basically, we are subsidizing those that don't pay anything. Also, the ACA got rid of catastrophic plans which raised prices. We are now forced into plans with higher levels of coverage which we may not require.

I have a friend who priced coverage for himself and his wife. Their income is very modest and he doesn't work. She has coverage from her employer but the cost of adding him was too much. They looked to the ACA, once again, it was too expensive, even more than adding him to her workplace plan. He was previously in favor of the ACA, even though I tried to explain to him why it was a bad idea. After this experience, the bells went off. He got it. Too bad others still don't.

The bottom line is that if you in the middle class, or even upper lower class, and need health insurance, the ACA is not your answer. If you don't work and have very little income or none, then it is an added benefit largely funded by the upper-lower and middle class self-employed, which applies to many small business owners.

Except the individual mandate wasn't unconstitutional and it's not really gone, it's just "dormant".

How will preexisting protections be protected without the ACA?

 

[dblack]

How will preexisting protections be protected without the ACA?

They won't. That's the single dumbest "feature" of ACA.

 

[Ben Thomson]

What is it about this horrific program that the democrooks are so adamant about keeping in place, in spite of the incredible election loss they suffered in 2010 after barely getting it across the finish line?

It's a bullshit law. It did the exact opposite of every promise the meat puppet faggot made. The fuckin WEBSITE ALONE cost $1.7B and was a complete goatfuck. A handful of college dipshits created Face(ASS)Book for next to nothing and became billionaires. The entire law should have been flushed down a toilet but for some unknown reason we're still stuck trying to get rid of it. Even the republicrats act as if it needs to be "replaced".

It's a turd, you don't polish turds and pretend you made something better out of it. The reason HC costs so much is BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT, not because they needed to regulate the shit out of it more.

I hope that after ACB gets to fumigate the smell of sulphur and old diapers from RBG's old office she will put the final fork into this abysmal program and that the GOP led by Trump will get the fucking lawyers out of the medical industry.

.

 

[Ame®icano]

That used to be the way, until Democrats (thanks Harry) changed the rules.

You’re mostly right, but in a different way than you think. The first filibuster to obstruct a judicial nominee was Reid in, like 2003 or something. The fact that we went 200+ years without requiring a 60 vote majority should tell you that the problem wasn’t whether there was or wasn’t the ability to filibuster.

How is that different from what I said?

 

[Ame®icano]

If Republicans had a better solution to healthcare, they wouldn’t be desperately trying to shove through a SCOTUS justice to overturn it.

The ACA is important because Republicans don’t have any better ideas.

Having better solution, or not, has nothing to do with constitutionality. If law is unconstitutional, is should be repealed, period.

If law has been through a decade of court challenges. If it were unconstitutional, we’d know by now.

This is about Republicans using the courts to accomplish what they didn’t have the political ability to do.

No, it isn't. The individual mandate was unconstitutional and is now gone. Roberts was wrong. He sided with the 4 liberal judges who ALWAYS vote for liberal policies.

The ACA is effectively gone now. The only semblance left is the high insurance costs for those who do not qualify for heavily subsidized plans and pay through the nose and protection for those with pre-existing conditions. The pre-existing conditions will be protected.

Which is why ACA is, decidedly, not gone. Neither is the individual mandate. Republicans just dialed it down to zero. It's still the law of the land and Biden, especially if Republicans lose the Senate, will just dial it right back up.

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Is that exactly what, for example, Roe v. Wade did?

In what way? Roe v Wade was supported by Republican appointed presidents.

 

[Ame®icano]

What is it about this horrific program that the democrooks are so adamant about keeping in place, in spite of the incredible election loss they suffered in 2010 after barely getting it across the finish line?

It's a bullshit law. It did the exact opposite of every promise the meat puppet faggot made. The fuckin WEBSITE ALONE cost $1.7B and was a complete goatfuck. A handful of college dipshits created Face(ASS)Book for next to nothing and became billionaires. The entire law should have been flushed down a toilet but for some unknown reason we're still stuck trying to get rid of it. Even the republicrats act as if it needs to be "replaced".

It's a turd, you don't polish turds and pretend you made something better out of it. The reason HC costs so much is BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT, not because they needed to regulate the shit out of it more.

I hope that after ACB gets to fumigate the smell of sulphur and old diapers from RBG's old office she will put the final fork into this abysmal program and that the GOP led by Trump will get the fucking lawyers out of the medical industry.

.

Obamacare is more popular than Donald Trump. A majority want it modified not done away.

Healthcare would cost more without government intervention. People with pre-existing conditions would be unable to afford health insurance. People who are not poor enough for Medicare but not rich enough to afford health insurance would have to rely on emergency rooms. Insurance companies would be able to write policies that are totally useless.

If they do that then that proves that they are legislating from the bench. The only questionable requirement was that people must buy insurance. I do believe that it is however that is not in the law anymore. It is constitutional now. That would be more than enough reason to expand the court.

The mandate was repealed. One suggested legislative fix from the dems to insure (-: Barrett cannot find the ACA illegal was to actually enact a small tax, even $10 a year, on those who don't have health insurance. As it stands now, there is no tax on not having insurance. But there's no requirement to buy it either. If it literally raised revenue from those not insured, then it would literally be a tax, and for an originalist that would have to make it const.

(I'm leery that any of these justices are actually orginalist. Gorsuch claims to be a textualist or "read it as it'd be understood today." But doing that would be contrary to current gop thought on stuff like the commerce clause. So we'll see.

I'm for the govt helping people get care by taxing the 1% and HC rproviders. I'm not a big fan of Obamacare and even less of Medicare for all though.

What other required purchases would you like the government to mandate?

And only a moron would think taxing HC providers is going to make HC cheaper.

only a moron would think insurance companies and providers will provide the cheapest service possible because its in patients best interests

When they compete against each other they do provide cheaper service.

Only moron would think that government can provide the service that would save us money.

who competes with the largest insurance company in your state?

The other insurance companies registered to do business here. What's your point?

 

[Ame®icano]

Except the individual mandate wasn't unconstitutional and it's not really gone, it's just "dormant".

How will preexisting protections be protected without the ACA?

Are you saying it's constitutional that government force you to pay for service, otherwise they're going to fine you?

 

[WTH_Progs?]

What is it about this horrific program that the democrooks are so adamant about keeping in place, in spite of the incredible election loss they suffered in 2010 after barely getting it across the finish line?

It's a bullshit law. It did the exact opposite of every promise the meat puppet faggot made. The fuckin WEBSITE ALONE cost $1.7B and was a complete goatfuck. A handful of college dipshits created Face(ASS)Book for next to nothing and became billionaires. The entire law should have been flushed down a toilet but for some unknown reason we're still stuck trying to get rid of it. Even the republicrats act as if it needs to be "replaced".

It's a turd, you don't polish turds and pretend you made something better out of it. The reason HC costs so much is BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT, not because they needed to regulate the shit out of it more.

I hope that after ACB gets to fumigate the smell of sulphur and old diapers from RBG's old office she will put the final fork into this abysmal program and that the GOP led by Trump will get the fucking lawyers out of the medical industry.

.

I'd have responded if you hadn't gone the faggot route

I don't think there is a single post by this guy without some sort of weird preoccupation with homosexuality.

It's common for gay people like yourself to desire those not on your team secretly are.

It's common for idiots like yourself to be pre-oocupied with sexuality of others and making up total bullshit out of thin air.

I aint making anything up, not pre-occupied either. Are you saying you haven't come out?

100% you are making up bs.

I am in fact straight and it's really tough to see how someone in their right mind would be making up sexuality of total strangers on some online forum.

It's just that I've seen your posts, and you sport a gay avatar.

 

[AntonToo]

What is it about this horrific program that the democrooks are so adamant about keeping in place, in spite of the incredible election loss they suffered in 2010 after barely getting it across the finish line?

It's a bullshit law. It did the exact opposite of every promise the meat puppet faggot made. The fuckin WEBSITE ALONE cost $1.7B and was a complete goatfuck. A handful of college dipshits created Face(ASS)Book for next to nothing and became billionaires. The entire law should have been flushed down a toilet but for some unknown reason we're still stuck trying to get rid of it. Even the republicrats act as if it needs to be "replaced".

It's a turd, you don't polish turds and pretend you made something better out of it. The reason HC costs so much is BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT, not because they needed to regulate the shit out of it more.

I hope that after ACB gets to fumigate the smell of sulphur and old diapers from RBG's old office she will put the final fork into this abysmal program and that the GOP led by Trump will get the fucking lawyers out of the medical industry.

.

I'd have responded if you hadn't gone the faggot route

I don't think there is a single post by this guy without some sort of weird preoccupation with homosexuality.

It's common for gay people like yourself to desire those not on your team secretly are.

It's common for idiots like yourself to be pre-oocupied with sexuality of others and making up total bullshit out of thin air.

I aint making anything up, not pre-occupied either. Are you saying you haven't come out?

100% you are making up bs.

I am in fact straight and it's really tough to see how someone in their right mind would be making up sexuality of total strangers on some online forum.

It's just that I've seen your posts, and you sport a gay avatar.

I play high level tennis and in my avatar is the greatest player of all time and multi-year athlete of the year among all the sports.

But to stupid, ignorant bumpkin like you it's a sign of homosexuality.

 

[DBA]

If Republicans had a better solution to healthcare, they wouldn’t be desperately trying to shove through a SCOTUS justice to overturn it.

The ACA is important because Republicans don’t have any better ideas.

Having better solution, or not, has nothing to do with constitutionality. If law is unconstitutional, is should be repealed, period.

If law has been through a decade of court challenges. If it were unconstitutional, we’d know by now.

This is about Republicans using the courts to accomplish what they didn’t have the political ability to do.

No, it isn't. The individual mandate was unconstitutional and is now gone. Roberts was wrong. He sided with the 4 liberal judges who ALWAYS vote for liberal policies.

The ACA is effectively gone now. The only semblance left is the high insurance costs for those who do not qualify for heavily subsidized plans and pay through the nose and protection for those with pre-existing conditions. The pre-existing conditions will be protected.

Which is why ACA is, decidedly, not gone. Neither is the individual mandate. Republicans just dialed it down to zero. It's still the law of the land and Biden, especially if Republicans lose the Senate, will just dial it right back up.

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Is that exactly what, for example, Roe v. Wade did?

In what way? Roe v Wade was supported by Republican appointed presidents.

Passing the abortion issue to the SCJ to make it a federal issue vs a state issue. Some didn’t like the fact many state legislatures and lower courts would not allow abortion, so it was essentially legislated at the federal level via the SCJ. I am not saying it is a Republican or Democratic issue, just making the point that legislating from the bench is nothing new.

 

[DBA]

No, it isn't. The individual mandate was unconstitutional and is now gone. Roberts was wrong. He sided with the 4 liberal judges who ALWAYS vote for liberal policies.

The ACA is effectively gone now. The only semblance left is the high insurance costs for those who do not qualify for heavily subsidized plans and pay through the nose and protection for those with pre-existing conditions. The pre-existing conditions will be protected. That was the single good thing that came out of ACA. The high prices will be gone, hopefully. Just for giggles I priced healthcare for my family on the ACA website several years ago. It is obviously based on income and it was prohibitively expensive. Basically, we are subsidizing those that don't pay anything. Also, the ACA got rid of catastrophic plans which raised prices. We are now forced into plans with higher levels of coverage which we may not require.

I have a friend who priced coverage for himself and his wife. Their income is very modest and he doesn't work. She has coverage from her employer but the cost of adding him was too much. They looked to the ACA, once again, it was too expensive, even more than adding him to her workplace plan. He was previously in favor of the ACA, even though I tried to explain to him why it was a bad idea. After this experience, the bells went off. He got it. Too bad others still don't.

The bottom line is that if you in the middle class, or even upper lower class, and need health insurance, the ACA is not your answer. If you don't work and have very little income or none, then it is an added benefit largely funded by the upper-lower and middle class self-employed, which applies to many small business owners.

Except the individual mandate wasn't unconstitutional and it's not really gone, it's just "dormant".

How will preexisting protections be protected without the ACA?

“According to an analysis by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation, "If the Supreme Court adopts the position that the federal government took during the trial court proceedings and invalidates the individual mandate as well as the protections for people with pre-existing conditions, then federal funding for premium subsidies and the Medicaid expansion would stand, and it would be up to states whether to reinstate the insurance protections."

If that were to happen, Congress also could reinstate protections for people with pre-existing conditions.”

This is what should happen. Pre-existing conditions aside, the ACA is really just a massive welfare scheme shouldered by a small subset of the middle class. Democrats would likely be the ones to try to hold up any pre-existing conditions in Congress just to spite Republicans/Trump, much like the current stimulus.

How the Supreme Court Could Rule on the Affordable Care Act

Opinion | Pre-Existing Condition Fiction

 

[Pete7469]

That used to be the way, until Democrats (thanks Harry) changed the rules.

Like with everything else, it came back to bite them in the ass.

Their moonbat messiah was trying to appoint complete and total lunatics to the courts, and they couldn't get them through the senate with a 59/40 majority. Just like obozo's budgets. He only bothered to submit 3 of the 8 he was supposed to, and he couldn't get better than a 5-95 vote for them when the DNC owned the entire congress. That's why the 2010 was such an incredible anti-democrook wave. Most people still want obozocare flushed down the toilet where it belongs, along with everything else that commie did. Trump is the only one working at doing so and that's why I believe there will be a landslide again in just 19 days in his favor.

 

[colfax_m]

If that were to happen, Congress also could reinstate protections for people with pre-existing conditions.”

This is what should happen. Pre-existing conditions aside, the ACA is really just a massive welfare scheme shouldered by a small subset of the middle class. Democrats would likely be the ones to try to hold up any pre-existing conditions in Congress just to spite Republicans/Trump, much like the current stimulus.

The question, however, is how? The ACA was built upon a foundation of protecting pre-existing conditions which is where the individual mandate comes from.

How are you going to protect pre-existing conditions with no individual mandate?

 

[dblack]

If that were to happen, Congress also could reinstate protections for people with pre-existing conditions.”

This is what should happen. Pre-existing conditions aside, the ACA is really just a massive welfare scheme shouldered by a small subset of the middle class. Democrats would likely be the ones to try to hold up any pre-existing conditions in Congress just to spite Republicans/Trump, much like the current stimulus.

The question, however, is how? The ACA was built upon a foundation of protecting pre-existing conditions which is where the individual mandate comes from.

How are you going to protect pre-existing conditions with no individual mandate?

Lots of ways. Expand the welfare state, charity, etc... the usual social welfare stuff. Why should insurance companies do that?

 

[colfax_m]

Lots of ways. Expand the welfare state, charity, etc... the usual social welfare stuff. Why should insurance companies do that?

It creates incentives for insurance companies to only offer insurance to the very healthiest of us, which creates a two tier system. One part of the country is healthy and has private insurance and the other part is dumped onto the welfare state.