Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Judge declares Obamacare unconstitutional

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    The sad part to me is that the ONE thing we ALL really needed from ACA is the refusal to allow health insurance companies to block benefits to pre-existing conditions - and that is what they are going to turn their backs on if this goes through. And I cannot be happy about the ACA being attacked as long as the Insurance companies would be allowed to return to that sort of thing.

    Jim
    THERE ARE ALREADY BILLS IN COMMITTEE TO COVER THAT!!!

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...ouse-bill/1628
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    - Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
      THERE ARE ALREADY BILLS IN COMMITTEE TO COVER THAT!!!

      https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...ouse-bill/1628
      Trump has even reached out to Democrats to craft a bipartisan replacement for the deeply flawed (and unconstitutional) Obamacare.

      And it will have to be truly bipartisan for it to pass the Republican controlled Senate since Pelosi (assuming she's the new Speaker, which is likely) can't depend on the same procedural dirty tricks that she and Dingy Harry Reid used to shove Obamacare down our throats in the first place.

      Who thinks Democrats will be willing to compromise with the Trump administration to fix this healthcare "crisis"?
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #18
        I'm debating a letter to our senators. One of whom is Ms. Feinstein whom I already am very unhappy with.
        Last edited by DesertBerean; 12-17-2018, 02:21 PM. Reason: Whoops not Representives.
        Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Who thinks Democrats will be willing to compromise with the Trump administration to fix this healthcare "crisis"?
          And hand Trump a victory? When hell freezes over.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            And hand Trump a victory? When hell freezes over.
            And you think Democrats refusing to work with the President to craft new legislation will work in their favor?
            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
            Than a fool in the eyes of God


            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              And you think Democrats refusing to work with the President to craft new legislation will work in their favor?
              Doubtful.
              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
              sigpic
              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                THERE ARE ALREADY BILLS IN COMMITTEE TO COVER THAT!!!

                https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-...ouse-bill/1628
                Why are you banging your head? The AHCA does NOT preserve the full provision of the ACA regarding pre-existing conditions. In fact, it leaves a mile-wide loophole that each individual state would be required to close. People in states that do not close the loophole could be charged ridiculously high rates to cover a pre-existing condition.

                Do you suppose insurance companies would be ashamed to charge ridiculuosly high rates? They were not ashamed to deny coverage even in potentially fatal cases before the ACA. Insurance is all about profit. If one has ever worked for such a company - one knows. (anecdotally, there are few employers more abusive of their own employees than the insurance industry).

                Source: https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2017/may/04/robert-pittenger/does-new-version-ahca-protect-coverage-pre-existin/

                Compare two of the amendment’s key provisions:


                So it appears people wouldn’t pay wildly different rates due only to their gender, which is also the case under Obamacare. But by contrast, insurers would only have to provide access to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. It says nothing about the rates of that coverage.

                That means if the AHCA passes, it would allow for people with pre-existing conditions to be charged more per year for their insurance coverage – possibly to the tune of thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars more per year, some studies have found.

                The exact amount might differ regionally, since some states might not allow the higher rates.

                Pittenger said that if the AHCA passes and people want better health insurance, they could move to a different state.

                © Copyright Original Source

                My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                  THERE ARE ALREADY BILLS IN COMMITTEE TO COVER THAT!!!
                  But what we've seen over the last 2 years is that there is no agreement among Republicans as to what a replacement for Obamacare should actually look like. Despite their majority control of the govt, they were unable to pass their own healthcare legislation because they couldn't agree among themselves enough on what they wanted it to be.

                  During the midterms we saw so many Republican congressmen swear up and down that they totally supported the pre-existing condition coverage part of Obamacare that is so popular with voters, and yet now this Republican judge has struck down even that part of Obamacare because of the tweak to the individual mandate that the Republican congress passed. So one has to ask: How much were the Republican congressmen lying to their voters - do they want pre-existing condition coverage for the nation or not?

                  My general view is that Obama tried waaaay to hard to go out on a limb extending an olive branch to the Republicans to try and get a bipartisan healthcare bill by taking what had been originally a Republican healthcare plan (Romneycare, created by the Heritage Foundation) and trying to work with Republicans to get bipartisan sign-on to the bill. And instead Republicans threw a tantrum and slapped him in the face and have constantly tried to destroy that legislation ever since. Well fine. If Republicans have no interest in compromise or bipartisanship, the Left should go all-in on an actual left-wing policy: Medicare-for-all. It polls incredibly well (~70%) and would do a great deal of good for the people of America. Republicans can spend the next election trying to tell the populace why they oppose extending one of the most popular government programs, that spends a lot less on admin costs than does private health insurance, to everyone.
                  "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                  "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                  "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    But by contrast, insurers would only have to provide access to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. It says nothing about the rates of that coverage.
                    If anyone's interested, I will personally start an insurance company to insure anyone with pre-existing conditions. Premiums will be $1 billion per year. Thanks.

                    There, I have given everyone "access" to healthcare. I have personally fulfilled the Republican dream for US healthcare for citizens. You're welcome.
                    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                      I do. The 2014 court decided that the law stood together as a whole. Invalidate one part, and the whole thing goes.
                      But we're not talking about the original 2010 version of the law that was addressed in 2014. We are talking about the adjusted one from 2017. Every argument about the indispensability of the individual mandate rested on said mandate having an actual penalty in order to make people buy insurance. That is no longer the case, so the conclusion in 2014 or of any year prior to 2017 no longer applies. Indeed, the simple fact that congress removed the penalty for violating the individual mandate clearly shows that they were of the opinion that it was non-essential. One doesn't even need to examine the law itself--Republicans were happy to proclaim they had effectively repealed the individual mandate in public. To claim that the intents of the 2010 congress somehow override the intents of the 2017 congress is to argue that any law cannot be amended by any subsequent congress to do anything contrary to the original congress's intent. That's absurd.

                      Even setting aside those considerations, simple common sense goes against the idea that the individual mandate (along with its $0 "penalty") cannot be severed from the law. We are talking about a portion of the law that, at present, does effectively nothing. To claim that a portion of a law that does effectively nothing is somehow not severable from the rest of the law is a claim that, simply put, does not make sense on its face.

                      I have a lot of trouble seeing how this could be upheld on appeal. The logic in the opinion's analysis of severability is so questionable that you've got even people who are strongly anti-ACA saying the decision doesn't make sense. If even people predisposed to the opinion's conclusion are saying it's bad jurispudence, I have a lot of trouble seeing how this can survive on appeal.

                      Heck, all of these issues apply only to the question of severability. If there's disagreement on either the plaintiff's standing or the claim that the reduction of the individual mandate penalty to $0 makes it unconstitutional, then the question of severability doesn't matter because the logic that led up to the question to begin with was dismissed.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                        Why are you banging your head?
                        Because I stated just above your reply that there was an existing bill in committee that handled pre-existing conditions, and you immediately ignored it and said there was none.

                        The AHCA does NOT preserve the full provision of the ACA regarding pre-existing conditions. In fact, it leaves a mile-wide loophole that each individual state would be required to close. People in states that do not close the loophole could be charged ridiculously high rates to cover a pre-existing condition.
                        And you are assuming they wouldn't. That could ALSO be handled by allowing cross-state insurance, which the Dems have been extremely resistant to.

                        Do you suppose insurance companies would be ashamed to charge ridiculuosly high rates?
                        Same as car insurance. Higher risk for payout results in higher premiums. That's the realities of insurance in general.

                        They were not ashamed to deny coverage even in potentially fatal cases before the ACA. Insurance is all about profit.
                        Every business is "all about profit"

                        Source: https://www.verywellhealth.com/health-insurance-companies-unreasonable-profits-1738941

                        Healthcare costs are the driving factor behind health insurance premiums. It's true that private health insurance companies pay their CEOs competitive salaries and they must remain profitable in order to stay in business. But their profits are modest when compared with many other industries.

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        Read the rest of that article. It answers nearly ALL of your objections.

                        If one has ever worked for such a company - one knows. (anecdotally, there are few employers more abusive of their own employees than the insurance industry).
                        My sister has worked for Anthem for 35 years. We've discussed it at length many, many times.

                        Source: https://www.politifact.com/north-carolina/statements/2017/may/04/robert-pittenger/does-new-version-ahca-protect-coverage-pre-existin/

                        Compare two of the amendment’s key provisions:


                        So it appears people wouldn’t pay wildly different rates due only to their gender, which is also the case under Obamacare. But by contrast, insurers would only have to provide access to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. It says nothing about the rates of that coverage.

                        That means if the AHCA passes, it would allow for people with pre-existing conditions to be charged more per year for their insurance coverage – possibly to the tune of thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars more per year, some studies have found.

                        The exact amount might differ regionally, since some states might not allow the higher rates.

                        Pittenger said that if the AHCA passes and people want better health insurance, they could move to a different state.

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        It's funny that they seem to be griping about how insurance in general works. Higher risk means higher premiums. Spreading the cost out evenly simply isn't fair to those who are less at risk. Sorry if that's reality, but it is.
                        That's what
                        - She

                        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                        - Stephen R. Donaldson

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Opening up competition across state lines would go a long ways towards bringing down prices simply due to increased competition. Another step would be restricting health insurance coverage to only catastrophic care, similar to how you use car insurance when your vehicle gets wrecked but not for basic maintenance. As someone once said, if car insurance paid for oil changes then Quick Lube would start charging $100 a pop for them. What does the customer care as long he's not directly paying for it? If doctor's offices couldn't effectively gouge the insurance company then prices for office visits and preventative care would go down.
                          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                          Than a fool in the eyes of God


                          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                            I'm confused. There's been plenty of times throughout history a decision that declared something unconstitutional was subsequently reversed, either by a higher court through appeal or by a court reversing itself later (e.g. the SCOTUS has overturned its own decisions plenty of times). Did you accidentally phrase something wrong here?
                            Any examples of SCOTUS declaring something unconstitutional and then reversing that decision later?
                            Last edited by Sparko; 12-18-2018, 11:41 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              Any examples of SCOTUS declaring something unconstitutional and then reversing that decision later?
                              Didn't Brown v Board of Education overturn Plessy v. Ferguson?

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                                Didn't Brown v Board of Education overturn Plessy v. Ferguson?
                                Did Plessy v. Ferguson declare something unconstitutional? I was under the impression it did the opposite.
                                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                                sigpic
                                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                231 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                310 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X