Trump Administration files brief to end Obamacare

[JimL]

Trump Administration on thursday night files brief to end Obamacare in its entirety. They would throw 20 million people off healthcare insurance and those with preexisting conditions would no longer be protected, meaning Insurance companies would no longer be mandated by law to provide insurance coverage. The Supreme court will take up the case prior to the November election. I'm beginning to wonder if Trump even wants a second term, or maybe he's just so obsessed with abolishing all things Obama that he can't think of anything else.

http://www.politico.com/news/2020/06...amacare-340851

[Reepicheep]

There is another questionable course of action Trump is considering for July 1. According to many news report, now that the new NAFTA agreement is about to be implemented, Trump thinks this would be a good time to impose tariffs on aluminum imports from Canada. If this happens, then Canada will no doubt impose retaliatory tariffs on imports from the US.

Allow me to go down Memory Lane for a moment. Back in June of 2018, when Trump imposed tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, Canada immediately imposed retaliatory tariffs on imports from the US. Trump was so outraged by Canada's action that he released a Religious Fatwa, through his prophet Peter Navarro, that Trudeau had a soul which was damned beyond redemption, and that Trudeau was going to spend eternity in hell, because he was mean to Donald Trump. If Trump once again imposes tariffs on Canadian products, I wonder who he will cast into hell this time around, in response to Canada's inevitable retaliatory tariffs.

Here is an interesting theological puzzle for Donald Trump supporters to investigate. Matthew 12:31 (as well as similar verses in Mark and Luke) is the only bible verse which could be used to argue that criticizing Donald Trump is an unforgivable sin. If Trump and Navarro are right, and the unforgivable sin is criticizing Donald Trump, then according to Matthew 12:31 what is Trump's true identity?

*************

For those of you to need to have your memory refreshed about the time Trump cast Trudeau into hell, you can find a brief summary at the following link. Note that Navarro says he was acting on orders which came “right from Air Force One“ when he cast Trudeau into hell.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...navarro-635100

[Reepicheep]

Trump Administration on thursday night files brief to end Obamacare in its entirety.

If Trump truly believes, as he has claimed, that every country of the world without exception has a better healthcare system than the United States, then he SHOULD totally throw out the entire American medical establishment and start rebuilding from scratch. Although, personally, I don't believe Trump's claim that (for example) the yearly expenditure of $24/person spent in Ethiopia provides the average Ethiopian with better healthcare than that received by the average US citizen, where yearly healthcare costs exceed $10,000/person.

[whag]

Don’t worry. The GOP has an amazing substitute plan.

[Whateverman]

Don’t worry. The GOP has an amazing substitute plan.

Have you watched John Oliver's Show Last Week Tonight?

Several years ago, he did a few segments on the Republican health care plan - before it was ready, and then after it was released. Neither were particularly kind to the bill, and for good reason.

BEFORE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEGpriv2TAc
AFTER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ifi9M7DRazI

Strong language warning for both links.

[Mountain Man]

The best replacement plan would be to get government out of healthcare/insurance businesses entirely and allow insurers to freely compete with each other to offer the best plans at the lowest prices. The government has done nothing but stifle competition and drive prices up.

[seanD]

Trump Administration on thursday night files brief to end Obamacare in its entirety. They would throw 20 million people off healthcare insurance and those with preexisting conditions would no longer be protected, meaning Insurance companies would no longer be mandated by law to provide insurance coverage. The Supreme court will take up the case prior to the November election. I'm beginning to wonder if Trump even wants a second term, or maybe he's just so obsessed with abolishing all things Obama that he can't think of anything else.

http://www.politico.com/news/2020/06...amacare-340851

It's a hard call. Though polls show the majority favor ACA in general, polls also show the majority don't favor the forced mandates to buy it, which could also be much more of a factor this year during a time folks are struggling financially.

[mikewhitney]

There is an anticipated healthcare crash, related to Obamacare and the effects of the coronavirus (probably more the governor decisions), by October. The insurance rates may be going up 40% at that time. Employers will have to make big decisions about healthcare due to these increases.

[Terraceth]

What's puzzling about Trump trying to pursue this is that it's hard to see what could come of it. It's considered a really weak argument by most legal experts (of both conservative and liberal leanings), but even setting aside the question of merits it's hard to believe that the SCOTUS would actually strike down the whole law. The new argument ("it's no longer justified under the taxation clause because the individual mandate is $0) would have no bearing on the position of Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer, who thought the commerce clause justified it, and it means you have to win over all 5 of the other justices in a rather dubious argument.

So it's incredibly unlikely to achieve the goal of striking down the law. But it seems to fail also as some kind of political ploy because people there's opposite to a complete strikedown of the law. Even many of those who oppose the law don't think it would be a good idea to completely strike it down, and that it would need revision or at least a "repeal and replace," but the SCOTUS striking it down gets rid of the whole thing with no replacement. That's a very unpopular idea.

So it's pursing a cause that's almost certainly not going to work and is profoundly unpopular. I don't see the logic behind it. Even if the idea is "well, it probably won't work, but might as well try" the smarter thing would be for the Trump administration to simply stay out of it to avoid the blowback, maybe making a generic statement of "well, we'll let the court decide."

[shunyadragon]

The best replacement plan would be to get government out of healthcare/insurance businesses entirely and allow insurers to freely compete with each other to offer the best plans at the lowest prices. The government has done nothing but stifle competition and drive prices up.

The proposals so far by the Republicans did not maintain low income insurance coverage guarantees on rates under Medicare benefits, and coverage of preexisting conditions. This was left up to insurance companies to determine.

Most insurance coverage at present under Obamacare is under private coverage like my policy under Aetna.

[DesertBerean]

Just about the only things I liked about the ACA was the cancelling out of preexisting conditions and the coverage for hearing aids. I was finally able to get mine without having to cough up two arms and a leg. My hearing loss was a preexisting condition and not due to an accident. I pray that whatever replacement plan they come up will preserve those two features.

[Whateverman]

What's puzzling about Trump trying to pursue this is that it's hard to see what could come of it. It's considered a really weak argument by most legal experts (of both conservative and liberal leanings), but even setting aside the question of merits it's hard to believe that the SCOTUS would actually strike down the whole law. The new argument ("it's no longer justified under the taxation clause because the individual mandate is $0) would have no bearing on the position of Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer, who thought the commerce clause justified it, and it means you have to win over all 5 of the other justices in a rather dubious argument.

So it's incredibly unlikely to achieve the goal of striking down the law. But it seems to fail also as some kind of political ploy because people there's opposite to a complete strikedown of the law. Even many of those who oppose the law don't think it would be a good idea to completely strike it down, and that it would need revision or at least a "repeal and replace," but the SCOTUS striking it down gets rid of the whole thing with no replacement. That's a very unpopular idea.

So it's pursing a cause that's almost certainly not going to work and is profoundly unpopular. I don't see the logic behind it.

The bottom line is that Trump always wants to look good. He'll turn a loss in-court into some kind of vindication of his world view, and demagogue about why the left is ruining the country, etc.

---

I often wonder what Trump's life will be like once he's out of office. For a while, it looked like some of his businesses were losing popularity, though I haven't checked on this lately. Will the Trump brand benefit or suffer?

I suspect it'll be a net-loss, though he'll probably find a way to get speaking fees from the right groups/organizations..