Jump to content
personreal

"Obamacare ruled unconstitutional by Texas judge"

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, personreal said:

Yer old school skewed...the day of the dinosaur democrat is over.

 

 

 

Wait until Pelosi takes over next month. Let old skews explain to you how this is going to work. She is going to have a Medicare for all bill put together, to send to Mitch McConnell, and get Trump to force him to bring it to the floor for a vote. The bill will be paid for by everyone who buys a plan, to pay directly to Medicare, not the IRS. This takes the court out of the equation, as know Republican whiners will be able to file suit based upon it's Constitutionality. Because the system is already in place, there is no plan that has to be agreed to. 

 

McConnell and Trump have to put up or shut up. If they agree, more people get covered than they do now.

If they don't agree, they lose more voters in 2020. It's a win-win for Pelosi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, skews13 said:

 

Wait until Pelosi takes over next month. Let old skews explain to you how this is going to work. She is going to have a Medicare for all bill put together, to send to Mitch McConnell, and get Trump to force him to bring it to the floor for a vote. The bill will be paid for by everyone who buys a plan, to pay directly to Medicare, not the IRS. This takes the court out of the equation, as know Republican whiners will be able to file suit based upon it's Constitutionality. Because the system is already in place, there is no plan that has to be agreed to. 

 

McConnell and Trump have to put up or shut up. If they agree, more people get covered than they do now.

If they don't agree, they lose more voters in 2020. It's a win-win for Pelosi.

 

 

Wait a second Democrats lost a 1,000 seats because of Obama care 

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sane said:

Listen I don't want you teabaggers to have health insurance either.  The world would be a better place without you.  I am so sick of you whiny little b*tches.  Oh my president is forcing me to have a military.  ANYthing taxed is a force by your definition.  It's my freedom.  Shut the f*ck up.  Your fat ass will be the first at the emergency room crying, but I'm hurt I need help.  I'm lazy and eat like sh*t (cause I love freedom) now I'm sick.  Tough sh*t.  I say you have the option to not have health insurance, and if you show up, you f*cking die while people walk around you.  

 

 

Wow, you live in a fantasy world, I never go to the doctor you twat.

 

And I am not going to pay for you.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, personreal said:

Obamacare...

 

Image result for face plant gif

 

Damn. I hope she has healthcare. Oh sorry, I said she, could be he zee zer gee ger who the fug knows anymore. funny though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, personreal said:

Now Trump can get REAL affordable healthcare for the country...not Obama's Commiecare.

 

How do you think he will go about doing that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Neomalthusian said:

 

How do you think he will go about doing that?

The same way he's won everything else...it takes time, but he will do it.

 

Don't let the lib media hide it from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bear513 said:

It amazes me a president could force a person to buy something they didn't want.

 

No one is forced to buy anything.  They are, however, subject to a payment to an IRS contingent on that decision to buy something or not.  It's a direct tax that Roberts reasoned is not unconstitutional because, well, because he said so.

 

But if the payment (whether the individual mandate or the employer shared responsibility payment) is ruled a constitutional taxing power, which it was, then it's the same as any other tax, inherently, in that the federal government forces us all to "buy" a military and infrastructure and all sorts of other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, personreal said:

The same way he's won everything else...it takes time, but he will do it.

 

Don't let the lib media hide it from you.

 

So you haven't the faintest notion of an answer to that question.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Neomalthusian said:

 

No one is forced to buy anything.  They are, however, subject to a payment to an IRS contingent on that decision to buy something or not.  It's a direct tax that Roberts reasoned is not unconstitutional because, well, because he said so.

 

But if the payment (whether the individual mandate or the employer shared responsibility payment) is ruled a constitutional taxing power, which it was, then it's the same as any other tax, inherently, in that the federal government forces us all to "buy" a military and infrastructure and all sorts of other things.

 

 

Once again it was ruled a tax to pass the Constitution., Obama care started in the senate.. against the rules..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bear513 said:

 

 

Once again it was ruled a tax to pass the Constitution., Obama care started in the senate.. against the rules..

 

Can't fu cking read? Pelosi will simply expand Medicare with DIRECT PAYMENTS TO MEDICARE.

 

Now it's no longer a tax paid to the IRS, and not subject to lawsuits by any Republicans, because they don't have standing to bring a case. And the added bonus? It originates in the House, with complete funding in next years budget, that also repeals the great Republican tax scam to pay for it. 

 

Now Republicans will be forced to vote for it, or face voters in 2020 again for trying to take away their health care. How did that work out for you last month numbnuts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Neomalthusian said:

 

So you haven't the faintest notion of an answer to that question.

 

Trump wants interstate health insurance...this would likely bring rates down due to competition.

 

He's also considering pre-existing condition.

 

He's also considering HIV drugs be made available to patients because the cost is currently too high.

 

I don't know what a final bill might look like, but now that Obamacare was ruled unconstitutional in Texas many other states want the same.

 

This will likely be the catalyst.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, personreal said:

Trump wants interstate health insurance...this would likely bring rates down due to competition.

 

He's also considering pre-existing condition.

 

Competition doesn't work anywhere near as well with health insurance as it does for other types of insurance or other commodities (for complex reasons I won't drone on about at the moment), and it almost certainly doesn't work well when there's a pre-existing condition exclusion ban.  A ban on pre-existing condition exclusions eliminates the core thing that makes insurance what it is.  This is inherently the reason that the federal government had to subsidize, regulate and mandate private insurance.  

 

Interstate competition solves basically none of our problems with health care costs or access.  The only way competition will help us is if there is provider (not insurer) competition for patients, which can only work if 1) price transparency for non-emergency care is mandated and 2) patients themselves must share to a much greater degree in the cost of their care at the point of service, which means mandating higher-deductible and higher-co-insurance plans that most of the country has become convinced are called "junk plans."  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Neomalthusian said:

 

No one is forced to buy anything.  They are, however, subject to a payment to an IRS contingent on that decision to buy something or not.  It's a direct tax that Roberts reasoned is not unconstitutional because, well, because he said so.

 

But if the payment (whether the individual mandate or the employer shared responsibility payment) is ruled a constitutional taxing power, which it was, then it's the same as any other tax, inherently, in that the federal government forces us all to "buy" a military and infrastructure and all sorts of other things.

But the taxes for military, infrastructure, and those other things you mention are all done according to the Constitution as written and/or amended, while the obamacare taxes are not -Link.

 

Even if you buy Robert's logic that the penalty is a tax, he still should have ruled it unconstitutional because all direct taxes, except income taxes as described by the 16th Amendment, must be apportioned. The government's power to tax is not absolute.

 

 

The bottom line is Roberts and all the other justices that ruled in favor of this garbage were wrong.  If obama wanted this moronic tax, he should have pushed for an amendment to make it legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nighthawk said:

But the taxes for military, infrastructure, and those other things you mention are all done according to the Constitution as written and/or amended, while the obamacare taxes are not -Link.

 

Even if you buy Robert's logic that the penalty is a tax, he still should have ruled it unconstitutional because all direct taxes, except income taxes as described by the 16th Amendment, must be apportioned. The government's power to tax is not absolute.

 

The bottom line is Roberts and all the other justices that ruled in favor of this garbage were wrong.  If obama wanted this moronic tax, he should have pushed for an amendment to make it legal.

 

As I said, it seems to me to be a direct tax, in plain language.  But currently, it’s not unconstitutional because Roberts et al. said it’s not a direct tax.  We can disagree but they have the Supreme authority to interpret otherwise, which they did.

 

But that aside, no matter how constitutional or unconstitutional in whoever’s opinion, it doesn’t make the “tax” or the law itself “garbage.”

 

In other words, the constitutional analysis and the policy analysis are very different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Neomalthusian said:

 

Competition doesn't work anywhere near as well with health insurance as it does for other types of insurance or other commodities (for complex reasons I won't drone on about at the moment), and it almost certainly doesn't work well when there's a pre-existing condition exclusion ban.  A ban on pre-existing condition exclusions eliminates the core thing that makes insurance what it is.  This is inherently the reason that the federal government had to subsidize, regulate and mandate private insurance.  

 

Interstate competition solves basically none of our problems with health care costs or access.  The only way competition will help us is if there is provider (not insurer) competition for patients, which can only work if 1) price transparency for non-emergency care is mandated and 2) patients themselves must share to a much greater degree in the cost of their care at the point of service, which means mandating higher-deductible and higher-co-insurance plans that most of the country has become convinced are called "junk plans."  

 

No supporting links I see.

 

"The only way competition will help us is if there is provider (not insurer) competition for patients"

 

Many people lost their providers cause they were not on the list approved by Obamacare.  That includes children.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2018 at 5:24 AM, personreal said:

Stick a fork in it...

 

“The remainder of the ACA is non-severable from the individual mandate, meaning that the Act must be invalidated in whole,” O’Connor wrote in a 55-page opinion, according to Bloomberg. O'Connor is a conservative Republican appointee who previously blocked other Obama-era policies."

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/obamacare-ruled-unconstitutional-by-texas-judge

 

A perfect analogy for, "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A perfect name for trump health care, "Trump's trojan horse health care".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TDS said:

 

A perfect analogy for, "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"

That happened to millions of people after Obamacare became law...including children.

 

Obamacare only gained uninsured people, but didn't mention the millions that lost their insurance and healthcare providers because of Obamacare.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, personreal said:

No supporting links I see.

 

Well that's because at this point I'm sharing my opinion, which I'm happy to continue discussing/supporting.

 

Quote

"The only way competition will help us is if there is provider (not insurer) competition for patients"

 

Many people lost their providers cause they were not on the list approved by Obamacare.  That includes children.  

 

Nope, the only reason people would have "lost their providers" is because their insurance changed and the provider ceased to be "in-network" on their latest insurance plan.  

 

There are numerous problems with the ACA, as I see it.  There are glitches that arbitrarily really screw some people, most notably they're the "family glitch" and "400% subsidy cliff," but H.R. 5155 would fix both of those.

 

The other major problem is there aren't enough people insurance companies want to compete for outside of employer-sponsored insurance.  The number of people direct-purchasing their own insurance is relatively small, and there's still adverse selection issues among that pool of people (the healthiest just say no thanks and continue taking their chances uninsured, which in some ways the pre-existing condition thing makes easier to do because they know they can sign up if they start getting sick).  Insurance companies don't necessarily need to compete for customers on an exchange, which is what we're seeing (they're dropping out of the exchanges altogether).  Their bread and butter is still selling group-based policies and services to employers, because most privately insured people continue to be insured through employment.  That is one of the things that I think needs to change.  If everyone bought their own insurance individually on the exchanges, then every insurance company would be opting in, rather than what we have now, which is numerous opting out and sticking to what they do best, which is sell group policies to large employers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TDS said:

A perfect name for trump health care, "Trump's trojan horse health care".

Actually that's what Obamacare was/is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Neomalthusian said:

 

Well that's because at this point I'm sharing my opinion, which I'm happy to continue discussing/supporting.

 

 

Nope, the only reason people would have "lost their providers" is because their insurance changed and the provider ceased to be "in-network" on their latest insurance plan.  

 

There are numerous problems with the ACA, as I see it.  There are glitches that arbitrarily really screw some people, most notably they're the "family glitch" and "400% subsidy cliff," but H.R. 5155 would fix both of those.

 

The other major problem is there aren't enough people insurance companies want to compete for outside of employer-sponsored insurance.  The people direct-purchasing their own insurance tend to be a minority, and there's still adverse selection issues among that pool of people (the healthiest just say no thanks and continue taking their chances uninsured, which in some ways the pre-existing condition thing makes easier to do because they know they can sign up if they start getting sick).  Insurance companies don't need to compete for customers on an exchange.  Their bread and butter is still selling group-based policies and services to employers, because most privately insured people continue to be insured through employment.  That is one of the things that I think needs to change.  If everyone bought their own insurance individually on the exchanges, then every insurance company would be opting in, rather than what we have now, which is numerous opting out and sticking to what they do best, which is sell group policies to large employers.

Yer first sentence is false...I'll stop there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Neomalthusian said:

 

Competition doesn't work anywhere near as well with health insurance as it does for other types of insurance or other commodities, and it almost certainly doesn't work well when there's a pre-existing condition exclusion ban.  A ban on pre-existing condition exclusions eliminates the core thing that makes insurance what it is.  This is inherently the reason that the federal government had to subsidize, regulate and mandate private insurance.  

 

Interstate competition solves basically none of our problems with health care costs or access.  The only way competition will help us is if there is provider (not insurer) competition for patients, which can only work if 1) price transparency for non-emergency care is mandated and 2) patients themselves must share to a much greater degree in the cost of their care at the point of service, which means mandating higher-deductible and higher-co-insurance plans that most of the country has become convinced are called "junk plans."  

 

Interstate competition may not "solve" the problems with cost, but they would most certainly help "reduce" these costs, drastically in some cases.  The point you are missing is this policy would enable the very badly needed competition among the ***regulators*** of insurance in each state.  For example, if some state decided to burden the insurance companies, and thus their customers, in their state with tons of useless mandates for fertility drugs, hair pieces, acupuncture, and a bunch of other unneeded crap & quackery, then their citizens would be able to tell their state government regulators to go fuck themselves and simply buy insurance from another state that isn't doing these things, thus saving money.  This would eventually cause the regulators of each state to compete against each other by only enacting regulations that consumers truly want and need, as opposed to the ones their special interests groups have bribed them to impose, and no more.

 

I have yet to hear anyone give anything even slightly resembling a rational reason as to why people should not have the freedom to buy their insurance from another state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, personreal said:

Yer first sentence is false...I'll stop there.

 

My first sentence is "at this point I'm sharing my opinion."  You're declaring that "false?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Neomalthusian said:

 

My first sentence is "at this point I'm sharing my opinion."  You're declaring that "false?"

I've debated Obamacare on both forums for years.

 

Have a nice day.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×