America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 5 years ago by opelmanta1900. 36 replies replies.
Texas judge rules ACA unconstitutional.
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
Speyside Offline
#1 Posted: Sun, Dec 16 2018, 6:44 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Think this will stand or be overturned?
Mr. Jones Offline
#2 Posted: Sun, Dec 16 2018, 6:48 PM EST
Joined: 06-12-2005
Posts: 19,409
Yes.

And TRUMPS REPLACEMENT PLAN
WOULD'VE BEEN

1) MORE EXPENSIVE
2) LESS COVERAGE
3) AND NO PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS
ALLOWED...

SO, PLEASED EXPLAIN...
HOW IS THE NEW REPUBLICAN PLAN...
BETTER AND CHEAPER???
deadeyedick Offline
#3 Posted: Sun, Dec 16 2018, 7:58 PM EST
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 17,068
It should stand. We are going down hill fast when it is legal for our government to require anyone to buy insurance against their will or pay a penalty. I know it is a cornerstone of the ACA funding scheme but too bad.
MACS Offline
#4 Posted: Sun, Dec 16 2018, 10:53 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,741
deadeyedick wrote:
It should stand. We are going down hill fast when it is legal for our government to require anyone to buy insurance against their will or pay a penalty. I know it is a cornerstone of the ACA funding scheme but too bad.


Agreed.
ZRX1200 Offline
#5 Posted: Sun, Dec 16 2018, 11:43 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,577
SCOTUS Fd this up.....never should have happened

We need 2 care models. Chronic care and non Cronic care
Abrignac Offline
#6 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 10:24 AM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,259
Bad law. But, I suspect it’s here to stay unless Congress passes a bill to abolish it and the President signs it into law.
dstieger Offline
#7 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 10:59 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
ZRX1200 wrote:
SCOTUS Fd this up.....never should have happened

We need 2 care models. Chronic care and non Cronic care

MMJ....and the rest of us?
opelmanta1900 Offline
#8 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 11:49 AM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Sign me up...
delta1 Online
#9 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 12:23 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,772
there'll prolly be other fed court decisions that will rule the opposite way, moving the discussion up to the appellate court and ultimately to the SCOTUS...with a couple of new justices, who knows what the ruling will be...

it just seems that the political winds of this issue have changed, with more Americans approving of the benefits of Obamacare after several years of getting coverage for themselves and their children which they couldn't do before its enactment... fewer and fewer GOP politicians are anxious to openly run to repeal it, and support for Obamacare was one factor in the Dems gains in the House during the last elections...

this despite the Trump administration's recent, and the GOP's efforts over the last 8 years, to repeal or dismantle the ACA...
MACS Offline
#10 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 3:57 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,741
Can anyone explain to me how the ACA is NOT the government FORCING you to BUY something?

It is, and always has been, unconstitutional.
victor809 Offline
#11 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 4:41 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
They are forcing you to buy something... And I've never liked the ACA... But to call it unconstitutional is a bit of a stretch.

Technically the government forces you to purchase road maintenance services, protection services etc...

I think the ACA was a stupid format for something which I didn't think we should implement. But in the end it's just another taxing for services.
victor809 Offline
#12 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 4:45 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
...and don't get me started on the pre-existing conditions BS. Forcing an insurance company to cover someone who has pre-existing conditions is taking away the "insurance" concept all together. It is just a health care financing company at that point.

The group that should have been crying "unconstitutional" is the companies forced to cover people who are simply not a good business decision. The fact that they didn't should make you look at just where they're going to make the money.
victor809 Offline
#13 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 4:47 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Which brings up the question of how this is an issue anyway.

If you have a pre-existing condition you pay for it as long as you can. When you no longer can afford your disease you end up on Medicaid. There's no need to turn it into a thing.

If Medicaid doesn't cover you, then you just need to decide whether you really want to live that much longer anyway.
dstieger Offline
#14 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 4:48 PM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
victor809 wrote:
...and don't get me started on the pre-existing conditions BS. Forcing an insurance company to cover someone who has pre-existing conditions is taking away the "insurance" concept all together. It is just a health care financing company at that point.

The group that should have been crying "unconstitutional" is the companies forced to cover people who are simply not a good business decision. The fact that they didn't should make you look at just where they're going to make the money.


I think that the fact that we've never heard a hint of dissatisfaction about ACA from insurance companies is telling
victor809 Offline
#15 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 4:53 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Mhmmm... They're making bank somehow. They ran the numbers before the voting and decided that they'll make enough on the young people to make up for the huge amount of pre-existing insured.

There's a serious information asymmetry between the insurance companies (huge amounts of data, staff to process it, historical understanding of it) and our congresspeople (too dumb to understand a cell phone based on the last meeting)... That resulted in a win for the insurance companies.
ZRX1200 Offline
#16 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 6:25 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,577
Jesus.....who do you think wrote it.
Abrignac Offline
#17 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 6:54 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,259
delta1 wrote:
there'll prolly be other fed court decisions that will rule the opposite way, moving the discussion up to the appellate court and ultimately to the SCOTUS...with a couple of new justices, who knows what the ruling will be...

it just seems that the political winds of this issue have changed, with more Americans approving of the benefits of Obamacare after several years of getting coverage for themselves and their children which they couldn't do before its enactment... fewer and fewer GOP politicians are anxious to openly run to repeal it, and support for Obamacare was one factor in the Dems gains in the House during the last elections...

this despite the Trump administration's recent, and the GOP's efforts over the last 8 years, to repeal or dismantle the ACA...


As the court stands, Roberts is needed to roll back. I don’t see him doing an about face. Especially since he wrote the decision.
deadeyedick Offline
#18 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 7:01 PM EST
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 17,068
It was a Roberts tap dance that turned a penalty into a tax even though all the Dems said it was a penalty when the ACA was written and voted on.
MACS Offline
#19 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 9:04 PM EST
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,741
victor809 wrote:
...and don't get me started on the pre-existing conditions BS. Forcing an insurance company to cover someone who has pre-existing conditions is taking away the "insurance" concept all together. It is just a health care financing company at that point.

The group that should have been crying "unconstitutional" is the companies forced to cover people who are simply not a good business decision.


Something we can 100% agree on.
frankj1 Offline
#20 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 9:16 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
could be wrong, but I don't think insurance companies were forced to even participate...and initially many refused.
but the list of participants had been growing, until this week that is.
delta1 Online
#21 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 9:28 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,772
and they are putting pressure on the states that had limited themselves to one or two providers to open their markets...

all states should invite as many providers into their markets as desire to, so there'd be more competition... which according to the textbooks, should drive prices down...

22 Million new customers is a LOT, and there is still an untapped market of peeps without insurance...that's why I don't think Obamacare is going away any time soon...if it is changed, it'll be in ways to expand the ability of more people to get healthcare insurance, not less...
tailgater Offline
#22 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 10:47 PM EST
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,185
ZRX1200 wrote:
Jesus.....who do you think wrote it.


Not sure. We weren't even allowed to READ it.
frankj1 Offline
#23 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 11:24 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
shaddup and vote!
frankj1 Offline
#24 Posted: Mon, Dec 17 2018, 11:25 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
other than tw, has anyone here read it?
I'm saying the over/under is 0
victor809 Offline
#25 Posted: Tue, Dec 18 2018, 12:07 AM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Frank's probably correct... On most things.

I do agree that I don't believe they were technically forced to cover, but refusing to cover pre-existing kept them out of the market to a large extent. Bribed might be the proper word.
frankj1 Offline
#26 Posted: Tue, Dec 18 2018, 1:34 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
victor809 wrote:
Frank's probably correct... On most things.

I do agree that I don't believe they were technically forced to cover, but refusing to cover pre-existing kept them out of the market to a large extent. Bribed might be the proper word.

I do tend to agree with you, philosophically, about the nature of forcing conditions on a for-profit business.
I waver some though when said business is already under state and/or fed guidelines to begin with.
victor809 Offline
#27 Posted: Tue, Dec 18 2018, 1:46 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Yeah... But guidelines are one thing... Fundamentally changing the nature of a business is another.

I support intelligently applied guidelines.

But all insurance is just a wager. You're betting that you will have some unforeseen health costs in the future, before you have paid in dues an amount greater than their costs. This is the same concept behind non liability auto insurance, or life insurance. If nothing bad happens, you "lose" (ie, you paid in and never collected)

Pre-existing conditions take away any unknown for a segment of the population. They know that their rates will be less than their medical costs, because the "unknown future illness" has happened and is known. At that time it is literally just a subsidy of medical services, not insurance. We have fundamentally changed the business model.

If we are going to have government subsidized medical care, there is no reason to put insurance companies in the middle and let them take their %...
frankj1 Offline
#28 Posted: Tue, Dec 18 2018, 1:52 PM EST
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,211
victor809 wrote:
Yeah... But guidelines are one thing... Fundamentally changing the nature of a business is another.

I support intelligently applied guidelines.

But all insurance is just a wager. You're betting that you will have some unforeseen health costs in the future, before you have paid in dues an amount greater than their costs. This is the same concept behind non liability auto insurance, or life insurance. If nothing bad happens, you "lose" (ie, you paid in and never collected)

Pre-existing conditions take away any unknown for a segment of the population. They know that their rates will be less than their medical costs, because the "unknown future illness" has happened and is known. At that time it is literally just a subsidy of medical services, not insurance. We have fundamentally changed the business model.

If we are going to have government subsidized medical care, there is no reason to put insurance companies in the middle and let them take their %...

without rereading, I agree...
delta1 Online
#29 Posted: Tue, Dec 18 2018, 2:48 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,772
if we make everyone jump into the pool, total costs would go down...some combination of private/for profit health insurance and govt., non-profit health insurance...we'll eventually get there...and catch up to the rest of the modern world...
opelmanta1900 Offline
#30 Posted: Tue, Dec 18 2018, 2:50 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Should we ask Hitler what to do with the ones who won't jump?
delta1 Online
#31 Posted: Tue, Dec 18 2018, 2:58 PM EST
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,772
Sieg heil...jump or you die...

how often have you ridden in an ambulance or had the fire department stop your house from burning down? Prolly never, but you're paying for that, we all are...

everybody who now says that people are only entitled to the health insurance they pay for conveniently forget the public health insurance they will get when they are 65 with tons of pre-existing conditions, for the rest of their lives...at WAY LESS than what that premium actually would cost....
opelmanta1900 Offline
#32 Posted: Tue, Dec 18 2018, 3:40 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
delta1 wrote:
Sieg heil...jump or you die...

how often have you ridden in an ambulance or had the fire department stop your house from burning down? Prolly never, but you're paying for that, we all are...

everybody who now says that people are only entitled to the health insurance they pay for conveniently forget the public health insurance they will get when they are 65 with tons of pre-existing conditions, for the rest of their lives...at WAY LESS than what that premium actually would cost....

I'm not the person to ask that of... 1 ambulance ride for me, one for the wife, one for the daughter... A couple more visits from the ambulance as well... And the fire department saved me back in my 20's when a piece of insulation fell onto the heater blower.... Filled the whole house with thick smoke...

Some years we pay a yearly fee for private ambulance insurance...

We also pay $700 a month for some very high quality health care...

Do I wish everyone had the same kind of health care for whatever they could afford? In fantasy land, yes... But in reality, that would mean my quality of health care would decline significantly... It would mean no more instant appointments with the doctor of my choice, no more picking up the phone to talk directly with the world class surgeon who rebuilt my ankle...

The system would be instantly overwhelmed with people, doctors would jump ship to make more money elsewhere, and I would go sign up with a different, more expensive yet higher quality plan that would last until people who can't afford it start demanding it for themselves...

I don't have a perfect solution, but forcing anyone to do anything against their will isn't it... Have a cheap, government run insurance plan that's available to the masses for a price we can afford And subsidize it with taxes if need be... And if we - the masses - decide not to get it, let that be our gamble... And if we - the masses - decide to invest in a higher quality insurance plan, let that be ours as well...
victor809 Offline
#33 Posted: Tue, Dec 18 2018, 3:52 PM EST
Joined: 10-14-2011
Posts: 23,866
Opel... I wouldn't bother with insurance at the cheap end. If you're providing government funded "cheap health care" for the masses, why have it in the form of insurance at all? Just provide some base level of care at a subsidized rate.

By putting it in the realm of insurance you add a layer where a group which is not the healthcare providers (Drs/nurses/hospitals) or the health care needers (people) is involved and taking a cut without actually providing any real value (not insurance if everyone is allowed in at a base rate... There's no calculation of risk or value... Why have a company who's job is to do that be involved?)

Note - I am not recommending govt healthcare. I'm ok with people dying on the streets (as long as it's in front of someone else's home). I'm just identifying that govt healthcare is more efficient than govt health insurance
opelmanta1900 Offline
#34 Posted: Tue, Dec 18 2018, 4:23 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
Makes sense... I'm ok with government health care as opposed to insurance... I'm even ok chipping in a little with tax money...

It's like a public bus... I get it, it's necessary, some people need it, and it needs a little tax payer money to keep running... As long as it doesn't become unnecessarily expensive and I don't have to use it, we're cool...
Abrignac Offline
#35 Posted: Tue, Dec 18 2018, 4:37 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,259
opelmanta1900 wrote:
Makes sense... I'm ok with government health care as opposed to insurance... I'm even ok chipping in a little with tax money...

It's like a public bus... I get it, it's necessary, some people need it, and it needs a little tax payer money to keep running... As long as it doesn't become unnecessarily expensive and I don't have to use it, we're cool...



Yet the reality is once government starts down a program path it’s costs skyrocket because with a short period of time it goes from being stop gap to normal operating procedure.
opelmanta1900 Offline
#36 Posted: Tue, Dec 18 2018, 4:41 PM EST
Joined: 01-10-2012
Posts: 13,954
I get that argument and considered it ahead of my post... Meh... The bus is still relatively cheap...
Users browsing this topic
Guest
Back to Top