Speyside
7 years ago
Think this will stand or be overturned?
Mr. Jones
7 years ago
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
7 years ago
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
7 years ago

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.

deadeyedick wrote:



Agreed.
ZRX1200
7 years ago
SCOTUS Fd this up.....never should have happened

We need 2 care models. Chronic care and non Cronic care
Abrignac
7 years ago
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
7 years ago

SCOTUS Fd this up.....never should have happened

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

ZRX1200 wrote:


MMJ....and the rest of us?
opelmanta1900
7 years ago
Sign me up...
delta1
7 years ago
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
7 years ago
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
7 years ago
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
7 years ago
...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
7 years ago
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
7 years ago

...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 wrote:


I think that the fact that we've never heard a hint of dissatisfaction about ACA from insurance companies is telling
victor809
7 years ago
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
7 years ago
Jesus.....who do you think wrote it.
Abrignac
7 years ago

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...

delta1 wrote:



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
7 years ago
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
7 years ago

...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.

victor809 wrote:



Something we can 100% agree on.
frankj1
7 years ago
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.
Users browsing this topic