Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The thing is that Ecuador doesn't stick its nose in every other countries business and try to be super hero, thus they don't have trillions of money going into the military and giving money to other countries. yes, Ecuador people don't make allot of money but health care is attainable to all people. Everyone one who lives in Ecuador has access to health care.
As you mentioned they don't make allot of money, so the gvt. doesn't take allot of taxes out of the money they make but the gvt. makes allot of money from oil. The govt. doesn't cater to Corporations.
Do some research into economics and see what would happen to the world economy if the US didn't "stick their nose into other people's business"....
A lot (not allot) of people in Ecuador can't even feed their own children....
Do some research into economics and see what would happen to the world economy if the US didn't "stick their nose into other people's business"....
A lot (not allot) of people in Ecuador can't even feed their own children....
I'm sure smilinpretty is grateful for your spelling correction. Though I don't think Ecuador is a good country to compare the US to, I think the poster's point was that perhaps our government might have more available funds for things like proper healthcare for people if we didn't spend so much on military might. (the other half of the budget)
I am so worried about this in the courts now - the ACA Act (I HATE the term Obamacare) - if the subsidy gets cancelled, I am screwed!
Don't blame you for being worried. This is a very real possibility.
Even though Justice Kennedy posited "favorable" questions today, generally, he is a hater of the ACA. Justice Roberts won't bail it out again, I do not think. He barely spoke today.
Now, if Alito would put his money where his mouth is, he would view the Act in its entirety - per the thousands of pages he has written stating exactly that. I wouldn't put money on it this time.
So....Options being discussed if govt loses, are:
(1) SC will not cut off subsidies immediately - assume everything stays as until the GOP/states can come up with alternatives; and
(2) per Paul Ryan there are discussions in the HR re GOP alternatives - i.e. "off-ramp" - per this;
C-Span covered the issue today. 60% of the people insured through ACA have benefitted. However, it is the 40% harmed screaming the loudest because of their increased costs, higher deductibles, and narrower networks, and they are very angry. Program can be viewed, here:
Well worth watching - the guests and the Open Phone segments.
The show was disturbing on multiple levels - stories from:
those insured for the first time who would be seriously suffering without the ACA,
those living in states where they remain uninsured because those states didn't expand Medicaid,
those who found health insurance unaffordable BECAUSE of the ACA,
those very angry about subsidies and the cost to them - and, of course,
the uninformed haters.
WSJ reporter, Jess Brevin, covering the Supreme Court explained the issues very well and was unjustly attacked by a typical caller who was not really listening to what Brevin was saying. Ms. Carey from Kaiser is always informative.
Funnily enough, per Mr. Brevin, the reason the case was brought was because the subsidies made insurance affordable for the plaintiffs and, as a result of this affordability, they are being forced to buy insurance they don't want.
Therefore, they are saying b/c they are in a state not running its own exchange, they are exempt from the mandate - even though insurance is 'affordable.' We have quite a few posters on this board with the same view.
My off-the-top-of-my-head-not-having-really-thought-it-through view at the moment is if the ACA is dismantled by loss of subsidies for over 30 states, the issue of insurance for all should go back to the states - assuming these states would then act in good faith to get everyone coverage. Not ever happening in some states, I fear.
Last edited by Ariadne22; 03-04-2015 at 10:03 PM..
Don't blame you for being worried. This is a very real possibility.
Even though Justice Kennedy posited "favorable" questions today, generally, he is a hater of the ACA. Justice Roberts won't bail it out again, I do not think. He barely spoke today.
Now, if Alito would put his money where his mouth is, he would view the Act in its entirety - per the thousands of pages he has written stating exactly that. I wouldn't put money on it this time.
So....Options being discussed if govt loses, are:
(1) SC will not cut off subsidies immediately - assume everything stays as until the GOP/states can come up with alternatives; and
(2) per Paul Ryan there are discussions in the HR re GOP alternatives - i.e. "off-ramp" - per this;
C-Span covered the issue today. 60% of the people insured through ACA have benefitted. However, it is the 40% harmed screaming the loudest because of their increased costs, higher deductibles, and narrower networks, and they are very angry. Program can be viewed, here:
Well worth watching - the guests and the Open Phone segments.
The show was disturbing on multiple levels - stories from:
those insured for the first time who would be seriously suffering without the ACA,
those living in states where they remain uninsured because those states didn't expand Medicaid,
those who found health insurance unaffordable BECAUSE of the ACA,
those very angry about subsidies and the cost to them - and, of course,
the uninformed haters.
WSJ reporter, Jess Brevin, covering the Supreme Court explained the issues very well and was unjustly attacked by a typical caller who was not really listening to what Brevin was saying. Ms. Carey from Kaiser is always informative.
Funnily enough, per Mr. Brevin, the reason the case was brought was because the subsidies made insurance affordable for the plaintiffs and, as a result of this affordability, they are being forced to buy insurance they don't want.
Therefore, they are saying b/c they are in a state not running its own exchange, they are exempt from the mandate - even though insurance is 'affordable.' We have quite a few posters on this board with the same view.
My off-the-top-of-my-head-not-having-really-thought-it-through view at the moment is if the ACA is dismantled by loss of subsidies for over 30 states, the issue of insurance for all should go back to the states - assuming these states would then act in good faith to get everyone coverage. Not ever happening in some states, I fear.
I share your opinion about Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts was almost tarred and feathered by the far right for upholding the ACA under the tax and spending clause of the Constitution. I don't think he will run the risk of upsetting that group again.
Anthony Kennedy is not really a moderate at all. He's quite conservative. He sometimes is referred to as a swing vote, simply because he is not as far right as Scalia, Thomas, or Alito. He has disappointed me on any number of occasions.
I won't say its a foregone conclusion this case will be lost, but I think the odds of the administration winning are 40% or less. I think its very ominous.
I'm not sure what happens if the administration loses. I think its impossible to make the ACA work without the subsidy. Its equally impossible to get this Congress to do anything that would support the act. The law was poorly drafted and someone should have to face some accountability for doing that. Its going to set off a great deal of anger and pandemonium. We thought we finally had this problem settled, only to learn we did not.
One net winner out of all of this? The democrat candidate for the presidency in 2016. There will be a realization that the GOP will never fix this problem. It will become a huge campaign issue and I don't see it helping the republicans.
There were some articles in some papers today talking about a GOP alternative, but from what I have read, it is just a lot of generalities with real American Flag kind of names, with no specifics whatsoever. Similar to the the supposed GOP version of health reform that floated for a brief while during the last upset.
It was reported there are two solutions by Republicans. The "crash and burn solution" or a "new proposal". Problem is, that the Republicans can not agree on anything themselves and the chaos that is currently ensuing in Congress now even has some of the Republicans screaming uncle.
But a number of members interviewed today stated they will only support crash and burn.
Last edited by modhatter; 03-05-2015 at 12:27 AM..
If the low/no tax states would actually do their job and charge appropriate taxes they could devise their own insurance plan. This is why ACA needed to be started at all: cheap people living in states that want low taxes. They continue to want to get bailed out by someone else.
If the low/no tax states would actually do their job and charge appropriate taxes they could devise their own insurance plan. This is why ACA needed to be started at all: cheap people living in states that want low taxes. They continue to want to get bailed out by someone else.
Yep....and along with that, ineffectual schools, no programs for the elderly, and other social programs that promote healthy and prosperous living for all . I've lived in low tax states and high tax states, I'll take the high tax states any day!
One net winner out of all of this? The democrat candidate for the presidency in 2016. There will be a realization that the GOP will never fix this problem. It will become a huge campaign issue and I don't see it helping the republicans.
I had the same thought. But then again, working class Republicans may still believe their guys will come up with a solution.
I read that Justice Ginsburg's questions related to the Petitioners' standing. I'd be more than satisfied if the Court kicked it back for the lower court to determine standing or, even better, found that they had no standing. Of course, I'm not holding my breath.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. I've lived in low tax states and high tax states, I'll take the high tax states any day!
