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.
Looks like Medicare for all is about to become waaaay more palatable now to a lot more people. Way to go Republicans. This is what we wanted all along!
Looks like Medicare for all is about to become waaaay more palatable now to a lot more people. Way to go Republicans. This is what we wanted all along!
Your comment reminds me of a child who wanted a brand new $12,299.99 Trek Madone SLR 9 Disc eTap road racing bicycle for Christmas, but instead got a used Walmart scooter with worn-out wheels from the pawn shop. With quivering lip and reddening eyes, said child responds to dad defiantly, "Oh YEAH, Pops!!! Well... that's what I wanted all along!"
Obamacare not only was a disaster for working America, it was also unconstitutional.
Incorrect. The law as it was originally passed survived all constitutional tests, the most important being the SCOTUS determination in 2012 that the individual mandate was constitutional. Roberts wrote the majority (5-4) opinion. The mandate was found to be a constitutional exercise of Congress's taxing power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyp25
Just to be clear SCOTUS ruled is was constitutional because of the tax. With the tax removed...it becomes un-constitutional ....
Correct. Taxing legislation signed by Trump last year zeroed out the tax penalty. The Texas decision found THAT action now rendered the individual mandate unconstitutional.
What's really interesting is the Judge's parallel decision that the ACA could not survive without the mandate. Frankly, he's probably right - the math doesn't work hence the need for and inclusion of the mandate in the original legislation. For healthcare insurance to be at all "affordable" (not that the ACA achieved that for many) it needs to be spread among a wide base.
I'm just not sure how constitutional it is for a Federal judge to pull down a program because Congress' numbers are faulty. No idea how he worded or what law he based the non-severable portion of the decision on. Regardless, that will be appealed up the wazoo.
This action is but one more illustration of how profoundly non-functional our system has become. No argument that both parties should work together to craft some functional solution. The problem with health care is that based on our current medical structure there probably is no system that will provide comprehensive care to all Americans at a price that folks can afford. And so this will continue.
I wrote last night that this decision doesn't directly impact me (beyond how the ACA is integrated into so much of our medical delivery). Just realized that was wrong. I still have a kid under age 26 who is on my health insurance. Trump had left that piece of ACA legislation in place. The Judge just struck it down, saying something about how he didn't want to work through the ACA provision by provision.
Incorrect. The law as it was originally passed survived all constitutional tests, the most important being the SCOTUS determination in 2012 that the individual mandate was constitutional. Roberts wrote the majority (5-4) opinion. The mandate was found to be a constitutional exercise of Congress's taxing power.
Correct. Taxing legislation signed by Trump last year zeroed out the tax penalty. The Texas decision found THAT action now rendered the individual mandate unconstitutional.
What's really interesting is the Judge's parallel decision that the ACA could not survive without the mandate. Frankly, he's probably right - the math doesn't work hence the need for and inclusion of the mandate in the original legislation. For healthcare insurance to be at all "affordable" (not that the ACA achieved that for many) it needs to be spread among a wide base.
I'm just not sure how constitutional it is for a Federal judge to pull down a program because Congress' numbers are faulty. No idea how he worded or what law he based the non-severable portion of the decision on. Regardless, that will be appealed up the wazoo.
This action is but one more illustration of how profoundly non-functional our system has become. No argument that both parties should work together to craft some functional solution. The problem with health care is that based on our current medical structure there probably is no system that will provide comprehensive care to all Americans at a price that folks can afford. And so this will continue.
I wrote last night that this decision doesn't directly impact me (beyond how the ACA is integrated into so much of our medical delivery). Just realized that was wrong. I still have a kid under age 26 who is on my health insurance. Trump had left that ACA legislation in place. The Judge just struck them down, saying something about how he didn't want to work through the ACA provision by provision.
Golly, your kid might have to actually pay for his own healthcare insurance. Welcome to life pal.
Looks like Medicare for all is about to become waaaay more palatable now to a lot more people. Way to go Republicans. This is what we wanted all along!
How much more tax would you be willing to pay for it?
10%?
15%?
50%?
Interesting the way these libs were all about the obviously partisan ruling of "constitutionality" of the Health Care Slavery Law, but now they conveniently ignore a ruling from the same system that says it is unconstitutional.
As for the original ruling, the 13th Amendment was declared null and void by that ruling, for if it had been referred to at the time, the Health Care Slavery Abomination would have been declared unconstitutional, just as slavery was a hundred fifty years ago:
The Thirteenth Amendment (Amendment XIII) to the United States Constitution abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
I ask, what crime did we all commit in order to be subject to slavery and/or involuntary servitude? Because CLEARLY, that is what the ACA (Health Care Slavery Law) was.
NOTE: Involuntary servitude or involuntary slavery is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs.
Golly, your kid might have to actually pay for his own healthcare insurance. Welcome to life pal.
I'm paying for her health insurance (family policy).
DD moving from that policy probably would be cheaper for me. Since there are just the two of us, I'd be able to switch from an expensive family policy to a single policy. Then I'd pick up one of those so-called cheap pre-ACA policies for her. She's healthy; no pre-conditions. Still in college. Overall, I'd probably save money.
The problem is that her insurance would be much worse. And thinking about this ... with my no longer paying premiums for my healthy kid into the insurance pool that pool would be impacted possibly affecting my rates down the road.
So who knows? But then I live in a Blue state where pre-ACA she could be on my policy until age 25 (a year younger than the ACA). Presumably that would then take effect? This stuff is complicated, with no free lunch to be had.
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.
