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.
SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) ignoring the plain language of the law may mean that SCOTUS doesn't believe that Congress would re-enacted another version of Omamacare that would provide the same entitlements.
That's because there is no uniform design. That and you would need to continue Obamacare until you have a full replacement even if it is unconstitutional. Otherwise those that instantly lost coverage would turn into an angry electorate, bigger than the conservatives that were mad about the law in the first place.
Unfortunately for Republicans, the big game in the next election is the Presidency, and 2012 demonstrated that railing against the Affordable Care Act isn't strong enough ammunition to bag that quarry. Why would it be any different in 2016?
Indeed, any judicious look at reality shows that it should be much less effective next year. In 2012 the issue was fresh. The Democratic nominee was the architect of the ACA to the degree that Republicans hung it around his neck with the label 'ObamaCare'. Mitt Romney made abolishing the ACA 'root and branch' (as it endless put it) a centerpiece of his campaign. And?
And President Obama won an easily reelection.
It's no more unpopular now (the ACA was at 43% unfavorability just before the 2012 election - it's now at 42% unfavorability). It's relatively old news now. The laughable 'death panels' claims have long been demonstrated to be the shameless lies that they were. And Barack Obama won't be on any ballots in 2016. Kaiser Family Foundation - Health Policy Research, Analysis, Polling, Facts, Data and Journalism
Quote:
Originally Posted by cougfan
But hey, it's Utopia now - all those rainbows and unicorns flying around........
Prop up that strawman and beat the stuffing out of it...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist
Instead of trying to destroy the ACA, maybe the Republicans should try to improve it? No, I guess then they could no longer whine.
The nihilist party of 'no' has no constructive answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LetsRock
This means nothing. I will now support the GOP to cancel this law in total. They will start by defunding it.
Too bad they have neither the 60 votes in the Senate to do so, nor anywhere close to the supermajorities in both houses required to override the inevitable Presidential veto. Nor, frankly, on the off-chance that they both win the Presidency in 2016 and actually want to repeal the ACA, will they get anywhere close to the numbers required in the Senate. Next year the Democrats defend a mere 10 blue state seats in the Senate, while the GOP has to defend 24 seats, 7 of them in states Obama carried twice.
This means nothing. I will now support the GOP to cancel this law in total. They will start by defunding it.
After this decision that is highly unlikely, this was the last hope for dismantling it. With the subsidies intact de-funding it would be so wildly unpopular that there would be a whole bunch of Republican politicians unwilling to risk re-election by voting for that.
President BarackObama recalled all the hurdles the Affordable Care Act has cleared in order tosurvive as he praised the Supreme Court's decision today to uphold thesubsidies in his signature health care law.
"The Affordable Care Act is here to stay," Obama said from the WhiteHouse.
"Americans would have gone backwards and that's not what we do, that's notwhat America does, we move forward."
People now have access to a health insurance card tied to a huge deductible. Does that necessarily equal health care?
My bronze plan costs 1K per month covers no ilness until 6K in deductibles is paid. This bad policy is now cemented in place due to this ruling.
Thanks for nothing.
I have some empathy for you.
Unfortunately, a lot of people do not understand what you just laid out.
They see Obamacare as "Yay! We have HEALTH INSURANCE!!".
But what they don't understand is that if you have high deductibles, high co-pays, and high out-of-pocket maximums, what you actually have is an albatross tied to your neck. In your situation, you will have contributed $18,000 on an annualized basis BEFORE your "insurance" kicks in.
That's not Affordable Care, but it is an Act. It's all been an Act.
Last edited by ntwrkguy1; 06-25-2015 at 11:35 AM..
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.
The only way to improve it will be to abolish it.
