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 have been hearing bits and pieces from the hearing for Amy Coney Barrett and the Democrats have been hitting her with the charge that if she is appointed she will somehow strip millions of people of their healthcare when it is appealed.
Here is a question that should be asked of all the Democrats on that panel.
If Obamacare is so good, so amazing then why did the Senators vote to exempt themselves from it?
ahhh, that's just a sideshow argument - even though it's true.
you should read about whether the case that will come before the SC will even be ruled in favor of "Trump's side". Apparently, ACB participated in some anonymous judge panel for law students that covered the case, and the results of the judges were unanimously against the "Trump side".
Even beyond all that, those lawyer Dems aren't able to admit that this could easily be seen/ruled as a narrow condition of the ACA, and the ACA doesn't get immediately dissolved regardless of the ruling.
ahhh, that's just a sideshow argument - even though it's true.
you should read about whether the case that will come before the SC will even be ruled in favor of "Trump's side". Apparently, ACB participated in some anonymous judge panel for law students that covered the case, and the results of the judges were unanimously against the "Trump side".
Even beyond all that, those lawyer Dems aren't able to admit that this could easily be seen/ruled as a narrow condition of the ACA, and the ACA doesn't get immediately dissolved regardless of the ruling.
Well if it goes against the "Trump side" that is fine as long as the ruling is not influenced by politics and politicians. Ruling along a party lines agenda is the problem that needs to be avoided. It always bothered me that RBG was so anti Trump and voiced her displeasure of him. The justices should be impartial.
ACA seems like a silly thing to question her on but it is better than attacking her on her faith . I think they actually know better than to do that.
At least no one has asked her if she likes beer, yet... or if she was part of any rape parties while in school.
I have been hearing bits and pieces from the hearing for Amy Coney Barrett and the Democrats have been hitting her with the charge that if she is appointed she will somehow strip millions of people of their healthcare when it is appealed.
Here is a question that should be asked of all the Democrats on that panel.
If Obamacare is so good, so amazing then why did the Senators vote to exempt themselves from it?
Two biggest sticking points for most people:
1. No liftetime or yearly term limits: Before the ACA it was legal for insurance companies to put a dollar limit on the amount of coverage you can receive. This didn't matter if you had employer sponsored healthcare or bought your own coverage. If you were diagnosed with stage 3 cancer and required immediate attention for chemo and an extended hospital visit, it was possible they could legally deny to help pay for the costs at a certain point. This bankrupted millions of families who needed the most help.
2. The Pre-existing condition law: Before the ACA it was legal for insurance companies to deny you, or your spouse, or your children coverage if they had a terminal illness. This didn't matter if you had employer sponsored healthcare or bought your own coverage. The ACA made it law that a company could not deny you or your family healthcare based off of something like cancer or in the need of an organ transplant.
I am not going to write out a ton on why the state exchanges were hamstrung and screwed up from the start. The Republican's obstructionism is well documented else where.
I have been hearing bits and pieces from the hearing for Amy Coney Barrett and the Democrats have been hitting her with the charge that if she is appointed she will somehow strip millions of people of their healthcare when it is appealed.
Here is a question that should be asked of all the Democrats on that panel.
If Obamacare is so good, so amazing then why did the Senators vote to exempt themselves from it?
Agreed. I'd just like to see ACB say something like that.
1. No liftetime or yearly term limits: Before the ACA it was legal for insurance companies to put a dollar limit on the amount of coverage you can receive. This didn't matter if you had employer sponsored healthcare or bought your own coverage. If you were diagnosed with stage 3 cancer and required immediate attention for chemo and an extended hospital visit, it was possible they could legally deny to help pay for the costs at a certain point. This bankrupted millions of families who needed the most help.
2. The Pre-existing condition law: Before the ACA it was legal for insurance companies to deny you, or your spouse, or your children coverage if they had a terminal illness. This didn't matter if you had employer sponsored healthcare or bought your own coverage. The ACA made it law that a company could not deny you or your family healthcare based off of something like cancer or in the need of an organ transplant.
I am not going to write out a ton on why the state exchanges were hamstrung and screwed up from the start. The Republican's obstructionism is well documented else where.
So what? What does that have to do with this justice confirmation hearing? Is the law subject to emotionalism? Should a judge rule based on emotional appeals?
So what? What does that have to do with this justice confirmation hearing? Is the law subject to emotionalism? Should a judge rule based on emotional appeals?
No, it's just been challenged over 70 times in Federal court and multiple times in front of the supreme court. It's been deemed constitutional by a wide array of judges selected by both Democrats and Republicans.
However, not until now, do we get a handpicked socket puppet of a woman who's whole career has been carefully curated to make for the perfect Sharia law choice.
No, it's just been challenged over 70 times in Federal court and multiple times in front of the supreme court. It's been deemed constitutional by a wide array of judges selected by both Democrats and Republicans.
However, not until now, do we get a handpicked socket puppet of a woman who's whole career has been carefully curated to make for the perfect Sharia law choice.
If it's solidly constitutional, then there is nothing to worry about. All of this grandstanding is irrelevant.
If it's solidly constitutional, then there is nothing to worry about. All of this grandstanding is irrelevant.
It's true, once precedence has been set, its very ill-frequently reversed. However, given Barrett's career history, her public comments on issues, etc. it is very clear why she was the nominee before the nomination process even started.
The case dates are already being set in November after the election to tackle the most controversial cases.
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.
