Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional, endangering coverage for 20 million

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen_C
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The cost of monitoring and managing these rebates you propose would likely escalate the cost of healthcare more than you would create savings.
 
They were designed to save underwriting and other administrative costs. As well as cut sales commissions. I knew a few salesmen who opposed ACA for that reason. They had been trained to explain the intricacies of each policy but with standardized plans, this info was available online.

The rollout was disastrous though.
 
Last edited:
Maybe. The data behind it would is already collected in the process of managing these conditions. Ideally the health companies would administer this as they’d see the main benefits of cost reduction.
 
But the government oversight with high paying jobs, health care benefits, retirement pensions, additional office space and higher paid managers to oversee the overseers…then of course auditors and inspector general staff…lawyers to fight the legal challenges by whomever disagrees with the process…you get my drift.
 
Well, those in the ER who were able to sign up weren’t complaining. And the hospitals weren’t either. Just sayin’.
 
It must be said that the GOP has tried to repeal ACA more then 50 times. Instead of trying to make it better.
So now we have a neutered act. The making of the GOP. So when you talk about ACA and how it is doing. We are talking about the GOP neutered version. It is like pulling all the wiring out of a car. Then when it will not start. Saying I told you it would not start………
 
Last edited:
Stephen_C said:
It must be said that the GOP has tried to repeal ACA more then 50 times. Instead of trying to make it better.
So now we have a neutered act. The making of the GOP. So when you talk about ACA and how it is doing. We are talking about the GOP neutered version. It is like pulling all the wiring out of a car. Then when it will not start. Saying I told you it would not start………
Click to expand...
That’s because it should be repealed. It is an attempted first step at the goal of complete government dictatorial control over the health care of the American people.
It didn’t work from the start, and it depended on the individual mandate, which was purely and simply government coercion. If ACA is so wonderful, it wouldn’t need coercion in order to get people to participate.
 
Last edited:
“We are talking about the GOP neutered version. It is like pulling all the wiring out of a car. Then when it will not start. Saying I told you it would not start”
 
Stephen_C said:
“We are talking about the GOP neutered version. It is like pulling all the wiring out of a car. Then when it will not start. Saying I told you it would not start”
Click to expand...
We are talking about a failed-from-the-start government program. The “wiring” you’re talking about is the individual mandate, and that’s the authoritarian style coercion I was talking about.
 
But none the less the “wiring” was pulled out. Like trying to fix a leak in a boat by beating it with sledgehammer.
I guess we just need to leave it there. My point is that ACA as it stand now is the GOP neutered version. So gauging how well or badly ACA is performing is mute.
 
Perhaps if the bill had gotten a single GOP vote, we’d have a compromise bill, but Obama didn’t care to do that.

This is his bill. It should have been written such that it couldn’t be pulled apart by future legislators. Or gotten support and agreement from the right.

Don’t blame the Republicans for trying to undo a mess of a law. I am fine with blaming them for not being prepared with a cohesive alternative if you believe they should provide one, but many don’t believe this has a place at the federal level to begin with, so why should they feel obligated to do so?
 
Stephen_C said:
But none the less the “wiring” was pulled out. Like trying to fix a leak in a boat by beating it with sledgehammer.
I guess we just need to leave it there. My point is that ACA as it stand now is the GOP neutered version. So gauging how well or badly ACA is performing is mute.
Click to expand...
When the “Wiring” is authoritarian, it should be pulled out, but ACA was a failure from the start.
If it depends on authoritarian coercion, it should be neutered, as it has no place in a free society.
 
JonNC said:
It is an attempted first step at the goal of complete government dictatorial control over the health care of the American people.
Click to expand...
No. You may perceive it that way, but it simply isn’t.

It was an imperfect, flawed attempt to provide affordable health care to all Americans, regardless of income.

Not everything government does is to further some imagined goal of pressing the jackbooted heel of dictatorial government on the throat of the people.
 
Inisfallen said:
40.png
JonNC:
It is an attempted first step at the goal of complete government dictatorial control over the health care of the American people.
Click to expand...
No. You may perceive it that way, but it simply isn’t.

It was an imperfect, flawed attempt to provide affordable health care to all Americans, regardless of income.

Not everything government does is to further some imagined goal of pressing the jackbooted heel of dictatorial government on the throat of the people.
Click to expand...
You’re right. Not everything. If they stay within the strict limits of the enumerated powers, they’re okay.
 
Well, according to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the ACA is within the limits of the enumerated powers (i.e., the government’s taxing authority).

According to Texas District Court Judge Reed O’Connor, I guess it isn’t, since Congress saw fit to remove the penalty for not purchasing insurance from the act. But as a District Court decision, it’s subject to appeal, all the way up to the Supreme Court (where, obviously, Roberts still sits). So we shall see if Judge O’Connor’s opinion carries the day.
 
Last edited:
Inisfallen said:
It was an imperfect, flawed attempt to provide affordable health care to all Americans, regardless of income.
Click to expand...
It was an attempt to provide health insurance to those who could pay the higher premiums that resulted from the demands of the law. Health insurance isn’t healt care.

If we really wanted more people to be able to get more health care the only concern would be lowering health care costs. There isn’t much the state can do there except get out of the way, which they’ll never do.
Inisfallen said:
Well, according to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the ACA is within the limits of the enumerated powers (i.e., the government’s taxing authority).
Click to expand...
This same justice made the laughable claim that judges aren’t partisan. His judgment is highly suspect.
 
exnihilo said:
Health insurance isn’t healt care.
Click to expand...
You are right, of course, and that’s a distinction that I myself have made often here at CAF.
exnihilo said:
This same justice made the laughable claim that judges aren’t partisan. His judgment is highly suspect.
Click to expand...
If that’s the case, perhaps Judge O’Connor was acting from partisan motives. After all, he was appointed by a Republican president, and he is a member of and contributor (of content – articles and speeches, not, as far as I know, of money) to the Federalist Society.

That wasn’t my assumption, though. I do tend to assume that the federal bench makes every effort to be non-partisan.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top