Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional, endangering coverage for 20 million

[Inisfallen]

. 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?

Because the President promised that he would do so.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.92d1ca40ec76

He is now in a position to fulfill his promise, and he still has a majority in the Senate. If he presents his plan, and it actually does what he promised it would do, he should have no trouble winning over the Democrats in both houses.

Really, the stage is set for him to do what he said he would do.

We’re waiting.

 

[ProVobis]

Perhaps if the bill had gotten a single GOP vote

For the record, Virginia Snowe cast a vote to advance the bill to the floor. She paid a political price for that. Also Specter had just switched parties to vote for the bill. 1 Republican House member voted for the original House bill. But officially no Republican voted for the final bill.

 

[exnihilo]

That wasn’t my assumption, though. I do tend to assume that the federal bench makes every effort to be non-partisan.

I don’t have such a view of judges. Attorneys clearly judge shop hoping to get the best judge for their case. Confirmation hearings are a big deal because everyone knows judges are partisan.

 

[ProVobis]

Health insurance isn’t healt care.

But then flood insurance isn’t really insurance either since a farmer can sign up for it from the government as a hurricane approaches.

 

[Inisfallen]

Attorneys clearly judge shop hoping to get the best judge for their case.

I can only speak about the area in which I live, but I have some familiarity with the process of assigning judges to cases (although I am not a lawyer, I have worked in large law firms as an IT person for around twenty years, and have had to become quite familiar with the local rules of the courts here). Here in New York, in the Southern District, and in the state courts, judges are assigned to cases randomly. Emergency motions are assigned to whatever judge is “on duty” for such motions that day, and the duty is rotated among the judges.

Appeals are even less susceptible to judge shopping.

Judge shopping (at least here) isn’t as easy as you seem to think.

 

[ProVobis]

This same justice made the laughable claim that judges aren’t partisan.

It’s a wish to be like baseball umpires.

 

[exnihilo]

But then flood insurance isn’t really insurance either since a farmer can sign up for it from the government as a hurricane approaches.

No, it is insurance. It is just an example of how ridiculous socialism is.

Judge shopping (at least here) isn’t as easy as you seem to think.

I didn’t say it was easy. But it happens. At the federal level this is also done by filing in certain jurisdictions.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-treacy/is-judge-shopping-a-crime_b_6439640.html

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

Yea. Someone always has to ruin the party.

 

[Victoria33]

Haven’t all these doctors quit over Obamacare and some people have taken to working two jobs and others pay exorbitant amounts to pay their insurance premiums monthly. Yes, blame Trump and the GOP for a judges decision. That makes sense.

 

[Inisfallen]

Haven’t all these doctors quit over Obamacare and some people have taken to working two jobs and others pay exorbitant amounts to pay their insurance premiums monthly. Yes, blame Trump and the GOP for a judges decision. That makes sense.

Well, I haven’t blamed Trump, or the Republican Party, for this judge’s decision. As you’ll see in my posts above, I generally assume that the federal judiciary is independent and not beholden to any political interests.

And (again, as I said above), President Trump explicitly promised us something better than Obamacare, something that would provide lower health care costs for all, and lower prescription drug costs, than the ACA. He said he had a plan. Now would be the perfect time for him to present it. I would support him 100% if he presented such a plan, and got it through Congress. He is now in a perfect position to do so. If he does what he promised, that would be a legacy he could be proud of, and for which all Americans should be grateful. We’re waiting…

That said, I’m not aware of “all these doctors” quitting the profession. And, if there are people working two jobs to pay for their health insurance (through the ACA) that might be due as much to employers fiddling with hours to render employees ineligible for company-provided health care, or to other factors, as it is to the ACA.

So I’ll stand by what I said above. The ACA was an imperfect, flawed attempt to address a glaring problem in the United States. As imperfect as it is, it was a very big step in the right direction.

 

[exnihilo]

And (again, as I said above), President Trump explicitly promised us something better than Obamacare, something that would provide lower health care costs for all , and lower prescription drug costs, than the ACA. He said he had a plan. Now would be the perfect time for him to present it. I would support him 100% if he presented such a plan, and got it through Congress.

Such a plan would be easy. Using basic economic knowledge we know getting the government out of the way lowers costs. Unfortunately lots of folks refuse to believe this. Unfortunately lots of folks insist on getting the specific economic outcome they personally desire and refuse to support the free market. Unfortunately many, maybe most Democrat politicians would paint any plan as ‘taking away your health care’. Politics is all about promising voters stolen goods.

 

[Victoria33]

https://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/barbara-boland/over-214000-doctors-opt-out-obamacare-exchanges

In January, an estimated 70% of California’s physicians were not participating in Covered California plans.

Here are some of the reasons why:

1.  Reimbursements under Obamacare are at bottom-dollar - they are even lower than Medicare reimbursements, which are already significantly below market rates. "It is estimated that where private plans pay $1.00 for a service, Medicare pays $0.80, and ACA exchange plans are now paying about $0.60," a study by the think-tank American Action Forum [finds](http://americanactionforum.org/insights/health-care-providers-are-opting-out-of-obamacare-exchang-plans#_edn18). "For example, Covered California plans are setting their plan fee schedules in line with that of Medi-Cal-California's Medicaid Program-which means exchange plans are ***cutting provider reimbursement by*** ***up to 40 percent*** ."

2. Doctors are expected to take on more patients to make up for the lost revenue, but that's not happening, because primary care doctors already have more patients than they can handle. "Furthermore, physicians are worried that exchange plan patients will be sicker than the average patient because they may have been without insurance for extended periods of time, and therefore will require more of the PCPs time at lower pay," says the study.

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t doubt that as every doctor doesn’t accept Medicare either. After all they have bills to pay.

But when you have ER’s that must treat the patient, they won’t survive if they keep providing free healthcare.

 

[DENNYINMI]

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………

Nothing like the Truth. Pure, simple and plainly spoken. The other side of this coin is the complaints of government coercion, big government stepping on our wee little toes, and the buzz word freedom which as of late comes wrapped in the flag of a nationalist toting a bible in one hand and a gun in the other.

Truth be told the government has not once made a regulation that society hasn’t coerced. We are not nor have we ever been a pro-active nation, our laws mandates and regulations have come about due to re-action. To translate: Not because someone ‘might’ do someone wrong, but because they ‘did’.

Bean counters decide over doctors now which treatment is feasible, and were more than willing to cap care on catastrophic illnesses when persons needed them most. They have the gall to deny treatment in many cases, and junk insurance which cost dollars for pennies worth of care needed government to step in and stop the deceit which proved fatalistic for many. Fine lines needed to be read, in many cases too late while an “affordable” plan looked “affordable” it offered not the paper it was copied on.

Keep big government out they say. Keeping the insurance companies (one must wonder what their CEO’S make per year) out of the decision making process between patient and doctor and forcing them to be there when needed the most has taken a giant to force them to do what they were designed to do.

Keep the faith. Keep up the good fight. Vote!~

 

[Inisfallen]

That’s a far cry from doctors quitting the profession.

There have always been doctors who would not participate in insurance plans of any kind.

 

[Victoria33]

There are plenty of articles on this. I don’t see a great need to research something that has been reported frequently in the news.

 

[ProVobis]

ProVobis:

But then flood insurance isn’t really insurance either since a farmer can sign up for it from the government as a hurricane approaches.

No, it is insurance. It is just an example of how ridiculous socialism is.

And both parties are guilty.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&sou...aw3ArwtxbkdX3ylH7Po5KMXo&ust=1545082511861336

 

[exnihilo]

Of course. You don’t get elected by not picking someone else’s pocket for your constituents.

 

[Inisfallen]

Victoria (and I say this with all due respect, and as courteously as possible), if one makes a claim, and then cannot or will not substantiate that claim, one cannot be surprised if said claim is not taken at face value.

That’s the standard to which I expect to be held, certainly.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Obamacare has long seemed to me a program by which one segment of the middle class subsidizes another segment of the middle class.

Those who pay the freight include those who have employment-based insurance, at least in part. They are “in part” subsidizers because the mandated coverages largely benefit others because of the “well worker effect”.

But the ones on the heavy end of the payment are those middle class people who do not have employment-based insurance. Heavily represented would be self-employed people who do not make huge sums of money.

I don’t think congress foresaw how many people would be subsidized or what it would cost those who have to pay the subsidy. Nor do I think congress could have possibly realized that Obamacare quite possibly resulted in no net gain of people covered by health insurance.

The last I knew, the CBO estimated that some 30 million Americans didnt’ have health coverage despite Obamacare. Since nobody really knew how many didn’t have coverage before Obamacare, nobody knows whether there was any net gain in those insured.