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.
exnihilo said:
We should be up in arms but we have politicians like Obama selling everyone on how great insurance is.
Click to expand...
I don’t need anyone to tell me how great it is to have insurance, of this I am fully already aware. Regarding your comment that health insurance was started by the "government’ please provide a source.
 
No, I said health insurance as being associated with a job started in response to wage controls during WWII. I said government interference in the market led to health insurance being tied to a job.

www.griffinbenefits.com

A Brief History of Employer-Sponsored Healthcare [From the 1930s to Now]

A historical timeline of employer-sponsored healthcare as context for the state of American healthcare as it exists today.
www.griffinbenefits.com www.griffinbenefits.com
To combat inflation, the 1942 Stabilization Act was passed. Designed to limit employers’ freedom to raise wages and thus to compete on the basis of pay for scarce workers, the actual result of the act was that employers began to offer health benefits as incentives instead.

Suddenly, employers were in the health insurance business. Because health benefits could be considered part of compensation but did not count as income, workers did not have to pay income tax or payroll taxes on those benefits. Thus, by 1943, employers had an increased incentive to make health insurance arrangements for their workers, and the modern era of employer-sponsored health insurance began, a pivotal point in the History of Healthcare in America.
Click to expand...
 
As for Obamacare, the best thing to do about it is take Hillary’s tip. First, control the internet server, delete every “bit” of it; next, bleach it; third smash every little chip with a hammer; finally burn the remains in an unexplained house fire when nobody is home. She used this method several times and so far … Wallah!
 
exnihilo said:
No, I said health insurance as being associated with a job started in response to wage controls during WWII. I said government interference in the market led to health insurance being tied to a job.
Click to expand...
that’s not exactly what was said when viewed once again. NOW you wish to clarify a timeline for “Employer-Sponsored Healthcare” which for what ever reason it began, proved insurance in general was already known to have existed…only now it would be a benefit…An enticing benefit to have to be sure, and standard hallmark of having a “good Job” in the days of lore since it’s now a by-gone era. Or, you’re fortunate enough to retain one of the remaining jobs in this country that continues to offer it.

I’m not a proponent of rugged individualism, the basic fundamentals such as clean air, food, housing, and health care are stepping stones for which I’d rather not worry about so as to get on with the business of living. Need I say for my brother as well.
 
Last edited:
I had two maiden aunts who had multiple health insurance policies. Back when I was a kid, people would sometimes go to a local hospital like it was a hotel, almost. They could just about stay as long as they wanted. Health insurance policies weren’t “stacked” the way they are now, where one is primary and another only pays what the first one didn’t.

Anyway, every time one of them went to the doctor or into the hospital, she made money. One policy would pay for the treatment, another would pay her cash based on the cost of the treatment. I don’t know what one of them paid, but the other one paid $50/month for her coverage as late as the 1970s.

Of course, back then there weren’t MRIs or PET scans or Keytruda or any of the breathtakingly expensive things we have now.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Health insurance policies weren’t “stacked” the way they are now, where one is primary and another only pays what the first one didn’t.
Click to expand...
There are insurance policies that do pay directly to the patient. So while it takes money out of pocket, it is possible to be reimbursed in excess of what treatment costs.
 
That is one company that does it. Colonial Life also pays that way.
 
Last edited:
Ridgerunner said:
If a person doesn’t have employment, he’ll almost certainly qualify for Medicaid.
Click to expand...
If all of Obamacare is unconstitutional and is struck down, that would also mean that the Medicaid expansion which is part of Obamacare would also disappear. And in many states, non-expansion Medicaid mostly only covers people who are disabled, pregnant women, and children. So, that would leave a lot of people who wouldn’t qualify for Medicaid anymore no matter how poor they are or whether they’re employed or not. There’s always the emergency room, I guess, if someone gets desperate.
 
Last edited:
No thanks. I pulled up the producer of the video. Their lead was, “Why You Should be a Nationalist.” I prefer to get information from people with a sense of morality.
 
Thorolfr said:
40.png
Ridgerunner:
If a person doesn’t have employment, he’ll almost certainly qualify for Medicaid.
Click to expand...
If all of Obamacare is unconstitutional and is struck down, that would also mean that the Medicaid expansion which is part of Obamacare would also disappear. And in many states, non-expansion Medicaid mostly only covers people who are disabled, pregnant women, and children. So, that would leave a lot of people who wouldn’t qualify for Medicaid anymore no matter how poor they are or whether they’re employed or not. There’s always the emergency room, I guess, if someone gets desperate.
Click to expand...
Perhaps this will be the catalyst to begin exploring ways to truly help those in need without a large, extra-constitutional, inefficient central bureaucracy.
Perhaps it will be the catalyst for states and local governments to take control of their role in our constitutional system.
Perhaps it will be a catalyst for churches to reclaim from government coercion their call from Christ Himself to care for the least of His children.
 
pnewton said:
No thanks. I pulled up the producer of the video. Their lead was, “Why You Should be a Nationalist.” I prefer to get information from people with a sense of morality.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that nationalism lacks a sense of morality?
 
I posted this video link about WHY ObamaCare cannot work . . .
40.png
Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional, endangering coverage for 20 million World News
Why Obamacare Doesn’t Work As Promised PragerU 39,870 views [Why Obamacare Doesn't Work As Promised]
Click to expand...

pnewton responded this way . . .

pnewton . . . .
No thanks. I pulled up the producer of the video. Their lead was, “Why You Should be a Nationalist.” I prefer to get information from people with a sense of morality.
Click to expand...
Do you look up the history of CNN producers before accepting their “news” stories too?
Or just PragerU? Or some other standard?

Why do you think people who favor their own nation or “nationalists”
are not people “with a sense of morality”?

Do you think “Globalists” are people “with a sense of morality”? Why or why not?

Why isn’t that bigoted to paint all “Nationalists” as people who “lack morality”?

Hopefully if a minority commits a crime . . .
. . . someone would not run around saying such and such minorities have no sense of morality (regarding that crime committed by that single minority person).

Isn’t that painting with a broad brush? (Inferring that “Nationalists” have NO SENSE of morality??)
Why should people hear statements like that and NOT come to the conclusion such statements are bigoted?

Was Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau lacking “morality” because he wants to put Canada first?

Or is it only people you disagree with politically that “lack morality” when they exhibit “nationalism”?

(Listen to Trudeau. Just ignore the eyebrow appearing to fall off from the shadow thing.)


Does Trudeau here “lack morality” for wanting to put his own country first?
(I think he “lacks morality” for other reasons but not from what he said here.)

.

Or is it only “immoral” to put your own country first (nationalism) if you are an American?

.

Are the Clintons immoral for at least alleging to put America first?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swtDFqaXy6Y

.

Please clarify your comments.
 
Last edited:
One needs to know how many people on the expanded Medicaid had employment-based insurance or limited policies before Obamacare before one can judge the effect of the expansion. One would also need to know the effect on the truly poor who really need the care and have no resources to pay for it. The more people you crowd into an already-overloaded system, the worse it gets for those for whom it was actually designed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top