Judge rules Obamacare unconstitutional, endangering coverage for 20 million

[JonNC]

State and local governments don’t have the resources to care for a lot of people who rely on government healthcare, especially those with medical conditions that are expensive to treat

State and local governments have the exact same resources as the general government; the taxpayers, meaning, none have resources of their own. But if the general government collected far less in taxes, more would be available for state and local.

If the Federal Government wasn’t picking up many of the costs, even at the state level it would be difficult to pay for it all.

Again, not if the general government wasn’t sucking up huge amounts of taxpayers money.

There are illnesses where the medication alone costs at least $1000 a month and up. I just read online that renal dialysis costs about $72,000 per year. How many of these people could local or even state government be able to provide with their medical care?

Please read above.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Catholic Church for many decades had a huge and effective hospital system.

The secularists put a lot of them out of business.

Masons and others still are effective.

 

[ProVobis]

Catholic Church for many decades had a huge and effective hospital system.

Right. That was when the nuns performed most of the nursing services. Same with education.

 

[pnewton]

Maybe this holiday season we can remember to keep love of our fellow man in our hearts. To quote A Christmas Carol:

“If these shadows remain unaltered by the Future, none other of my race,” returned the Ghost, “will find him here. What then? If he be like to die, he had better do it, and decrease the surplus population”
Scrooge hung his head to hear his own words quoted by the Spirit, and was overcome with penitence and grief.

“Have they no refuge or resource?” cried Scrooge.
“Are there no prisons?” said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. “Are there no workhouses?”

 

[LastStand]

The story subverts the point you are trying to make. Scrooge realizes that government solutions (prisons and workhouses) are inhumane and inadequate and donates his own money to help needy people.

 

[petra22]

provide affordable health care to all Americans, regardless of income.

this part is NOT true. It was not written to provide affordable health care for all if only part of the people were going to pay… the rest of the people thought government was going to pay… guess who is the government and who was paying THE GOVERNMENT’s part???

 

[petra22]

This same justice made the laughable claim that judges aren’t partisan. His judgment is highly suspect.

Not to start conspiracy theories but I just wonder if “they” have something on him? Something in his closet that he doesn’t want to come out??? Some of his rulings just don’t make sense…

 

[exnihilo]

Well, they don’t have a giant spy state for nothing. They didn’t collect all our emails and web traffic data for nothing. People have been collecting dirt on people since the beginning. The technology of today makes it easy to do on anyone.

 

[Holly3278]

I really don’t have much of an opinion about the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, simply because I don’t know a whole lot about it. I do like the fact that it guarantees people with preexisting conditions the right to health insurance coverage but other than that and the subsidized health insurance you can get through health exchanges, those are the only benefits of having the law that I am aware of.

That said, I have Medicaid and have had Medicaid since 2004. I don’t know if the Affordable Care Act is the cause or not but I know my Medicaid did get better after it was passed into law. Prior to it being passed into law, I had co pays on all of my medicine. Now that it is law, I no longer have co pays on any of my medicine and that has helped me out a lot since I take quite a few medications.

 

[Thorolfr]

Thorolfr:

State and local governments don’t have the resources to care for a lot of people who rely on government healthcare, especially those with medical conditions that are expensive to treat

State and local governments have the exact same resources as the general government; the taxpayers, meaning, none have resources of their own. But if the general government collected far less in taxes, more would be available for state and local.

That all assumes, of course, that people at the state level would be willing to pay more in state and local taxes if they had to pay less in federal taxes. But that might not be the case. You would also end up with cases where, for example, poor people in California had good, well funded health care while poor people in Alabama didn’t. That’s still probably true to some extent, but the disparity would become even greater.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Thorolfr:

State and local governments don’t have the resources to care for a lot of people who rely on government healthcare, especially those with medical conditions that are expensive to treat

State and local governments have the exact same resources as the general government; the taxpayers, meaning, none have resources of their own. But if the general government collected far less in taxes, more would be available for state and local.

That all assumes, of course, that people at the state level would be willing to pay more in state and local taxes if they had to pay less in federal taxes. But that might not be the case. You would also end up with cases where, for example, poor people in California had good, well funded health care while poor people in Alabama didn’t. That’s still probably true to some extent, but the disparity would become even greater.

Your assumption that the general government would do a better job than the states assumes facts not in evidence. Your assumption that government at any level would do a better job also assumes facts not in evidence.

But even if you are right, that choice should reside with each state, along with the expectation that churches would fulfill Christ ‘s call to care for the least of His children.

 

[Stephen_C]

But that is an maybe. A could, should, or maybe. It is definitely not a guarantee that they would get the funds or the care they need. And how would these local church’s define who would be worthy. Member of the church? Could they be denied help if they do not hold the same beliefs as that of the church or charity? How do we make sure all that needs help get it?

 

[JonNC]

You tell me if Catholic charities deny people care if they’re not Catholic. Does Shriners or St Jude’s deny care based on beliefs? Does Lions Club deny glasses based of beliefs? I would be more concerned with government denying care due to age, an individual ‘s cost of care, use of healthcare as a political tool
We can make sure by using state and local governments as the safety net if one is needed.

 

[Thorolfr]

Your assumption that the general government would do a better job than the states assumes facts not in evidence. Your assumption that government at any level would do a better job also assumes facts not in evidence.

But even if you are right, that choice should reside with each state, along with the expectation that churches would fulfill Christ ‘s call to care for the least of His children.

People in some states would definitely be much worse off. For example, Mississippi gets back about $3 for every $1 its residents send in taxes to the Federal government. South Carolina receives back more than $7 for every $1 its citizens send to Washington. Some states such as Delaware, on the other hand, get back less than $1 for every $1 it’s citizens send to Washington. In a lot of the poorest states such as Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, etc., the Federal government spends hundreds of billions of dollars each year to maintain safety net programs. Those states, because they are comparatively poor states, wouldn’t be able to replace what they would lose from the Federal government and its poor residents would be worse off than they already are.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Your assumption that the general government would do a better job than the states assumes facts not in evidence. Your assumption that government at any level would do a better job also assumes facts not in evidence.

But even if you are right, that choice should reside with each state, along with the expectation that churches would fulfill Christ ‘s call to care for the least of His children.

People in some states would definitely be much worse off. For example, Mississippi gets back about $3 for every $1 its residents send in taxes to the Federal government. South Carolina receives back more than $7 for every $1 its citizens send to Washington. Some states such as Delaware, on the other hand, get back less than $1 for every $1 it’s citizens send to Washington. In a lot of the poorest states such as Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, etc., the Federal government spends hundreds of billions of dollars each year to maintain safety net programs. Those states, because they are comparatively poor states, wouldn’t be able to replace what they would lose from the Federal government and its poor residents would be worse off than they already are.

You’re speculating on what they could or couldn’t do, and ignoring the proper role of churches and charities.
The very fact that the general government is still spending hundreds of billions every year on safety net programs should be a good indicator that the War on Poverty, even assuming good intentions, is a failure. The general government is not good at this kind of stuff.

 

[Thorolfr]

I don’t think it’s speculation to say that Mississippi wouldn’t be able to spend as much on safety net programs as California just because California is a wealthier state with more rich people who can pay more in taxes. And you’re exaggerating what churches would be able or willing to pay. A lot of churches have enough difficulty paying their own bills. And its unrealistic, for example, to expect them to help cover medicine for a cancer patient that might cost a few thousand a month. Or to pay for medicine for some chronic illnesses that can also cost $50,000 or $60,000 per year.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think it’s speculation to say that Mississippi wouldn’t be able to spend as much on safety net programs as California just because California is a wealthier state with more rich people who can pay more in taxes. And you’re exaggerating what churches would be able or willing to pay. A lot of churches have enough difficulty paying their own bills. And its unrealistic, for example, to expect them to help cover medicine for a cancer patient that might cost a few thousand a month. Or to pay for medicine for some chronic illnesses that can also cost $50,000 or $60,000 per year.

california is virtually broke. It’s middle class is disappearing. So, yes, it is speculation. It is also irrelevant. Market forces will require prices to respond to what the market will bear.
Escalating medical prices are the result of government. More government is not the solution.

 

[Thorolfr]

California isn’t as broke as Mississippi or Kansas. Anyone who needed help from safety net programs would be better off living in California than Kansas. And that’s not to bash Kansas. My grandmother came from Kansas and there are lots of nice people there, but if I was experiencing hard times and needed help, I’d rather live in California than in Kansas.

 

[ProVobis]

Escalating medical prices are the result of government. More government is not the solution.

That used to be my argument until someone reminded me of the Salk vaccine.

 

[pnewton]

???

The story is not a political one. That totally misses the meaning of the story, and of Christianity. The message is love of others. The context is the Nineteenth Century, not the Twenty-first. God will not ever judge us for the intelligence of our decisions, but of the character of our heart.

This is why the Church continues to teach and guide. Like this:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...cement-for-affordable-care-act-2017-09-21.cfm

If we are going to disagree with a program like the ACA, Medicaid, or any other, it must be from the love we have of the poor, and their needs, not our own selfish desire for more stuff.