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.
That’s not the point and you should know that.

The reality is that the Obama administration was in no position to change the ACA after two years because of the obstructionist tactics of the GOP’s and it’s “Do Nothing” control on Congress that even voted against bills they themselves had proposed before. The ACA was largely modeled after the Heritage Foundations plan and also “Romneycare”.

And if you were to remember correctly, McConnell said his #1 priority was to make Obama a one-term president-- thus not what’s good for the country.
 
The ACA was challenged in the SCOTUS and was deemed constitutional. Now we have another challenge by a lower court on the mandate but we don’t yet know how that will play out, especially since the district judge who made the ruling is a Republican appointee and has that orientation as part of his reputation.

IOW, let’s see what happens before jumping to conclusions one way or the other.
 
Finally as I have to leave for the weekend, let me just return on one major “inconvenient truth”, namely that the GOP and their constituents have whined continuously about the ACA, and yet over two years since the GOP took control of Washington, they have done literally nothing to change it as they promised. So, why don’t some here admit as such instead of just playing games.

Either way, have a great weekend and a most blessed mass.
 
Metis1 said:
The ACA was challenged in the SCOTUS and was deemed constitutional. Now we have another challenge by a lower court on the mandate but we don’t yet know how that will play out, especially since the district judge who made the ruling is a Republican appointee and has that orientation as part of his reputation.

IOW, let’s see what happens before jumping to conclusions one way or the other.
Click to expand...
i never denied that the SCOTUS ruled such. I think they were wrong, but that doesn’t matter. The fact is that ACA, constitutional or not, was horrible legislation.
 
I don’t know. From a Catholic viewpoint it seems there was no compromise. The ACA was supposed to standardize coverage and deductibles to cut down on administrative costs. I suppose one exchange could be devoted to Catholic coverage and one for non-Catholics. Would that work better? At least you have a choice.
 
Last edited:
I agree. Perhaps we can begin by testing the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act and the elimination of a gold standard among many other bills, including farm subsidies and govt flood insurance.
 
Last edited:
ProVobis said:
The ACA was supposed to standardize coverage and deductibles to cut down on administrative costs.
Click to expand...
ROFL, where did you read that line of you know what??

ACA was about forcing healthy people, plus the young and uninsured to pay up and cover the unhealthy and uninsured.

It had nothing to do with reducing “administrative costs”
 
I haven’t read the whole bill but I seem to remember a 85% figure to determine premiums. I could be wrong though.
 
Last edited:
ProVobis said:
I haven’t read the whole bill but I seem to remember a 85% figure to determine premiums. I could be wrong though.
Click to expand...
I don’t recall it, but that may have been one of the many many promises broken by Obama on ACA.

FYI, admin costs increased.

www.forbes.com

The ACA Increased, Rather Than Decreased, Administrative Costs Of Health Insurance

ACA proponents promised a savings of administrative costs, mainly marketing, by setting up government run exchanges. The government spent far more to set up those exchanges than insurers saved in administrative costs. Total administrative costs more than doubled.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 
Only someone in Govt would think you can just mandate the overhead rate for an industry, and it will magically go down.

Businesses are already well incented to reduce their cost of overhead. Reducing regulation would be the only way Govt could reduce OH.
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
The party that is pushing government dictated healthcare is the very same party that pushes abortion on demand, and numerous other things that directly contradict Catholic teaching.
Click to expand...
I am not going to discuss abortion here. That fallacy fails to accommodate many, including most bishops of the Catholic Church. I am also not going to let your straw man of “dictated” health care pass. I have seen no one here that supports abortion or dictation of healthcare.

How do you like it when people treat all who believe, say in a border wall, like racist and Nazis? If you do not like it, then you really shouldn’t use the same tact, per the Golden Rule.
 
Ridgerunner said:
It definitely isn’t Obamacare.
Click to expand...
I will agree with that! The one thing the “Affordable” Care Act did not address at all was the actual cost of medical care. At best, if could be called the Affordable Insurance Act, which really is not all that helpful.
 
pnewton said:
I am not going to discuss abortion here. That fallacy fails to accommodate many, including most bishops of the Catholic Church. I am also not going to let your straw man of “dictated” health care pass. I have seen no one here that supports abortion or dictation of healthcare.
Click to expand...
You can choose to not talk about abortion, but if you’re talking about ACA, abortifacients have to be discussed.
If you support ACA, you support government dictation. It is that by definition.
pnewton said:
How do you like it when people treat all who believe, say in a border wall, like racist and Nazis? If you do not like it, then you really shouldn’t use the same tact, per the Golden Rule.
Click to expand...
The difference is support of the wall is neither fascistic nor racist. That is a lie spread by those in favor of open borders.
On the other hand, ACA is a healthcare statute which dictates what must be in a policy, and what must be provided. There is no escaping that.
 
pnewton said:
40.png
JonNC:
If government sets the rules, it is government dictated.
Click to expand...
I find this to be odd. I would not say that a coffee shop is dictating because they set their menu and have decaf on it.
Click to expand...
A coffee shop doesn’t have the power to require someone do something. ACA required people to buy a consumer product.
 
JonNC said:
ACA required people to buy a consumer product.
Click to expand...
Well, to be precise, it required people to buy insurance, until a key provision on the Act was stripped out.

It did not require anyone to buy birth control medications or devices, or obtain an abortion.
 
Inisfallen said:
40.png
JonNC:
ACA required people to buy a consumer product.
Click to expand...
Well, to be precise, it required people to buy insurance, until a key provision on the Act was stripped out.

It did not require anyone to buy birth control medications or devices, or obtain an abortion.
Click to expand...
Insurance is a consumer product.
It did require employers and/or their provider to make contraceptives available as part of the insurance plan. That’s what the Little Sisters went to Court to fight.
 
ProVobis said:
I agree. Perhaps we can begin by testing the constitutionality of the Federal Reserve Act and the elimination of a gold standard among many other bills, including farm subsidies and govt flood insurance.
Click to expand...
i agree!
 
Metis1 said:
The ACA was challenged in the SCOTUS and was deemed constitutional.
Click to expand...
only because of the tax aspect.

without the tax it was and therefore now is unconstitutional.

remember john roberts made up the tax scheme to make it constitutional.

obama and company said the penalty wasn’t a tax.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top