Supreme Court gives Obama second big health care win in ruling upholding nationwide subsidies

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
seekerz said:
“Adequate access” at what cost? Santa doesn’t cruise the hospitals paying for the “poor or black” patients - somebody has to foot those bills. The government just came up with an alternative to the previous hit and miss system of charge-peter-extra-to-pay-for-paul. Obamacare changed that to paying for premiums rather than paying whatever monstrous bills the hospitals assigned to uncompensated care.
Click to expand...
You can have things good, fast or cheap. pick 2 of the 3. Think about it.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Most of the “single payer” countries have two or more tiers to their systems. There is the “Medicaid” level of care that the government pays for, and then there is the “high end” that people pay for themselves or with insurance they paid for themselves.
Click to expand...
Sounds fine, as long as nobody in the middle is left out because their employer does not provide it and they are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, but do not make enough to afford the premiums - basically people who work at Walmart or McDonalds or similar.

The point is that all developed countries make sure that everyone is covered.

Even with Obamacare, there are several million left out in ours - maybe because they don’t believe they need it, but many of them will sooner or later.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Everyone already has access to adequate medical attention in this country. A doctors office or hospital can’t turn you away because you’re poor or black.
Click to expand...
Of course doctors or hospitals can turn you away - where did you get the idea that you can get a physical for free?

Only emergency care can not be refused - so you have to be visibly sick or bleeding/dying before you can get free care.

There was the case of a man with a tooth ache who did not have health insurance (or dental). The tooth got infected and the infection went to his heart. He was never sick enough to be admitted to a hospital, just in constant pain. He actually died of the infection - would not have happened in most other countries.
 
seekerz said:
I have the sneaky feeling that Obamacare was designed to do just that: put the present unsustainable system permanently to bed. Already some smaller pretend-insurers are dropping out of the game…
Click to expand...
So you’re saying the left is in bed with big business and wishes to force out small businesses. Sounds about right.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Maybe if we stop spending trillions on wars and foreign aid to countries in the Middle East, paying for health insurance for all Americans won’t be such a big deal.

Jim
Click to expand...
No kidding. I’m with you on this.
 
zz912 said:
So you’re saying the left is in bed with big business and wishes to force out small businesses. Sounds about right.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately both parties are in bed with big business. Neither party particularly cares about small businesses because small businesses don’t generate the donations.
 
unstoppable_II said:
I think liberal politicians are in it for the power. They are the embodiment of the pigs of Orwell’s Animal Farm that controlled the wealth produced by the farm but produced none of their own to contribute. I just think they are kidding themselves, and us, that they are doing it “for the children.”
Consider “[John] Kerry’s Charity Gap”
Boston Globe
May 16, 1996

Kerry even docked his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid taxes in Massachusetts.
You want to talk hypocrisy? Consider “Cattlegate”. Why doesn’t someone ask Hillary why she didn’t, as senator, propose a government program to teach the poor how to trade cattle futures. With only a $1,000 investment per poor person, we could have solved the problem of poverty in one month. We wouldn’t be having this debate because the poor would have become rich liker her. Have you seen this question raised by anyone else? 🤷
Click to expand...
Nope. Just you.
 
One of these days when this all implodes I will brave the retribution of a moderator and resurrect this thread and post a million laughing smilies at all of the ACA lovers who rejoice at the SCOTUS obvious overreach.
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Unfortunately both parties are in bed with big business. Neither party particularly cares about small businesses because small businesses don’t generate the donations.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Oddly enough, it seems like most big businesses side with the GOP on deregulation of business, but with Dems on their social platform (especially with regard to abortion and same-sex “marriage”).
 
Eddie_Mac said:
One of these days when this all implodes I will brave the retribution of a moderator and resurrect this thread and post a million laughing smilies at all of the ACA lovers who rejoice at the SCOTUS obvious overreach.
Click to expand...
No ACA lover here. All it does is buttress a dying private, employer-based health insurance system. We all know single - payer is coming, why slow it down?
 
Crossbones said:
I guess the decision came down the way it did because President Obama is blackmailing Justice Roberts.

theblaze.com/contributions/was-supreme-court-justice-john-roberts-blackmailed/

I find this a little hard to believe though…
Click to expand...
Good that you find it hard to believe.

I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Instead, here are some rational reasons why Roberts ruled the way he did.
  1. As a good practitioner of law Roberts knows that a literal interpretation of 4 words makes no sense in the overwhelming surrounding context that contradicts that phrase. That is standard law practice, and Roberts did not let ideology get the better of his (juris)prudential judgement.
  2. Contra the bluster of Scalia in his dissent, Roberts very well understood that also the other conservative justices in their original 2012 dissent** agreed on the intent of the law**:
Yup, that’s John Roberts quoting the four conservatives who dissented from the first big Supreme Court health care case back in 2012. “Without the federal subsidies … the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all,” they wrote at the time. Regardless of the fog thrown up around this since, Roberts seems to be saying, at one point Congress’s intent was well understood.

From:
Chief Justice Roberts trolled the Supreme Court’s conservatives in his Obamacare ruling

In other words, the other conservative justices contradicted themselves in their dissent from 2015 by reversing their 2012 opinion.
  1. Roberts knew that the law is now embedded in American society. A destructive ruling would have robbed 6 million Americans of their subsidies, and also Roberts did not want to be that cruel. Unlike many conservatives seem to realize, Obamacare actually has some real-life positive impacts on real-life Americans, and some abstract court ruling could destroy these benefits. Here a story from this thread:
Book_Worm said:
Maybe that’s because there were only three dissenting votes. There are nine Supreme Court justices.

Later today I will be visiting a friend in the hospital who is very close to death from an extremely deadly and rare form of breast cancer. When she was diagnosed, one of her first comments to us was, “Thank God for Obamacare. With it I’ll still die, but at least my DH won’t be bankrupt after my death.” Both she and her husband are free-lance graphic designers and before the ACA the insurance they could afford would have paid for only a very small portion of their expenses. She’s on her fifty-somethingth day in the hospital from complications caused by her treatments. She probably would not have lived this long without the ACA.
Click to expand...
Do we as Christians really want to be that cruel and destroy the ACA? Roberts in his own personal moral compass rightfully didn’t think so.
  1. Roberts usually sides with Big Business. He knew that the health insurance industry would be thrown into turmoil and chaos by an adverse decision. Indeed, yesterday health stocks soared on Wall Street following the decision.
 
To my point 1) above:

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor put it this morning in a TV interview such: “it was a very standard application of legal technique”.

Thus, nothing controversial about it. No conspiracy theories required.
 
Al_Moritz said:
To my point 1) above:

Laurence Tribe, a Harvard law professor put it this morning in a TV interview such: “it was a very standard application of legal technique”.

Thus, nothing controversial about it. No conspiracy theories required.
Click to expand...
Where’s the fun in that?
 
openmind77 said:
Of course doctors or hospitals can turn you away - where did you get the idea that you can get a physical for free?

Only emergency care can not be refused - so you have to be visibly sick or bleeding/dying before you can get free care.

There was the case of a man with a tooth ache who did not have health insurance (or dental). The tooth got infected and the infection went to his heart. He was never sick enough to be admitted to a hospital, just in constant pain. He actually died of the infection - would not have happened in most other countries.
Click to expand...
Why didn’t he pay for it himself? Pulling a tooth and some antibiotics couldn’t be that much.
 
Pro abortion democrats singing the praises of the pro abortion Supreme Court. Nothing changes.
 
Eddie_Mac said:
Pro abortion democrats singing the praises of the pro abortion Supreme Court. Nothing changes.
Click to expand...
I am not sure where the relationship is. You can be against abortion and in favor of Obamacare, or even single payer. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top