Entire ACA upheld by Supreme Court

[dagolfer33]

Originally Posted by jms62

How is having more people insured such a horrible thing?

It's not J. The horrible thing is the principle that the government can make you buy something. You have no choice here. If you don't want to pay car insurance, homeowners, or income tax, you have a choice. Don't own a car, home or work and you have made a choice. There is no choice here, and what will be the next mandate? Forcing the taxpayers to bailout automakers and financial institutions? Oh, they already did that.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by dagolfer33

It's not J. The horrible thing is the principle that the government can make you buy something. You have no choice here. If you don't want to pay car insurance, homeowners, or income tax, you have a choice. Don't own a car, home or work and you have made a choice. There is no choice here, and what will be the next mandate? Forcing the taxpayers to bailout automakers and financial institutions? Oh, they already did that.

The problem is that ultimately those of us that make the choice to protect ourselves have to pay for those of us that chose not to protect themselves anyway. I understand the sensitivity to govenrment mandates but in this case I don't see it as a bad thing.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by jms62

The problem is that ultimately those of us that make the choice to protect ourselves have to pay for those of us that chose not to protect themselves anyway. I understand the sensitivity to govenrment mandates but in this case I don't see it as a bad thing.

Only because of the mandate that care be provided no matter what. No other services fall under that type of mandate. My power bill doesn't cover my neighbor if he chooses not to pay because that would be ludicrous and the power company isn't required to provide him power.

[bigrun]

[bigrun]

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dagolfer33

It's not J. The horrible thing is the principle that the government can make you buy something. You have no choice here. If you don't want to pay car insurance, homeowners, or income tax, you have a choice. Don't own a car, home or work and you have made a choice. There is no choice here, and what will be the next mandate? Forcing the taxpayers to bailout automakers and financial institutions? Oh, they already did that.

You have the exact same choice here, too. Just like income tax, car insurance, you don't have to purchase health insurance, and you don't have to pay the penalty.

[dagolfer33]

Mandated funeral insurance coming next......funeral homes licking their chops.

[somerfrost]

Happy happy joy joy...a surprise but finally some good news!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Happy happy joy joy...a surprise but finally some good news!

Too bad I couldn't delay my knee replacement until the ACA consumer protections kicked in - my insurance company couldn't have been able to refuse to pay 6 months after they approved me for the operation, and thus cost me thousands and thousands of dollars out of pocket.

But at least now the insurance companies can no longer refuse to cover me for arthritis and asthma for the next 50 years

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Riot

Too bad I couldn't delay my knee replacement until the ACA consumer protections kicked in - my insurance company couldn't have been able to refuse to pay 6 months after they approved me for the operation, and thus cost me thousands and thousands of dollars out of pocket.

But at least now the insurance companies can no longer refuse to cover me for arthritis and asthma for the next 50 years

Yeah, now the rich can be taxed until they have nothing left so you don't have to pay anything out of your pocket! How great!

[pointman]

What a scary decision this really is, there is now really no limit to what the government can do. Wonder how many jobs will be lost over this debacle.

The silver lining for this is that this will be just one more nail in the coffin that is Obama's chances of being re-elected.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

Yeah, now the rich can be taxed until they have nothing left so you don't have to pay anything out of your pocket! How great!

The passage of the ACA has nothing to do with taxing the rich. Good lord, that's a crazy statement. Straight out of "Republican Lie Land". No. This is not a $5 billion dollar "tax on America".

And PS: you can't read. I said, " ... and thus cost me thousands and thousands of dollars out of pocket." I paid for my own medical care. Your statement is absurd.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by pointman

Yeah, now the rich can be taxed until they have nothing left so you don't have to pay anything out of your pocket! How great!

except most of us who do the paying aren't rich. why they didn't just do single payer is beyond me. that ends the health care provider system. that also removes having all those have to make a profit, which also removes that expense.
good lord, who is going to pay for all this now? oh, wait..i know. the same ones who already pay for everything. it just makes that amount grow.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Happy happy joy joy...a surprise but finally some good news!

color me surprised that you would think this is good.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

color me surprised that you would think this is good.

OK, I'm thinking green would be appropriate.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

OK, I'm thinking green would be appropriate.

This is a huge opening for single payer healthcare. Once the exchanges get up and running in 2014 (they should have already been up and running so people don't remain uninsured), if costs are still too high after a year or two it's simple to just put Medicare on the exchanges for all ages.

Doing that would eliminate the private insurance companies - so I predict they will do very well on competitive exchange pricing for us.

Capitalism and free market competition - it's a good thing

[Danzig]

unreal, but this is what caught my eye:


But in a major victory for the states who challenged the law, the court said that the Obama administration cannot coerce states to go along with the Medicaid insurance program for low-income people.

The financial pressure which the federal government puts on the states in the expansion of Medicaid “is a gun to the head,” Roberts wrote.

“A State that opts out of the Affordable Care Act’s expansion in health care coverage thus stands to lose not merely ‘a relatively small percentage’ of its existing Medicaid funding, but all of it,” Roberts said.

Congress cannot “penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away their existing Medicaid funding,” Roberts said.

The Medicaid provision is projected to add nearly 30 million more people to the insurance program for low-income Americans -- but the court’s decision left states free to opt out of the expansion if they choose.


.....i wonder if states will opt out. if so, how many? and what will that mean if too many opt out? what will that do to the ACA (and this part of the ruling gives lie to the title of the thread btw)?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

.....i wonder if states will opt out. if so, how many? and what will that mean if too many opt out? what will that do to the ACA (and this part of the ruling gives lie to the title of the thread btw)?

Such a shame you have me on invisible. Both HiI'mGod and I posted on that already. For the third time in the thread:

From ScotusBlog:

Amy Howe: In Plain English: The Affordable Care Act, including its individual mandate that virtually all Americans buy health insurance, is constitutional. There were not five votes to uphold it on the ground that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce between the states to require everyone to buy health insurance. However, five Justices agreed that the penalty that someone must pay if he refuses to buy insurance is a kind of tax that Congress can impose using its taxing power. That is all that matters. Because the mandate survives, the Court did not need to decide what other parts of the statute were constitutional, except for a provision that required states to comply with new eligibility requirements for Medicaid or risk losing their funding. On that question, the Court held that the provision is constitutional as long as states would only lose new funds if they didn't comply with the new requirements, rather than all of their funding.