Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare 7-2 vote

[HJCane]

So much for a biased, political, conservative court. This is now a couple important issues where the Supreme Court has worked exactly as it is supposed to. FOLLOW THE LAW THE CONSTITUTION!

Doesn't mean we have to agree or like any decision. They are the highest court in the land the buck stops there. Be curious to read the cliff notes of their decision.

Once again basically RED states had no standing as they were unable to show where they were harmed

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

Two of Trump's three appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[HJCane]

Gorsich and Alito dissented and voted against...............

 

[cdwright40]

Obama care has been around too long now to get rid of it. Congress would have to do it. There is no replacement. I don't even think people care if it were replaced with a better system. Just dropping health care because Obama is attached to it is just not a solution.

 

[Raoul2]

This makes sense given that it was Roberts who originally saved it. Inadequate as it is, its here to stay.

 

[Allied2651]

This makes sense given that it was Roberts who originally saved it. Inadequate as it is, its here to stay.

It doesn't matter if it is here to stay if in its current form doesn't work. Until the insurance companies can make money with Obamacare, they won't participate in the exchange and the benefits and the cost will not get the masses to participate.

 

[BreakingCane]

So much for a biased, political, conservative court. This is now a couple important issues where the Supreme Court has worked exactly as it is supposed to. FOLLOW THE LAW THE CONSTITUTION!

Doesn't mean we have to agree or like any decision. They are the highest court in the land the buck stops there. Be curious to read the cliff notes of their decision.

Once again basically RED states had no standing as they were unable to show where they were harmed

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

Two of Trump's three appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented.

www.nbcnews.com

Had it been the other way, the loons like @cdwright40 @cortez55403 @hawaiian cane @cems52 @Raoul2 @lou97 @miamimike all would have been crying!

 

[cdwright40]

It doesn't matter if it is here to stay if in its current form doesn't work. Until the insurance companies can make money with Obamacare, they won't participate in the exchange and the benefits and the cost will not get the masses to participate.

If it didn't matter republicans would not have tried to repeal this law over 100 times....lol. STOP IT! You don't believe this. I think republicans should spend energy fixing it .. but they are happier just complaining about it. That's just not prudent. A lot of our problems are like this.

 

[Allied2651]

If it didn't matter republicans would not have tried to repeal this law over 100 times....lol. STOP IT! You don't believe this. I think republicans should spend energy fixing it .. but they are happier just complaining about it. That's just not prudent. A lot of our problems are like this.

It's not a Republican or Democratic issue anymore. It's a financial problem. Unless the insurance companies can make money, they won't participate. You want as many companies to participate as possible so the cost comes down and the benefits within these insurance policies will improve. It needs a lot of fixing.

 

[cdwright40]

It's not a Republican or Democratic issue anymore. It's a financial problem. Unless the insurance companies can make money, they won't participate. You want as many companies to participate as possible so the cost comes down and the benefits within these insurance policies will improve. It needs a lot of fixing.

Sure it is. Dems want it with all it's flaws and what you are referring to depends on the market. Republicans don't want it. Dems tried to repeal this zero times. Republicans over 100...so you don't get to say it isn't a republican democrat issue. Of course it is because Dems still want this with the Market flaws because there is more to the law that insurance companies legally must honor. You cannot drop people for preexisting conditions for example and this is huge. You can keep kids on your insurance until they are 26.

 

[central17]

If it didn't matter republicans would not have tried to repeal this law over 100 times....lol. STOP IT! You don't believe this. I think republicans should spend energy fixing it .. but they are happier just complaining about it. That's just not prudent. A lot of our problems are like this.

Damn I hate this. But I largely have to agree with CD on this one. While I philosophically disagree with Obamacare and believe it is a horrible piece of legislation, it is the law. It was duly passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President.

Trump, McConnell and Ryan had a chance, but they (McConnell especially) never made it their true priority. There are so many better options and approaches but the Republicans did not have the courage and focus to replace it with a superior option. IMO if they had done so they could have saved the country from the Biden-Harris- Pelosi-Shumer poop show we are now living in.

 

[Raoul2]

It's not a Republican or Democratic issue anymore. It's a financial problem. Unless the insurance companies can make money, they won't participate. You want as many companies to participate as possible so the cost comes down and the benefits within these insurance policies will improve. It needs a lot of fixing.

Plenty of companies "competed" before Obamacare became the law and it didn't help. In fact, all we saw is companies behaving in a predatory way towards consumers by denying people with pre-existing conditions. This is why we need to upgrade to universal healthcare and have the government negotiate drug prices. Take insurance companies out of the equation entirely since all they do is act as an unnecessary middle man between patients and hospitals, who take their cut of the action.

 

[central17]

Plenty of companies "competed" before Obamacare became the law and it didn't help. In fact, all we saw is companies behaving in a predatory way towards consumers by denying people with pre-existing conditions. This is why we need to upgrade to universal healthcare and have the government negotiate drug prices. Take insurance companies out of the equation entirely since all they do is act as an unnecessary middle man between patients and hospitals, who take their cut of the action.

Getting rid of the Insurance companies would not "get rid of the middle man", it would just change the middle man to the federal government. Now Insurance companies can be mean and greedy, but the absolute worst insurance companies pale in comparison to the evils that a government, especially a socialist government can inflict on its citizens. I have never heard of an insurance company jailing and executing disenters. Ask the Weygars how it works out when the government and Lebron James are put in charge of an industry?

And at least with insurance companies citizens do have legal recourse. Call Morgan and Morgan about suing an insurance company and a Limo will pick you up and bring you to their office to sip champagne and plan the case. (or sometimes shakedown). Call Morgan and Morgan to ask about suing the government and you will get a recording "this is John and no one is home".

 

[BreakingCane]

Getting rid of the Insurance companies would not "get rid of the middle man", it would just change the middle man to the federal government. Now Insurance companies can be mean and greedy, but the absolute worst insurance companies pale in comparison to the evils that a government, especially a socialist government can inflict on its citizens. I have never heard of an insurance company jailing and executing disenters. Ask the Weygars how it works out when the government and Lebron James are put in charge of an industry?

And at least with insurance companies citizens do have legal recourse. Call Morgan and Morgan about suing an insurance company and a Limo will pick you up and bring you to their office to sip champagne and plan the case. (or sometimes shakedown). Call Morgan and Morgan to ask about suing the government and you will get a recording "this is John and no one is home".

Yep, and then the government effectively decides who lives and who dies, not the individual or family… see many European countries. Then those Europeans with money go elsewhere for treatment if the government days no, and where do those rich Europeans go to be treated?…… here!

 

[Allied2651]

Yep, and then the government effectively decides who lives and who dies, not the individual or family… see many European countries. Then those Europeans with money go elsewhere for treatment if the government days no, and where do those rich Europeans go to be treated?…… here!

You can't trust the government to run an insurance dept within the government efficiently. Obamacare failed previously due to flawed actuarial assumptions. They assumed more healthy young people would participate in the exchange which would bring down the costs for insurance companies that would be required to take on older sicker individuals. It didn't happen that way, costs skyrocketed and insurance companies pulled out of the exchanges.
Since the Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare, it is no longer a Republican or Democratic issue. Politics aside, it is now a financial issue and an actuarial issue to fix that would create more participation with insurance companies in the exchanges.
I am totally confident that somehow the government will screw it up.

 

[HJCane]

Had it been the other way, the loons like @cdwright40 @cortez55403 @hawaiian cane @cems52 @Raoul2 @lou97 @miamimike all would have been crying!

BECAUSE??? Dishonesty and ACCEPTANCE. Democrat liberals have neither.

 

[HJCane]

Obama care has been around too long now to get rid of it. Congress would have to do it. There is no replacement. I don't even think people care if it were replaced with a better system. Just dropping health care because Obama is attached to it is just not a solution.

That's not what it was about CD. It was about ; If you remove 1 piece of a law written does that render the entire law moot. Does that removal cause the entire law to fall? This is NOT the first type of these cases to come before the Supreme Court. Sometimes the piece removed causes the entire Law to fall but in this case the Justices did NOT believe that removing the Mandate was enough to cause this Law to crumble.

 

[HJCane]

This makes sense given that it was Roberts who originally saved it. Inadequate as it is, its here to stay.

When Congress and an Administration are ready to work together they can do better but they don't set their minds to it.

 

[HJCane]

If it didn't matter republicans would not have tried to repeal this law over 100 times....lol. STOP IT! You don't believe this. I think republicans should spend energy fixing it .. but they are happier just complaining about it. That's just not prudent. A lot of our problems are like this.

Maybe just maybe had they been asked to participate when it was written we wouldn't be in this spot. Just maybe................

 

[HJCane]

It's not a Republican or Democratic issue anymore. It's a financial problem. Unless the insurance companies can make money, they won't participate. You want as many companies to participate as possible so the cost comes down and the benefits within these insurance policies will improve. It needs a lot of fixing.

The Insurance companies banked on 2 things when written
1) The mandate and penalties would FORCE many more people into health insurance
2) That would offset covering Pre-existing

At first lots of folks uninsured took health insurance but then premiums and deductibles and co-pays rose dramatically and lots of people (especially younger) said hell no to this.

 

[HJCane]

You can't trust the government to run an insurance dept within the government efficiently. Obamacare failed previously due to flawed actuarial assumptions. They assumed more healthy young people would participate in the exchange which would bring down the costs for insurance companies that would be required to take on older sicker individuals. It didn't happen that way, costs skyrocketed and insurance companies pulled out of the exchanges.
Since the Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare, it is no longer a Republican or Democratic issue. Politics aside, it is now a financial issue and an actuarial issue to fix that would create more participation with insurance companies in the exchanges.
I am totally confident that somehow the government will screw it up.

I think I just wrote something similar to you

 

[cdwright40]

Maybe just maybe had they been asked to participate when it was written we wouldn't be in this spot. Just maybe................

I am sure you are not aware of the fact that Obama and his administration did ask republicans to participate. The fact is they proved to not be interested in this law as it negatively affects their big money donors in the healthcare industry. If you don't think Obama tried to get participation of republicans you don't have a clue of what you are talking about. In fact the entire concept is a republican model. Mitt Romney did it in Mass first when he was the governor. So, before you make sure a comment, you should know a little bit more of what you are talking about.

 

[cdwright40]

That's not what it was about CD. It was about ; If you remove 1 piece of a law written does that render the entire law moot. Does that removal cause the entire law to fall? This is NOT the first type of these cases to come before the Supreme Court. Sometimes the piece removed causes the entire Law to fall but in this case the Justices did NOT believe that removing the Mandate was enough to cause this Law to crumble.

What's not what it was about? What it is about is this law is not going to be removed because it affects too many peoples healthcare. I'm not sure exactly what you are talking about.

 

[BreakingCane]

I am sure you are not aware of the fact that Obama and his administration did ask republicans to participate. The fact is they proved to not be interested in this law as it negatively affects their big money donors in the healthcare industry. If you don't think Obama tried to get participation of republicans you don't have a clue of what you are talking about. In fact the entire concept is a republican model. Mitt Romney did it in Mass first when he was the governor. So, before you make sure a comment, you should know a little bit more of what you are talking about.

WRONG. It was rushed through and many Democrats admitted they didn’t have time to read it!!!!

 

[cdwright40]

The Insurance companies banked on 2 things when written
1) The mandate and penalties would FORCE many more people into health insurance
2) That would offset covering Pre-existing

At first lots of folks uninsured took health insurance but then premiums and deductibles and co-pays rose dramatically and lots of people (especially younger) said hell no to this.

The bottom line is it doesn't matter if you go to the emergency room uninsured or if you are fully insured. Someone is going to pay the bill. It's stupid to expect to remove this plan and not expect to pay for the uninsured anyway. You think premiums are high now? They would rise at least four times this rate on average. Because that is what was going on. People that can't afford it were not going to be denied healthcare. That's not moral. Then the rest of us what pay. This way we still pay, just not as much. Republicans are way too focused on these two things. Obama is the person that did this (because the original plan was a republican idea). Secondly their rich donors need to be protected. It's very stupid to try to get rid of this law with no replacement just going back to the way things were. Very stupid.

 

[cdwright40]

You can't trust the government to run an insurance dept within the government efficiently. Obamacare failed previously due to flawed actuarial assumptions. They assumed more healthy young people would participate in the exchange which would bring down the costs for insurance companies that would be required to take on older sicker individuals. It didn't happen that way, costs skyrocketed and insurance companies pulled out of the exchanges.
Since the Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare, it is no longer a Republican or Democratic issue. Politics aside, it is now a financial issue and an actuarial issue to fix that would create more participation with insurance companies in the exchanges.
I am totally confident that somehow the government will screw it up.

I am certainly not going to trust big business to run my insurance do you know why? We have already done this and it was proven not to work. I will take my chances with elected officials I can vote in and out of office if I do not like what I see thank you. Oh, and yes it is a republican vs democrat issue. The only reason you say it isn't is because the vast majority of the american people like this plan and republicans are trying to get rid of it. There has ben a large amount of attempts to get rid of it by republicans. The reason for that is their rich donors want it gone. If you knew anything about this law and what it offers vs what we had you would not look to get rid of it.

 

[BreakingCane]

I am certainly not going to trust big business to run my insurance do you know why? We have already done this and it was proven not to work. I will take my chances with elected officials I can vote in and out of office if I do not like what I see thank you. Oh, and yes it is a republican vs democrat issue. The only reason you say it isn't is because the vast majority of the american people like this plan and republicans are trying to get rid of it. There has ben a large amount of attempts to get rid of it by republicans. The reason for that is their rich donors want it gone. If you knew anything about this law and what it offers vs what we had you would not look to get rid of it.

One of the most factually incorrect posts in the last few days.

 

[Allied2651]

I am certainly not going to trust big business to run my insurance do you know why? We have already done this and it was proven not to work. I will take my chances with elected officials I can vote in and out of office if I do not like what I see thank you. Oh, and yes it is a republican vs democrat issue. The only reason you say it isn't is because the vast majority of the american people like this plan and republicans are trying to get rid of it. There has ben a large amount of attempts to get rid of it by republicans. The reason for that is their rich donors want it gone. If you knew anything about this law and what it offers vs what we had you would not look to get rid of it.

All I can do is give a technical reason as to why it failed the first time. The government failed due to their actuaries making incorrect assumptions. It doesn't matter now whether you wanted Obamacare or not, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of keeping it. Now, the government needs to fix it's mistakes and make the exchange competitive.

 

[cdwright40]

All I can do is give a technical reason as to why it failed the first time. The government failed due to their actuaries making incorrect assumptions. It doesn't matter now whether you wanted Obamacare or not, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of keeping it. Now, the government needs to fix it's mistakes and make the exchange competitive.

The government did not run our healthcare system any first time. It was run by the free market....and it failed.

 

[Allied2651]

The government did not run our healthcare system any first time. It was run by the free market....and it failed.

Don't you remember that many of the states opted out of having a state exchange and went with the Federal Government running the exchange in their state? The costs were too high. The government failed, the ACA , was a failure in it's current form. They just have to figure it out or maybe not.

 

[cdwright40]

Don't you remember that many of the states opted out of having a state exchange and went with the Federal Government running the exchange in their state? The costs were too high. The government failed, the ACA , was a failure in it's current form. They just have to figure it out or maybe not.

That's not true. Just ask any person that never got dropped for having a pre existing illnesses. It's about more than just you.

 

[lyndiola]

You can't trust the government to run an insurance dept within the government efficiently. Obamacare failed previously due to flawed actuarial assumptions. They assumed more healthy young people would participate in the exchange which would bring down the costs for insurance companies that would be required to take on older sicker individuals. It didn't happen that way, costs skyrocketed and insurance companies pulled out of the exchanges.
Since the Supreme Court has upheld Obamacare, it is no longer a Republican or Democratic issue. Politics aside, it is now a financial issue and an actuarial issue to fix that would create more participation with insurance companies in the exchanges.
I am totally confident that somehow the government will screw it up.

The only thing our government does efficiently is kill our enemies in wartime. Unfortunately, they do it at twice what it should cost. Government-run healthcare would be complete cluster.

 

[Raoul2]

The only thing our government does efficiently is kill our enemies in wartime. Unfortunately, they do it at twice what it should cost. Government-run healthcare would be complete cluster.

Except universal healthcare isn't a "government run" program. Healthcare would still be delivered to patients via the current methods of private hospitals and clinics, which means that A: Its not socialist and B: Its far more efficient than the current system where we pay about $11 per head for the same level of healthcare that Europeans with universal healthcare pay about half as much for, and C: Drug prices would be significantly cheaper since the government would negotiate directly with companies to stop price gouging. Therefore universal healthcare (aka Medicare for all) is far more fiscally responsible than the current "wild west" system with run away prices that we have now (and that includes Obamacare).

See below for how much we pay for comparable quality healthcare compared to other countries with universal healthcare

 

[honeyiv]

So much for a biased, political, conservative court. This is now a couple important issues where the Supreme Court has worked exactly as it is supposed to. FOLLOW THE LAW THE CONSTITUTION!

Doesn't mean we have to agree or like any decision. They are the highest court in the land the buck stops there. Be curious to read the cliff notes of their decision.

Once again basically RED states had no standing as they were unable to show where they were harmed

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

Two of Trump's three appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented.

www.nbcnews.com

ObamaCare died for good when they got rid of the mandate. That's all that matters.