The ACA fight in Supreme Court isn't about pre-existing or anything medical

[HJCane]

The issue before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with medical nor pre-existing. Just more scare / false tactics by the Left Democrats. The issue before the Supreme Court is SEVERABILITY. Meaning; If 1 part of an overall legislation is deemed unconstitutional does that then render the legislation as a whole null and void. Using the ACA, if the individual mandate forcing people to buy something or being penalized with a tax was deemed unconstitutional (it was) does stripping that out render the whole ACA null and void. There is no Judge deciding pre-existing or anything else other then the issue of severability which applies to numerous laws written by Congress. For those who do their homework you should know that John Roberts thinks not and more recently Judge Kavanaugh wrote a legal article where he supports (legally) severability. Meaning he does not think if one part of a law is stripped then the entire law gets scrapped. If Roberts and Kavanaugh vote that way then ACA minus the individual mandate will stand as the law as flawed as it is.

 

[El Cubano]

The issue before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with medical nor pre-existing. Just more scare / false tactics by the Left Democrats. The issue before the Supreme Court is SEVERABILITY. Meaning; If 1 part of an overall legislation is deemed unconstitutional does that then render the legislation as a whole null and void. Using the ACA, if the individual mandate forcing people to buy something or being penalized with a tax was deemed unconstitutional (it was) does stripping that out render the whole ACA null and void. There is no Judge deciding pre-existing or anything else other then the issue of severability which applies to numerous laws written by Congress. For those who do their homework you should know that John Roberts thinks not and more recently Judge Kavanaugh wrote a legal article where he supports (legally) severability. Meaning he does not think if one part of a law is stripped then the entire law gets scrapped. If Roberts and Kavanaugh vote that way then ACA minus the individual mandate will stand as the law as flawed as it is.

As always the Dems twist words to fit their narrative.. They really are SCUMBAGS..!!!

 

[CashvilleCane1]

The issue before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with medical nor pre-existing. Just more scare / false tactics by the Left Democrats. The issue before the Supreme Court is SEVERABILITY. Meaning; If 1 part of an overall legislation is deemed unconstitutional does that then render the legislation as a whole null and void. Using the ACA, if the individual mandate forcing people to buy something or being penalized with a tax was deemed unconstitutional (it was) does stripping that out render the whole ACA null and void. There is no Judge deciding pre-existing or anything else other then the issue of severability which applies to numerous laws written by Congress. For those who do their homework you should know that John Roberts thinks not and more recently Judge Kavanaugh wrote a legal article where he supports (legally) severability. Meaning he does not think if one part of a law is stripped then the entire law gets scrapped. If Roberts and Kavanaugh vote that way then ACA minus the individual mandate will stand as the law as flawed as it is.

Basically it was only passed because of the power of congress to pass it as a tax (which it was). Once the mandate was thrown out it no longer has any legal means. It’s done!

 

[HJCane]

Basically it was only passed because of the power of congress to pass it as a tax (which it was). Once the mandate was thrown out it no longer has any legal means. It’s done!

That is the State of Texas argument BUT I fully expect the Trump administration to leave it in place until new Health Care can be put in place.

 

[HJCane]

The mandate was designed to force uninsured into the marketplace and was meant to re-assure insurance companies that although they had to cover pre-existing (not found in any other insurance policy) the cost would be offset by the number of new policy holders. It failed because although millions did sign up the premiums had to rise significantly to break even or profit. One could debate that point of course...........

 

[HJCane]

I think it's worth noting that every member of Congress and the White House and the people of the United States want and understand the need to cover pre existing conditions. That is a 100% FACT

 

[miamimike]

I think it's worth noting that every member of Congress and the White House and the people of the United States want and understand the need to cover pre existing conditions. That is a 100% FACT

Trump says he's going to protect pre-existing conditions while his Justice Dept. is in court right now trying to strike down those protections.

 

[CashvilleCane1]

Trump says he's going to protect pre-existing conditions while his Justice Dept. is in court right now trying to strike down those protections.

Didn’t he sign an Executive Order protecting pre-existing conditions a few months back?

Executive Order on An America-First Healthcare Plan | The White House

Since January 20, 2017, my Administration has been committed to the goal of bringing great healthcare to the American people and putting patients first. To that end, my Administration has taken monumental steps to improve the efficiency and quality of healthcare in the United States.

www.whitehouse.gov

 

[HJCane]

Didn’t he sign an Executive Order protecting pre-existing conditions a few months back?

Executive Order on An America-First Healthcare Plan | The White House

Since January 20, 2017, my Administration has been committed to the goal of bringing great healthcare to the American people and putting patients first. To that end, my Administration has taken monumental steps to improve the efficiency and quality of healthcare in the United States.

www.whitehouse.gov

It doesn't even matter because ALL of Congress wants pre existing as do the American people but yes Trump did sign that.

 

[HJCane]

It doesn't even matter because ALL of Congress wants pre existing as do the American people but yes Trump did sign that.

It's no different then the scare tactic we hear every 4 years that Republicans want to take the elderly folks social security and medicare away. YAWN

 

[miamimike]

It doesn't even matter because ALL of Congress wants pre existing as do the American people but yes Trump did sign that.

Trumps executive order does not have the force of law on its own. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is backing a GOP-led lawsuit seeking to overturn all of Obamacare, includung the law's protection for people with pre-existing conditions. If the Supreme Court does strike down the health law, a new law would still be required to replace the protection despite Trumps executive order!

 

[grbcane]

Trumps executive order does not have the force of law on its own. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is backing a GOP-led lawsuit seeking to overturn all of Obamacare, includung the law's protection for people with pre-existing conditions. If the Supreme Court does strike down the health law, a new law would still be required to replace the protection despite Trumps executive order!

ACB will be confirmed, she is smarter than any of your libs on the court.

 

[cdwright40]

The fact that you started this thread and replied to your own comment FIVE TIMES illustrates your sheer desperation to convince not only yourself but others that the consequences of getting rid of the ACA without a suitable replacement is even remotely acceptable.

Listen, believe what you want to believe. This is America! But please stop with the the self righteous bullshit because the fact is getting rid of the ACA gets rid of pre-existing conditions and all that comes with it....and there is no suitable replacement.

You are just bullshitting yourself and everyone else here by saying well we aren't getting of pre-existing conditions, we are getting rid of this unlawful act. What makes it lawful is an elected congress by the people and an elected president enacted it.

Scare tactic? People with pre existing conditions will die without coverage. I think that is beyond just a scare tactic. We know what was going on before the ACA so the other thing is stop coming here trying to act like people that want to live are just trying to scare you. They just in reality want to live and if you want to get rid of the ACA fine. Where is the suitable replacement protecting pre existing conditions? If you dont' have it then GTFOOH!

 

[HJCane]

The fact that you started this thread and replied to your own comment FIVE TIMES illustrates your sheer desperation to convince not only yourself but others that the consequences of getting rid of the ACA without a suitable replacement is even remotely acceptable.

Listen, believe what you want to believe. This is America! But please stop with the the self righteous bullshit because the fact is getting rid of the ACA gets rid of pre-existing conditions and all that comes with it....and there is no suitable replacement.

You are just bullshitting yourself and everyone else here by saying well we aren't getting of pre-existing conditions, we are getting rid of this unlawful act. What makes it lawful is an elected congress by the people and an elected president enacted it.

Scare tactic? People with pre existing conditions will die without coverage. I think that is beyond just a scare tactic. We know what was going on before the ACA so the other thing is stop coming here trying to act like people that want to live are just trying to scare you. They just in reality want to live and if you want to get rid of the ACA fine. Where is the suitable replacement protecting pre existing conditions? If you dont' have it then GTFOOH!

Listen up Chicken Little the sky is not falling. I'll respond to the thread I started however I choose. Each time adding some new thoughts. Even if ACA falls which is no guarantee, they aren't going to just throw people off insurance. Maybe if it does happen it will motivate both sides to make a plan that really works, really lowers costs across the board, really brings in competition across State lines. I find this to be another example CD where you can't even be honest about positives and/or negatives of Obamacare. Either you are getting help with your premium payment or you are paying thru the nose for your premium.

 

[majus12]

Trumps executive order does not have the force of law on its own. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is backing a GOP-led lawsuit seeking to overturn all of Obamacare, includung the law's protection for people with pre-existing conditions. If the Supreme Court does strike down the health law, a new law would still be required to replace the protection despite Trumps executive order!

Before you argue specific points maybe you research your topic.
Barry’s entire legacy WAS executive orders, which Trump dismantled.
Wake the fuk up, stop spouting cnn talking points.
Trump is NOT taking away pre existing conditions.
Pfffft

 

[cdwright40]

Listen up Chicken Little the sky is not falling. I'll respond to the thread I started however I choose. Each time adding some new thoughts. Even if ACA falls which is no guarantee, they aren't going to just throw people off insurance. Maybe if it does happen it will motivate both sides to make a plan that really works, really lowers costs across the board, really brings in competition across State lines. I find this to be another example CD where you can't even be honest about positives and/or negatives of Obamacare. Either you are getting help with your premium payment or you are paying thru the nose for your premium.

If you have a pre-existing condition and on a fixed income then the sky is falling so I have no idea what you are talking about. You are not going to have coverage. So, I am not sure what it is about that you just can't understand....and if there is no replacement while you are getting rid of it that isn't "BOTH PARTIES" that is one party. The ACA is the democrats policy which I really don't care whos policy it is if it protects pre-existing conditions. People with Pre-existing conditions don't live in a world of "maybe both sides will come together". They live in a world of "My insurance company just dropped me and I have no recourse". So, while you are calling people like this chicken little, I am all about saving their protections they do have. If you want to get rid of them, then provide a more suitable option. I am fine with that and again don't give a shit which party has the solution. This argument you are making with yourself is lame.

 

[HJCane]

If you have a pre-existing condition and on a fixed income then the sky is falling so I have no idea what you are talking about. You are not going to have coverage. So, I am not sure what it is about that you just can't understand....and if there is no replacement while you are getting rid of it that isn't "BOTH PARTIES" that is one party. The ACA is the democrats policy which I really don't care whos policy it is if it protects pre-existing conditions. People with Pre-existing conditions don't live in a world of "maybe both sides will come together". They live in a world of "My insurance company just dropped me and I have no recourse". So, while you are calling people like this chicken little, I am all about saving their protections they do have. If you want to get rid of them, then provide a more suitable option. I am fine with that and again don't give a shit which party has the solution. This argument you are making with yourself is lame.

AGAIN CD there is NOT a person in Congress nor American citizen NOR the White House that is getting rid of pre-existing conditions. Stop with the BS. Every person I just mentioned has TOLD YOU THIS including Trump, the Senators, and the House of Representatives so JUST STOP!

 

[miamimike]

Before you argue specific points maybe you research your topic.
Barry’s entire legacy WAS executive orders, which Trump dismantled.
Wake the fuk up, stop spouting cnn talking points.
Trump is NOT taking away pre existing conditions.
Pfffft

I did research the topic. That's how I learned of the GOP lawsuit to end protections for pre-existing conditions pending in the Supreme Court. You need to stop obsessing about Obama and take you own advice. Research your topic and quit spouting nonsense! One week after the election the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in the GOP lawsuit to end protections for pre-existing conditions! Research that!

 

[majus12]

I did research the topic. That's how I learned of the GOP lawsuit to end protections for pre-existing conditions pending in the Supreme Court. You need to stop obsessing about Obama and take you own advice. Research your topic and quit spouting nonsense! One week after the election the Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in the GOP lawsuit to end protections for pre-existing conditions! Research that!

Wrong again the lawsuit is about whether eliminating the penalties from the current aca in and of itself is enough to deflate or negate the entire bill. Your cnn talking point is a by product of that.
The Republican Senate has said consistently they will vote for Pre Exisitng conditions.
Typical dem talking points.
Pffft

 

[cdwright40]

AGAIN CD there is NOT a person in Congress nor American citizen NOR the White House that is getting rid of pre-existing conditions. Stop with the BS. Every person I just mentioned has TOLD YOU THIS including Trump, the Senators, and the House of Representatives so JUST STOP!

That's because you don't understand how to check....and believe Trump. Just like you believed Trump when he told you...covid is a hoax.

 

[miamimike]

Wrong again the lawsuit is about whether eliminating the penalties from the current aca in and of itself is enough to deflate or negate the entire bill. Your cnn talking point is a by product of that.
The Republican Senate has said consistently they will vote for Pre Exisitng conditions.
Typical dem talking points.
Pffft

To cover their asses the Repub Senate all claim to support pre-existing condition coverage even though those protections would go away if the GOP lawsuit succeeds. Lose the CNN BS. My talking points come from research, not CNN!

 

[majus12]

To cover their asses the Repub Senate all claim to support pre-existing condition coverage even though those protections would go away if the GOP lawsuit succeeds. Lose the CNN BS. My talking points come from research, not CNN!

so your implying that 51 Senators are all lying??????????
Trump has ALWAYS said pre existing conditions will be covered.!!!!!
Try doing your research from OBJECTIVE sites, not Huff Post or the Daily show

 

[HJCane]

That's because you don't understand how to check....and believe Trump. Just like you believed Trump when he told you...covid is a hoax.

Never said Covid is a hoax. What he did say was the Democrats claim that his administration is doing nothing about Covid is a Hoax. You are 1 brainwashed guy man.

 

[majus12]

Never said Covid is a hoax. What he did say was the Democrats claim that his administration is doing nothing about Covid is a Hoax. You are 1 brainwashed guy man.

Don’t include “brain” when describing cd. Debatable if he has one.

 

[HJCane]

Don’t include “brain” when describing cd. Debatable if he has one.

I try to be nice...................not always easy.

 

[cdwright40]

Never said Covid is a hoax. What he did say was the Democrats claim that his administration is doing nothing about Covid is a Hoax. You are 1 brainwashed guy man.

He hasn't done anything. We have more deaths from covid than any other country in the world. He is on tape saying how dangerous it was but wants to down play it. That wasn't a hoax either.

 

[miamimike]

so your implying that 51 Senators are all lying??????????
Trump has ALWAYS said pre existing conditions will be covered.!!!!!
Try doing your research from OBJECTIVE sites, not Huff Post or the Daily show

So what "OBJECTIVE sites" claim that people with pre-existing conditions won't be vulnerable to losing coverage if the GOP lawsuit succeeds?

 

[majus12]

So what "OBJECTIVE sites" claim that people with pre-existing conditions won't be vulnerable to losing coverage if the GOP lawsuit succeeds?

Keep believing Trump or Republicans are so dumb that they would negatively affect every insured????
Come on, stop believing everything you hear from liberal controlled media.
You deep down believe that twitter or facebook should censure your personal ability to send a friend a tweet or message???

 

[Allied2651]

The mandate was designed to force uninsured into the marketplace and was meant to re-assure insurance companies that although they had to cover pre-existing (not found in any other insurance policy) the cost would be offset by the number of new policy holders. It failed because although millions did sign up the premiums had to rise significantly to break even or profit. One could debate that point of course...........

The government actuaries miscalculated the numbers of young and healthy people that were to enter the exchange. When that did not happen the insurance companies lost money on a less healthy and older group. That resulted in many insurance companies pulling out of the exchange in many states leaving insurance companies that were left to increase premiums to just survive. A total failure due to bad actuarial assumptions.

 

[majus12]

The government actuaries miscalculated the numbers of young and healthy people that were to enter the exchange. When that did not happen the insurance companies lost money on a less healthy and older group. That resulted in many insurance companies pulling out of the exchange in many states leaving insurance companies that were left to increase premiums to just survive. A total failure due to bad actuarial assumptions.

it was a failure BECAUSE it was a bad plan. PERIOD.

 

[Allied2651]

it was a failure BECAUSE it was a bad plan. PERIOD.

I provided the technical reason why Obamacare didn't work not the political or emotional reason why.

 

[cdwright40]

Keep believing Trump or Republicans are so dumb that they would negatively affect every insured????
Come on, stop believing everything you hear from liberal controlled media.
You deep down believe that twitter or facebook should censure your personal ability to send a friend a tweet or message???

We believe it because it is true. Otherwise they would not have tried to repeal the legislation 70 times. You would have to be a moron to not see what is happening by now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effor...ext=After the July 27, 2017,on March 23, 2010."

 

[majus12]

We believe it because it is true. Otherwise they would not have tried to repeal the legislation 70 times. You would have to be a moron to not see what is happening by now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_repeal_the_Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#:~:text=After the July 27, 2017,on March 23, 2010."

WRONG as usual. You are ignorant to what the case before the Supreme Court is about.
The only moron in this thread is quite apparent.
Pfffft

 

[cdwright40]

WRONG as usual. You are ignorant to what the case before the Supreme Court is about.
The only moron in this thread is quite apparent.
Pfffft

...and the 70 times republicans have tried to repeal this? I think you just made my point.

 

[HJCane]

He hasn't done anything. We have more deaths from covid than any other country in the world. He is on tape saying how dangerous it was but wants to down play it. That wasn't a hoax either.

The government actuaries miscalculated the numbers of young and healthy people that were to enter the exchange. When that did not happen the insurance companies lost money on a less healthy and older group. That resulted in many insurance companies pulling out of the exchange in many states leaving insurance companies that were left to increase premiums to just survive. A total failure due to bad actuarial assumptions.

Exactly.