Jump to content
270soft Forum

Obamacare


Guest

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

4 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

It was struck down:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/health/obamacare-unconstitutional-texas-judge.html

Now maybe my family of 3 won't have to pay over 25,000 a year for health insurance solely for catastrophic care.

Well, Americans have NEVER had a good health plan, and certainly no modern Republican is going to give one either. A nation as wealthy and advanced as the U.S. SHOULD have public health care, and the fact it doesn't is NOT "liberty," "the American Dream," or "opposing Socialism," it's an embarrassment - or at least it should be to those with a sense of perspective and context.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

It was struck down:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/health/obamacare-unconstitutional-texas-judge.html

Now maybe my family of 3 won't have to pay over 25,000 a year for health insurance solely for catastrophic care.

My Obamacare is really reasonable. I pay $120 a month. As an adjunct professor at a private university, I don't get healthcare. If it's struck down, I don't have health insurance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

My Obamacare is really reasonable. I pay $120 a month. As an adjunct professor at a private university, I don't get healthcare. If it's struck down, I don't have health insurance

One can arrange private federations and charities to deal with this problem you don't have to charge me over 2,000 a month.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Patine said:

 Well, Americans have NEVER had a good health plan, and certainly no modern Republican is going to give one either. A nation as wealthy and advanced as the U.S. SHOULD have public health care, and the fact it doesn't is NOT "liberty," "the American Dream," or "opposing Socialism," it's an embarrassment - or at least it should be to those with a sense of perspective and context.

If you can get me the money...

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

The nation has the money. It just needs politicians who serve the people and not big corporations in government.

The most optimistic estimates for the first 10 years have it as over a third of taxes in the first 10 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

One can arrange private federations and charities to deal with this problem you don't have to charge me over 2,000 a month.

I'm not charging you anything. It's the pharmaceutical companies that jack up the prices. Progressives had to compromise with the business politicians. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, vcczar said:

 I'm not charging you anything. It's the pharmaceutical companies that jack up the prices. Progressives had to compromise with the business politicians. 

The main thing driving up the cost  is the stupid "Essential health benefits" and the morons who enacted them who think my 54 year old mother's secret identity is Sarah and that she's giving birth sometime soon and hence we must pay for Pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care (both before and after birth).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

The most optimistic estimates for the first 10 years have it as over a third of taxes in the first 10 years.

Those estimates calculate from the current cost of private corporatized healthcare as though the government were paying it flat-out, unaltered - not the way healthcare costs in nations that have established public healthcare systems. The number your quoted is deliberately, and manipulatively, miscalculated that way by think-tanks opposed to public healthcare.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Those estimates calculate from the current cost of private corporatized healthcare as though the government were paying it flat-out, unaltered - not the way healthcare costs in nations that have established public healthcare systems. The number your quoted is deliberately, and manipulatively, miscalculated that way by think-tanks opposed to public healthcare.

That's the one Bernie Sanders himself quoted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

It was struck down:https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/health/obamacare-unconstitutional-texas-judge.html

Now maybe my family of 3 won't have to pay over 25,000 a year for health insurance solely for catastrophic care.

Damyum homie what will we do without a shitty healthcare plan that solved non of the underlying problems a profit based healthcare system, wait system problems don't exist I forgot.

Just now, NYrepublican said:

One can arrange private federations and charities to deal with this problem you don't have to charge me over 2,000 a month.

Maybe people shouldn't be charged anything to be able to keep living if they get sick... But nah some rat faced baby killer wants to buy a 3rd yacht so fuck you. 

11 minutes ago, vcczar said:

My Obamacare is really reasonable. I pay $120 a month. As an adjunct professor at a private university, I don't get healthcare. If it's struck down, I don't have health insurance. 

Yeah that shit was affordable as fuck, I'm not technically bankrupt yet!

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

I'm not charging you anything. It's the pharmaceutical companies that jack up the prices. Progressives had to compromise with the business politicians. 

What are talking about there's absolutely no problems with capitalism, if you think it's okay to force people to slave away under you or almost all of your life and then let's you die a slow painful death because they pay you starvation wages and won't cover your medicine, you're a fine person, a "job creator" in fact we should all strive to be  like you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

 Damyum homie what will we do without a shitty healthcare plan that solved non of the underlying problems a profit based healthcare system, wait system problems don't exist I forgot.

1.I've moderated on Abortion lately

2.Please explain how you have a non-profit based healthcare system in the US?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

1.I've moderated on Abortion lately

2.Please explain how you have a non-profit based healthcare system in the US?

2. is very easy. Privatized healthcare is one of those things that should NOT be privatized by any government with ANY sense of respect or care for the lives of their citizens. Privatized prisons should also be returned FULLY to COMPLETELY to government running and control, as their existence is a breach of the 13th Amendment outright, as it EXPLICITLY says penal labour must "serve and pay back the PUBLIC to be exempt," NOT to make corporations profit, but a that's a separate of something privatized that really shouldn't be (and, in the latter, is outright un-Constitutional to be) as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt this decision will have any actual impact other than move the topic of healthcare  back to the forefront of political debate (where it has been already for years.) 

1. The court refused to issue an injunction.

2. The decision will almost certainly be reversed on appeal.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, falk said:

I doubt this decision will have any actual impact other than move the topic of healthcare  back to the forefront of political debate (where it has been already for years.) 

1. The court refused to issue an injunction.

2. The decision will almost certainly be reversed on appeal.

 

1.Good point but that may be because the Judge didn't want to do it one day before the deadline

2.I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

1.Good point but that may be because the Judge didn't want to do it one day before the deadline

2.I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Under what circumstances do you think a higher court would uphold the decision made by this court? Legitimately curious

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

1.I've moderated on Abortion lately

2.Please explain how you have a non-profit based healthcare system in the US?

1. Rat faced baby killer was more directed at the shithead in you pfp (and soules goons like him) who's responsible for more murder around the world than most serial killers, than you

2. You know about a little place called Cuba? Because they seemed to have figured it out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, falk said:

Under what circumstances do you think a higher court would uphold the decision made by this court? Legitimately curious

The only reason Obamacare was upheld in 2011 in National Federation of Independent Business v.Sebelius is because the individual mandate was a tax.  By 5-4 the court held that the commerce clause didn't permit the passage of the individual mandate. If it's not a tax (and it's hard to say that a $0 fine is a tax) it'd have to be permitted as part of the commerce clause and that was already ruled unconstitutional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

The only reason Obamacare was upheld in 2011 in National Federation of Independent Business v.Sebelius is because the individual mandate was a tax.  By 5-4 the court held that the commerce clause didn't permit the passage of the individual mandate. If it's not a tax (and it's hard to say that a $0 fine is a tax) it'd have to be permitted as part of the commerce clause and that was already ruled unconstitutional.

If we can agree that NFIB v. Sebelius, in a number of different opinions, opined that the individual mandate was constitutional, I find it difficult to see the court changing it's opinion on the topic just a few years later. Because the main jurisprudential thrust behind this particular decision was oriented around saying that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, and because the entire bill could not operate in its core intent without it, that decision effectively made the whole bill moot. This issue has already been directly adjudicated by the courts, as we agreed upon, and I cannot see the court changing its opinion just years after it issued it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, falk said:

If we can agree that NFIB v. Sebelius, in a number of different opinions, opined that the individual mandate was constitutional, I find it difficult to see the court changing it's opinion on the topic just a few years later. Because the main jurisprudential thrust behind this particular decision was oriented around saying that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, and because the entire bill could not operate in its core intent without it, that decision effectively made the whole bill moot. This issue has already been directly adjudicated by the courts, as we agreed upon, and I cannot see the court changing its opinion just years after it issued it.

It was only ruled constitutional because it was held to be a tax if it can't be held to be a tax it can only fall under the commerce clause which was already ruled unconstitutional so at the very least we're talking about the individual mandate being struck down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, falk said:

If we can agree that NFIB v. Sebelius, in a number of different opinions, opined that the individual mandate was constitutional, I find it difficult to see the court changing it's opinion on the topic just a few years later. Because the main jurisprudential thrust behind this particular decision was oriented around saying that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, and because the entire bill could not operate in its core intent without it, that decision effectively made the whole bill moot. This issue has already been directly adjudicated by the courts, as we agreed upon, and I cannot see the court changing its opinion just years after it issued it.

...which throws a wrench in the ACA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

It was only ruled constitutional because it was held to be a tax if it can't be held to be a tax it can only fall under the commerce clause which was already ruled unconstitutional so at the very least we're talking about the individual mandate being struck down.

No, with all due respect, the Court's application of the commerce clause was restricted significantly in scope to only a few questions in NFIB. In NFIB the main point of contention behind the individual mandate was actually standing, with provided the court a sufficient reason to maintain its application in the ACA. I agreed with you to an extent about the individual mandate, however the reasoning that you provided is not particularly correct with respect to the greater application of the commerce clause. 

And the decision would throw a wrench in the ACA, if the court stipulated some form of remedy that would include injunctive relief -- because it does not, I would say that the decision does not "throw a wrench" in the ACA.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...