- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 20,231
- Reaction score
- 21,633
- Location
- Cambridge, MA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
That ruling has not been implemented pending appeal, but the implications are huge. If the law is wiped out, so too would be insurance for 20 million people, protection for people with pre-existing conditions, subsidies for low-income people, Medicaid expansions in many states, coverage for young adults up to age 26 and more.
On one side are the Trump administration and 18 states, led by Texas, that agree with O'Connor's decision and want the law dismantled. On the other side are the U.S. House of Representatives and 16 states, led by California, seeking to have that ruling reversed. A threshold question is whether the House, and possibly the liberal states, have the required legal authority to defend a law the federal government is not defending.
Hearing the two sides will be a three-judge panel that includes two judges chosen by Republican presidents and one nominated by a Democrat. If its decision eventually goes to the full appeals court, that too is dominated by GOP presidents' choices.
The campaign to bring back pre-existing conditions kicks into high gear this week.
A sophistic ruling from a single Texas judge unveiled late last year, held until safely after the midterm elections when it couldn't further doom the GOP's chances, would dismantle the entire ACA, depriving tens of millions of people of their coverage and throwing the American health system into chaos. This week the oral arguments in front of a panel of judges from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans begin. The stakes are life-and-death.
Affordable Care Act threatened as Trump administration, GOP states fight U.S. House, Democratic states in court
I'd love this to be a fight during the 2020 election season. On one side, Democrats, who want to keep tens of millions of Americans' on insurance plans. On the other side, Republicans bent on taking away insurance from tens of millions of Americans.
Republicans have been trying to market themselves as being on the side of blue collar workers. Nothing shows how dishonest that characterization really is than the actual policies and actions of Republicans.
There is a very simple solution to this. Let each state decide for themselves. Leave the federal gov out of it.
"Let each state decide" is pithy but misses the scale of what's going on here.
Good idea -- because Mississippi and Kentucky are so well equipped to provide healthcare on their own. As a liberal Democrat from a wealthy state, I don't mind some of my tax money subsidizing health care in poor states. They are Americans.There is a very simple solution to this. Let each state decide for themselves. Leave the federal gov out of it.
Your not speaking for me. That isnt my position at all. If you would like to understand my position here it isGood idea -- because Mississippi and Kentucky are so well equipped to provide healthcare on their own. As a liberal Democrat from a wealthy state, I don't mind some of my tax money subsidizing health care in poor states. They are Americans.
But if your view is that the progressive agenda is morally wrong, that people shouldn’t receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes, you should be aware how many Americans are already “takers,” “moochers,” whatever. In fact, we’re talking about a vast swath of the heartland that includes just about every state that voted for Donald Trump. Take the case of Kentucky. In 2017, KY received $40 billion more from the federal government than it paid in taxes. That’s about one-fifth of the state’s G.D.P.; if Kentucky were a country, we’d say that it was receiving foreign aid on an almost inconceivable scale.
This aid, in turn, supports a lot of jobs. It’s fair to say that far more Kentuckians work in hospitals kept afloat by Medicare and Medicaid, in retail establishments kept going by Social Security and food stamps, than in all traditional occupations like mining and even agriculture combined.
Your not speaking for me. That isnt my position at all. If you would like to understand my position here it is
In general i am not opposed to reforming the heathcare industry but i do disagree with what is being proposed. That is an entirely seperate discussion that im more than willing to also have with you.
My position is that it is outside the role of the federal gov to mandate a single approach healthcare for 50 states and however msny nonstates it oversees.
Each state should be free to impliment its own regulations and standards as they see fit. The sucessful ones will flurish and eork best will eventually be adopted by all the states and the ones that dont will be abandoned for the ones that do.
That is the democratic approach. Allow competing ideas to compete and let the best ones rise to the top. Its about as american of a priniciple as any.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Health insurance and healthcare are 2 different things but to snswer your questionHow does this work in the scenario when health insurance can be sold across state lines as proposed by the GOP?
If the health insurance carrier offers a policy that meets both states atandards it should not matter where it is purchased
Ok but im not defending their proposal. The only thing i suggested is that we should not nationalize healthcare and should.do it stste by state.Alas, that isn't what the GOP has proposed. Back when they still pretended to propose things, anyway.
There is a fundamental flaw in your approach, my friend, and it is not philosophical: The resources of the various States and territories are wildly disparate. I worked as an EMT in one of those less-provisioned States. Medical outcomes were not good.Each state should be free to impliment its own regulations and standards as they see fit. The sucessful ones will flurish and eork best will eventually be adopted by all the states and the ones that dont will be abandoned for the ones that do.
To clarify your position;There is a fundamental flaw in your approach, my friend, and it is not philosophical: The resources of the various States and territories are wildly disparate. I worked as an EMT in one of those less-provisioned States. Medical outcomes were not good.
As an American citizen, who has a constitutional right and expectation of "free travel", I should not be inhibited from travel because of the third world (not an exaggeration) conditions in some States. Indeed, for some years I worked directly in interstate commerce (as a truck driver). Uniform availability of medical services throughout the United States is, indeed, an issue of interstate commerce as well as General Welfare.
What is so often missed when discussing the ACA is that it, indeed, left to the States implementation of the basic standards mandated by the Federal law. Each State was allowed to implement its own exchange, to administer its own Medicaid allotment, and to provide public health services in is own ways. That is one reason why I find resistance to it so perplexing. In my experience, most resistance is based upon misperception and misinformation. When the program, and its elements, are explained, further objection tends to be muted.
To clarify your position;
Are you claiming that its impossible to produce adequate funding for healthcare unless its paid for with federal funding?
If you are i would argue that your completely wrong on that and i suspect we will find that you and i share a fundamental disagreement on what the denifition of adequate means.
If my suspicion is correct the model you advocate using is not only finacially unsustainable but it will also deliver subpar results.
I would like you to confirm that i did not misrepresent your position in any way before getting any further into it and if i did misscharacterize you please correct me. It is not my intent to have a dishonest conversation.
Good idea -- because Mississippi and Kentucky are so well equipped to provide healthcare on their own. As a liberal Democrat from a wealthy state, I don't mind some of my tax money subsidizing health care in poor states. They are Americans.
But if your view is that the progressive agenda is morally wrong, that people shouldn’t receive more in government benefits than they pay in taxes, you should be aware how many Americans are already “takers,” “moochers,” whatever. In fact, we’re talking about a vast swath of the heartland that includes just about every state that voted for Donald Trump. Take the case of Kentucky. In 2017, KY received $40 billion more from the federal government than it paid in taxes. That’s about one-fifth of the state’s G.D.P.; if Kentucky were a country, we’d say that it was receiving foreign aid on an almost inconceivable scale.
This aid, in turn, supports a lot of jobs. It’s fair to say that far more Kentuckians work in hospitals kept afloat by Medicare and Medicaid, in retail establishments kept going by Social Security and food stamps, than in all traditional occupations like mining and even agriculture combined.
How does this work in the scenario when health insurance can be sold across state lines as proposed by the GOP?
Agriculture is also heavily dependent on subsidies...
I'd love this to be a fight during the 2020 election season. On one side, Democrats, who want to keep tens of millions of Americans' on insurance plans. On the other side, Republicans bent on taking away insurance from tens of millions of Americans.
Republicans have been trying to market themselves as being on the side of blue collar workers. Nothing shows how dishonest that characterization really is than the actual policies and actions of Republicans.
There is a very simple solution to this. Let each state decide for themselves. Leave the federal gov out of it.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
I find it astounding that you, of all people, make such a claim when it is you that is fomenting discord and prevaricating about the substance of the thread. Rather than decrying it, how about you just don't participate? It seems everyone would be much happier.Let them keep crying about it on this thread. It's not like they know what's actually going on behind closed doors anyway, and everyone wants to paint the opposite side as the enemy for purely tribalistic reasons.
I really do hate how threads like this can just devolve so quickly.
2020 will also be a healthcare election.
Mark my words.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?