GOP gets its way on ACA, will help the Dems in the end

[independentusa]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-unconstitutional_us_5be057e5e4b01ffb1d047be2
A Federal Judge in red state Texas, who if it was the opposite trump would call a Dem judge, has ruled against the ACA. The GOP has finally found a way to end health insurance for over 25 million Americans, that should make them and their followers very, very happy. The problem for the GOP is that it could give many of those same Americans a real reason to vote for Dem candidates in the future. And since many of those who use the ACA are from red states, the GOP may not be so happy if the ACA closes its doors. Soon we will be back to having 15% or more of Americans without health insurance and the Dems plan for Medicare for all may look a lot better to many of those who will lose their ACA insurance and in the past have voted GOP.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

There will be numerous upstream appeals and eventually a SCOTUS decision.

 

[Hari Seldon]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-unconstitutional_us_5be057e5e4b01ffb1d047be2
A Federal Judge in red state Texas, who if it was the opposite trump would call a Dem judge, has ruled against the ACA. The GOP has finally found a way to end health insurance for over 25 million Americans, that should make them and their followers very, very happy. The problem for the GOP is that it could give many of those same Americans a real reason to vote for Dem candidates in the future. And since many of those who use the ACA are from red states, the GOP may not be so happy if the ACA closes its doors. Soon we will be back to having 15% or more of Americans without health insurance and the Dems plan for Medicare for all may look a lot better to many of those who will lose their ACA insurance and in the past have voted GOP.

5 deferment cadet bone spurs scumbag has a plan. It will be way better than the ACA and cheaper. Don't you worry.

 

[Deuce]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-unconstitutional_us_5be057e5e4b01ffb1d047be2
A Federal Judge in red state Texas, who if it was the opposite trump would call a Dem judge, has ruled against the ACA. The GOP has finally found a way to end health insurance for over 25 million Americans, that should make them and their followers very, very happy. The problem for the GOP is that it could give many of those same Americans a real reason to vote for Dem candidates in the future. And since many of those who use the ACA are from red states, the GOP may not be so happy if the ACA closes its doors. Soon we will be back to having 15% or more of Americans without health insurance and the Dems plan for Medicare for all may look a lot better to many of those who will lose their ACA insurance and in the past have voted GOP.

It's going to get overturned. This discussion was already settled. Activist judge gonna get slapped down yet again.

 

[Captain America]

Again? [SMH]

The justice industry is quite lucrative.

All these issues.

All the expenses.

Can you say, "Ka-Ching!$!$!$!"

 

[DiAnna]

There will be numerous upstream appeals and eventually a SCOTUS decision.

For obvious reasons, that gives me no comfort.

 

[Greenbeard]

Just think, the GOP spent an entire election season lying through its collective teeth about supporting pre-existing condition protections. Meanwhile, its leaders--the very candidates lying to the voters on the campaign trail--were pushing for this outcome in the courts.

Should've been an 80-seat pickup.

 

[MovingPictures]

Just think, the GOP spent an entire election season lying through its collective teeth about supporting pre-existing condition protections. Meanwhile, its leaders--the very candidates lying to the voters on the campaign trail--were pushing for this outcome in the courts.

Should've been an 80-seat pickup.

The people that vote red are unreachable.

The good news is they will suffer the most from their decisions.

 

[Airyaman]

That sly Trump! Now he can trade pre-existing conditions for the wall!

 

[MovingPictures]

For obvious reasons, that gives me no comfort.

It will be struck down on appeal and the SCOTUS will likely refuse to take the case, since they've already ruled on an identical one already.

Even if it did go to the SCOTUS, Roberts will probably side with the law as before.

This is just an activist judge making a show.

 

[ataraxia]

The people that vote red are unreachable.

The good news is they will suffer the most from their decisions.

This is a democracy, and people get what they want, and deserve. Sometimes, that’s the best way to learn.

 

[MovingPictures]

This is a democracy, and people get what they want, and deserve. Sometimes, that’s the best way to learn.

Yeah, I saw that earlier in the year.

**** em'. I have no sympathy for people that vote to screw others, who end up getting screwed themselves.

You play a rogue game, you get rogue prizes.

 

[distraff]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-unconstitutional_us_5be057e5e4b01ffb1d047be2
A Federal Judge in red state Texas, who if it was the opposite trump would call a Dem judge, has ruled against the ACA. The GOP has finally found a way to end health insurance for over 25 million Americans, that should make them and their followers very, very happy. The problem for the GOP is that it could give many of those same Americans a real reason to vote for Dem candidates in the future. And since many of those who use the ACA are from red states, the GOP may not be so happy if the ACA closes its doors. Soon we will be back to having 15% or more of Americans without health insurance and the Dems plan for Medicare for all may look a lot better to many of those who will lose their ACA insurance and in the past have voted GOP.

I find the repeal of Obamacare to be unlikely given that all the judges who rules in favor last time are still there. But if it is ruled unconstitutional, then our healthcare system will be thrown into a political crisis, that will give us Medicare for All people a perfect opportunity to make our case.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...-unconstitutional_us_5be057e5e4b01ffb1d047be2
A Federal Judge in red state Texas, who if it was the opposite trump would call a Dem judge, has ruled against the ACA. The GOP has finally found a way to end health insurance for over 25 million Americans, that should make them and their followers very, very happy. The problem for the GOP is that it could give many of those same Americans a real reason to vote for Dem candidates in the future. And since many of those who use the ACA are from red states, the GOP may not be so happy if the ACA closes its doors. Soon we will be back to having 15% or more of Americans without health insurance and the Dems plan for Medicare for all may look a lot better to many of those who will lose their ACA insurance and in the past have voted GOP.

I will vote for Medicare for all. But we need to get all the billionaires out of the loop and the tax money only funds health care. Not billionaires and their penthouses and private jets and multiple homes all over the world. The insurance industry gone. Nobody on the payroll making more than an average government worker. No CEO's, No board of directors getting million dollar bonuses while health care for the needy is being denied do to cost.

 

[jnug]

The GOP apparently has a death wish. Too many senile old white guys for its own good. Photos of the two caucuses are laughable when compared. its boiling down to which dies first. The GOP as a party or the old duffers that are GOP politicians.

 

[ataraxia]

The GOP apparently has a death wish. Too many senile old white guys for its own good. Photos of the two caucuses are laughable when compared. its boiling down to which dies first. The GOP as a party or the old duffers that are GOP politicians.

Maybe, but I’m not so sure. People have been saying that since Reagan’s time.

 

[Helix]

it's time to set the goalposts at Medicaid for all. the compromise fallback position should be **** you.

 

[Greenbeard]

it's time to set the goalposts at Medicaid for all. the compromise fallback position should be **** you.

In the unlikely scenario that the GOP got its wish and this absurd ruling was allowed to stand, variants of that idea would be the only options left. Except you'd have to start over with the Medicaid reforms and expansion because those would be gone.

 

[Helix]

In the unlikely scenario that the GOP got its wish and this absurd ruling was allowed to stand, variants of that idea would be the only options left. Except you'd have to start over with the Medicaid reforms and expansion because those would be gone.

my proposal would be to make Medicaid into a federal single payer program and fund it appropriately. it would take a significant Democratic majority with the will to act, however. that majority would probably have to be maintained for better than a decade, as well, so that the program could generate the level of societal acceptance that it needed to grow inertia. otherwise, Republicans would destroy it as they have destroyed the ACA piece by piece.

 

[jnug]

Maybe, but I’m not so sure. People have been saying that since Reagan’s time.

Reagan was not an all or nothing bet though. Reagan still was willing to work within the standards the Founders had set. They have never taken an all or nothing bet to change the country before. It appears that they have decided that the time is now and there is not a Norm that has been the standard for this Republic since it was formed that they are not trying to rip down. That is an all or nothing shot.

Its almost too funny that they cart the flag around as if they were patriots when they are in fact exactly the opposite of patriots. I can see why they would take their shot now. Trump represents a once in a lifetime electoral phenomenon. They were never going to get this chance again and they know it. However there gamble has exposed them in a way that will make it hard to recover. They can't play the "we are patriots too game" any longer and frankly they should not be allowed to play that game any longer.

Now its up to the rest of us to not let them up off the canvas. It should be obvious by now that they had no intention of letting us up off the canvas if they got what they were after. Midterms were the start. Have to finish the job.

 

[ttwtt78640]

it's time to set the goalposts at Medicaid for all. the compromise fallback position should be **** you.

Yep, no premiums, no deductibles and no co-pays. Your "out of pocket" cost is based on your (household?) income, the assessed value of your property and how much you consume in taxable goods/services and has absolutely no bearing on how much medical care that you require (desire?). Medicaid is funded jointly by the federal and state governments and dictates to medical care providers how much they will be paid (totally from public funds) for a providing a given medical treatment.

The major problem that I see with such a Medicaid for all system is that the care providers are then faced with a "take it or leave it" choice - if performing treatment X loses money then they may well stop providing (offering?) that service. Unless 'care for cash' is made illegal then we will soon have a two tiered system where most (must?) use the public rate clinics/hospitals and some will still get top notch care since, even after paying higher taxation, they can afford the best care that money can buy.

I look at it like this - if providing a service (say mowing a lawn) gets the provider of that service paid $20 (totally from public funds) then one must decide if doing that job is a wise thing to do. They may well decide that taking another job (say painting) which pays $30 for the same time and effort is a better occupational choice. I can't see why medical care professionals which must make a significant personal effort to attain the requisite education and skills would continue to pursue that 'trade' if other jobs (requiring the same or less education and skills) paid better.

 

[Helix]

Yep, no premiums, no deductibles and no co-pays. Your "out of pocket" cost is based on your (household?) income, the assessed value of your property and how much you consume in taxable goods/services and has absolutely no bearing on how much medical care that you require (desire?). Medicaid is funded jointly by the federal and state governments and dictates to medical care providers how much they will be paid (totally from public funds) for a providing a given medical treatment.

The major problem that I see with such a Medicaid for all system is that the care providers are then faced with a "take it or leave it" choice - if performing treatment X loses money then they may well stop providing (offering?) that service. Unless 'care for cash' is made illegal then we will soon have a two tiered system where most (must?) use the public rate clinics/hospitals and some will still get top notch care since, even after paying higher taxation, they can afford the best care that money can buy.

I look at it like this - if providing a service (say mowing a lawn) gets the provider of that service paid $20 (totally from public funds) then one must decide if doing that job is a wise thing to do. They may well decide that taking another job (say painting) which pays $30 for the same time and effort is a better occupational choice. I can't see why medical care professionals which must make a significant personal effort to attain the requisite education and skills would continue to pursue that 'trade' if other jobs (requiring the same or less education and skills) paid better.

some highly paid physicians will have to take lower salaries, and the pharmaceutical industry will also have to make less in profits. people will work the jobs, though. for example, the person doing my job ten years ago made double my salary. that person was fired so that the company could make more in profit. it will work sort of like that, only for better reasons.

 

[ataraxia]

some highly paid physicians will have to take lower salaries, and the pharmaceutical industry will also have to make less in profits. people will work the jobs, though. for example, the person doing my job ten years ago made double my salary. that person was fired so that the company could make more in profit. it will work sort of like that, only for better reasons.

I see a system similar to the public school system or state colleges- a parallel public system to the private one . Just because we have public schools and state colleges does not mean that there are not still some very elite private schools which charge premium tuitions. The key is having a basic safety net. The top-of-the-line doctors will still be able to charge premium prices. But at least you are not leaving people to die on the streets or go blind from easily treatable conditions if they hit hard times.

 

[Helix]

I see a system similar to the public school system or state colleges. Just because we have public schools and state colleges does not mean that there are not still some very elite private schools which charge premium tuitions. The key is having a basic safety net.

they hyper rich will always have their own systems. where we set the basic safety net could be its own thread. it's something interesting to think about.

 

[ttwtt78640]

some highly paid physicians will have to take lower salaries, and the pharmaceutical industry will also have to make less in profits. people will work the jobs, though. for example, the person doing my job ten years ago made double my salary. that person was fired so that the company could make more in profit. it will work sort of like that, only for better reasons.

Maybe, yet care demand will go up as care provider supply remains the same or goes down. This is what causes the often cited care delay in nations (some with popualtions below that of some US states) with "free" medical care. We were told that ER (the costliest care environment possible) use would go down after PPACA was enacted on the theory that folks would receive more 'preventive' care - that did not happen.

It should be obvious to all that the often touted 'cost savings' are simply going to be achieved by paying the same care providers less for performing the same type of care. Why do you suppose that no US state offers UHC for its resisdents?