- Joined
- Nov 10, 2016
- Messages
- 14,607
- Reaction score
- 9,303
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
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.
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.
There will be numerous upstream appeals and eventually a SCOTUS decision.
The people that vote red are unreachable.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.
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.For obvious reasons, that gives me no comfort.
The people that vote red are unreachable.
The good news is they will suffer the most from their decisions.
Yeah, I saw that earlier in the year.This is a democracy, and people get what they want, and deserve. Sometimes, that’s the best way to learn.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Maybe, but I’m not so sure. People have been saying that since Reagan’s time.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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?