SCOTUS and the ACA

[Lutherf]

I had the senate hearing on today and tried to get a little listening in between phone calls and clients. The major these I heard from Democrats was that approving the Barrett nomination would be a guarantee that the ACA would go down in flames. Personally I think that's a little hyperbolic. The Democrats were really smart and there is no way that they created a law that is in any way unconstitutional (cough, cough). However, just for the sake of argument, let's say that the ACA does get shot down. Let's say that every last paragraph of that law is burned to the ground never to be seen again. Does that mean that there will never be any other way to insure that people with pre-existing conditions can get health care? Was the ACA the one and only way we could guarantee health care for cancer patients, diabetics, asthmatics, short people and people with pigeon toes?

What is it about the ACA that makes it the only possible solution to American health care issues?

 

[Casper]

I had the senate hearing on today and tried to get a little listening in between phone calls and clients. The major these I heard from Democrats was that approving the Barrett nomination would be a guarantee that the ACA would go down in flames. Personally I think that's a little hyperbolic. The Democrats were really smart and there is no way that they created a law that is in any way unconstitutional (cough, cough). However, just for the sake of argument, let's say that the ACA does get shot down. Let's say that every last paragraph of that law is burned to the ground never to be seen again. Does that mean that there will never be any other way to insure that people with pre-existing conditions can get health care? Was the ACA the one and only way we could guarantee health care for cancer patients, diabetics, asthmatics, short people and people with pigeon toes?

What is it about the ACA that makes it the only possible solution to American health care issues?

Then the Republicans should come up with something better so that if 20 plus Million Americans are thrown off their health insurance during a pandemic they have something to pick up. The Repubs have had four years to do it so where is it?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

I had the senate hearing on today and tried to get a little listening in between phone calls and clients. The major these I heard from Democrats was that approving the Barrett nomination would be a guarantee that the ACA would go down in flames. Personally I think that's a little hyperbolic. The Democrats were really smart and there is no way that they created a law that is in any way unconstitutional (cough, cough). However, just for the sake of argument, let's say that the ACA does get shot down. Let's say that every last paragraph of that law is burned to the ground never to be seen again. Does that mean that there will never be any other way to insure that people with pre-existing conditions can get health care? Was the ACA the one and only way we could guarantee health care for cancer patients, diabetics, asthmatics, short people and people with pigeon toes?

What is it about the ACA that makes it the only possible solution to American health care issues?

What is it about conservatives that they argue the court shouldn’t be making policy but want to specificaly strike down policy using the court? Seems you guys can’t get what you want via votes anymore. Wonder why.

And if the GOP has a better mouse trap than the ACA, they’ve had a decade to present it.

 

[Greenbeard]

Personally I think that's a little hyperbolic. The Democrats were really smart and there is no way that they created a law that is in any way unconstitutional (cough, cough).

The GOP argument in court is that changes made in their 2017 tax law intentionally rendered the ACA unconstitutional in order to get pre-existing condition protections thrown out. Dems had nothing to do with it.

However, just for the sake of argument, let's say that the ACA does get shot down. Let's say that every last paragraph of that law is burned to the ground never to be seen again. Does that mean that there will never be any other way to insure that people with pre-existing conditions can get health care?

Only if the GOP retains any power in government come 2021. As to whether banning pre-existing condition exclusions is the only way to ban pre-existing condition exclusions, what do you think?

 

[Mycroft]

I had the senate hearing on today and tried to get a little listening in between phone calls and clients. The major these I heard from Democrats was that approving the Barrett nomination would be a guarantee that the ACA would go down in flames. Personally I think that's a little hyperbolic. The Democrats were really smart and there is no way that they created a law that is in any way unconstitutional (cough, cough). However, just for the sake of argument, let's say that the ACA does get shot down. Let's say that every last paragraph of that law is burned to the ground never to be seen again. Does that mean that there will never be any other way to insure that people with pre-existing conditions can get health care? Was the ACA the one and only way we could guarantee health care for cancer patients, diabetics, asthmatics, short people and people with pigeon toes?

What is it about the ACA that makes it the only possible solution to American health care issues?

The Senate Dems are trying to bullshit the public. That's all this "Obamacare is in danger" nonsense is about. The fact is, ACB posses NO threat to Obamacare, as this very good analysis of the question points out.

Despite the campaign-ready messaging of it all, fast-tracking a vote on Barrett isn’t likely to strike a death blow to Obamacare. And as much as I enjoyed Harris’s exquisite side-eyes during the VP debate, I’d like to cordially invite her to stop nonsensically misinforming the electorate. We Americans have been dealing with Donald Trump’s idiotic and incessant hyperbole since 2016. We need a break. Senator Harris is a smart lawyer, and she knows damn well that even if Barrett were to vote in line with the Trump administration on the Affordable Care Act (ACA), “ACB” would likely find herself on the dissenting end of a 6-3 vote.

Here’s why.

The litigation over the ACA is not really about whether the ACA itself is constitutional – it’s about the far less-sexier concept of “severability.” And six justices (all but Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas) have already gone on record and proven that they may very well be inclined to vote against the Trump position on the ACA’s severability.

Kamala Harris Said Amy Coney Barrett Will Kill Obamacare. She’s Wrong.

Now that the average American is following the Supreme Court almost intently enough distinguish David Souter from Stephen Breyer, politicians are falling all over themselves to dramatize the once dull and unremarkable process of seating a new justice. Set against the backdrop of intense...

lawandcrime.com

As I said...the Senate Dems are just feeding the useful idiot public a line of bullshit...in my opinion, for campaign purposes. That's a typical tactic of theirs that illustrates how they will use any issue that comes before the legislators for political purposes.

The desired ends justify ANY means...no matter how immoral, illegal, unethical...or odious.

 

[Greenbeard]

The Senate Dems are trying to bullshit the public. That's all this "Obamacare is in danger" nonsense is about. The fact is, ACB posses NO threat to Obamacare, as this very good analysis of the question points out.

Trump and the GOP expect to lose the case in court? And have chosen a judge who will rule against them on their signature issue?

 

[Mycroft]

Then the Republicans should come up with something better so that if 20 plus Million Americans are thrown off their health insurance during a pandemic they have something to pick up. The Repubs have had four years to do it so where is it?

Trump has been working hard at it. Unfortunately, the Elites in Congress...both Dem and Rep...won't support him. They don't WANT those 20 plus million to have insurance.

 

[Lutherf]

Then the Republicans should come up with something better so that if 20 plus Million Americans are thrown off their health insurance during a pandemic they have something to pick up. The Repubs have had four years to do it so where is it?

They did. It was called the American Healthcare Act of 2017 and it even passed the House. When it got to the Senate Murkowski and Collins voted against it because they tend to fear Democrats and McCain voted against it because he hated Trump more than he cared about the American people.

 

[Lutherf]

What is it about conservatives that they argue the court shouldn’t be making policy but want to specificaly strike down policy using the court? Seems you guys can’t get what you want via votes anymore. Wonder why.

And if the GOP has a better mouse trap than the ACA, they’ve had a decade to present it.

If congress passes an unconstitutional bill and that bill becomes law then it is the OBLIGATION of some American to insure that the law is brought to trial and it is the obligation of the court to nullify it.

 

[Greenbeard]

Trump has been working hard at it. Unfortunately, the Elites in Congress...both Dem and Rep...won't support him. They don't WANT those 20 plus million to have insurance.

Dems are the reason those people have coverage, Trump has been working hard to take it away.

They did. It was called the American Healthcare Act of 2017 and it even passed the House. When it got to the Senate Murkowski and Collins voted against it because they tend to fear Democrats and McCain voted against it because he hated Trump more than he cared about the American people.

H.R. 1628, American Health Care Act of 2017

CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 14 million more people would be uninsured under H.R. 1628 than under current law. The increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number projected under current law would reach 19 million in 2020 and 23 million in 2026. In 2026, an estimated 51 million people under age 65 would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law. Under the legislation, a few million of those people would use tax credits to purchase policies that would not cover major medical risks.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

If congress passes an unconstitutional bill and that bill becomes law then it is the OBLIGATION of some American to insure that the law is brought to trial and it is the obligation of the court to nullify it.

...other than the right to privacy, you mean.

 

[post]

I had the senate hearing on today and tried to get a little listening in between phone calls and clients. The major these I heard from Democrats was that approving the Barrett nomination would be a guarantee that the ACA would go down in flames. Personally I think that's a little hyperbolic. The Democrats were really smart and there is no way that they created a law that is in any way unconstitutional (cough, cough). However, just for the sake of argument, let's say that the ACA does get shot down. Let's say that every last paragraph of that law is burned to the ground never to be seen again. Does that mean that there will never be any other way to insure that people with pre-existing conditions can get health care? Was the ACA the one and only way we could guarantee health care for cancer patients, diabetics, asthmatics, short people and people with pigeon toes?

What is it about the ACA that makes it the only possible solution to American health care issues?

Uhhhh... it passed the senate with 60 votes and was not opposed by private insurers because it was designed to persuade some republican senators it was not "socialized medicine", in the expectation that some of those senators would support the legislation as it was and is clearly in the best interests of the vast majority of their constituents, but no republican did.
IOW, as long as there is a 60 vote majority requirement and the filibuster rule, not even a modification to the ACT has been, or will be possible.

Majority of Senate votes for bill to stop funding lawsuit to abolish Affordable Care Act. Not enough but .... - Arkansas Times

Republicans joined Democrats in a vote to defund the lawsuit to kill Obamacare. Sorry, Tea Party.

arktimes.com

"Majority of Senate votes for bill to stop funding lawsuit to abolish Affordable Care Act. Not enough but ….

By Max Brantley
On October 1, 2020 1:53 pm

1 Comment

Interesting. Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer pulled a parliamentary ploy that forced a Senate vote on a bill to stop funding the Trump administration lawsuit to kill the Affordable Care Act.
The vote was 51-43 in favor in the Republican-maority Senate, but 60 votes were needed for passage. Of course Sens. Tom Cotton and John Boozman voted to continue to support killing the Affordable Care Act.
But these Republicans joined the Democrats: Susan Collins of Maine, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Joni Ernst of Iowa, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Martha McSally of Arizona. All face strong Democratic opponents. Republican Lisa Murkowski also voted for the measure......."

 

[Lutherf]

The GOP argument in court is that changes made in their 2017 tax law intentionally rendered the ACA unconstitutional in order to get pre-existing condition protections thrown out. Dems had nothing to do with it.



Only if the GOP retains any power in government come 2021. As to whether banning pre-existing condition exclusions is the only way to ban pre-existing condition exclusions, what do you think?

The idea of the AHCA was to put the responsibility for healthcare back on the states. There were requirements that state plans protect those with pre-existing conditions.

 

[Mycroft]

Trump and the GOP expect to lose the case in court? And have chosen a judge who will rule against them on their signature issue?

You didn't read the article, did you?

You are dismissed.

 

[Lutherf]

Uhhhh... it passed the senate with 60 votes and was not opposed by private insurers because it was designed to persuade some republican senators it was not "socialized medicine", in the expectation that some of those senators would support the legislation as it was and is clearly in the best interests of the vast majority of their constituents, but no republican did.
IOW, as long as there is a 60 vote majority requirement and the filibuster rule, not even a modification to the ACT has been, or will be possible.

It passed with 60 votes because that was the threshold needed to get it passed. There wasn't one single Republican that voted for it and the Democrats even needed to "convince" Ben Nelson, one of their own, that he should vote for it.

 

[Greenbeard]

The idea of the AHCA was to put the responsibility for healthcare back on the states. There were requirements that state plans protect those with pre-existing conditions.

And it would've effectively destroyed protections for those with pre-existing conditions by pricing them out of coverage. Once again, the CBO:

Community-rated premiums [under the GOP bill] would rise over time, and people who are less healthy (including those with preexisting or newly acquired medical conditions) would ultimately be unable to purchase comprehensive nongroup health insurance at premiums comparable to those under current law, if they could purchase it at all—despite the additional funding that would be available under H.R. 1628 to help reduce premiums. As a result, the nongroup markets in those states would become unstable for people with higher-than-average expected health care costs. That instability would cause some people who would have been insured in the nongroup market under current law to be uninsured. Others would obtain coverage through a family member’s employer or through their own employer.

You didn't read the article, did you?

You are dismissed.

The lawsuit is just a ruse to fool the rubes?

 

[Lutherf]

Dems are the reason those people have coverage, Trump has been working hard to take it away.



H.R. 1628, American Health Care Act of 2017

The rise in uninsured would have been due to people CHOOSING to be uninsured, not because they couldn't be insured.

 

[Greenbeard]

The rise in uninsured would have been due to people CHOOSING to be uninsured, not because they couldn't be insured.

Wrong, refer to the post above yours. It comes from pricing the sick out of coverage. The GOP's goal for "reducing" costs--kick the sick to the curb.

 

[Mr Person]

I had the senate hearing on today and tried to get a little listening in between phone calls and clients. The major these I heard from Democrats was that approving the Barrett nomination would be a guarantee that the ACA would go down in flames. Personally I think that's a little hyperbolic. The Democrats were really smart and there is no way that they created a law that is in any way unconstitutional (cough, cough). However, just for the sake of argument, let's say that the ACA does get shot down. Let's say that every last paragraph of that law is burned to the ground never to be seen again. Does that mean that there will never be any other way to insure that people with pre-existing conditions can get health care? Was the ACA the one and only way we could guarantee health care for cancer patients, diabetics, asthmatics, short people and people with pigeon toes?

What is it about the ACA that makes it the only possible solution to American health care issues?

No one said it's the only possible solution, so as usual your thread is based on a false premise. However it is an incremental fix. Biden has improvements planned. Other candidates say no, we want universal basic health care with some insurance options on top for bells and whistles. Yet others say medicare all around. There are multiple solutions. Read a number of books comparing the various European systems if you want to make an honest appraisal.

Meanwhile, the GOP has jack shit. The idea of people having to buy health insurance was so horrible to them that they got the mandate disappeared, so now people can go without insurance, run up a million bucks in a hospital bill after catastrophic accident, and I pick up the tab on my insurance premiums. THINK OF THE FREEDOMS!

The GOP kept promising a replacement. It doesn't have one. Trump promised. You cheered. He had nothing. He signed an EO that does literally nothing.




So it's not that the ACA is the only possible solution. It's just the only solution anyone put into action. And you lot have been fighting it tooth and nail, because God forbid anyone pay one red cent to help another person.

 

[ludin]

I had the senate hearing on today and tried to get a little listening in between phone calls and clients. The major these I heard from Democrats was that approving the Barrett nomination would be a guarantee that the ACA would go down in flames. Personally I think that's a little hyperbolic. The Democrats were really smart and there is no way that they created a law that is in any way unconstitutional (cough, cough). However, just for the sake of argument, let's say that the ACA does get shot down. Let's say that every last paragraph of that law is burned to the ground never to be seen again. Does that mean that there will never be any other way to insure that people with pre-existing conditions can get health care? Was the ACA the one and only way we could guarantee health care for cancer patients, diabetics, asthmatics, short people and people with pigeon toes?

What is it about the ACA that makes it the only possible solution to American health care issues?

there are way better systems out there that actually lower costs, have less government and cover pre-existing conditions.

it would take a lot of reform in the medical area but it is all needed reform.

 

[Casper]

They did. It was called the American Healthcare Act of 2017 and it even passed the House. When it got to the Senate Murkowski and Collins voted against it because they tend to fear Democrats and McCain voted against it because he hated Trump more than he cared about the American people.

This:

American Health Care Act of 2017 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It was very unpopular and would have been worse than the ACA. I said something Better, not Worse.

 

[Greenbeard]

Let's recall that we just had a health care election and the American people loudly declared their support for retaining protections for people with pre-existing conditions.

March 2017: The GOP Health Care Bill Is Unpopular Even In Republican Districts
June 2017: Poll: Only 17% approve of Senate [GOP] health care bill
August 2018: Fox News poll: Voters like Obamacare more than GOP tax cuts
September 2018: Half of 2018’s Democratic campaign ads are about health care
October 2018: To Rally Voters, Democrats Focus on Health Care as Their Closing Argument
November 2018: Democrats won the House with the largest midterms margin of all time | Health care topped the economy as the biggest issue for voters

I guess now we have to do it again.

 

[JasperL]

The Senate Dems are trying to bullshit the public. That's all this "Obamacare is in danger" nonsense is about. The fact is, ACB posses NO threat to Obamacare, as this very good analysis of the question points out.

As I said...the Senate Dems are just feeding the useful idiot public a line of bullshit...in my opinion, for campaign purposes. That's a typical tactic of theirs that illustrates how they will use any issue that comes before the legislators for political purposes.

The desired ends justify ANY means...no matter how immoral, illegal, unethical...or odious.

So we're supposed to assume that 20 Republican-led states, the Trump administration, and Barr and the DoJ are ALL arguing in bad faith, advancing a position they know will lose, that is patently bullshit, SCOTUS accepted the case to point out their rank bullshit arguments, and your conclusion from all that is it's the Dems who are just feeding the useful idiot public a line of bullshit?

LMMFAO. Projection anyone?

FWIW, I've not seen anyone predict that the court will strike down the entire law. That's the fear but it seems unlikely. What might happen is they link the mandate to pre-existing condition protections, which is why the mandate was necessary, and so strike those protections down now that the mandate that was intended to prevent the obvious issue of strategically going without insurance until diagnosed with a serious illness, then getting insurance.

 

[JasperL]

Trump has been working hard at it. Unfortunately, the Elites in Congress...both Dem and Rep...won't support him. They don't WANT those 20 plus million to have insurance.

He's been working so hard on it that 4 years into his administration there's still no plan from the WH!! What a hard worker!

 

[Greenbeard]

So we're supposed to assume that 20 Republican-led states, the Trump administration, and Barr and the DoJ are ALL arguing in bad faith, advancing a position they know will lose, that is patently bullshit, SCOTUS accepted the case to point out their rank bullshit arguments, and your conclusion from all that is it's the Dems who are just feeding the useful idiot public a line of bullshit?

The old, "we were just kidding, voters!" defense. Very believable. The idea that they're jeopardizing coverage for tens of millions of Americans as a joke is almost worse than the reality.

Either way, time to throw the bums out. Folks with pre-existing conditions won't be safe if the GOP retains any power in the federal government next January.