Obamacare thrown out by Texas federal judge (SCOTUS update)


 Share

Recommended Posts

DocM

Supreme Court fight in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1....

 

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/nation/2018/12/14/obamacare-judge/38740077/

 

Quote

Obamacare thrown out by Texas federal judge

 

Obamacare was struck down by a Texas federal judge in a ruling that casts uncertainty on insurance coverage for millions of U.S. residents.

The decision Friday finding the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional comes just before the end of a six-week open enrollment period for the program in 2019 and underscores a divide between Republicans who have long sought to invalidate the law and Democrats who fought to keep it in place.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth agreed with a coalition of Republican states led by Texas that he had to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, the signature health-care overhaul by President Barack Obama, after Congress last year zeroed out a key provision – the tax penalty for not complying with the requirement to buy insurance. The decision is almost certain to be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
>

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

wakjak

And it'll be appealed and then this ruling will be laughed out of higher courts. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

DocM

First pass around Justice Roberts gave Obamacare the passing SCOTUS vote margin because the no-signup penalty was called a tax by Obama's WH lawyers, this shortly after Democrats said it wasn't a tax. 

 

So much for intellectual honesty.  

 

Good riddance, especially given its exceedingly high out of pocket expenses and poor coverage for most policies.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

wakjak

Good riddance? It didn't go anywhere though. Nor will it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Xenon
22 minutes ago, DocM said:

First pass around Justice Roberts gave Obamacare the passing SCOTUS vote margin because the no-signup penalty was called a tax by Obama's WH lawyers, this shortly after Democrats said it wasn't a tax. 

 

So much for intellectual honesty.  

 

Good riddance, especially given its exceedingly high out of pocket expenses and poor coverage for most policies.

In New Jersey the insurance is good and the price actually went down this year. A lot of it has to do with the state you are in. 

 

https://www.njtvonline.org/news/video/nj-health-insurance-rates-to-decrease-in-2019/

 

It always amazes me that the most vocal people that are against it, don't use it. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

+Raze
41 minutes ago, Xenon said:

In New Jersey the insurance is good and the price actually went down this year. A lot of it has to do with the state you are in. 

 

https://www.njtvonline.org/news/video/nj-health-insurance-rates-to-decrease-in-2019/

 

It always amazes me that the most vocal people that are against it, don't use it. 

And truly don't have any idea how it works.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

PGHammer
27 minutes ago, Xenon said:

In New Jersey the insurance is good and the price actually went down this year. A lot of it has to do with the state you are in. 

 

https://www.njtvonline.org/news/video/nj-health-insurance-rates-to-decrease-in-2019/

 

It always amazes me that the most vocal people that are against it, don't use it. 

Untrue; I'm against it, despite that it benefitted me (colon and prostate cancer, remember?).  Further, most folks won't be against something that benefits them directly - that is self-interest by definition.  It still smacks of a bribe; it uses tax money to pay for the coverage of pre-existing conditions (which no less than SCOTUS pointed out in the decision validating it); with the tax itself gone, anything TIED to said tax must - by law AND the Constitution - also go away.  The idea was okay; however, the law's design sucked - which is why I have been against it from the beginning.  Lastly, MOST folks will be against something they don't use - consider all the hatred of toll roads (by and large, they are hated for two reasons - a bias in favor of hidden-cost "free" roads (they are paid for out of the Transportation Trust Fund - not tolls, which are charged to users of the road in question) or they don't use the toll road in question at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Xenon
33 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

It still smacks of a bribe; it uses tax money to pay for the coverage of pre-existing conditions

What is so bad about that? So if a child is born with a heart defect, all well. Sucks to be them? You have to remember that the people on it also pay taxes. They are not getting a free ride. Every major country provides health care for their people. In the united states we give more corporate welfare to billion dollar companies than we do for peoples health. Its not a matter of resources, its a matter of ideology. 

 

Some people would rather let their neighbors house burn down than help them. Same with health care, 

 

35 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

Lastly, MOST folks will be against something they don't use

You might want to look at the latest polls on that. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

adrynalyne
2 hours ago, DocM said:

First pass around Justice Roberts gave Obamacare the passing SCOTUS vote margin because the no-signup penalty was called a tax by Obama's WH lawyers, this shortly after Democrats said it wasn't a tax. 

 

So much for intellectual honesty.  

 

Good riddance, especially given its exceedingly high out of pocket expenses and poor coverage for most policies.

Good riddance? How selfish can you be? I expect this to be thrown out. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

adrynalyne
56 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

Untrue; I'm against it, despite that it benefitted me (colon and prostate cancer, remember?).  Further, most folks won't be against something that benefits them directly - that is self-interest by definition.  It still smacks of a bribe; it uses tax money to pay for the coverage of pre-existing conditions (which no less than SCOTUS pointed out in the decision validating it); with the tax itself gone, anything TIED to said tax must - by law AND the Constitution - also go away.  The idea was okay; however, the law's design sucked - which is why I have been against it from the beginning.  Lastly, MOST folks will be against something they don't use - consider all the hatred of toll roads (by and large, they are hated for two reasons - a bias in favor of hidden-cost "free" roads (they are paid for out of the Transportation Trust Fund - not tolls, which are charged to users of the road in question) or they don't use the toll road in question at all.

Before Obamacare, pre-existing conditions were a way for insurance companies to not insure someone. As a father of a daughter who was born with a heart defect, you can stick that ideaology where the sun don’t shine. How about the idiots in government come up with a solution before killing off the existing one? Oh, right...they are idiots. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

wakjak

Here's one, universal health care and all.

 

This is happening in Canada. 

 

Couple I know, found out their unborn child had a heart defect and that he would require surgery when he was 6 months old. 

 

2 or 3 weeks ago he was admitted and in surgery to get a stent put In one of his valves i believe. Still in hospital, multiple surgeries since and possibly more to come. 

 

Guess what they're hospital costs will be when they leave? 

$0.

 

Thankfully we care about our citizens. 

 

Yes we pay for it through taxes, but we sure as hell pay way less than anything in the American system. 

 

Out of my biweekly pay, I gross about $1600 and my total taxes come out to almost $400.

 

That 400 is divided between Canada pension plan, federal and provincial taxes. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

+Biscuits Brown
8 minutes ago, wakjak said:

Here's one, universal health care and all.

 

This is happening in Canada. 

 

Couple I know, found out their unborn child had a heart defect and that he would require surgery when he was 6 months old. 

 

2 or 3 weeks ago he was admitted and in surgery to get a stent put In one of his valves i believe. Still in hospital, multiple surgeries since and possibly more to come. 

 

Guess what they're hospital costs will be when they leave? 

$0.

 

Thankfully we care about our citizens. 

 

Yes we pay for it through taxes, but we sure as hell pay way less than anything in the American system. 

 

Out of my biweekly pay, I gross about $1600 and my total taxes come out to almost $400.

 

That 400 is divided between Canada pension plan, federal and provincial taxes. 

If only my government was as fiscally responsible as yours.... both our parties here just spend money like drunken soldiers on the most useless junk so until that changes, I don't trust my government with my healthcare. You want to see what this would look like here, look at the VA hospitals...

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mockingbird

This is bad news for Republicans.

 

The law is actually popular now.

 

... and despite it being passed 9 years ago, the brain-dead Republicans haven't came up with a better comprehensive plan to replace it

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

PGHammer
On 12/15/2018 at 3:01 PM, adrynalyne said:

Before Obamacare, pre-existing conditions were a way for insurance companies to not insure someone. As a father of a daughter who was born with a heart defect, you can stick that ideaology where the sun don’t shine. How about the idiots in government come up with a solution before killing off the existing one? Oh, right...they are idiots. 

Yet before the ACA, not covering pre-existing conditions was legal.  Here is the why - coverage of pre-existing (and expensive) conditions by insurance companies is a guarantee that the insurer will lose money - cancer treatment is far from cheap; Floating knows it the same way I do; due to seeing the bill.  It was difficult (and expensive) to get coverage for those pre-existing conditions - again, legal in most states, and why high-risk pools existed.  The screaming to *fix the problem* was due to more folks HAVING PECs (especially cancers).  My issue is NOT with the idea of solving the problem - have I ever said it was?  The criticism (from my end) is with the structure of the ACA as written, and especially with the fact that it does not fix the second-largest problem with the existing system - the retention of the non-portability of Medicaid  adrynalyne - conditions like your daughter's, (including the cancers that Floating's wife is facing, and that I face myself) are on the rise - that was the spur for the creation of the ACA; folks don't like facing expensive medical bills.  (I get that.)  However, writing a bad bill can, in fact, be worse (for taxpayers overall) - those of us looking merely at the relief on our OWN wallets are being just as selfish as your own argument that those you are claiming - basically "But the costs!"  Why is selfishness okay from us?

Link to post
Share on other sites

cork1958
On 12/15/2018 at 3:57 PM, Zag L. said:

If only my government was as fiscally responsible as yours.... both our parties here just spend money like drunken soldiers on the most useless junk so until that changes, I don't trust my government with my healthcare. You want to see what this would look like here, look at the VA hospitals...

"If only my government was as fiscally responsible as yours"

 

That will NEVER happen here in the U.S.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

adrynalyne
30 minutes ago, PGHammer said:

Yet before the ACA, not covering pre-existing conditions was legal.  Here is the why - coverage of pre-existing (and expensive) conditions by insurance companies is a guarantee that the insurer will lose money - cancer treatment is far from cheap; Floating knows it the same way I do; due to seeing the bill.  It was difficult (and expensive) to get coverage for those pre-existing conditions - again, legal in most states, and why high-risk pools existed.  The screaming to *fix the problem* was due to more folks HAVING PECs (especially cancers).  My issue is NOT with the idea of solving the problem - have I ever said it was?  The criticism (from my end) is with the structure of the ACA as written, and especially with the fact that it does not fix the second-largest problem with the existing system - the retention of the non-portability of Medicaid  adrynalyne - conditions like your daughter's, (including the cancers that Floating's wife is facing, and that I face myself) are on the rise - that was the spur for the creation of the ACA; folks don't like facing expensive medical bills.  (I get that.)  However, writing a bad bill can, in fact, be worse (for taxpayers overall) - those of us looking merely at the relief on our OWN wallets are being just as selfish as your own argument that those you are claiming - basically "But the costs!"  Why is selfishness okay from us?

Looking at relief from my own wallet? How about ensuring the survival of my daughter? Insurance companies wouldn’t even insure her. You are unbelievable. Don’t preach to me about selfishness of my own wallet when health care without insurance is UNAFFORDABLE except maybe for the 1 percenters. 

Edited by adrynalyne
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

kcbworth

Fact: For years we did not have a world class healthcare safety net, and we seem to have survived ok as a country so far.

 

Fact: Removing the individual mandate probably did make some individuals lives better, financially, right now (I say right now, as these same individuals in the future may find themselves uncovered for something and therefore could be financially much worse off)

 

Fact: Removing the individual mandate probably did make some individual's lives worse, financially or access to health insurance and the appropriate health care, without question.

 

Unknown: Did removing the individual mandate make overall American society better? Personally... I doubt it. I doubt reverting to a system where more people suffer actual, measurable, life crippling, suffering, is going to make the overall quality of life in America better.

 

Rather, I suspect that it will increase the number of homeless people I encounter, increase the amount of death I am exposed to, increase the amount of dangerous and desperate elements in society, all of which degrade the quality of life for everyone else.

 

In my crazy world, I always thought being a conservative was about the being the opposite of extremism. Doing the things that made the normal experience of the normal every day American more comfortable, safer, more "standardised" if you will, to ensure there is a general high quality of life across society.

 

I've since learned that being conservative means holding ultra radical right wing views and shoving down everyone's throats, and enacting this philosophical radicalism regardless of the cost to society.

 

I've since learned that my views were "moderate" and conservative-and-moderate are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Crazy

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

+warwagon
1 hour ago, PGHammer said:

Yet before the ACA, not covering pre-existing conditions was legal.  Here is the why - coverage of pre-existing (and expensive) conditions by insurance companies is a guarantee that the insurer will lose money - cancer treatment is far from cheap; Floating knows it the same way I do; due to seeing the bill.  It was difficult (and expensive) to get coverage for those pre-existing conditions - again, legal in most states, and why high-risk pools existed.  The screaming to *fix the problem* was due to more folks HAVING PECs (especially cancers).  My issue is NOT with the idea of solving the problem - have I ever said it was?  The criticism (from my end) is with the structure of the ACA as written, and especially with the fact that it does not fix the second-largest problem with the existing system - the retention of the non-portability of Medicaid  adrynalyne - conditions like your daughter's, (including the cancers that Floating's wife is facing, and that I face myself) are on the rise - that was the spur for the creation of the ACA; folks don't like facing expensive medical bills.  (I get that.)  However, writing a bad bill can, in fact, be worse (for taxpayers overall) - those of us looking merely at the relief on our OWN wallets are being just as selfish as your own argument that those you are claiming - basically "But the costs!"  Why is selfishness okay from us?

Apart than the complete lack of paragraph formatting, I agree with you. I don't wish ill will on anyone but I honestly can't see how insurance companies aren't going bust. Will the large increase in obesity and diabetes that will follow.

8 minutes ago, kcbworth said:

Fact: For years we did not have a world class healthcare safety net, and we seem to have survived ok as a country so far.

 

Good point. People act like they have had the ACA for their entire lives... and you can't take it away from me now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

kcbworth
7 minutes ago, warwagon said:

Good point. People act like they have had the ACA for their entire lives... and you can't take it away from me now.

And some people are acting like they're on the poverty line now because of the ACA.

 

I can almost guarantee the ACA has resulted in less people in the USA on the poverty line than there was previously (pure speculation, but most likely)

Link to post
Share on other sites

+warwagon
8 minutes ago, kcbworth said:

And some people are acting like they're on the poverty line now because of the ACA.

 

I can almost guarantee the ACA has resulted in less people in the USA on the poverty line than there was previously (pure speculation, but most likely)

In my case, I'm not even in the ballpark of poverty, but if I was the increasing health insurance cost might have taken me there. Since getting it in 2011 I never once filled a claim. Then in 2015, I asked them if they would cover a vasectomy, they said no, BASTARDS!!! To this day I haven't filed a claim. I should probably go get checked out, Haven't been to the doctor since 1997. (Other than the mandatory checkup for the vas)

Link to post
Share on other sites

wakjak

And I could go right now and get that surgery, be home for lunch, and my bill would be $0

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

DConnell
3 minutes ago, warwagon said:

In my case, I'm not even in the ballpark of poverty, but if I was the increasing health insurance cost might have taken me there. Since getting it in 2011 I never once filled a claim. Then in 2015, I asked them if they would cover a vasectomy, they said no, BASTARDS!!! To this day I haven't filed a claim. I should probably go get checked out, Haven't been to the doctor since 1997. (Other than the mandatory checkup for the vas)

I am - or used to be - closer to the level of poverty. I know when I was paying for my own insurance at the start of the ACA era, rather than adequate coverage, I had to choose the minimum possible because of the increased cost. And since it had little actual benefit, I ended up not seeing the doctor as routinely as I used to. It didn't push me into poverty, but the ACA made healthcare LESS affordable.

 

The ACA had a huge negative effect on the healthcare industry as a whole, even if you didn't use it directly, you were still nailed by the side effects. I'm all for the abollishment of Obamacare, but I fear that the damage won't be undone by its removal.

6 minutes ago, wakjak said:

And I could go right now and get that surgery, be home for lunch, and my bill would be $0

And your point would be ...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

wakjak
4 minutes ago, DConnell said:

And your point would be ...?

No denial of coverage. No need to worry about being sent into bankruptcy for getting medical attention.

 

You know, the entire point of universal health care... everyone's covered, all the time.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

adrynalyne
8 minutes ago, wakjak said:

No denial of coverage. No need to worry about being sent into bankruptcy for getting medical attention.

 

You know, the entire point of universal health care... everyone's covered, all the time.

How selfish of you. 🤨

 

/s

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

wakjak
1 minute ago, adrynalyne said:

How selfish of you. 🤨

 

/s

I know eh, although we're taxed for it, it's an insignificant amount from my pay that I can't even complain if I never ever used it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Jim K changed the title to Obamacare thrown out by Texas federal judge (SCOTUS update)
  • Jim K unlocked this topic
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.