• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. justices decline to hear another Obamacare challenge

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,256
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a broad new legal challenge to President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare law.
The court rejected a petition filed by Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia, which had raised various objections to the law, including to the key provision that requires individuals to obtain health insurance.

That was the Republicans' last chance to kill Obamacare in it's entirety. However, there are still 2 cases that will be decided by June that deal with employers who don't want Obamacare to cover contraception, based on religious grounds.

I am still amazed at why the GOP is trying so hard to kill a law that was conceived by the Heritage Foundation. Obamacare is virtually that same plan. And let's face it. Although some aspects of Obamacare have been a fiasco, Americans should act like Americans, and not let people die simply because they don't make enough money to afford insurance.

So here is my question. If not Obamacare, then what? I would like to hear some good answers on this question. We should act like civilized people, and not as barbarians and animals. For now, despite it's many problems, I think Obamacare is OK, until something better comes along.

Article is here.
 
How many will die if denied free contraception?
 
That was the Republicans' last chance to kill Obamacare in it's entirety. However, there are still 2 cases that will be decided by June that deal with employers who don't want Obamacare to cover contraception, based on religious grounds.

I am still amazed at why the GOP is trying so hard to kill a law that was conceived by the Heritage Foundation. Obamacare is virtually that same plan. And let's face it. Although some aspects of Obamacare have been a fiasco, Americans should act like Americans, and not let people die simply because they don't make enough money to afford insurance.

So here is my question. If not Obamacare, then what? I would like to hear some good answers on this question. We should act like civilized people, and not as barbarians and animals. For now, despite it's many problems, I think Obamacare is OK, until something better comes along.

Article is here.

Yeah I don't think so.
 
Last edited:
That was the Republicans' last chance to kill Obamacare in it's entirety. However, there are still 2 cases that will be decided by June that deal with employers who don't want Obamacare to cover contraception, based on religious grounds.

I am still amazed at why the GOP is trying so hard to kill a law that was conceived by the Heritage Foundation. Obamacare is virtually that same plan. And let's face it. Although some aspects of Obamacare have been a fiasco, Americans should act like Americans, and not let people die simply because they don't make enough money to afford insurance.

So here is my question. If not Obamacare, then what? I would like to hear some good answers on this question. We should act like civilized people, and not as barbarians and animals. For now, despite it's many problems, I think Obamacare is OK, until something better comes along.

Article is here.

How is it the last chance? They still have the issue of tax penalty to deal with on the individual level which couldn't be challenged until levied. Then they have another issue with the tax penalty to do with the State level as ACA makes it illegal for Uncle Sam to tax companies or individuals who's States DO NOT have a State market and it's also illegal to give them subsidies. The Oklahoma cases is very interesting.

Then you got the sure winner of a case over the tax penalty part which is the tax bills can't originate in the Senate despite the Senate using trickery by stripping a previous bill and creating a shell bill to get around the Constitution.

Remember.. ACA penalty is considered a tax by the Supreme Court. So these 3 challenges all have a chance of overturning Obamacare.
 
Last edited:
T

I am still amazed at why the GOP is trying so hard to kill a law that was conceived by the Heritage Foundation. Obamacare is virtually that same plan.
Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

You can keep trolling that line out there, but you'll just get mocked for your blatant dishonesty. If you can't be honest and get your facts right, why should anyone listen to what you have to say?
 
Last edited:
Do you consider abortion to be murder? Because then a lot.

Otherwise, fewer.

So this is the sole dichotomy that exists under the current scenario? God forbid people actually pay for their own recreation which is actually quite cheap.
 
Don't blame Heritage for ObamaCare mandate

You can keep trolling that line out there, but you'll just get mocked for your blatant dishonesty. If you can't be honest and get your facts right, why should anyone listen to what you have to say?

Did you read this?

But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features.
First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.

Still true of the ACA. In fact, even more true of the ACA because the coverage is more comprehensive. The notion that hospitals and taxpayers would be on the hook for less for catastrophic coverage only is ludicrous. Less from the individual, less from the hospital, less from the taxpayer. Just where does this guy think the rest of the money comes from? The insurance companies are just going to eat the cost out of the goodness of their hearts?

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

The ACA contains generous credits. Funded in part by tax changes regarding health coverages...



And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.

literally exactly how the ACA mandate works. The "legal requirement" this moron thinks he differs from is enforced ONLY by a LOSS OF ONE SPECIFIC TAX BREAK.

Either you didn't read this, or worse, you did. And believed it.
 
Last edited:
Did you read this?

But the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features.

Still true of the ACA. In fact, even more true of the ACA because the coverage is more comprehensive. The notion that hospitals and taxpayers would be on the hook for less for catastrophic coverage only is ludicrous. Less from the individual, less from the hospital, less from the taxpayer. Just where does this guy think the rest of the money comes from? The insurance companies are just going to eat the cost out of the goodness of their hearts?



The ACA contains generous credits.





literally exactly how the ACA mandate works.
You didn't read it obviously, but thanks for coming in with the media matters/msnbc silliniess.
The Individual mandate is a tax only by the asstastic legal manipulations of John Roberts.
 
So this is the sole dichotomy that exists under the current scenario? God forbid people actually pay for their own recreation which is actually quite cheap.

Birth control isn't always about recreation. The pill is often used for the prevention of ovarian cysts, among other strictly medical uses.

It's also not always cheap. Sometimes the medical uses require the more costly versions.

Also, it's cheaper than having babies. Would you rather pay for a pill or a birth?
 
You didn't read it obviously, but thanks for coming in with the media matters/msnbc silliniess.
The Individual mandate is a tax only by the asstastic legal manipulations of John Roberts.

It's a penalty up to $695, assessed only on your tax return. Waived if you have insurance. There is no other enforcement mechanism. Criminal charges are expressly prevented. Only your tax return can be reduced, they can't even garnish wages. Explain to us how you think that's substantively different from what the heritage idiot supported.
 
It's a penalty up to $695, assessed only on your tax return. Waived if you have insurance. There is no other enforcement mechanism. Criminal charges are expressly prevented. Only your tax return can be reduced, they can't even garnish wages. Explain to us how you think that's substantively different from what the heritage idiot supported.

Additionally, the meaning of the individual mandate we are said to have "invented" has changed over time. Today it means the government makes people buy comprehensive benefits for their own good, rather than our original emphasis on protecting society from the heavy medical costs of free riders.
Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today's version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts.
Reading, it's good to do.
 
Birth control isn't always about recreation. The pill is often used for the prevention of ovarian cysts, among other strictly medical uses.

It's also not always cheap. Sometimes the medical uses require the more costly versions.

Also, it's cheaper than having babies. Would you rather pay for a pill or a birth?


From what i can tell most dont care what happens to the kids after birth. Thats why they cut billions from all the social programs. The only thing that seems to matter is "controlling other evil sexual desires".
 
That was the Republicans' last chance to kill Obamacare in it's entirety. However, there are still 2 cases that will be decided by June that deal with employers who don't want Obamacare to cover contraception, based on religious grounds.

I am still amazed at why the GOP is trying so hard to kill a law that was conceived by the Heritage Foundation. Obamacare is virtually that same plan. And let's face it. Although some aspects of Obamacare have been a fiasco, Americans should act like Americans, and not let people die simply because they don't make enough money to afford insurance.

So here is my question. If not Obamacare, then what? I would like to hear some good answers on this question. We should act like civilized people, and not as barbarians and animals. For now, despite it's many problems, I think Obamacare is OK, until something better comes along.

Article is here.
You need to check your sources and facts mate. There are several challenges still to go (courtwise) with regard to the ACA. NPR ran a thorough lengthy report on the various remaining challenges just today, you are putting the cart before the horse.;)
 
That was the Republicans' last chance to kill Obamacare in it's entirety. However, there are still 2 cases that will be decided by June that deal with employers who don't want Obamacare to cover contraception, based on religious grounds.

I am still amazed at why the GOP is trying so hard to kill a law that was conceived by the Heritage Foundation. Obamacare is virtually that same plan. And let's face it. Although some aspects of Obamacare have been a fiasco, Americans should act like Americans, and not let people die simply because they don't make enough money to afford insurance.

So here is my question. If not Obamacare, then what? I would like to hear some good answers on this question. We should act like civilized people, and not as barbarians and animals. For now, despite it's many problems, I think Obamacare is OK, until something better comes along.

Article is here.

So so much fail. Its not over for obamacare-certainly it is still capable of being overturned.

And the heritage foundation line is bull**** as well-this law is entirely a dem baby.
 
That was the Republicans' last chance to kill Obamacare in it's entirety. However, there are still 2 cases that will be decided by June that deal with employers who don't want Obamacare to cover contraception, based on religious grounds.

I am still amazed at why the GOP is trying so hard to kill a law that was conceived by the Heritage Foundation. Obamacare is virtually that same plan. And let's face it. Although some aspects of Obamacare have been a fiasco, Americans should act like Americans, and not let people die simply because they don't make enough money to afford insurance.

So here is my question. If not Obamacare, then what? I would like to hear some good answers on this question. We should act like civilized people, and not as barbarians and animals. For now, despite it's many problems, I think Obamacare is OK, until something better comes along.

Article is here.

The law is not a Heritage Foundation idea....good grief, the idea of universal HC has been around since the 60's. Every "think tank" has their own version of it. Hell, 23 years ago they were calling it Hillarycare.

But this law...ACA...is nothing like anyone had envisioned.
 
I am still amazed at why the GOP is trying so hard to kill a law that was conceived by the Heritage Foundation.

Shouldn't you be amazed that the Democrats are clinging so hard to a "Heritage Foundation Idea" (tm) that's failing miserably?
 
Reading, it's good to do.
You're suddenly changing your argument. Before, you objected on some tax basis. Now you're quoting something different. I assume this means you've abandoned the previous one.

He's suggesting the motive makes it different. And you bought it. The ACA still accomplishes the task of protecting society from the free riders by pushing them towards health insurance instead of dumping the cost on the rest of us. Except better, because comprehensive insurance dumps fewer costs onto other people. But I already responded to this, so yes, reading is good to do. Why didn't you take your own advice.

And then he suggests that "forcing" people to buy comprehensive insurance is unconstitutional, but it's totally ok to make them buy catastrophic insurance. Go ahead and elaborate on that, MrV.
 
The law is not a Heritage Foundation idea....good grief, the idea of universal HC has been around since the 60's. Every "think tank" has their own version of it. Hell, 23 years ago they were calling it Hillarycare.

But this law...ACA...is nothing like anyone had envisioned.

The heritage idea wasn't UHC, nor is the ACA. Heritage's idea was an alternative to "HillaryCare" presented by the GOP. It included a mandate to buy health insurance, enforced by removing tax benefits from people who failed to get insurance. And provided tax credits to help those who had trouble affording insurance. You're telling me this is "nothing like" the ACA?
 
That was the Republicans' last chance to kill Obamacare in it's entirety. However, there are still 2 cases that will be decided by June that deal with employers who don't want Obamacare to cover contraception, based on religious grounds.

I am still amazed at why the GOP is trying so hard to kill a law that was conceived by the Heritage Foundation. Obamacare is virtually that same plan. And let's face it. Although some aspects of Obamacare have been a fiasco, Americans should act like Americans, and not let people die simply because they don't make enough money to afford insurance.

So here is my question.
If not Obamacare, then what? I would like to hear some good answers on this question. We should act like civilized people, and not as barbarians and animals. For now, despite it's many problems, I think Obamacare is OK, until something better comes along.

Article is here.
medicare for all citizens and legal aliens, without regard to age
our nation's own version of single payer coverage


and i was initially outraged at ACA, believing it to be a plum given over to the insurance industry
however, by having insurers administer this program, that eliminated the need for a federal bureauracy to oversee it
and we know how ineffective government is in that role
instead, we now have competitive forces moving health care towards more efficiency while the insurers' portion of premiums used for profit and administrative costs cannot exceed 20% ... likely less that what a government bureauracy would cost
maybe the heritage foundation and the Obama administration got this right
 
medicare for all citizens and legal aliens, without regard to age
our nation's own version of single payer coverage



and i was initially outraged at ACA, believing it to be a plum given over to the insurance industry
however, by having insurers administer this program, that eliminated the need for a federal bureauracy to oversee it
and we know how ineffective government is in that role
instead, we now have competitive forces moving health care towards more efficiency while the insurers' portion of premiums used for profit and administrative costs cannot exceed 20% ... likely less that what a government bureauracy would cost
maybe the heritage foundation and the Obama administration got this right

OK, at what rate would the new Medicare payroll tax be set? The problem, currently with Medicare and Medicaid, is that the single payer (the federal gov't) then sets the "fair" price of care. Unlike SNAP, where the food provider still sets the price, Medicare decides that care procedure X will cost (be reimbursed for) $100, so one then must find (on their own) a care provider that will perform procedure X for $100 (or make up the difference out of pocket). Note how few care providers will now accept Medicare/Medicaid patients because of the reimbursement limits imposed. Imagine a SNAP program that paid $1.50/pound for meat, one then could buy only chicken or pay added cash in order to buy pork or beef.
 
Last edited:
OK, at what rate would the new Medicare payroll tax be set? The problem, currently with Medicare and Medicaid, is that the single payer (the federal gov't) then sets the "fair" price of care. Unlike SNAP, where the food provider still sets the price, Medicare decides that care procedure X will cost (be reimbursed for) $100, so one then must find (on their own) a care provider that will perform procedure X for $100 (or make up the difference out of pocket). Note how few care providers will now accept Medicare/Medicaid patients because of the reimbursement limits imposed. Imagine a SNAP program that paid $1.50/pound for meat, one then could buy only chicken or pay added cash in order to buy pork or beef.

and here is where the 2% of the population being elite works for the great American public
while that 2% can and would pay cash for their health care, their numbers are so small that they cannot sustain the medical industry
medicare payments would be made for most of the remaining 98%, and medical practitioners would either accept those payment rates or work in another industry or country
 
and here is where the 2% of the population being elite works for the great American public
while that 2% can and would pay cash for their health care, their numbers are so small that they cannot sustain the medical industry
medicare payments would be made for most of the remaining 98%, and medical practitioners would either accept those payment rates or work in another industry or country

Wrong. As we see with Medicare today; private "supplemental" insurance will be available, for those that can afford it, to allow the market price of care to be paid to the provider of their choice. As you note there will be discount care facilities, able to remain profitable on only the Medicare rates, but they are a far cry from that available with cash and/or supplemental insurance, in both the quality of care provided, waiting times for that care and the range of services offered (i.e. specialty care). We now have a two tiered medical care provider system and that will get much worse with more relying on gov't defined reimbursement rates.
 
and here is where the 2% of the population being elite works for the great American public
while that 2% can and would pay cash for their health care, their numbers are so small that they cannot sustain the medical industry
medicare payments would be made for most of the remaining 98%, and medical practitioners would either accept those payment rates or work in another industry or country
Its always about getting something for nothing, isnt it?
 
Its always about getting something for nothing, isnt it?

no, you are exposing that you have no understanding about the way insurance works
we will all be expected to pay for health insurance coverage
while we do not know whether we will eventually pay for more than we ultimately require
our risk is pooled. and only a fool would hope to receive more than they contributed, because that would mean you encountered more health problems than the average person
the objective is to pay more than we use. which meas we would up healthy. the 'surplus' that we paid, which was used by others, paid for the possibility that it could have otherwise been you who needed to access that 'surplus' to cover your extraordinary health costs
without such a healthcare safety net, those with the least means and greatest health care issues ... which costs of care they could not personally afford, would have certain death as their near term expectation. this safety net changes that
pay your health care premium and pray you never require use of the 'surplus' that is paid
 
Back
Top Bottom