Obamacare Thrown Out by Judge (Unconstitutional), Raising Insurance Uncertainty

originally posted by: Extorris

It would be like a murderer blaming ER doctors for the victims death for not being able to save the man the murderer shot 10 times.

Yes, exactly. The murderer is the Democrats. The Doctors working on the patient are the ER Doctors. Thank you for proving my point.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Extorris

It would be like a murderer blaming ER doctors for the victims death for not being able to save the man the murderer shot 10 times.

Yes, exactly. The murderer is the Democrats. The Doctors working on the patient are the ER Doctors. Thank you for proving my point.

Again, that view does not comport with logic or the voting public's perception.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Extorris

Sorry, Democrats own this fiasco.

Recent Fox News Poll:
www.foxnews.com...
Fox News Poll: Health care boosts Democrats in upcoming midterm elections
www.foxnews.com...

Health care is a top issue for voters.

Voters believe Democrats can better handle health care issues by a 15-point margin.

64 percent of Americans want the government to take steps to help more people get covered.

A majority of Americans believe the Affordable Care Act is “about right” or “didn’t go far enough.

55 percent of Americans say a congressional candidates positions on health care will be extremely important to their vote.

By a 2-1 margin, Americans say Republicans’ recent changes to health care laws have hurt, rather than helped, with their health care coverage and costs.

Let's see if this ends up in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

a reply to: Extorris

Stop confusing public perception and logic.

Trump said the individual mandate is "highly unpopular." As recently as February 2017, a YouGov poll found that 65 percent of people opposed it, a finding that is consistent with earlier polls from other organizations. That’s a fair sign of the provision’s unpopularity.

www.politifact.com...

The murderer is the one who created the patient. Democrats.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You seem bent on making sure I will disagree with you.

Get over yourself, I don't think about you and I don't care about your opinions. I find your aggressive attack on my character, because you disagree with my politics, obnoxious. It looks like you care an awful lot about me, my character, my opinions and posts though!

Obamacare instituted an individual mandate that required people to buy health insurance whether they wanted it or not. That's wrong on several levels. First, it's not the government's place to tell anyone what to spend their money on. We have taxes to ensure that social needs are met. What's left after taxes, the government has no control over.

Oh please. The government forces everyone to pay into Medicare and Social Security. States require auto insurance if you want to drive. Want to use the internet? Pay a tax. Want to use your phone? Pay a tax. Want to work for a living? Pay a tax...and on and on. Almost every developed country in the world provides universal health care through taxes, except the USA.

You hate the ACA. You hate Obama and Democrats. I get it. You don't have to write a tome of hate to betray your hateful feelings. I don't care, nor do I care about your long winded rants.

originally posted by: Realtruth
Let's see if this ends up in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The 5th Circuit is who this is appealed to as I understand it.
The District Court for the Northern District of Texas feeds into the 5th Circuit Court, New Orleans, not the 9th.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No one is forced to buy insurance against their will if they do not want to participate in driving.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck
"States require auto insurance if you want to drive."

False. I have been driving in Washington state without insurance for the last 20 years. Never caused an accident and never needed insurance. You don't need insurance to drive, but if you get pulled over you will get fined. I will not be forced to purchase something.
I also never signed up for Obamacare and never paid a fine or penalty from the IRS and I did file. How did I do that?

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No one is forced to buy insurance against their will if they do not want to participate in driving.

Driving is a choice. Occupying a human body with it's associated maintenance is not.

You might say that living is a choice, but if the GOP is trying to sell that argument I don't think the voting public will receive it well.

a reply to: Extorris

So you can not occupy a human body without insurance? Funny, people did it for thousands of years.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Extorris

So you can not occupy a human body without insurance? Funny, people did it for thousands of years.

...and died at the average age of 29. But don't get me wrong, I don't actually think that's a bad thing...I think there are too many people anyway.

But if you want to argue about what people did for thousands of years without, lets start with:

Border Walls
ICE
Police at all
Governments
The internet
Automotives
Fuel
Wheels
Fire
FireARMS
Prisons
MAGA slogans (as there was no initial "A" to MAKE great let alone again)
.
.
.
and the list goes on and on....I guess by now the point is that it's a ridiculous analogy.

a reply to: Extorris

I fail to see what your point is here. If you are arguing that people need health care because we all live in bodies, that is true.

But if you are trying to draw some ham-fisted connection to car insurance mandates, you fail. No one has to own an automobile. You only fall under the auto insurance mandate if you own a car. Many people, millennials especially, are very proud of their disdain for car ownership these days, and as a result, they do not need to purchase car insurance. They have that choice.

There is no choice at all as to whether or not you have a body.

And it is illegal/unconstitutional to compel someone to purchase a product.

So even though we all have bodies, you cannot compel someone to purchase health insurance. Lack of participation in a market is not economic activity that can be regulated. There is no activity. If you go down that road, then there is literally no activity in your life that the government cannot compel you do to or not do under the guise of its effect on the economy.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: Realtruth
Let's see if this ends up in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The 5th Circuit is who this is appealed to as I understand it.
The District Court for the Northern District of Texas feeds into the 5th Circuit Court, New Orleans, not the 9th.

Will it end up at the Supreme Court in 2019? Insurance companies have to file their 2020 rates and plans by May 2019.

Seems to me most people conflate an entitlement, grant, benefit as being insurance none of the first three fit any guise of something that can be underwritten successfully.

For insurance to work mathematically to spread risk one has to have unplanned rare events that allow those not having those events frequently pay a token amount to cover the rare event when it does occur.

Most in their descriptions of needs and desires are asking the impossible when asking for so-called medical insurance.

Earlier in the thread someone brought up auto insurance for comparison, probably a bad comparison overall but for purposes of this post maybe a good one.

Insurance for car accidents is figured on total insured drivers versus number of accidents out of that pool allowing an insurance cost less than calculated loss per accident of a pool member - it works somewhat OK.

On the other-hand were preventative maintenance items such as oil change, wiper replacement, tires and such included the insurance company knows the entire pool will likely require those tasks in short time, yes they can provide but its no longer insurance and instead is a service that you've agreed to handle your billing and service levels for a fee. No way no how is it insurance though.

This is what everyone expects in healthcare - routine visits and procedures covered with a co-pay which really is no different that the auto service example above - you are paying a third party to handle billing and service levels at a profit to that third party when you could pay out of pocket cheaper if everyone did so.

I fully agree with posters who suggest catastrophic insurance followed with commercially available policies that one can choose costs and service levels desired for non-catastrophic or routine medical needs.

However for any of this to work the government MUST invoke existing laws on monopolistic practices, price collusion and restraint of trade that is rampant in a greedy spoiled medical industry that's unbridled in its corruption.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Get over yourself, I don't think about you and I don't care about your opinions.

And that is the problem. You don't appear to care about anyone other than yourself, yet you think you know what's best for others. Get over your own self, and while you're at it, get out of my healthcare.

The government forces everyone to pay into Medicare and Social Security. States require auto insurance if you want to drive. Want to use the internet? Pay a tax. Want to use your phone? Pay a tax. Want to work for a living? Pay a tax...and on and on. Almost every developed country in the world provides universal health care through taxes, except the USA.

Medicare and Social Security are paid for by taxes and administered through the government. Obamacare was paid for by purchases and administered through private corporations with government enforcement.

There is no right to drive a car. There is no right to use the Internet. There is no right to a telephone. There is no right to work for a living. But the is a right to life, and Obamacare was a ta on that right, used to force insurers to profit improperly.

The other countries that have universal health care do not use universal insurance to accomplish it. They administer health care through the government, paid for by taxes. The solution I proposed, which you oppose, administers health care through the government, paid for by taxes.

You hate the ACA. You hate Obama and Democrats.

Yes, dammit, I hate Obamacare! Don't tell me you just figured that out?

I do not hate Obama. I hated what he did, but I don't really care about him either way; he went away.

I do not hate Democrats. I hate what they seem to stand for lately: pure socialism, open borders, violence against those they disagree with, abuse of power, economic decline, etc. I also do not love Republicans. I am an Independent. Point your partisanship at someone who cares about it, and stop the projection.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcathdra

It's too bad something isn't being done about insurance companies. They are currently a scam. The insurance bills are costing about half as much as rent for many people I know. Now people with pre-existing conditions (who need help) won't be able to afford it.

It sounds very Christian. I have a problem with the Republican party pretending to be the party of God. The real God left the party a long time ago. That's just my quick 2 cents on religion. They are just worshipping shadows right now. Shadows won't get anyone into Heaven.

Meanwhile, an atheist who actually lives the good life and cares about the sick might have a chance. Isn't it crazy how that works? Someone has to point it out.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Extorris

I fail to see what your point is here. If you are arguing that people need health care because we all live in bodies, that is true.

But if you are trying to draw some ham-fisted connection to car insurance mandates, you fail.

That was not my comparison. I only pointed out the logical fail in the retort that since people can choose not to drive, they are not forced not to get insurance. We choose to purchase a car. We are born with a body.
Healthcare is not a consumer choice. Disease, illness and accidents are not choices and do not repond to price elasticity. That is a simple truth.

No one has to own an automobile. You only fall under the auto insurance mandate if you own a car. Many people, millennials especially, are very proud of their disdain for car ownership these days, and as a result, they do not need to purchase car insurance. They have that choice.

OK

There is no choice at all as to whether or not you have a body.

Correct.

Perhaps you are responding to the wrong poster.

So even though we all have bodies, you cannot compel someone to purchase health insurance.

Not sure about that. We are compelled to purchase insurance all the time via unemployment Insurance, social security, medicare and medicaid taxes.

I don't consider Health Insurance a "Market" by economic standards. In order for it to be a market there must be choice, supply and demand, price elasticity etc.

Disease and accidents are not choices. Someone who does not want to pay for car insurance can choose not to drive. Someone who can not afford car insurance or a car will not own a car or car insurance. People afflicted with cancer can not simply choose not to have cancer. Consumer choice is a necessity for a free market to exist.

This logic does not seem confusing to me.

Healthcare is not a free market because Demand (Car accidents, disease et al) are not consumer choices.

You can say that receiving life saving treatments or operations are a choice, but when the alternative is suffering or death? That is not a free market, that is a criminal enterprise demanding payment under threat of death.

The consumer of healthcare has no ability to control price through consumer choice because they can not choose their diseases nor refuse treatment without threat of suffering or death.

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha

No one is forced to buy insurance against their will if they do not want to participate in driving.

Driving is a choice. Occupying a human body with it's associated maintenance is not.

You might say that living is a choice, but if the GOP is trying to sell that argument I don't think the voting public will receive it well.

Taking steps to live a healthy lifestyle and protect yourself is a right.

Forcing other people to care for you is not a right.

a reply to: Extorris

And what drugs you use, what food you eat, these impacts on health are not choices?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xcathdra


President Trump and the Republicans own this and the rising rates as well as the millions of people that will lose their health coverage.

Actually ex-President Obama acted unconsitutionally by implementing it and forcing premiums through the roof for hard working people. His unconstitutional actions have been called out.