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

a reply to: DBCowboy

We also need to remove satisfaction scores from payment. If a pain killer addict demands pain killers, and you say no, they give you a low score, and so you do not get paid even though you did exactly what you should.

So what do you do? You give them the painkillers, and then get paid.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

a broken ankle...should get pain relief whether or not they can afford it at the time.

they should get more than an xray, a yep, it's broken, a splint slapped on, and a referral to a surgeon that wants $2000 up front before they will agree to operate it so they can walk again!!!
which is what "emergency care" amounted to for me!!!

a reply to: soundguy

All it is is an insight into your psyche.

a reply to: TheRedneck

I agree with that. No insurance companies should be involved in the coverage the government gives, but they can still sell secondary policies that people can buy or employers can pay for. Those policies could include the things like flu, colds, and doctor visits for non threatening trips. The big thing is we should not have a risk of losing everything you worked for because you have had a heart attack or stroke or cancer. Right now our medical industry is taking away all of our people's ability to have a decent life without worrying about going belly up. Half the bankruptcies these days are about medical expenses.

originally posted by: rickymouse
WE should get medicare for all, the basic hospital policy with limitations on procedures that are way too expensive or are unnecessary for a diagnosis. If people want more coverage, then you can buy a policy, at least an accident or cancer won't bankrupt a person. Medicines should not be covered under this other than maybe the ones you get in the hospital. That would be something else that could be covered under a private policy if a person wanted.

Fifty buck copay on doctors and no cosmetic insurance coverage at all. Just the basics.

We have to stop all the unneeded tests, the colon screening when there are no symptoms at all is a waste of money. If there are some symptoms, I see no problem, but lately the doctors are sticking unnecessary expenses up our A$$es

Or at least a public option so that people can get Medicare if they choose to.My thoughts.

If Obamacare WAS constitutional, and removing the individual mandate made it unconstitutional, doesn't it follow that it was unconstitutional to remove the mandate?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No, the low-brows on the left own this. Entirely.

Our party opposed it then and we do now as well. The entirety of it. Insurance isn't in the purview of the Federal government, period. The left pushed a clearly unconstitutional on the rest of us and screwed up insurance markets all over the country.

Insurance is an optional and private matter. Get a policy, don't get a policy... regardless it isn't the government's place to impose fines or be involved in any way, shape or form with my healthcare or insurance. That is between patient/provider, and nowhere includes a place for the Federal government.

This merely puts government and leftists back in their place. Stay out of my damn healthcare. I don't need your help, and I'm not offering you mine.

And yes, however many people losing insurance (which isn't going to happen, but hypothetically speaking) is better than seeing our Constitutional rights infringed upon for any reason. The left should've thought about that before trying to secretly ram through its hair-brained low IQ power grabbing illegal unconstitutional health care scam. This scam/crime blew up in the left's face, like everything else it touches does.

Just do the country a favor and stop trying to help.

originally posted by: links234
If Obamacare WAS constitutional, and removing the individual mandate made it unconstitutional, doesn't it follow that it was unconstitutional to remove the mandate?

The only reason it WAS Constitutional was because the mandate fine was seen as a tax.

Remove the tax and it becomes unconstitutional.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Again, doesn't that make the removal unconstitutional without removing the law in its entirety?

The GOP-led congress, essentially, turned a constitutional law into an unconstitutional law by removing an aspect of that law. Shouldn't that act of removal be considered unconstitutional?

a reply to: links234

That is a very subversive argument.

Unapportioned direct tax is itself unconstitutional, or did you not read the Constitution which prohibits this by name? (regardless of what laws criminals and con-men have passed since)

Further, the 16th amendment was improperly ratified.

Again, regardless of what con-men and low-IQ "officials" have said over the past ~150 years of egregious mistakes and infringing actions the Constitution specifically prohibits a "direct, unapportioned tax" for a reason. I don't care what rubber stamp Statist/leftist/apologist "judges" have said, they are wrong. I don't care what the dirty, low-IQ, corrupt congress has said either.

The Constitution is right. They are wrong. The Constitution is right 100% of the time. I am confident the tyranny our people have been subjected to for the last ~150 years will one day be rectified by those who truly love the Constitution, not just patriots-in-name-only PINOs. Just wonder who will be making it up to the American people who have been wronged in such a ghastly, grievous, severe and criminal way for more than a century.

Theft is never acceptable, including theft by any other names/any other means. Robbery is defined as the taking of anything of value under force or threat of force. Unapportioned direct taxation is theft. The Constitution specifically and directly prohibits this by name.

The question is, to you and anyone else reading this, are you a PATRIOT or a p.i.n.o.?

a reply to: buckwhizzle

Based on information and commentary below I don't think that's a viable option. Many others are making same assumption on this thread and it's nothing but wishful thinking.

The people of this nation have the ability to put a stop to what is otherwise going to be a certain collapse -- not just in asset markets but of the government itself. This is not going to happen in 2024 when Medicare cannot pay it will happen before that date because in the history of the world markets have never allowed an actual end date to be reached before they throw up all over the impending disaster. To expect otherwise is to claim that literally everyone in the world is stupid beyond words.

May I point out that when Medicare's funds are exhausted that $1.1 trillion dollar expenditure (and rising) from last year will be immediately reduced by 75%? That's right -- they took in just $260 billion last fiscal year in Medicare taxes but spent four times that amount. If you think the government can immediately add $800 billion to the deficit without interest rates spiking to 10% or more overnight -- which instantly crashes the markets and government both -- you have rocks in your head.

Exactly when the markets will blow up is not determinable in advance but that it will happen is an absolute certainty. Once it happens there will be no orderly path available to the government or anyone else to stop or mitigate the damage since the entire problem with the market throwing up on such an event is that confidence in the ability and desire of government to address the issue will have been irretrievably lost.

Revolt or Collapse


The government is not and cannot come to your rescue. Instead of taking the bull by the horns almost ten years ago and applying existing law to reduce costs democrat politicians in league with big business, unions, insurance, medical and pharmaceutical companies decided to shaft the entire country with ACA which has exacerbated the problem ten-fold.

Now only a complete collapse of the entire industry along with the economy for 18 or so months is the unpleasant choice left to us.

Remember, before 2024

a reply to: links234

And force Congress to keep a law? But I thought you lefties cared about the "Separation of powers" ?

The only thing the judicial can do is exercise its authority to act as a check/balance on the legislature and strike its law from the books for being unconstitutional. Otherwise, this allows the judiciary to make law which is clearly the job of the legislature.

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: DBCowboy

Again, doesn't that make the removal unconstitutional without removing the law in its entirety?

The GOP-led congress, essentially, turned a constitutional law into an unconstitutional law by removing an aspect of that law. Shouldn't that act of removal be considered unconstitutional?

You'd be arguing that removing taxes is unconstitutional.

originally posted by: links234
If Obamacare WAS constitutional, and removing the individual mandate made it unconstitutional, doesn't it follow that it was unconstitutional to remove the mandate?

There were a lot of judges and legislators who all said the entire charade of Obamacare was totally unconstitutional, and it was illegal in many other ways including quite fraudulent because it based upon false claims known in advance as false by those pushing it through for passage.

It made an honorary felon (again) out of Obama because of every point he sold his Obamacare on was false and he knew in advance that his claims were false, hence he committed felony fraud upon the American people, and all of those who helped him do it are also guilty of felony fraud.

Those calling "Obamacare" something good and legitimate is like hearing someone say that going for a swim in a sewage treatment tank is also good. So in essence, people are receiving exactly what they allowed to happen.

Since Obamacare passed, the entire medical care system has been exploited and turned into one of the greatest organized criminal enterprises of all time.

originally posted by: links234
If Obamacare WAS constitutional, and removing the individual mandate made it unconstitutional, doesn't it follow that it was unconstitutional to remove the mandate?

The 9th Circuit can probably agree.

😎😀

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: links234
If Obamacare WAS constitutional, and removing the individual mandate made it unconstitutional, doesn't it follow that it was unconstitutional to remove the mandate?

The only reason it WAS Constitutional was because the mandate fine was seen as a tax.

Remove the tax and it becomes unconstitutional.

No the only reason it was Constitutional is because Roberts and four other liberals were idiots who dont care about the Constitution

I agree with Justice Roberts premise, the courts(un-elected officials) shouldnt go our their way to strike down laws by elected officials. But couching the mandate up as a tax was ridiculous, what a complete failure as a republican appointee, you just never know what these guys are going to do once they are on the bench.

www.cnn.com...

www.businessinsider.com...

www.politico.com...


It all clearly came down to one thing so aptly put by Scalia:

"Normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved"


If those states that wish to save healthcare for all, let them join together and prove how great it is. No doubt other states will rush to join in as we all see how grand it can be...

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: LordAhriman
YES! What a win. We don't need the poor, or the sick! Definitely not the poor people who are sick!

So there were no poor or sick people in the USA after o-care was reconciled? Amazing!

They're still here, they can just live longer if they get sick. For now.

I'll have to look for it, but there was a study which showed sick people did worse under Medicare/Medicaid/gov't 'care' than without it.

Actually multiple studies, linked within www.usatoday.com...

originally posted by: links234
If Obamacare WAS constitutional, and removing the individual mandate made it unconstitutional, doesn't it follow that it was unconstitutional to remove the mandate?

The mandate was never constitutional. The only thin pretext they had to make it constitutional was to make belief it was some kind of tax. That was the only way they got it through the SCOTUS the first time -- John Roberts suggested to the government lawyer that they better call the whole mandate and penalty a tax mechanism. The government *does* have the power to lay taxes, but it does not have the power to use the commerce clause to force participation under the guise of regulating a market which is what the argument to compel Obamacare was (non-participation in a market is still participation so the government can regulate you). By that line of reasoning, there is nothing the government cannot make you buy or not buy under the commerce clause.

The tax reform bill stripped the Obamacare tax penalty meaning the mandate could not under any circumstances be called a "tax". As that was the only thin pretext to let it remain constitutional, it is no longer constitutional.

The only way to uphold it now would be to legislatively reinstate it as a tax measure. This will not be likely to happen as the chambers of the House and Senate stand.

If it has been declared unconstitutional, will people who paid the mandate get refunds?
Will people who did not file taxes because of the mandate, still have to pay?