It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Justice Department sides with court ruling Obamacare invalid

page: 8
35
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 06:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04
in what way does covering patients with pre-existing conditions violate the Constitution?

What constitutional article, section or clause did the judge cite in his determination that makes the ACA unconstitutional. Whose civil rights are being violated by covering patients with pre-existing conditions?


That's not the part that was struck down by the court. The individual mandate was struck down as unconstitutional. Forcing people to pay for a product or service under penalty is unconstitutional.

There is no right to health care, but even if there were you cannot force people to buy health insurance. That's like saying "Citizens have the right to bear arms per the 2nd Amendment so we will force every person in the USA to purchase firearm insurance, or we will fiscally penalize them for non-compliance."

The "ACA" was written without a severability clause, meaning that if one piece of it is found to be unconstitutional, the entire document may be struck down. This was not used before, but it still can be used now.




posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
Now that I don't have those damn fines I can afford to make some damn progress in life and start affording to pay off debts and get somewhere so that I can actually get to a point where I can actually afford insurance before I truly depend on it.


If 2.5% of your income was holding you back from all of that, you need to manage your money a lot better.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

That's not an answer to the question that I posed to you.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

The ACA is unconstitutional. Trump is getting rid of it and wants to keep pre-existing conditions being covered in a new Constitutional law.

How is that a broken promise? It's you who keeps dodging the ACA being struck down by COURTS, and Obama lying to the people to get it passed at all costs which caused this problem.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu



That's not the part that was struck down by the court.


It is. The Trump Administration moved the tax value of individuals who failed to procure insurance down to zero. So, there is no individual punishment for failing to procure insurance, and therefore no individual is harmed. No individual's civil rights have been violated.

Who is harmed? The insurance company corporations who are required to provide coverage, even to those people who have pre-existing conditions. Since Trump zeroed out the fund that was supposed to reimburse the insurance companies for providing coverage to expensive, high risk patients, through the insurance pool funded by the tax, and Trump's refusal to honor the financial contract established between the government and the insurance companies, the insurance companies are left holding an empty bag. Naturally, they're going to raise rates to pay for their loss.

The ACA guarantees coverage to all, many of whom, around 140 million people, would otherwise be denied coverage or individually prices out of affordability, due to pre-existing conditions. So basically, this judge ruled that the insurance companies rights to earn a profit are violated, due to the mandates that protects individual with pre-existing conditions receive affordable health care, forcing them to cover high risk patients with no government reimbursement, now that Trump zeroed out their fund and is refusing to pay them what the ACA promised they would be paid.

So, I'll restate my question, what article, section or clause or clause of the Constitution guarantees no laws will be passed, protecting the people, that causes corporations to lose money when the government reneges on their payment contract?


edit on 28-3-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Your understanding of the situation is nonexistant. The ACA was all about making insurance companies money.


As Obamacare twists in political winds, top insurers made $6 billion

All six of the top insurers are seeing their stocks it all-time highs this summer

www.cnbc.com...

The only thing that didn't make money was the public exchanges, which they can and have gotten out of, and then those people have to get insurance anyways.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

President Obama and his administration worked within the system that is/was in existence. He worked with Republicans and implemented their "Heritage Foundation" plan. Are you suggesting that President Obama should have bypassed the Republican plan and the private insurance industry and gone straight for single payer?

What system to see the Trump and his administration working within? Do you think that the Trump administration will try to bypass and rip profits from the insurance industry by introducing a single payer health plan, or will the Republicans and the Trump administration give the insurance industry a profitable hand out of individual and government funds?



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's why the SCOTUS determined parts of the passed ACA were coercive and thus invalidated.

That decision alone screwed a large segment of the population.

Why would a bill like that even pass a Congress full of lawyers and a POTUS that was a lawyer ?

Also: how many areas have 1 or 0 "choices" for ACA policies ?

It's like a buffet with half the selections empty or shut down 😎



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Face it. The only way protect people with pre-existing conditions is either a mandatory payment to a greater insurance pool, which is what the ACA did, or a universal, single payer, Medicare for all health care option.

False premise, much?

That is just total bull#.

There is no reason that a new Medicare option couldn't simply be created that covers those with pre-existing conditions.

There is absolutely ZERO reason that this would have to be applied to everyone.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   
All Trump has to do is rename it Trumpcare. That's it. His fans will say it's the best thing ever.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




That's why the SCOTUS determined parts of the passed ACA were coercive and thus invalidated.


Source required.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 09:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
By nullifying the law, that is the ACA, that forbids insurers from denying coverage to patients with pre-existing conditions or out pricing their ability to pay for coverage.

But it is OK for them to outprice me and my family from being able to afford decent insurance coverage?

Sorry, that doesn't fly.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 09:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Face it. The only way protect people with pre-existing conditions is either a mandatory payment to a greater insurance pool, which is what the ACA did, or a universal, single payer, Medicare for all health care option.

False premise, much?

That is just total bull#.

There is no reason that a new Medicare option couldn't simply be created that covers those with pre-existing conditions.

There is absolutely ZERO reason that this would have to be applied to everyone.


So then, every taxpayer would have to pay for everyone that the for profit insurance corporations reject on the basis of profitability losses.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl

If you're out priced now, you certainly would have been outpriced before the ACA, when insurance premiums were uncontrollably rising, lifetime limits were being imposed and people were being outright rejected because of pre-existing condition, regardless of their financial status.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 09:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
So the doctor who saved your life, will get $20,000 less than he billed you, because you found a less expensive price offered by another doctor, after you recovered?

There should be some kind of algorithm allowing for minor variations based on cost of living, etc, but, yes, if some doctor decides to take advantage of you by charging a full $20,000 more than the average going rate for the same procedure, just because it is an 'emergency' - sorry, but I view protecting people from that as a legitimate exercise of the governments power to protect people from fraud.

That said, proper implementation of true and full price transparency would eliminate the huge differences in price, making such situations virtually non existent.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
If you're out priced now, you certainly would have been outpriced before the ACA,

Not even close...

Within one year of the ACA, premiums for my family more than tripled, effectively pricing us out. It was cheaper to just pay cash as we went, all the while fearing some major accident or catastrophic event.

In the 4 years previous, prices had occasionally risen a little, but nowhere near 'uncontrollably' - that is what happened when after the ACA.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
So then, every taxpayer would have to pay for everyone that the for profit insurance corporations reject on the basis of profitability losses.

Yes, as opposed to what you want, which is that 'every taxpayer would have to pay for everyone's health care. period.'



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
So then, every taxpayer would have to pay for everyone that the for profit insurance corporations reject on the basis of profitability losses.

Yes, as opposed to what you want, which is that 'every taxpayer would have to pay for everyone's health care. period.'


Which would come to less than what their current private insurer's premiums are now.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen




That's why the SCOTUS determined parts of the passed ACA were coercive and thus invalidated.


Source required.



A majority of the Court also found the ACA’s Medicaid expansion unconstitutionally coercive of states

Rebuttal required. 😎



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

For the First Time, 45 Counties Could Have No Insurer in the Obamacare Marketplaces


JUNE 9, 2017

Next year, about 35,000 people buying insurance in Affordable Care Act marketplaces in 45 counties could have no carriers to choose from. This would be the first time that has happened since the marketplaces were opened in 2014.


😆😮




top topics



 
35
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join