Democrats Ask the U.S. Supreme Court to Save Failing ObamaCare.

Drive a wooden stake into the vampire, Shoot werewolf with silver bullet, Ward off the evil spirits with holy water - all needed to slay the beast called ACA.


Long read but worth it so one can understand all else is nothing but a band-aid, temporary or delaying action on way to oblivion of the economy.

The Bill To Permanently Fix Healthcare For All

The CBO is out with their latest estimate on the detonation of our federal budget, and it's not pretty. They point out what I've said repeatedly on the budget and "entitlements": Social Security is not the problem and in fact will start declining in share of the budget in 2028; politicians speaking of "entitlements" lumping Social Security in with Medicare and Medicaid are lying. The entire problem is in medical spending and if current trends are not reversed -- not just "adjusted" over time -- will destroy the federal budget and economy. We will not get to 2037 before it happens either; in fact, if we do not act we'll be lucky to get through the next four years as the markets will figure out that neither political party will take this issue on and resolve it. Simply put we must solve this problem and we must do it now.

I also was born into a time where insurance was an option not a requirement nor an expectation or even a so-called right.
Insurance and now Government involvement has resulted in a virtual criminal network of fraudsters throughout all spectrum's of healthcare anything.

The entire system needs to be slayed and rebuilt from ground up using laws already on the books for more than a century.

The highest-paid executive was former CEO Patricia Hemingway Hall. She made nearly $16.6 million in 2015, a 42% increase from her $11.7 million pay package in 2014. Her compensation included a $1.5 million salary and nearly $15 million in bonuses. Hemingway Hall, who has made more than $68.3 million since 2011, retired last year after 23 years at HCSC.
www.modernhealthcare.com...
They may have to change their pay structure.
Whenever I look into the healthcare industry I get mixed messages. Not sure how these CEO and top executive salaries and golden parachutes work into the overall equation but it looks like a racket to me.
How could CEO's make that much in bonuses when the company is losing 100's of millions, some over a billion?
I don't know but I like the idea of opening the health insurance markets to more competition with companies competing across state lines wherever they can.
2 years ago I worked for a company with less than 50 employees and had to pay $550 bi-weekly, pre tax, for health insurance for my family. It sucked. It came to $13,200 annually off the top of my salary, wasn't right and should never have happened.
I fortunately found another position with another company with a much better plan, $300 monthly. Big difference.
I can't stand the health insurance industry.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Mach2

Blue Cross of Illinois lost $247 million in 2018. Laid off hundreds and outsourced customer service. ObamaCare put limits on what health insurance companies can earn. None of them reached that limit.

originally posted by: Liquesence

Yes, we do. To start, end for-profit health care.

No, there would be no incentive for drug companies to develop new and better drugs for illnesses we can't treat today.

Point being, getting rid of ACA does not in itself make healthcare affordable. But it makes healthcare available to those who otherwise can't afford it, which was my original point. Until we find a solution or a replacement, there is not reason to get rid of it.

If it had been handled right we could have gotten to that point without the ACA. This is not a proper solution, it's not even a good solution. I went through this last year, there is no good policy in the ACA unless you have either no money or a lot of money. The middle class is screwed badly by it. It's not right.

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: carewemust

There is no reason why the ACA as a whole should be ruled unconstitutional. None at all. I have always disagreed with the individual mandate, or rather punishing people who don't or who can't afford to have insurance. While I do think everyone should have insurance, or the right to it, if the government mandates one to have it, it should provide it free of cost.

That said, many people have and continue to benefit from the marketplace, the subsidies that reduce cost, to get insurance, so the fact that is it "failing" is a BS false narrative meant to undermine its benefit to many Americans.

As it is, healthcare premiums across the board are absolutely atrocious, which is another reason why Americans should have universal healthcare or healthcare at significantly reduced costs.

A healthy population is good for the nation.

The ACA helped some at the expense of hurting many more, including my family. My cost went way up. This is despite Obama saying it would go down for all. It did not go down for all. It went down for some and way up for many more than it helped. That is not a solution. That is redistribution of wealth and it is wrong. Beyond wrong because he lied about it.

Costs went up for the many and one could not keep their doctor. I will never forgive Obama for those lies. It's criminal what he did. Should have left it alone. Majority would be better off.

I know a dozen people who have or had Obamacare and they say it sucks. The things it does cover are things that are not actually necessary, the deductible seems to gobble up all needed doctor visit and test payments.

Not a good insurance at all, in fact I believe obamacare is a lot worse than the cheap insurances we paid a hundred bucks a month for twenty years ago, at least they only had a thousand dollar per family decuctable and always paid for x-rays and tests at eighty percent. Obamacare sucks, nobody I know is satisfied with it unless they get it for free. And then it doesn't cover much of anything. It is a scam insurance and taxpayers subsidize it.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
I don't see SCOTUS even hearing the case. If they do, then I would hope they reverse their original ruling, do what is right, and cast the entire mess into the pit of hell from which it originated... but as I said, I doubt they'll even accept the case.

Like the article says, the SCOTUS make-up is the same as it was the last 2 times they ruled on ObamaCare. Even though Justice Roberts is a conservative, he liked ObamaCare enough to side with liberals in 2012...keeping the law alive.

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: carewemust

Nancy has huge jumblies. Other than that not much

RE: www.urbandictionary.com...

NO!

a reply to: Gothmog

The legal name was a mouthful: Patient Protections and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Soooo...

Some candidate in a 2012 Presidential debate asked, "Can we call it ObamaCare?" Obama nodded and said, "I'll accept that."

The article points out that the dems are asking for a ruling "by the end of June."

Why?

Because the Democratic National Convention begins the first week in July. This way, Biden can run as "saving Obamacare."

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: carewemust

Pretty sure that was my point.

Were they not profitable before Obamacare was instituted?

YES..they were profitable.

a reply to: HalWesten

The "big picture" is that Americans in general are unwilling to endure sub-par medical care, or long wait times for medical treatment. And most importantly, we are willing and able to pay for the top-quality, fast medical care we demand.

Under our current system, If everyone's income was slashed by 50%, the cost of medical care would drop dramatically. Probably the quality too.

originally posted by: PhilbertDezineck

originally posted by: Metallicus
Obamacare should be scrapped entirely. It should be taken out back and shot. We need to find a way to limit the Government’s involvement in healthcare. The Government turns everything to crap.

I am old enough to remember life before health insurance, since health insurance costs have sky rocked to the point you need insurance.

It's interesting how Medicare for Seniors has not changed much since the "old days". It still pays 80% of the medical bills, with the patient paying the other 20%. In 1960, paying 20% was no big deal. But today, 20% of a $100,000 cancer treatment regime, or heart-bypass, is a budget-buster.

a reply to: fringeofthefringe

Health Insurance company attorneys, accountants, and actuaries are smarter than the Congressional staffers who wrote the Affordable Care Act rules.

Even though a 20% cap was placed on Health Insurance Company profits, certain aspects of top executive and board member compensation was "reclassified" to make it appear as non-administrative in nature.

a reply to: rickymouse

There is a 17 year old teenager in Iowa who uses $1.2 million worth of medical care every month, for treating her rare auto-immune disorder. Prior to ObamaCare the family relied on foundations and other humanitarian aid programs.

Since Iowa is a relatively small state in ObamaCare enrollment, this patient was a major factor in all but Wellmark and Medica leaving the Iowa ObamaCare market.

originally posted by: Graysen
The article points out that the dems are asking for a ruling "by the end of June."
Why?
Because the Democratic National Convention begins the first week in July. This way, Biden can run as "saving Obamacare."

Democrats' push to save Obamacare may backfire on them.

"Saving" the Affordable Care Act means BOOSTING THE REVENUES coming in to the program via TAX INCREASES and reinstating the Coverage Mandate nationwide.

But, since Joe Biden says one of the first things he will do as President, is to raise everyone's taxes, the cost of "saving Obamacare" is already built in to his campaign promises.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Gothmog

The legal name was a mouthful: Patient Protections and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Soooo...

Some candidate in a 2012 Presidential debate asked, "Can we call it ObamaCare?" Obama nodded and said, "I'll accept that."

But then demanded Pelosi change the name other than his.
ACA was born.

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: carewemust

Pretty sure that was my point.

Were they not profitable before Obamacare was instituted?

YES..they were profitable.

I'm certainly not advocating for insurance companies, or their gauranteed profits. In fact, I think profiteering from suffering and misfortune is morally repugnant, in theory. While I don't subscribe to the line of thought that healthcare is a "right", I do think a wealthy country such as ours should provide basic medical services, as well as a catastrophic safety net, as a benefit to its citizens.

The problem is that our government has NEVER shown the ability to run any program without massive waste, and inefficiency. Nor have they ever, except in terms of war making capabilities, shown any propensity for innovation, where as the capitalistic insurance system has.

So what we are left with is the lesser of three evils, the worst of which is superimposing a government socialized system upon a for profit private insurance behemoth.

In the best case that is a both expensive and inefficient proposal, and at worst a license to steal and price gouge, without proper oversight.

Bottom line, it's complicated, and it stinks.

a reply to: Mach2

Nice post, that I and probably a lot of people can agree with.

It would be best if our healthcare could be focused on providing care, rather than on charging for it. On the other hand, Medical workers give their time and their health, working 12 hour shifts and in some cases literally wading through buckets of human blood to do their job.

If we don't meter it, say be having the government control it, the workers who provide the care tend to get disrespected for their work.

Government, and all central planners (including insurance in more and more cases!) tends to disrespect medical workers pretty seriously. If you are involved in it in the US, you noticed a large number of Canadian nurses here about a decade ago. That was because the central planners in Canadia had made too many nurses, and then refused to let them have jobs at home. The planners didn't trust the market to pay the extra nurses less a la supply and demand; they flat out told them to find jobs in another field, besides their nursing degree.

So thousands moved the US, and for a while in Texas Canadian nurses were more common than Nigerian ones.

I agree with anyone that the free market is heartless and brutal. But it's an amateur hour compared to central planning.

The ACA is insidious. Legally forcing people to buy a product from a for-profit business is a horrendous and frankly evil policy.

Healthcare should be a state-controlled service.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: rickymouse

There is a 17 year old teenager in Iowa who uses $1.2 million worth of medical care every month, for treating her rare auto-immune disorder. Prior to ObamaCare the family relied on foundations and other humanitarian aid programs.

Since Iowa is a relatively small state in ObamaCare enrollment, this patient was a major factor in all but Wellmark and Medica leaving the Iowa ObamaCare market.

The thing is that that kid will never have a good life unless she learns what is triggering her autoimmune disorder. It could be anything. I have lots of autoimmune issues, they run in our family. I am trying to untangle ways to stop the autoimmune problems. It isn't easy, I cannot eat foods they say are good for me because they boost my immune system too high, but I am far from figuring out what is causing it. I know already that foods that boost histamine give me a problem, like tomatoes, avacados, and pineapple. Also Ham and even too much fresh pork made multiple ways can cause me to attack things in my body that are not a threat. Most problems I have left are made worse with boosting my immune system with things others can eat with no problem. I always had this problem, but when I used to work hard and sweat it out it was not a problem.