Texas District Court Strikes Down the Entire Affordable Care Act

[Foosters 17691]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

The ACA was debated for over a year. It was properly vetted.

Yeah, can't wait to hear his criticism of the recent tax overhaul based on the above.

[Cajun 11675]

2 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Despite Dems soliciting and incorporating 161 GOP amendments into the ACA (only to hear Pubs lie through their faces about it being railroaded through) in a futile effort to secure a single GOP vote, despite the Public Option being removed by the champions of competition, despite the final version more closely resembling Romneycare/1993 Republican counterproposal to the Clinton Universal Healthcare Initiative than anything the Dems had previously proposed, despite the courts ruling states could opt out of Medicare expansion, despite Pubs intentionally roiling the markets with uncertainty beating the repeal wardrums, despite a Republican Congress being found in violation of the law by defunding risk corridors designed to foster competition, and despite Pubs effectively cancelling what was originally their own fucking idea, the individual mandate, the ACA STILL

 

AMAZINGLY

 

ALMOST MIRACULOUSLY

 

- insured millions of more Americans than previosly covered

- slowed the rate of healthcare cost growth (even more so in states that expanded Medicare)

-slashed medical bankruptcies in goddamn half

 

By almost any meaningful metric that measures the common good, the ACA, despite its flaws and Republican sabotage, still improved a shitty situation.

Hilarious talking points.  Fuck the Republicans

No, really, fuck 'em.

That said, your forced catastrophic, rediculously expensive "insurance" is ass my man.

 

But, hey, Rah Rah MY TEAM!!!

Edited December 15, 2018 by Cajun

[happyfunball 481]

 

[77horn 216]

2 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Despite Dems soliciting and incorporating 161 GOP amendments into the ACA (only to hear Pubs lie through their faces about it being railroaded through) in a futile effort to secure a single GOP vote, despite the Public Option being removed by the champions of competition, despite the final version more closely resembling Romneycare/1993 Republican counterproposal to the Clinton Universal Healthcare Initiative than anything the Dems had previously proposed, despite the courts ruling states could opt out of Medicare expansion, despite Pubs intentionally roiling the markets with uncertainty beating the repeal wardrums, despite a Republican Congress being found in violation of the law by defunding risk corridors designed to foster competition, and despite Pubs effectively cancelling what was originally their own fucking idea, the individual mandate, the ACA STILL

 

AMAZINGLY

 

ALMOST MIRACULOUSLY

 

- insured millions of more Americans than previosly covered

- slowed the rate of healthcare cost growth (even more so in states that expanded Medicare)

-slashed medical bankruptcies in goddamn half

 

By almost any meaningful metric that measures the common good, the ACA, despite its flaws and Republican sabotage, still improved a shitty situation.

Source

[77horn 216]

3 minutes ago, happyfunball said:

 

Paul Krugman: Trump will bring global recession

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

19 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Hilarious talking points.  Fuck the Republicans

No, really, fuck 'em.

That said, your forced catastrophic, rediculously expensive "insurance" is ass my man.

 

But, hey, Rah Rah MY TEAM!!!

Yeah, I wouldn't bother an attempt to refute any of my assertons if I were you either.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand

[Cajun 11675]

I wouldn't want to disrupt your safe space little fella.

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13537]

???

[Cajun 11675]

12 hours ago, David Dennison said:

It's never going to get to the Supreme Court.

Those right wing nut jobs over at the NYT disagree...

• The case will almost certainly make its way to the Supreme Court, threatening the law’s survival and, with it, health coverage for millions of Americans.

 

 

[David Dennison 18603]

13 minutes ago, Cajun said:

Those right wing nut jobs over at the NYT disagree...

• The case will almost certainly make its way to the Supreme Court, threatening the law’s survival and, with it, health coverage for millions of Americans.

 

 

When it gets reversed by the 5th Circuit, there will be no reason for the Supreme Court to grant cert. 

[David Dennison 18603]

1 hour ago, Cajun said:

Hilarious talking points.  Fuck the Republicans

No, really, fuck 'em.

That said, your forced catastrophic, rediculously expensive "insurance" is ass my man.

 

But, hey, Rah Rah MY TEAM!!!

That's why most people on the left favor a national, single payer system. You know, Medicare for all.

[Cajun 11675]

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

When it gets reversed by the 5th Circuit, there will be no reason for the Supreme Court to grant cert. 

Tell it to the NYT.

[Ted Lange 15991]

FAKE NEWS!!!!!!

Idiot

[Keef 757]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

When it gets reversed by the 5th Circuit, there will be no reason for the Supreme Court to grant cert. 

I hope you're right, but you have a lot more faith in the 5th Circuit than I do.

[David Dennison 18603]

8 minutes ago, Keef said:

I hope you're right, but you have a lot more faith in the 5th Circuit than I do.

Even if this gets upheld by the Supreme Court and the ACA is thrown out, healthcare in this country is moving left. Doing away with the ACA will only hasten the nationalization of America's healthcare system. Eliminating the 65 and over requirement for Medicare is going to happen some day. It will happen sooner if the ACA and its protections are removed.

[Gatorubet 30064]

5 minutes ago, Keef said:

I hope you're right, but you have a lot more faith in the 5th Circuit than I do.

A petition that an appeal be heard initially en banc must be filed by the date when the appellee’s brief is due. I assume that appellants will request an en banc hearing from the outset.

[Zombie 284]

2 hours ago, Cajun said:

I wouldn't want to disrupt your safe space little fella.

 

And Ignore.

[Zonahorn 8079]

2 hours ago, Cajun said:

I wouldn't want to disrupt your safe space little fella.

 

You are a fucking idiot.

[Cajun 11675]

I am gruntled.

[Cajun 11675]

Just now, Calihorn said:

You are a fucking idiot.

Such tolerance.

[Tuco 5076]

I wouldn't want to disrupt your safe space little fella.
 

Great example of resorting to an idiotic buzzword when it doesn’t apply. He is asking you to address his argument and all you can do his hide behind talk radio rhetoric...because you don’t know what the fuck you are talking about.

[Cajun 11675]

So angry.

[Publiushorn 113]

4 hours ago, Keef said:

 

Roberts ducked this question entirely by finding it was valid as a tax. He did not address the commerce clause issue, which was intentional. 

He did address it.  He said it wasn't a valid exercise of Congress's commerce power. That's why he had to give it the "saving construction" under Congress's taxing power.

[Publiushorn 113]

double post

Edited December 15, 2018 by Publiushorn

[David Dennison 18603]

4 minutes ago, Publiushorn said:

He did address it.  He said it wasn't a valid exercise of Congress's commerce power. That's why he had to give it the "saving construction" under Congress's taxing power.

This is precisely why the next healthcare bill passed by Congress will be an expansion of Medicare.

[scottsins 1953]

4 hours ago, Smax said:

 

only car owners are required to have car insurance, so you can "opt out"

No shit?  If opt out of car ownership/operation, of COURSE that’s OK, because my choices eliminate the possibility of harming others in that way.  No need to manage that risk anymore.

Health care is different because you can not opt out of getting really sick or injured.

[David Dennison 18603]

4 minutes ago, scottsins said:

No shit?  If opt out of car ownership/operation, of COURSE that’s OK, because my choices eliminate the possibility of harming others in that way.  No need to manage that risk anymore.

Health care is different because you can not opt out of getting really sick or injured.

Or getting old. Some people have no understanding of why Medicare exists in the first place.

[Smax 3799]

18 minutes ago, scottsins said:

No shit?  If opt out of car ownership/operation, of COURSE that’s OK, because my choices eliminate the possibility of harming others in that way.  No need to manage that risk anymore.

Health care is different because you can not opt out of getting really sick or injured.

 

 

settle down counselor, i was just answering a question 

[burntorangebongos 10681]

This guy fucks so Imma go with his take.

 

[Kyle 207]

19 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Does this include you? Or do you favor legislating from the bench now?

No. I do not support activist judges regardless of the issues. I try to put principle over politics, and I think the foundations of our government are more important than any single issue. Much more worried about the war than a particular battle.

[Kyle 207]

6 hours ago, 77horn said:

Paul Krugman: Trump will bring global recession

Yeah, he's a genius when it comes to health care: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/opinion/krugman-vouchers-for-veterans-and-other-bad-ideas.html

(https://dailycaller.com/2014/05/14/paul-krugmans-love-affair-with-the-scandal-plauged-va/)

Edited December 15, 2018 by Kyle

[David Dennison 18603]

2 minutes ago, Kyle said:

Yeah, he's a genius when it comes to health care: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/opinion/krugman-vouchers-for-veterans-and-other-bad-ideas.html

Yeah, about that.

[Dahobbs 17420]

24 minutes ago, Kyle said:

No. I do not support activist judges regardless of the issues. I try to put principle over politics, and I think the foundations of our government are more important than any single issue. Much more worried about the war than a particular battle.

What is your definition of an activist judge? Frankly, I dont know what it means. If the judge thinks the law requires a certain ruling, the judge should issue that ruling regardless of politicL consequences. I personally dont see this ruling to be a result of an "activist" judge. 

[Kyle 207]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

What is your definition of an activist judge? Frankly, I dont know what it means. If the judge thinks the law requires a certain ruling, the judge should issue that ruling regardless of politicL consequences. I personally dont see this ruling to be a result of an "activist" judge. 

That's a really great question and one that likely deserves another thread. I don't have some great, well formed master thesis, and I agree "activist judge" is a loaded term. Much like pornography, I know it when I see it. Simply put, I generally in favor of Congress or legislatures (the voice of the people) making laws and the judiciary interpreting those in disputes between two private parties. I think lower courts have over-stepped by making sweeping rulings that effective legislate and undermine the will of the people. Again, I am no Constitutional scholar, but I think putting so much power in un-elected individuals is undermines democracy.

[Kyle 207]

25 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Yeah, about that.

So, just to be clear, you do not think there were / are problems with the VA? And this is based on a three-year-poll of 5,818 veterans of which 78% were "satisfied" with their coverage, which could be explained by its cost? Dots are starting to connect.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Kyle

[David Dennison 18603]

9 minutes ago, Kyle said:

So, just to be clear, you do not think there were / are problems with the VA? And this is based on a three-year-poll of 5,818 veterans of which 78% were "satisfied" with their coverage, which could be explained by its cost? Dots are starting to connect.

Of course there are problems with the VA. Just like there are problems with private health insurance companies. 

It's also very popular with those who use its services, just like Medicare. More popular, in fact, than private health insurance.

[Anastasis 23375]

5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

That's why most people on the left favor a national, single payer system. You know, Medicare for all.

Medicare is not a single payer system. 

[David Dennison 18603]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Medicare is not a single payer system. 

It is if you don't get supplemental insurance.

[Anastasis 23375]

Just now, David Dennison said:

It is if you don't get supplemental insurance.

[David Dennison 18603]

Just now, Anastasis said:

Oh, OK. 

[Anastasis 23375]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Oh, OK. 

I've explained it to you multiple times already on various healthcare threads on this board. Do you need me to do it again.

[David Dennison 18603]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I've explained it to you multiple times already on various healthcare threads on this board. Do you need me to do it again.

You want to be wrong again?

Be my guest.

[Kyle 207]

34 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Of course there are problems with the VA. Just like there are problems with private health insurance companies. 

It's also very popular with those who use its services, just like Medicare. More popular, in fact, than private health insurance.

Color me shocked that people like free stuff.

[David Dennison 18603]

Just now, Kyle said:

Color me shocked that people like free stuff.

It's not free. 

[Kyle 207]

9 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It is if you don't get supplemental insurance.

While technically correct that taxpayers pay for it, it is not a single-administered system, which most "single-payer" systems tend to be.

[Kyle 207]

Just now, David Dennison said:

It's not free. 

Many services are for many veterans or at worst highly discounted. But you're right, it is not free as taxpayers pay for it.

[David Dennison 18603]

Just now, Kyle said:

While technically correct that taxpayers pay for it, it is not a single-administered system, which most "single-payer" systems tend to be.

It's a hybrid if you want to knit pick, but Medicare is a single payer system of healthcare. 

 

[Kyle 207]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

It's a hybrid if you want to knit pick, but Medicare is a single payer system of healthcare. 

 

I'm not nitpicking, but I assume (maybe incorrectly) that when people use the term "single-payer" they mean a single-payer, centrally administered, taxpayer-funded health care system like in Canada or European countries. That is not how Medicare works. And it as actually not single payer as 50% of Americans pay for it.  That is nit-picking. Many snowflakes forget that.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Kyle

[David Dennison 18603]

Just now, Kyle said:

I'm not nitpicking, but I assume (maybe incorrectly) that when people use the term "single-payer" they mean a single-payer, centrally administered, taxpayer-funded health care system like in Canada or European countries. That is not how Medicare works. And it as actually not single payer as 50% of Americans pay for it.  That is nit-picking.

That is exactly how Medicare works.

[Kyle 207]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

That is exactly how Medicare works.

Yeah, um, you don't understand the details of how Medicare works.

Edited December 16, 2018 by Kyle