Upcoming court case could soon "crush" the ACA entirely

[JEDIYoda]

If the voters won't select Repubs to run the govt,

That's the problem right there you nailed it!! The republicans had their chance and screwed it up, even worse than OBama is doing.....

Prediction -- Dems hold POTUS for at least 12 more years...hahhahaaaa

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Fine kill it, we all know our old system was working so scary good

 

[Ken g6]

Note: I'm not arguing for or against the principals of Single Payer itself, I argue that our government is too damn incompetent to implement and manage a Single Payer healthcare system. Until they have a proven track record that shows otherwise, I don't want them managing my healthcare under any circumstances.

So, you would agree with this, then?

 

[Oldgamer]

So, you would agree with this, then?

LOL that picture is priceless! What a bunch of really dumb folks out there.. lmao

I suspect that the judges who are all republican will make a ruling based on their own political bias. But from what I am reading the white house can then move it up the judicial ladder to a more favorable court.

But like I said, I don't think the Republicans want to win the white house. I think we are well beyond any reasoning or rationale. It has now all become about "obstructionism" and killing off Government, but keeping certain government officials in power for the purpose of doing nothing but "obstructing". None of the Republicans are interested in really governing or doing anything constructive anymore.

 

[Darwin333]

If the correct people would manage the government: (some of the stuff is my personal, i use the word "should" in that case)

• Healthcare would be free
• Income Tax would be nonexistant
• US Military wouldn't go more than 100 miles off the US coast
• Electricity would be free
• Internet would be free
• Oil would be 1/3 of the cost
• New energy technologies would be funded (the ones that have been suppressed)
• Bank loans would be at zero interest
• Banks would all be national non-profit and a public service, no for-profit private banks allowed
  

• 
  
  Umm, how the hell are you going to afford all of the above with no income tax, severely reduced profitability of and a fuckload less businesses (a lot of which currently pay a ton of taxes)?
  
  

  [*]No hedge funds allowed
  [*]No rating companies allowed

  
  Ah, so your not a fan of the free market.
  
  

  [*]Loans from banks would only be available to people who have a clear reason and do not have considerable savings (students, new families), no spoiled brats allowed.

  
  Wow, so punish the responsible and reward those who aren't, really?
  

  [*]Free Market with basic easy to understand rules and regulations, regulation by congress, not by private financial entities.
  [*]Insurance companies would not be allowed, insurance would not be required for healthcare as default

  
  Umm, what about car insurance, home owners, flood, business interruption, etc.?
  

  [*]Gambling would be rewritten to be compatible with the new stable financial system - banning it would take away people's hardrooted entertainment, but the prizes would not be anywhere near high. (there wouldn't even be a need for gambling because the standard of living would be high enough as default)

  
  So you mention the free market having few and basic regs but then you want to regulate what gaming companies/casinos can pay out without a reason other than peoples standard of living will be higher which has little to do with gambling.
  
  

  [*]Foreigners with fake birth certificate would not be allowed anywhere near state or federal governmental facilities.

  
  Pretty sure having a fake birth certificate is already illegal.
  

  [*]Stocks, Corporations, would all be rewritten to be compatible with the new monetary system
  [*]Credit cards and any form of digital currency would be banned (to completely avoid fraud)

  
  Wait, what new monetary system? And you want to ban credit cards and digital currencies, another blow to the free market, because of fraud??? Do you want to ban grocery stores because they get robbed or all cows because of salmonella?
  
  

  [*]Bank credit would be nonexistant, all money in existance would be physical only

  
  Even when backed up with actual money or assets? Yeah, fuck the free market again.
  

  [*]Fractional Reserve Banking would be abolished, all banks would only perform basic optional tasks such as storing, lending, everything at zero cost.
  [*]Businesses would not require any "financial middleman" to trade and operate in the free market.

  
  Wait, you just said no lending and now your talking about lending? I'm not sure if you know this or not but lending is by its very nature giving someone "credit". The only question is if the bank has the money and/or assets to back up the loan 100%.
  

  [*]Any form of EMR wireless transmission to be deemed harmful and banned, until a specific frequency is thorougly tested for long-term health risks on humans, animals and the environment.
  [*]Wirelees Internet in schoools would be banned and strictly prohibited.

  
  So you just nuked even more of the nations largest taxpayers as well as one of the largest consumer markets in the entire world.
  
  

  [*]Smart meters BANNED!

  Umm, why?
  
  

  [*]Most high-power long-range land or satellite wireless transmission would only be allowed in emergency situations, but well regulated, low-health risk small wireless communication should be allowed for private use when required for justifiable reasons (directions advice, gatherings, missing guests) including business operation. Every person would be allowed to carry special high-powered long-range wireless devices but using them for non-emergency situations intentionally around other people should be fined and prosecuted for causing harm to sorrounding life)

  
  You just said study it and now you want to charge people for something that even you admit could be (and is almost assuredly) false? With all the cellphones in this country shouldn't we all be dead by now if it was that much of a danger to life? Not to mention knocking out a few more of the biggest companies and taxpayers in the US.
  

  [*]All kinds of communication, including worthless chatting, would be allowed on wired communication systems at all times without any limits or regulation.

  
  You mean we are still free to talk to people in your new utopia??? Wow, I'm impressed.
  

  [*]A citizen can choose a national bank to store his money or his own private hiding place (for various reasons, eg, traveling,)

  
  See above, impressed again that we are free to keep our own money.
  
  

  [*]Banks would not operate with the money, banks would not operate as a business, banks would not be sellable, and would not be able to buy.
  [*]Storing money into the bank would mean actually storing the physical paper or precius metal to a specific safebox inside the bank's secured facilities.
  [*]Bank staff would be considered public servants and would be under constant surveillance to prevent fraud and stealing.
  [*]Bureaucracy would be severely diminished in all areas of the government, including the financial sector.

  
  Wait, you just said they would be .gov owned and with all the crap above it doesn't sound like Bureaucracy would be decreased in the least.
  

  [*]Rules and regulations would be written in a very accessible, clear, and defined manner for every citizen to understand.

  Hey, we agree on something, at least to a reasonable point. You said "every citizen", we have some really fucking stupid people out there. You going to try and write them to the absolute lowest common denominator?
  

  [*]Stock market would no longer be a giant casino, personally i wouldn't allow re-sellers, they should be considered unnecessary middle-men.

  
  You could have saved like 25 of these rules by just saying "no more free market".
  

  [*]A domestic business would therefore also not be allowed to have place of operation (factory, jobs) in an offshore location.

  
  How the hell would they if they could only take physical cash in person???
  

  [*]Businesses would not be allowed to operate in a way solely to accumulate vast amounts of money without spending it.

  
  So how much bureaucracy you going to create to define exactly how they should operate and what for?
  
  

  [*]GMOs would be banned, treated as a biological weapon and alert level same as nuclear radiation, special bioteams would be assigned for cleanup and all existing GMOs would be incinerated at 4000 degrees F.
  [*]Businesses, individuals or anyone caught willfully developing genetically modified organisms would be prosecuted for attempted bioterrorism, attempted mass murder, attempted crimes against humanity, attempted crimes against natural life, attempted animal cruelty, attempted crimes against the environment, attempted crimes against the planet.

  
  Good thing you didn't say food would be free because there ain't gonna be much of it.
  

  [*]Management and the owners of businesses would always bare full responsibility, no-responsibility, or limited-responsibility corporations would not be allowed.
  [*]All services and goods sold would require to be paid on-spot and immediately, there would be no such thing as "i'll pay you later when i get the money"

  
  So basically you are removing the incentive to own or run a business AND increasing (hugely) the consequences? Just go full on commie or something and save the typing.

 

[ivwshane]

Umm, how the hell are you going to afford all of the above with no income tax, severely reduced profitability of and a fuckload less businesses (a lot of which currently pay a ton of taxes)?



Ah, so your not a fan of the free market.



Wow, so punish the responsible and reward those who aren't, really?


Umm, what about car insurance, home owners, flood, business interruption, etc.?


So you mention the free market having few and basic regs but then you want to regulate what gaming companies/casinos can pay out without a reason other than peoples standard of living will be higher which has little to do with gambling.



Pretty sure having a fake birth certificate is already illegal.


Wait, what new monetary system? And you want to ban credit cards and digital currencies, another blow to the free market, because of fraud??? Do you want to ban grocery stores because they get robbed or all cows because of salmonella?



Even when backed up with actual money or assets? Yeah, fuck the free market again.


Wait, you just said no lending and now your talking about lending? I'm not sure if you know this or not but lending is by its very nature giving someone "credit". The only question is if the bank has the money and/or assets to back up the loan 100%.


So you just nuked even more of the nations largest taxpayers as well as one of the largest consumer markets in the entire world.


Umm, why?



You just said study it and now you want to charge people for something that even you admit could be (and is almost assuredly) false? With all the cellphones in this country shouldn't we all be dead by now if it was that much of a danger to life? Not to mention knocking out a few more of the biggest companies and taxpayers in the US.


You mean we are still free to talk to people in your new utopia??? Wow, I'm impressed.


See above, impressed again that we are free to keep our own money.



Wait, you just said they would be .gov owned and with all the crap above it doesn't sound like Bureaucracy would be decreased in the least.

Hey, we agree on something, at least to a reasonable point. You said "every citizen", we have some really fucking stupid people out there. You going to try and write them to the absolute lowest common denominator?


You could have saved like 25 of these rules by just saying "no more free market".


How the hell would they if they could only take physical cash in person???


So how much bureaucracy you going to create to define exactly how they should operate and what for?



Good thing you didn't say food would be free because there ain't gonna be much of it.


So basically you are removing the incentive to own or run a business AND increasing (hugely) the consequences? Just go full on commie or something and save the typing.

Lol! Who would have known stewox is a commie!

 

[theeedude]

Pull the string sticking out of your neck and the same shit comes out every time. Get a new shtick.

Sorry, the truth doesn't change just because you don't like hearing it.

 

[Zodiark1593]

So, you would agree with this, then?

Ha priceless, good thing I don't have Medicare.

 

[Zorkorist]

lol!

 

[Zebo]

If they lose Obama will appeal and roberts will vote pro like indiv mandate. TBH I don't see this any bigger than indiv mandate. That was the HUGE one. Sad it passed but nothing is forever.

 

[Zebo]

Meaning...strike down the ACA and it will lead to full out single payer at some point, only sooner than later. At this point, it's inevitable.

Maybe. So many democrats are bought and sold too. IMO we'll never get a first world single payer like rest of countries have. America is a business man.

 

[OverVolt]

If you pass an 8,000 page bill without reading it something like this was bound to happen. Duh.

 

[boomerang]

VA healthcare for all!! Sounds great. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Why don't we just have the hospitals mail the bills for everyone without insurance to those who support single payer?

Oh I forgot, like taxation they'll just say it's a "collective action problem." They can only do things when they (and everyone else) are forced to, never voluntarily or pre-exemptively.

The entire point of single payer is to gain efficiencies by eliminating the expensive and wasteful insurance apparatus and everything it involves. It's less about charity for the poor and more about increasing the amount of health care produced and received per unit of human labor expended. Merely making the silly, evil altruists pay for the poor and lower classes wouldn't be a substitute.

(But how did those poor and lower class people get that way? Could it be that the upper class is robbing the lower classes of the value of their contribution to the act of wealth production? Nah. That's a mean, nasty question that free market dogmatists don't want to contemplate. How the hell could anyone question whether someone who has an income of $30 million per year actually expended the human effort needed to produce $30 million worth of value? What kind of evil altruist socialist monster would suggest that some of it might be stolen money?)

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Meaning...strike down the ACA and it will lead to full out single payer at some point, only sooner than later. At this point, it's inevitable.

It's a romantic notion, but American society and culture is so dysfunctional, I wouldn't count on the people banding together to solve daunting collective problems. It's more likely that we'll end up a third world laissez-faire capitalist nation with a small portion of the populace being fabulously wealthy and with the bulk of the populace essentially working as slaves for them.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

That's the problem right there you nailed it!! The republicans had their chance and screwed it up, even worse than OBama is doing.....

Prediction -- Dems hold POTUS for at least 12 more years...hahhahaaaa

It will be interesting, in the next election, to watch the Republicans try to pin the problems in Iraq on the Democrats.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Hardly. It speaks to attitude & intent.

If the voters won't select Repubs to run the govt, they'll be damned if they let anybody else do it well. They'd rather just tear it down.

It speaks of your ignorance of the subject. Why don't you explain why we have to take Medicare B patients diabetic testing supplies out of delivery even if other medications are being sent? How about the increasing burden of paperwork and punishment over inane and unnecessary record keeping requirements? You haven't any idea but I suspect that you'll find a defense for something you don't know about involving that you understand less.

 

[nehalem256]

It's a political problem for the Republicans because it means that our politicians and citizenry will be forced to confront the problem of our disastrous health care system again. (It's not that it isn't already a problem we need to deal with, but at this time it isn't front page news.) The Democrats will be perceived as at least having tried to do something with the Republicans standing in the way and offering zero solutions other than, "Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly". I would not be at all surprised if the Republican leadership is secretly hoping that this case just disappears and goes away.

If anything, it plays into the Democrats hands if the ACA gets overturned. They can say, "We tried to improve our health care system, but the Republicans want the lower classes to suffer and die and the Republicans openly support having the world's most expensive and inefficient health care system."

The Democrats already do say that.

I really don't see how the Democrats saying we tried to fix health care and completely fucked it up, but pretty please give us another shot is a winning slogan.

 

[Jhhnn]

It speaks of your ignorance of the subject. Why don't you explain why we have to take Medicare B patients diabetic testing supplies out of delivery even if other medications are being sent? How about the increasing burden of paperwork and punishment over inane and unnecessary record keeping requirements? You haven't any idea but I suspect that you'll find a defense for something you don't know about involving that you understand less.

Picking at the details doesn't condemn the entire system. The people who need the stuff get it, don't they?

Not that they would if it weren't for the system you condemn, which is exactly what the lawsuit in question attempts to accomplish.

 

[Jhhnn]

It's a romantic notion, but American society and culture is so dysfunctional, I wouldn't count on the people banding together to solve daunting collective problems. It's more likely that we'll end up a third world laissez-faire capitalist nation with a small portion of the populace being fabulously wealthy and with the bulk of the populace essentially working as slaves for them.

It's the Republican Ideal. Except for the work part- there won't be much of that because we're on the wrong end of international labor arbitrage & automation.

When robots do all the work, how will people who have no jobs & no robots benefit?

 

[glenn1]

The entire point of single payer is to gain efficiencies by eliminating the expensive and wasteful insurance apparatus and everything it involves. It's less about charity for the poor and more about increasing the amount of health care produced and received per unit of human labor expended. Merely making the silly, evil altruists pay for the poor and lower classes wouldn't be a substitute.

(But how did those poor and lower class people get that way? Could it be that the upper class is robbing the lower classes of the value of their contribution to the act of wealth production? Nah. That's a mean, nasty question that free market dogmatists don't want to contemplate. How the hell could anyone question whether someone who has an income of $30 million per year actually expended the human effort needed to produce $30 million worth of value? What kind of evil altruist socialist monster would suggest that some of it might be stolen money?)

There's plenty of doubt whether government sponsored healthcare would even be cheaper than those "evil" insurance companies, although you'll no doubt dismiss it out of hand because it doesn't fit with your pre-conceived notions. Not to mention the $60 billion or so a year in estimated Medicare fraud, but hey it's just taxpayer money so who cares just as long as we keep the "expensive and wasteful insurance apparatus" at bay with its silly departments to fight things like that.

In the end however, it really doesn't matter whether the private or public sector administers healthcare delivery in the U.S. Unless and until we significantly scale back the size and ambition of the services it covers, the end result will continue to suck. The optimal federal involvement would be to provide (or subsidize the costs of) truly catastrophic insurance for all, and providing the seed money ($1,000 annually perhaps?) for a Health Savings Account to cover routine and expected care. The idea that health "insurance" should cover things like birth control and that the Feds should pay for it is and always will be stupid.

 

[theeedude]

It's an OK compromise to do universal catastrophic and subsidized HSA. But notice that it still takes out those "evil" health insurance companies. HSA's are managed by financial firms like Fidelity.
BTW, cheap birth control prevents major pregnancy expenses for insurance companies. It's very smart of them to cover it and other preventative care than to wait for it to become catastrophic. Our insurer will pay for free flu shots. One person showing up to ER because of a bad flu will wipe out the cost of flu shot for hundreds of people. It's just good business for them. Same with contraception. They would rather pay tens or hundreds of dollars for you to stay on birth control and play the odds that you change jobs or insurers before having kids than end up paying tens of thousands of dollars for pregnancy and birth.

 

[Engineer]

The entire point of single payer is to gain efficiencies by eliminating the expensive and wasteful insurance apparatus and everything it involves. It's less about charity for the poor and more about increasing the amount of health care produced and received per unit of human labor expended. Merely making the silly, evil altruists pay for the poor and lower classes wouldn't be a substitute.

(But how did those poor and lower class people get that way? Could it be that the upper class is robbing the lower classes of the value of their contribution to the act of wealth production? Nah. That's a mean, nasty question that free market dogmatists don't want to contemplate. How the hell could anyone question whether someone who has an income of $30 million per year actually expended the human effort needed to produce $30 million worth of value? What kind of evil altruist socialist monster would suggest that some of it might be stolen money?)

No use arguing. He's not smart enough to realize that he's already paying for everyone else that won't/can't. Does anyone really think that the hospital simply eats those bills?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

VA healthcare for all!! Sounds great. Be careful what you wish for.

Actually from what I've read VA health care is extremely good. Its the back office wait times that ruin it. I'd bet if every American was in paperwork nightmare it would get changed. The problem with the VA is it only serves a smaller pool so complaint's are missed.

 

[theeedude]

Actually from what I've read VA health care is extremely good. Its the back office wait times that ruin it. I'd bet if every American was in paperwork nightmare it would get changed. The problem with the VA is it only serves a smaller pool so complaint's are missed.

Besides, universal single payer is Medicare for all, not VA for all. It's amazing to me that right-wingers don't understand this basic concept but feel qualified to debate the issue.