Guest Mores Posted March 26, 2019 Report Posted March 26, 2019 The end of Obamacare, that is. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/25/obamacare-unconstitutional-justice-department-dete/ It looks like Trump snuck something under the radar. This make perfect legal sense. And Roberts will have a tough time playing the middle road on this one. Quote
anatess2 Posted March 26, 2019 Report Posted March 26, 2019 So... was there a Ginsburg sighting? Quote
Guest Mores Posted March 26, 2019 Report Posted March 26, 2019 (edited) 50 minutes ago, anatess2 said: So... was there a Ginsburg sighting? You're being even more cryptic than I am (an accomplishment). I could take this several ways. What are you getting at? This may never get to SCOTUS because it was a suit against the government. And the Trump Administration is accepting the ruling as final. That's as I understand it. Edited March 26, 2019 by Mores Quote
anatess2 Posted March 26, 2019 Report Posted March 26, 2019 58 minutes ago, Mores said: You're being even more cryptic than I am (an accomplishment). I could take this several ways. What are you getting at? Oy! It's a meme... Ginsburg sightings. Came out when MSM got caught lying about a Ginsburg sighting at a theater the day before the SOTU. 58 minutes ago, Mores said: This may never get to SCOTUS because it was a suit against the government. And the Trump Administration is accepting the ruling as final. That's as I understand it. That's not quite it. The DOJ is not going to defend the constitutionality of the ACA so it will accept the Texas ruling. But there's still an appeal going on at the 5th Circuit by a coalition of States led by California. So the 5th Circuit could still reverse the Texas ruling. So, all this really means is that, the Feds are going to proceed as ruled by Texas and not suspend action until the appeal's ruling. So say, the appeal fails at 5th, the coalition could still bring the matter up to the SCOTUS and then we're gonna see if we get a unicorn Ginsburg sighting then - hah hah. Quote
Guest Mores Posted March 26, 2019 Report Posted March 26, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Oy! It's a meme... Ginsburg sightings. Came out when MSM got caught lying about a Ginsburg sighting at a theater the day before the SOTU. That's not quite it. The DOJ is not going to defend the constitutionality of the ACA so it will accept the Texas ruling. But there's still an appeal going on at the 5th Circuit by a coalition of States led by California. So the 5th Circuit could still reverse the Texas ruling. So, all this really means is that, the Feds are going to proceed as ruled by Texas and not suspend action until the appeal's ruling. So say, the appeal fails at 5th, the coalition could still bring the matter up to the SCOTUS and then we're gonna see if we get a unicorn Ginsburg sighting then - hah hah. I was not aware of the meme. SMH. I don't really understand this appeals process then. I thought that only those involved in the case itself could appeal it. Other states would have to file as an amicus (am I using that right). I was not aware that an amicus could appeal a decision when both the plaintiff and the defendant accepted the verdict. But I suppose when states and federal and blah blah are involved, the rules change. Whatever. If I sue someone. We get a verdict. Then both the defendant and I both accept the verdict, why would my neighbor be allowed to appeal that decision? He should have to start a new trial between new plaintiff and defendant. Edited March 26, 2019 by Mores Quote
anatess2 Posted March 26, 2019 Report Posted March 26, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Mores said: I was not aware of the meme. SMH. I don't really understand this appeals process then. I thought that only those involved in the case itself could appeal it. Other states would have to file as an amicus (am I using that right). I was not aware that an amicus could appeal a decision when both the plaintiff and the defendant accepted the verdict. But I suppose when states and federal and blah blah are involved, the rules change. Whatever. If I sue someone. We get a verdict. Then both the defendant and I both accept the verdict, why would my neighbor be allowed to appeal that decision? He should have to start a new trial between new plaintiff and defendant. In the case of ACA, it is a States program mandated by Feds, so Texas vs. United States was a coalition of States (led by Texas) challenging an existing US law versus a different coalition of States (led by California) defending the law. So the case was defended by the AG of California and their coalition, not the AG of the US. The appeal was filed by the AG of California and their coalition (not the AG of the US) and defended by the AG of Texas and their coalition. The Texas ruling ruled ACA unconstitutional but it issued a stand on the ruling until all appeals have been concluded. The DOJ's letter to Texas basically says, you don't need a stand, the Fed Govt is going to honor the ruling. So, this is different from... say the travel ban that was stayed by the 9th Circuit. That was a judge ruling an Executive Order unconstitutional. Immigration and National Defense are the sole responsibility of the Feds and not the States. Edited March 26, 2019 by anatess2 Quote
Guest Mores Posted March 26, 2019 Report Posted March 26, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, anatess2 said: In the case of ACA, it is a States program mandated by Feds, so Texas vs. United States was a coalition of States (led by Texas) challenging an existing US law versus a different coalition of States (led by California) defending the law. So the case was defended by the AG of California and their coalition, not the AG of the US. The appeal was filed by the AG of California and their coalition (not the AG of the US) and defended by the AG of Texas and their coalition. The Texas ruling ruled ACA unconstitutional but it issued a stand on the ruling until all appeals have been concluded. The DOJ's letter to Texas basically says, you don't need a stand, the Fed Govt is going to honor the ruling. So, this is different from... say the travel ban that was stayed by the 9th Circuit. That was a judge ruling an Executive Order unconstitutional. Immigration and National Defense are the sole responsibility of the Feds and not the States. That still does not make sense. Then the states defending it lack standing. How were they allowed to defend the federal law? Wasn't there a lawyer on this site? Edited March 26, 2019 by Mores Quote
anatess2 Posted March 26, 2019 Report Posted March 26, 2019 12 minutes ago, Mores said: That still does not make sense. Then the states defending it lack standing. How were they allowed to defend the federal law? I don't know why you think the States defending it lack standing. ACA is a States program. 12 minutes ago, Mores said: Wasn't there a lawyer on this site? @Just_A_Guy is our Latin lawyer. He is also good with English. Quote
Guest Mores Posted March 26, 2019 Report Posted March 26, 2019 Just now, anatess2 said: I don't know why you think the States defending it lack standing. ACA is a States program. @Just_A_Guy is our Latin lawyer. He is also good with English. The LAW was federal. If the lawsuit was alleging that one state was being hurt by a federal law, then the state (or group of states) sue the federal government that passed the law. This is not affecting another state directly. If other states are affected indirectly (as a result of the verdict) then they file as an amicus. That's what an amicus is. Someone who is not hurt by the action or inaction of the party they oppose, but will be "affected" by the verdict because of the legal ramifications. So, how did these other states become the defendants? Did Texas sue California? Or did they sue the Feds? Quote
Still_Small_Voice Posted March 26, 2019 Report Posted March 26, 2019 I hope they kill the Unaffordable Care Act. It raised my health insurance premiums and medical costs. The laws did not save me the $2,000 a year Obama promised. I doubt it saved the majority of people any money on health care costs but made health care more expensive. NightSG 1 Quote
anatess2 Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 7 hours ago, Mores said: The LAW was federal. If the lawsuit was alleging that one state was being hurt by a federal law, then the state (or group of states) sue the federal government that passed the law. This is not affecting another state directly. If other states are affected indirectly (as a result of the verdict) then they file as an amicus. That's what an amicus is. Someone who is not hurt by the action or inaction of the party they oppose, but will be "affected" by the verdict because of the legal ramifications. So, how did these other states become the defendants? Did Texas sue California? Or did they sue the Feds? It is Texas vs USA. USA is the defendant. But the AGoTUS did not move to defend against Texas, et al. So California et al filed an amicus brief to defend ACA in Texas. Or, in other words, California et al, is defending the law in Texas by amici. The judge ruled for Texas et al. California appealed to the 5th District so Texas court put a stand on the ruling keeping ACA alive until the appeal is finished. The DOJ submitted a letter stating they will honor the Texas ruling and not wait for the appeal. But this doesn’t stop the appeal because ACA is STILL legal even if the DOJ won’t execute it and California, et al., is still defending ACA by amici which the 5th district has to review and rule on. Quote
NightSG Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 11 hours ago, anatess2 said: So... was there a Ginsburg sighting? Not a credible one. anatess2 and Colirio 2 Quote
Emmanuel Goldstein Posted March 27, 2019 Report Posted March 27, 2019 Hopefully. It is not the job of the Government to force you to buy something. This is like if the feds forced every American to buy a cell phone and allow them to track it without sneaking the tracker in, like they do now. Quote
Guest Scott Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 On 3/26/2019 at 1:59 PM, Still_Small_Voice said: I hope they kill the Unaffordable Care Act. It raised my health insurance premiums and medical costs. The laws did not save me the $2,000 a year Obama promised. I doubt it saved the majority of people any money on health care costs but made health care more expensive. I can promise you that health care cost aren't going to go down if the ACA is killed. Health care cost went up a lot since the ACA was implemented, but still at a lower rate than before the ACA. The exceptions might be the really basic plans since they were required to cover more. Still, if the ACA is scrapped, health care cost won't go down. Health care cost were rising before the ACA, they were rising during the ACA, and they will continue to rise after the ACA as long as something doesn't drastically change for the better, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. Quote
Guest Mores Posted March 28, 2019 Report Posted March 28, 2019 7 hours ago, Scott said: I can promise you that health care cost aren't going to go down if the ACA is killed. Health care cost went up a lot since the ACA was implemented, but still at a lower rate than before the ACA. The exceptions might be the really basic plans since they were required to cover more. Still, if the ACA is scrapped, health care cost won't go down. Health care cost were rising before the ACA, they were rising during the ACA, and they will continue to rise after the ACA as long as something doesn't drastically change for the better, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. You may be right. But that isn't because free market is worse than socialism. It is that even without the ACA, there are still an astonishing number of government controls still in place. And without the ACA, there may very well be an increase in prices because we have neither a socialized system, nor a free-market system. It is some sort of bastardization between the two. And this bastardization is even worse than socialism. Quote
pwrfrk Posted April 3, 2019 Report Posted April 3, 2019 I took a few courses with H&R Block a few years ago, and I found that the ACA itself really is a good idea, the problem is the morons & idiots they hired to sign people up to it. I initially tried to get ACA coverage, but I found out I was going to be paying about half a paycheck for 7 months until ACA coverage kicked in. Thei I took the courses, and learned the idiots and morons pushing it were beyond stupid. My premium would have actually been less than $15 a month. Seriously, the ACA has good points. The people pushing it only get me to think of Darwin & Lemmings. Quote
JohnsonJones Posted April 3, 2019 Report Posted April 3, 2019 On 3/27/2019 at 10:57 PM, Scott said: I can promise you that health care cost aren't going to go down if the ACA is killed. Health care cost went up a lot since the ACA was implemented, but still at a lower rate than before the ACA. The exceptions might be the really basic plans since they were required to cover more. Still, if the ACA is scrapped, health care cost won't go down. Health care cost were rising before the ACA, they were rising during the ACA, and they will continue to rise after the ACA as long as something doesn't drastically change for the better, and I don't see that happening anytime soon. ACA actually lowered the cost for those who could either not afford insurance or were poor enough that insurance was too high for them to afford. For everyone else, it did nothing but raise the premiums year after year after year. The ACA was a dumb idea. The problem was that instead of sticking to their principals, the Democrats (and yes, it really is just the Democrats on this one, passing a bill before anyone read or even analyzed what would happen) are completely to blame for this. If they had stuck to trying to pass a comprehensive healthcare plan that was supported by the government and hence made the Government the insurer, they could also have levied it to be able to make laws enforcing costs rather than the explosions of costs the US now bears. Unfortunately, too many pharmacy and drug companies got their claws into the Politicians as well as other for profit groups that make a majority of their money off the US. If the US had a bigger group of government focused insurance rather than letting private companies (with really no barriers to raising costs...if you don't put barriers to raising the cost...the costs will normally go up because people are greedy, it was a failure before it even started) they could have bargained for lower prices. Let the OTHER countries take their fair share of the "research" costs that companies say the US must pay for. Let the OTHER countries take their fair share of "manufacture and healthcare creation" rather than putting the entire onus on the US as an excuse to repeatedly raise prices. The failure was putting the plan in the hands of private companies and thinking that this would stall the cost without anything to stop them from basically controlling the price from the get go. Just_A_Guy 1 Quote
Guest Scott Posted April 3, 2019 Report Posted April 3, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said: For everyone else, it did nothing but raise the premiums year after year after year. Premiums did go up as I mentioned, but still at a lower rate than they went up before the ACA. Total health cost expenditures also rose at a slower rate. https://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/NationalHealthAccountsHistorical.html Here are the current figures, complete with percent costs increase and cost per person since 1960: Year National Health Spending (Billions) Percent Growth Cost Per Person 1960 $27.20 NA $146 1961 $29.10 7.10% $154 1962 $31.80 9.30% $166 1963 $34.60 8.60% $178 1964 $38.40 11.00% $194 1965 $41.90 9.00% $209 1966 $46.10 10.10% $228 1967 $51.60 11.90% $253 1968 $58.40 13.30% $284 1969 $65.90 12.90% $318 1970 $74.60 13.10% $355 1971 $82.70 11.00% $389 1972 $92.70 12.00% $431 1973 $102.80 11.00% $474 1974 $116.50 13.40% $534 1975 $133.30 14.40% $605 1976 $152.70 14.60% $688 1977 $173.90 13.80% $777 1978 $195.30 12.40% $865 1979 $221.50 13.40% $971 1980 $255.30 15.30% $1,108 1981 $296.20 16.00% $1,273 1982 $334.00 12.80% $1,422 1983 $367.80 10.10% $1,550 1984 $405.00 10.10% $1,692 1985 $442.90 9.40% $1,833 1986 $474.70 7.20% $1,947 1987 $516.50 8.80% $2,099 1988 $579.30 12.20% $2,332 1989 $644.80 11.30% $2,571 1990 $721.40 11.90% $2,843 1991 $788.10 9.20% $3,070 1992 $854.10 8.40% $3,287 1993 $916.60 7.30% $3,487 1994 $967.20 5.50% $3,641 1995 $1,021.60 5.60% $3,806 1996 $1,074.40 5.20% $3,964 1997 $1,135.50 5.70% $4,147 1998 $1,202.00 5.80% $4,345 1999 $1,278.30 6.40% $4,576 2000 $1,369.70 7.10% $4,857 2001 $1,486.80 8.50% $5,220 2002 $1,629.20 9.60% $5,668 2003 $1,768.20 8.50% $6,098 2004 $1,896.30 7.20% $6,481 2005 $2,024.20 6.70% $6,855 2006 $2,156.50 6.50% $7,233 2007 $2,295.70 6.50% $7,628 2008 $2,399.10 4.50% $7,897 2009 $2,495.40 4.00% $8,143 2010 $2,598.80 4.10% $8,412 2011 $2,689.30 3.50% $8,644 2012 $2,797.30 4.00% $8,924 2013 $2,879.00 2.90% $9,121 2014 $3,026.20 5.10% $9,515 2015 $3,200.80 5.80% $9,994 2016 $3,337.20 4.30% $10,348 2017 $3,492.10 3.90% $10,739 Quote The failure was putting the plan in the hands of private companies and thinking that this would stall the cost without anything to stop them from basically controlling the price from the get go. I can't really disagree with you. The law gave way too much power to the insurance companies. Quote If they had stuck to trying to pass a comprehensive healthcare plan that was supported by the government and hence made the Government the insurer, they could also have levied it to be able to make laws enforcing costs rather than the explosions of costs the US now bears. Maybe so, but I'm not sure that they could have passed such a plan. At the time people were way to wary about having the government be an insurer. A lot of people (probably the majority) still are. So, they passed the flawed ACA instead. When it comes to healthcare, the Democrats plan (at least in recent decades) has been to pass flawed plans while the Republican plan is to do nothing. I don't know what the correct solution is, but either way, what we are doing now certainly isn't working. I think single payer could work, but only if people are ready for it. I don't know if people are right now. Edited April 3, 2019 by Scott Quote
Guest Mores Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 On 4/3/2019 at 11:38 AM, Scott said: I think single payer could work, but only if people are ready for it. I don't know if people are right now. Oh, yeah. It has worked so well everywhere else. Quote
Vort Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 Just now, Mores said: Oh, yeah. It has worked so well everywhere else. The fact that it has never worked the previous 15,117 times it's been tried in recorded history in no way suggests that it wouldn't work if we tried again, using the vastly superior understanding we have today. Quote
Guest Mores Posted April 8, 2019 Report Posted April 8, 2019 4 minutes ago, Vort said: The fact that it has never worked the previous 15,117 times it's been tried in recorded history in no way suggests that it wouldn't work if we tried again, using the vastly superior understanding we have today. What was I thinking. Quote
Colirio Posted April 9, 2019 Report Posted April 9, 2019 Federal government regulation/involvement in anything other than a national defense and securing of liberty pretty much guarantees failure in the long term and frustration for the majority in the short term. Quote
MarginOfError Posted April 9, 2019 Report Posted April 9, 2019 44 minutes ago, Colirio said: Federal government regulation/involvement in anything other than a national defense and securing of liberty pretty much guarantees failure in the long term and frustration for the majority in the short term. I don't agree with this. NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) is a really good example of government gone right. The FAA, for the most part, has been a a good example of government gone right (the recent incidents being a potential blemish, but even then, a blemish caused by turning regulation over to the regulated). The CDC, for all the griping aimed at it, has been an immense success. The common thread, though, is that independent government agencies that are able to operate without becoming political footballs tend to do some really good things. Once they get put into political theater, everything comes off the rails. I, personally, believe that single-payer health care could work...but only if it is administered by an independent agency and led by medical professionals (think, heads of AMA, AAP, etc). As long as Congress is trying to maintain control of it, it will be a disaster. What I would consider a better solution, though, would be recognizing that almost all humans have basic and predictable health care needs. Government tends to do pretty well with things that everyone needs. So let government take up the bill for preventative care. That means the annual physical, up to two additional physician visits (for common illnesses that may require medication), maternal and prenatal medicine, vaccinations, and wellness visits for children. Then let the insurance companies have the rest of the market. Just_A_Guy 1 Quote
Just_A_Guy Posted April 9, 2019 Report Posted April 9, 2019 16 minutes ago, MarginOfError said: I don't agree with this. NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) is a really good example of government gone right. The FAA, for the most part, has been a a good example of government gone right (the recent incidents being a potential blemish, but even then, a blemish caused by turning regulation over to the regulated). The CDC, for all the griping aimed at it, has been an immense success. The common thread, though, is that independent government agencies that are able to operate without becoming political footballs tend to do some really good things. Once they get put into political theater, everything comes off the rails. I, personally, believe that single-payer health care could work...but only if it is administered by an independent agency and led by medical professionals (think, heads of AMA, AAP, etc). As long as Congress is trying to maintain control of it, it will be a disaster. What I would consider a better solution, though, would be recognizing that almost all humans have basic and predictable health care needs. Government tends to do pretty well with things that everyone needs. So let government take up the bill for preventative care. That means the annual physical, up to two additional physician visits (for common illnesses that may require medication), maternal and prenatal medicine, vaccinations, and wellness visits for children. Then let the insurance companies have the rest of the market. You had me in the palm of your hand, right up until that last paragraph. I’d be open to having a state try that for five or ten years, and seeing what happened. (Just not, necessarily, my state.) But for now, color me skeptical. Quote
MarginOfError Posted April 9, 2019 Report Posted April 9, 2019 12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: You had me in the palm of your hand, right up until that last paragraph. I’d be open to having a state try that for five or ten years, and seeing what happened. (Just not, necessarily, my state.) But for now, color me skeptical. I'm coloring with a sharpie. Just_A_Guy 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.