Unless as John Mace said, you reinstate the mandate as a tax.
If Obama want to be a real prick about it, he could veto any changes to the remaining law, drive the insurance companies into bankruptcy, and force Congress into single payer healthcare. Unless they would rather have no health insurance at all.
It’s absolutely amazing to me that the entire argument against the mandate has really just boiled down to semantics. I mean, it’s my understanding that if the mandate had clearly been labeled as a “tax” that it would be unquestionably constitutional, yet instead the government argues in favor of it being a “penalty.” It’s collected by the friggin’ IRS for crying out loud, so wtf else could it be? :smack:
A sneaky way to get money from the populace without having to call it a tax?
But I think your problem is with Obama himself, who claimed up and down that the mandate was NOT a tax. As you can see here.
The insurance companies are already in a death spiral, that is why they (kindof) supported the ACA. People who are healthy abandon insurance leaving only the sick, which drives up prices and causes more people to leave insurance. I think large companies tend to self insure now instead of relying on third party insurance carriers. They save more money that way. Insurance companies are going bankrupt as it is.
The sad part is if the law is overturned millions of Americans will suffer unnecessarily over the next 10-15 years before we try health reform again.
I think congress would choose no health care over single payer. Even the dems never gave single payer a spot at the table to discuss the concept.
Welp, if you wanted to read into comments made by Ruth Bader Ginsburg concerning the upcoming ruling and the nature of dissents, the health care law’s going down.
I didn’t see what would lead us to believe Ginsburg was among the dissenters.
It’s the truth. The fact your post contains no actual argument, just a retarded 6 year old level of wit comment, is evidence you know this.
In a meritocracy, accountancy is the sine qua non of survival, which is after all a kind of success.
That’s why I’m not a meritocrat.
Yeah, there’s nothing in there to say that the law is going down. Hell, there’s nothing in there to say anything about the proceedings, really. The fact that she says there is going to be “sharp disagreement” due to the rulings could go either way; if the mandate or the law falls, there are going to be huge disagreements between the administration and other supporters, but if it’s upheld there will likely be even more disagreements amongst everybody else, as the law is still largely unpopular.
Well, I did say “if you want to read into [them].” 
I think the logic is that the tenor of the comment is, “well, I couldn’t convince enough of my colleagues of my POV, so I hope my/our dissent shapes future legislative action along the lines of what was struck down.”
Huh, didn’t think of it that way. The blog post I found the link in interpreted the “sharp disagreement” as coming from in the Court, but looking at the article again, I see the relevant quote has nothing attached to it that would confirm that context.
The solution is so simple. Medicare for all and tax to pay for it. It would be a huge stimulus for the economy freeing business from the constantly escalating prices. It would free up individuals so they could look for jobs rather than health insurance policies.
Hell we could even placate the insurance companies by allowing them to issue supplemental policies as they do now for medicare recipients.
Such supplements would even allow the poor little rich guys the ability not to stand in line with a poor person.
It would be lots cheaper than what we have now. (check out how insurance any insurance pool works)
What’s not to like?
It won’t happen on the federal level anytime soon. On a state by state level, yeah. I think it is realistic over the next 10-15 years. Medicare for all saves a lot of money over traditional medical coverage. I think medicare for all would save something like $400 billion a year on the federal level. Tons of studies in a wide variety of states have found 10-30% savings on health care by medicare for all. I tend to hope/think that financial considerations will play a big role in passing meaningful health reform on the state level. Passing health reform isn’t just about feeling a desire to help the uninsured. Properly managed health reform can and will save trillions, putting states that pass it at an advantage over states that do not when it comes to economic growth and balancing their budgets.
But due to anti-statist ideology and the politics of resentment I don’t see it passing on the national level anytime soon. However I hope the next 20 years is the golden age of state health reform.
The problem with leaving it up to the states, though, is that the majority of them don’t want to address health care reform at all. The bottom line is that there will almost always be bigger fish to fry than health care, so any state going in that direction will have had to have made a proactive decision to reform its health care system. The good thing about the federal law is that it has pushed a number of the more liberal states to pursue health reform, but the red states have been dragging their feet the entire time (if doing anything at all).
I think that my state (CA) will continue to pursue health care reform in the event of either an ACA takedown or severe crippling - largely because we’ve invested so much into implementation already - but given our $16 billion budget deficit, any meaningful reform in the absence of government aid will become exceedingly difficult. Maybe we’ll resurrect our single-payer bill again; fuck if I know lol.
Actually that 22 year old could get health insurance and then cancer and still not be covered the way insurance companies currently operate. Assuming the 22 year old wasn’t in a company plan, the insurer would simply dump the insured. Happens every day.
It’s even a business for this firm:
http://www.jrobertdavis.com/legal/insurance-bad-faith/
I usually don’t moderate posts that are this old (almost three weeks and one week respectively), but you have been told many, many that this kind of commentary isn’t appropriate outside of The BBQ Pit. Knock it off or you are likely to get banned.
This is an old thread, but I found this article that verifies what I believed about california. It was all pandering.